U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Off ice of Water
Office of Research and Development
EPA 841 -R-15-006
January 2016
National Coastal
Condition Assessment
2010
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water and Office of Research and
Development. (2015). National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 (EPA 841-R-15-006).
Washington, DC. December 2015.
http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/ncca
Cover photo: Castle Rock Lighthouse, Newport, Rhode Island (Courtesy of United States Coast Guard)
Page ii National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
•-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would like to thank the many people who
contributed their expertise, time, and energy to the development of this report. Without the
collaborative efforts and support provided by state environmental agencies, other federal
agencies, universities, and other organizations, this National Coastal Condition Assessment
would not have been possible. Key participants in this project included field crews, biologists,
taxonomists, statisticians, data analysts, program administrators, regional coordinators, project
managers, quality control officers, and reviewers. To these many hundreds of participants, EPA
expresses its profound thanks and gratitude.
EPA completed this assessment in partnership with many state agencies, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Park Service (NPS). EPA offices
included the Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Great Lakes National
Program Office, and EPA Regions and Regional Monitoring Coordinators from Regions 1, 2, 3,
4, 5,6, 9, and 10.
A team of contributors led by Treda Grayson, EPA Program Manager, wrote this report. This
team included Virginia Hansen, Linda Harwell, John Kiddon, and Marguerite Pelletier, EPA
Office of Research and Development; Mari Nord, EPA Region 5; and Greg Colianni, Alice
Mayio, Sarah Lehmann, and Hugh Sullivan, EPA Office of Water. EnviroScience, Inc. and the
Great Lakes Environmental Center provided graphics and editorial support.
State and Other Partners:
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish and Wildlife Research Institute
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
Hawaii Department of Health
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page i
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
San Francisco Estuary Institute
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The following individuals played a pivotal role in this project and lent their expertise to project
planning and implementation as well as data oversight and analysis:
Academic, State, Federal, and International Partners: Steve Bay, David Gillett, and Steve
Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project; Joseph Bohr, Ml Department of
Environmental Quality; Angel Borja, AZTI Tecnalia, Spain; Paul Carlson and Laura Yarbro, FL
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; Judy Crane, MN Pollution Control Agency;
Christine Olsen, CT Department of Environmental Protection; Bob Van Dolah, SC Department
of Natural Resources; Len Balthis, Cindy Cooksey, Jay Field, Jeff Hyland, and Ed Long, NOAA,
National Ocean Service; Eva DiDonato and Brenda Moraska LaFrancois, NPS; Dan Dauer, Old
Dominion University; and Paul Montagna, Texas A & M University, Corpus Christi.
EPA: Matt Liebman, Region 1; Darvene Adams, Region 2; John Dorkin, Elizabeth Murphy,
Brian Thompson, and Santina Wortman, Region 5; Laura Hunt, Region 6; Terry Fleming,
Region 9; Elizabeth Hinchey-Malloy, Paul Horvatin, Scott Ireland, and Glenn Warren, Great
Lakes National Program Office; Steven Hale, Jack Kelly, Tom Kincaid, John Macauley, Walt
Nelson, Teresa Norberg-King, Tony Olsen, Jack Paar, Steve Paulsen, Dave Peck, Jill Scharold,
and Peder Yurista, Office of Research and Development; Kendra Forde, Richard Mitchell,
Amina Pollard, Bernice Smith, Maria Smith, Leanne Stahl, Ellen Tarquinio, and John Wathen,
Office of Water.
ORISE participants making key contributions to this project included Vince Bacalan, Will
Bartsch, David Cox, and Julie Lietz.
Contractor Support: TetraTech, Inc; SRA International, Inc., a CSRA Company.
This report is dedicated to the memory of Gregory Colianni of EPA, a colleague and friend who
worked tirelessly to protect our nation's coasts. As the lead for the NCCA program, Greg's
expertise, guidance, and support set the stage for coastal surveys for years to come. He is
deeply missed.
Page ii National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
*•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS \
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
Key Findings x
Change in Coastal Condition xi
I m pi icati ons xi i
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose of This Report 1
Why Are Coastal Waters Important? 2
Why Be Concerned About Coastal Condition? 3
The National Aquatic Resource Surveys 4
CHAPTER 2 7
DESIGN OF THE NATIONAL COASTAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT 7
What Is New in This Report? 7
What Waters Are Included in the NCCA? 8
How Were Sampling Sites Chosen? 8
How Were Waters Sampled? 10
What Was Sam pled? 11
What Are the Indices of Coastal Condition? 12
CHAPTERS 31
NATIONAL COASTAL CONDITION 31
Summary of National Findings 31
National Coastal Condition Indicators 34
Changes in Coastal Condition 46
CHAPTER 4 57
REGIONAL COASTAL CONDITION 57
The Northeast Coast 62
The Southeast Coast 69
The Gulf Coast 76
The West Coast 86
The Great Lakes 96
CHAPTERS 101
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 101
Condition of the Nation's Coastal Waters 101
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page Hi
-------
Moving the Science Forward 102
Next Steps 103
In Closing 103
REFERENCES 105
Page iv National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
^- . • -
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Indicators evaluated for the NCCA 2010 12
Table 2-2. Regional benthic indices for the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf coasts 13
Table 2-3. Thresholds for assessing biological quality based on regional benthic indices for the
West Coast and Great Lakes 14
Table 2-4. Water quality indicators used to assess conditions 17
Table 2-5. NCCA guidelines for evaluating the five component indicators used in the water
quality index to assess estuarine coastal condition 18
Table 2-6. Guidelines used to evaluate water quality at sites in Great Lakes basins 19
Table 2-7. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the water quality index (WQI) 22
Table 2-8. NCCA guidelines for the two component indicators used in the sediment quality
index 24
Table 2-9. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the sediment quality index* 24
Table 2-10. Potential ecological risk-based thresholds for receptors of concern (calculated). ...26
Table 2-11. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the ecological fish tissue contaminant index. 27
Table 3-1. Summary of detections and contaminant concentrations in 157 Great Lakes fish fillet
samples (EPA GLHHFT Study) 45
Table 3-2. Human health screening value exceedances for contaminants in Great Lakes fish
(EPA GLHHFT Study) 45
Table 3-3. Change in national condition status for water quality indicators 48
Table 3-4. Change in national condition status for sediment quality and biological quality 50
Table 4-1. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Northeast Coast 66
Table 4-2. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the Northeast
Coast 68
Table 4-3. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Southeast Coast 73
Table 4-4. Change in condition status for sediment quality and biological quality in the
Southeast Coast 75
Table 4-5. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Gulf Coast 80
Table 4-6. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the Gulf Coast 82
Table 4-7. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the West Coast 90
Table 4-8. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the West Coast. ...92
Table 4-9. Cyanobacteria guidelines for safe practice in managing freshwaters for recreation
use (modified from World Health Organization, 2003, Table 8.3, p. 150) 99
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page v
-------
^9'' *"
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. Condition of the nation's coastal waters for each of the four NCCA indices (U.S.
EPA/NCCA2010) x
Figure ES-2. Comparison of the percent area rated good for national water quality, sediment,
and benthic indices over three periods xii
Figure 2-1. Location of NCCA 2010 sampling sites by region 9
Figure 2-2. Accelerated eutrophication can occur when the concentration of available nutrients
increases above normal levels (U.S. EPA/NCA) 16
Figure 2-3. Total phosphorus as a function of increasing agricultural intensity shows that
embayments have higher levels of TP than nearshore areas 21
Figure 2-4. Sources of and pathways for pollution in aquatic ecosystems (U.S. EPA GLNPO). 25
Figure 2-5. Video screen shots from sites in Lake Ontario where grab sampling was not
successful 29
Figure 2-6. A video screen shot in Lake Huron where grab sampling collected no dreissenid
mussels 29
Figure 2-7. Video screen shots from sites in Lake Huron (A) and Lake Michigan (B & C) where
grab sampling collected no vegetation 30
Figure 2-8. Video screen shots of a lake whitefish in Lake Huron (A) and a freshwater drum in
Lake Ontario (B) 30
Figure 3-1. Condition of the nation's coastal waters for each of the four NCCA indices (U.S.
EPA/NCCA2010) 33
Figure 3-2. Biological quality of the nation's coastal waters based on the benthic index (U.S.
EPA/NCCA2010) 35
Figure 3-3. Coastal water quality based on the water quality index (U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010) 36
Figure 3-4. Sediment quality in the nation's coastal waters based on the sediment quality index
(U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010) 39
Figure 3-5. Ecological fish tissue quality for the nation's coastal waters based on the ecological
fish tissue contaminant index (U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010) 40
Figure 3-6. Percent of assessed area of the nation's coastal waters in which at least one fish
tissue contaminant exceeds upper threshold levels in at least one receptor group 41
Figure 3-7. Percent of assessed area of the nation's coastal waters that exceed LOAEL levels
for each of six measured fish tissue contaminants 41
Figure 3-8. Comparison of the percent area rated good for national water quality indicators over
three periods 47
Figure 3-9. Comparison of the percent area rated good for national sediment quality and
biological quality over three periods, based on the sediment and benthic indices 49
Page vi National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Figure 3-10. Map of sampled station locations in the NW, NE, and SE shelf portions of the
Gulf 51
Figure 3-11. Mean concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll a in Gulf surface
waters (NOAA) 52
Figure 3-12. Dissolved oxygen data from the Gulf 54
Figure 3-13. Sediment contaminant data from the Gulf 54
Figure 3-14. Species density, richness, and diversity data from the Gulf 55
Figure 3-15. Estimated percent area of non-degraded, intermediate/indeterminate, and
degraded benthic condition based on various combinations of key biological attributes and
synoptically measured indicators of sediment and water quality 56
Figure 4-1. Biological quality of the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the benthic
index (NCCA 2010) 58
Figure 4-2. Quality of the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the water quality index
(NCCA 2010) 59
Figure 4-3. Sediment quality for the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the sediment
quality index (NCCA 2010) 60
Figure 4-4. Ecological fish tissue quality for the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the
ecological fish tissue contaminant index (NCCA 2010) 61
Figure 4-5. NCCA findings for the Northeast Coast 63
Figure 4-6. Comparison of the percent area rated good for water quality indicators over three
periods in the Northeast Coast 65
Figure 4-7. Comparison of the percent area rated good for sediment and biological quality over
three periods in the Northeast Coast 67
Figure 4-8. NCCA 2010 survey results for the Southeast Coast 70
Figure 4-9. Comparison of the percent area rated good for water quality indicators over three
periods in the Southeast Coast 72
Figure 4-10. Comparison of the percent area rated good for sediment and biological quality over
three periods in the Southeast 74
Figure 4-11. NCCA findings for the Gulf Coast 77
Figure 4-12. Comparison of the percent area rated good for Gulf Coast water quality indicators
over three periods 79
Figure 4-13. Comparison of the percent area rated good for Gulf Coast sediment quality and
benthic indicators over three periods 81
Figure 4-14. NCCA sediment toxicity results for the nation's coastal waters and for each coastal
region 84
Figure 4-15. Sediment toxicity results for Gulf area inside and outside the DWH impact zone. .85
Figure 4-16. NCCA findings for the West Coast. Bars show the percentage of coastal area
within a condition class for a given indicator 87
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page vii
-------
Figure 4-17. Comparison of the percent area rated good for West Coast water quality indicators
over three periods 89
Figure 4-18. Comparison of the percent area rated good for West Coast sediment quality
indicators over three periods 91
Figure 4-19. Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program 93
Figure 4-20. Results of AKMAP sampling for petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments 94
Figure 4-21. NCCA findings for the Great Lakes Coast 97
Figure 4-22. Sampled sites categorized by WHO alert levels according to cyanobacteria cell
counts 100
Page viii National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
^*
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 (NCCA 2010) is the fifth in a series of reports
assessing the condition of the coastal waters of the United States, including a vast array of
beautiful and productive estuarine, Great Lakes, and coastal embayment waters. It is part of the
National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), a series of statistically based surveys designed to
provide the public and decision makers with nationally consistent and representative information
on the condition of all the nation's waters. The NCCA 2010 answers questions such as: What is
the condition of the nation's coastal waters, and is that condition getting better or worse? What
is the extent of the stressors affecting them?
This report is based on an analysis of indicators of ecological condition and key stressors in the
coastal waters of the Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, West, and Great Lakes regions of
the conterminous United States. These waters are enormously varied and valuable, including
remarkable resources as diverse as Narragansett Bay; the Chesapeake Bay; the subtropical
waters of Biscayne Bay and Tampa Bay; San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound; and the
nearshore waters of the Great Lakes—the largest expanse of fresh surface water on earth.
In the summer of 2010, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and state, tribal, and federal
partners sampled 1,104 sites in
these waters, representing 35,400
square miles of U.S. coastal waters.
They used the same methods at all
sites to ensure that results would be
nationally comparable. This report
examines four indices as indicators
of U.S. coastal condition: a benthic
index, a water quality index, a
sediment quality index, and an
ecological fish tissue contaminant
index. Figure ES-1 summarizes
these findings.
Collecting a sediment sample for analysis. (Photo
courtesy of Treda Grayson)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page ix
-------
National Condition
Biological Quality
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Ecological Fish
Tissue Quality
20
Good
40 60
Percent of Area
Fair ^^H Poor
80
Missing
100
Figure ES-1. Condition of the nation's coastal waters for each of the four NCCA indices (U.S.
EPA/NCCA 2010). Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Key Findings
Biological Quality
A majority of coastal and Great Lakes nearshore waters support healthy communities of benthic
macroinvertebrates (bottom-dwelling creatures such as worms and clams) which are indicators
of biological quality. Data show that 56% of the nation's coastal and Great Lakes nearshore
waters are rated good for biological quality, 10% are rated fair, and 18% are rated poor based
on the benthic index. Data are incomplete or missing for 15% of waters. The Northeast Coast
has the highest percentage of waters rated poor for biological quality (27%).
Water Quality
Water quality is rated good in 36% of coastal and Great Lakes nearshore waters, fair in 48%,
and poor in 14% based on the water quality index. Components of the water quality index
include phosphorus, nitrogen, water clarity, chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen. The most
widespread of these stressors is phosphorus (rated poor in 21% of waters). Too much
phosphorus can enter coastal waters from sources such as sewage and fertilizer runoff and
result in large algal blooms, increased levels of chlorophyll a, and reduced water clarity and
Page x
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
dissolved oxygen levels. Of the five regions, the Gulf Coast has the highest percentage of
waters rated poor for water quality (24%).
Sediment Quality
A majority (55%) of coastal and Great Lakes nearshore waters have good sediment quality,
21% have fair quality, and 13% have poor quality. This finding is based on an index of sediment
quality that has two component indicators: sediment contaminants and sediment toxicity.
Overall, 79% of coastal waters are rated good based on low levels of sediment contaminants
and 57% of waters are rated good based on the toxicity effects of contaminants. The Gulf Coast
and the West Coast have the highest percentage of waters rated poor for sediment quality—
about 25%. Nationally, sediment quality data are incomplete or missing for 11% of waters.
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
This report, which primarily addresses ecological rather than human health conditions in coastal
waters, assesses the potential harm that fish tissue contaminants pose to predator fish, birds,
and wildlife. Based on this index, less than 1% of coastal and Great Lakes nearshore waters are
rated good, 26% are rated fair, and 49% are rated poor. Data are incomplete or missing for the
remaining 24% of waters. Selenium is the most widespread contaminant exceeding the fish
tissue contaminant thresholds for predators. While selenium occurs naturally and is nutritionally
valuable, too much selenium can be toxic. These findings indicate that contaminants in fish may
have long-term adverse effects on fish-eating wildlife. With the exception of a supplemental
study in the Great Lakes, analysts did not evaluate human health risks.
In 2010, NCCA researchers used a new, highly protective analytical approach for determining
ecological fish tissue contaminant ratings that is more conservative than the approach used in
the past. Screening values are based on impacts to the most sensitive freshwater or saltwater
fish, birds, and wildlife species.
Change in Coastal Condition
The NCCA 2010 uses a consistent set of data from three periods (1999-2001, 2005-2006, and
2010) to evaluate change in coastal condition overtime. This analysis includes national and
regional findings for the water quality index, sediment quality index, and benthic index for the
Northeast, Southeast, Gulf, and West Coast regions over the three periods. Data from past fish
tissue collection efforts are not comparable across the three time periods, and therefore are not
included in the change analysis. In addition, the change analysis does not include the Great
Lakes because they were not part of this survey until 2010.
National findings of the change analysis (Figure ES-2) include the following:
• The percent area rated good for the water quality index decreases significantly by 12%
from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006 and does not show a statistically significant change from
2005-2006 to 2010. Changes in most of the components of the water quality index are
mixed, reflecting the inherent variability in water quality indicators over time.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page xi
-------
• A statistically significant increase of 8% in waters rated good for the sediment quality
index between the first and second time periods (1999-2001 to 2005-2006) is followed
by a larger decline of 22% in waters rated good between 2005-2006 and 2010.
• For the benthic index, the percent area of waters rated good shows no statistically
significant change between 1999-2001 and 2005-2006, followed by a statistically
significant increase of 17% in waters rated good between 2005-2006 and 2010.
While these results might appear contradictory, these three indicators do not necessarily
respond to stressors in the same manner, nor do the indicators reflect all stressors that impact
coastal waters. As additional data are collected and analyzed for the NCCA 2015, clearer trends
may emerge.
Change in National Indices
Water
Quality Index
Sediment
Quality Index
Benthic
Index
too
•o
o
o
o
-a
0)
•M
ro
t£.
re
01
0)
a
0)
Q-
I I I I
I I • I
I I I I
I I
I I
II
I I
*-^
V
^
Figure ES-2. Comparison of the percent area rated good for national water quality,
sediment, and benthic indices over three periods. Note: Asterisk indicates statistically significant change
from the previous period. Change analysis does not include the Great Lakes.
Implications
EPA and its federal, state and tribal partners continue to work together to answer important
questions about the condition of the nation's coastal waters. They have revised the way coastal
condition indicators are analyzed and assessed, updated indicators to reflect the current state of
Page xii
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
the science, and gained and shared new expertise in state-of-the-art field monitoring methods.
For the first time, the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes have been included in a national
probability-based survey. The NCCA 2010 findings support the need for continued attention to
coastal stressors at the national, regional, state and watershed scales. In addition, the findings
support the need to identify and mitigate challenges where they exist and protect areas that are
still in good condition.
Raising samples aboard the EPA research vessel Bold. (Photo courtesy
of Eric Vance)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page xiii
-------
-------
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
•j
This National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 (NCCA 2010) is the fifth in a series of reports
that assess the condition of the coastal waters of the United States, which include a vast array
of beautiful and productive estuarine, Great Lakes, and coastal embayment waters. Previous
publications in this series were known as the National Coastal Condition Reports I-IV. These
reports were part of EPA's research program and used different methodologies and indicators
over time, as well as data from a variety of other monitoring/assessment programs. This NCCA
2010 is now a part of the National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS), a series of statistically
based surveys designed to provide the public and decision makers with nationally consistent
and representative information on the condition of all of the nation's waters. The NCCA 2010
also assesses changes over time using those data from past reports that correspond with the
statistical design and indicators now in use.
Purpose of This Report
The NCCA 2010 presents information on the ecological condition of U.S. coastal and Great
Lakes nearshore waters and key environmental stressors affecting these waters. Importantly, it
provides data that coastal managers can use to determine the future direction of coastal
monitoring efforts.
The NCCA 2010 is designed to help us answer questions such as:
• What is the condition of the nation's coastal waters?
• Is that condition getting better or worse?
• What is the extent of the stressors affecting them?
Data are presented nationally (Chapter 3) and at large regional scales (Chapter 4). The NCCA
was not designed to represent individual estuaries, embayments, or other local areas, nor does
it address all possible indicators.
This report uses monitoring data for a core set of indicators to provide insight into current
coastal condition. While it does not track the causes of these stressors, it does provide general
background on the types of sources that are often associated with these stressors. The survey
also supports a longer-term goal to determine whether our coastal waters are getting cleaner
and how we might best invest in their protection and restoration. The findings of this report are
not the same as water quality assessments prepared by the states under Section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA), nor are they impaired water determinations under Section 303(d) of the
CWA. Such determinations are made by states on specific waters using state water quality
standards and monitoring data.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 1
-------
Why Are Coastal Waters Important?
Coastal Waters Are Valuable and Productive Natural Ecosystems
The waters assessed in this report include nearshore marine coastal waters from the
head-of-salt (i.e., the landward extent of tidal incursion) to the confluence with the ocean. These
waters include estuaries and bays such as the Chesapeake Bay, Florida Bay, Cape Cod Bay,
and Puget Sound; and the nearshore waters and embayments of the Great Lakes, including
Green Bay, Saginaw Bay, and Keweenaw Bay.
These waters are enormously varied. Estuaries receive freshwater and sediment influx from
rivers and tidal influx from the oceans, thus serving as transition zones between the freshwater
of a river and the saline environment of the sea. Many different habitat types are found in and
around estuaries, including shallow open waters, freshwater areas, brackish and salt marshes,
swamps, sandy beaches, mud and sand flats, rocky shores, oyster reefs, mangrove forests,
river deltas, tidal pools, and sea grasses. These environments support wildlife and fisheries and
contribute substantially to the economy of ocean coastal areas.
Estuaries and coasts provide essential nesting, resting, feeding, and breeding habitat for 75% of
U.S. waterfowl and other migratory birds. They also supply water for industry; support the critical
terminals of the nation's marine transportation system along with U.S. Coast Guard and U.S.
Navy facilities; receive point source wastewater discharges from municipalities and industries;
and receive pollution from upstream sources, including nonpoint source pollution from urban
and agricultural land runoff. Estuaries and coastal wetlands also serve as buffers against storms
and sea-level rise.
The nearshore waters of the Great Lakes are included in this coastal assessment because they
share many characteristics with marine nearshore waters. Although they are freshwater, they
have shallow depths, display changing water levels due to wind-driven "tides," and act as
estuaries where river and lake waters mix. The Great Lakes form the largest surface freshwater
system on Earth. More than 30 million people live in the Great Lakes basin, and the impacts of
their daily activities, from the water they consume to the waste they return, directly affect the
Great Lakes environment. The Great Lakes watershed includes a broad range of habitats, from
coniferous forests and rocky shorelines along Lake Superior to the fertile agricultural soils and
sandy beaches along Lake Michigan and Lake Erie. The coastal ecosystems of the Great Lakes
include forests, wetlands, coastal marshes, sand dunes, savannas, rock barrens, and
thousands of islands. Critical coastal habitats provide spawning grounds, nurseries, shelter, and
food forfinfish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Coastal Populations and Economics
Coastal areas are the most developed areas in the United States. In 2010, 163.8 million people,
or 52% of the nation's population, lived in coastal watershed counties (i.e., counties that
encompass land areas where water flows into the ocean or Great Lakes) representing less than
20% of the U.S. land area (including Alaska). The population of the nation's coastal watershed
Page 2 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
counties increased by 51 million people between 1970 and 2010, constituting a 45% growth rate
(compared to 52% for the nation as a whole).
The average population density of coastal watershed counties (319 people per square mile) is
more than five times greater than the population density of inland counties. Higher population
density is frequently accompanied by increased demand for the benefits our coasts provide.
These benefits, also known as ecosystem services, include seafood harvesting, energy
production, pollution control, shoreline protection, and recreational opportunities.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) State of the Coast report (U.S.
Department of Commerce, NOAA, March 2013) provides additional information about the
economic value of coastal waters, including the following:
• In 2011, the coastal counties supported 51 million jobs and contributed $6.5 trillion to the
U.S. economy.
• 45% of U.S. gross domestic product was generated in the coastal counties along the
oceans and Great Lakes in 2011.
• One million jobs are associated with the U.S. commercial fishing industry, yielding over
$32 billion in income.
In the Great Lakes alone, beaches, resort communities, and natural areas support a vibrant
recreation and tourism industry and enhance the quality of life for residents. Over 4 million
recreational vessels are registered in the region, and people spend nearly $16 billion annually
on boating trips and equipment. Many millions of people take advantage of the region's Great
Lakes-dependent natural resources. The Great Lakes also provide efficient transportation,
supporting critical manufacturing and steel production in major U.S. cities. Great Lakes vessels
transport an average of 163 million tons of cargo (e.g., iron ore, coal, and grain) each year.
Why Be Concerned About Coastal Condition?
Human activities create environmental pressures that threaten the very resources and services
that make coastal living desirable. Rising populations lead to increased solid waste production;
higher volumes of urban nonpoint-pollution (i.e., runoff from diffuse sources, such as streets,
parking lots, and construction sites); loss of green space for recreation and wildlife habitat;
increased impervious surface area in coastal watersheds; and increased demands for
wastewater treatment, irrigation and potable water, and energy supplies. Coastal wetlands that
provide critical habitat, mitigate floods, and protect shorelines from erosion continue to be lost to
residential and commercial development. In addition, the quantity and timing of freshwater flow,
which are both critical to riverine and estuarine function, continue to be altered.
Offshore stressors include oil spills, over exploitation of fisheries, potential contamination from
ocean dumping and energy development, marine debris, and habitat loss. New pressures
resulting from climate change, such as sea level rise, ocean warming, and ocean acidification,
also threaten coastal habitats.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 3
-------
The National Aquatic Resource Surveys
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to monitor, assess, and report on
the condition of their waters, including the extent of waters that support the goals of the Act.
Under Section 303(d), states identify waters that are impaired because they do not meet state
water quality standards, and then typically develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) to
define pollution sources and control needs. States use a variety of monitoring and assessment
approaches to meet the requirements of the CWA, but all are designed to meet state-specific
information and management needs.
State monitoring programs are not designed to answer national-level questions such as whether
or not overall surface water quality is improving in the United States. State methods of collecting
and assessing data vary widely among states and may change over time; so too do the state
water quality standards used to determine impairment. These differences make it difficult to
aggregate this state-level information into a consistent assessment of the condition of the
nation's waters as a whole or of changes in condition over time.
In the early 2000s, a series of independent reports identified the need for improved water quality
monitoring and analysis at the national scale. For example, the General Accounting Office
reported that EPA and states could not make statistically valid assessments of water quality and
lacked the data to support key management decisions. To bridge this information gap, EPA and
its tribal, state, and federal partners have collaborated to answer national-level questions about
water quality, key environmental stressors, and trends over time. The National Aquatic
Resource Surveys (NARS) also provide consistent, large-scale data sets that can be used by
EPA, states, and others to answer additional water quality questions.
Prior to 2007, EPA research led to the development of national surveys of coastal waters and
freshwater systems such as lakes, rivers, and streams. The National Coastal Assessment
(NCA) (2000-2006) was the first nationally consistent survey of the condition of estuaries and
near coastal waters of the United States. (See box: "Previous Reports in this Series.") The
Wadeable Streams Assessment, published in 2006, was the first nationally consistent study of
the nation's streams. These surveys provided the framework for the statistically based NARS,
which have been conducted by EPA, states, and tribes since 2007. NARS reports include the
National Lakes Assessment, the National Rivers and Streams Assessment, the National
Coastal Condition Assessment, and the National Wetland Condition Assessment. These
assessments use standardized survey designs, indicators, and field and laboratory protocols, as
well as strict quality assurance guidelines. Each survey is designed to generate statistically valid
estimates of the ecological health of the nation's waters through sampling indicators of aquatic
community health, water quality, human health, and associated ecological data in a
representative sample of waters.
The NCCA 2010, while actually EPA's fifth assessment of coastal water quality, is considered
the first coastal assessment in the NARS series. Readers will find it significantly different than
the previous National Coastal Condition Reports I-IV, as it is now designed and written as one
of the NARS reports. While key indicators remain similar to those in past coastal reports, the
Page 4 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
NCCA 2010 is less detailed and uses very little data external to the NARS program (such as
beach closure or fish advisory information). Additionally, based on past comments and to reflect
advances in the science, the fish tissue and sediment indices have been revised. Their index
scores should not be directly compared to those presented in the pre-2010 National Coastal
Condition Reports I-IV.
New York/New Jersey Harbor. (Photo courtesy of David Cox)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 5
-------
Previous Reports in This Series
The National Coastal Condition Report (NCCR) I assessed the condition of the nation's
coastal waters using data collected by several existing coastal programs from 1990 to 1996.
These programs included EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP); the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
Status and Trends (S&T) program; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA) National Status & Trends (NS&T) Program.
The NCCR II provided similar information, but contained more recent data (1997-2000) from
these monitoring programs, as well as data from EPA's NCA and NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS).
The NCCR III built upon the previous NCCRs and provided assessments based on data
collected from 2001 to 2002. It expanded the survey area into the coastal waters of Hawaii
and the south central portion of Alaska; provided the status of offshore fisheries, beach
advisories, and fish advisories; and assessed national and regional change in coastal
condition from the early 1990s to 2002.
The NCCR IV expanded the assessment area to include the coastal waters of American
Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the southeastern portion of Alaska, based
primarily on NCA data collected in 2003 through 2006. It also provided an assessment of
offshore fisheries and examined national and regional change in coastal condition from
2000 to 2006 based on NCA data.
Beginning with this report, EPA is changing the name of this series to the National Coastal
Condition Assessment (NCCA) to be consistent with other reports in the National Aquatic
Resource Surveys (NARS). More information on the NARS is provided at
http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys.
Page 6 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
CHAPTER 2.
DESIGN OF THE NATIONAL
COASTAL CONDITION
ASSESSMENT
This chapter discusses the design of the NCCA 2010, including how sampling sites were
chosen, what waters were sampled, and how the four indices were used to describe the
environmental condition of coastal waters. Also included are two highlights: one on the influence
of watersheds on the quality of Great Lakes nearshore waters and embayments, and the other
on the use of video sampling in the Great Lakes.
What Is New in This Report?
The goal of documenting change in the condition of the nation's coastal waters over time
requires a balance between maintaining consistent assessment protocols that contribute
meaningful results, and updating protocols to reflect improvements in the science of monitoring.
Several changes have been implemented in this 2010 assessment to strike such a balance.
For the 2010 assessment, the sediment quality and fish tissue contaminant indices used in past
reports have been updated. Updates to the sediment quality index allow data from past surveys
to be recalculated using the new methodology so that they can be compared to NCCA 2010
assessments. The NCCA 2010 ecological fish tissue contaminant index is derived from new
ecological endpoints based upon risk to fish, birds, and wildlife, rather than adapted from human
health consumption thresholds as in previous reports. Because of inconsistencies in the type of
fish tissue data available from previous surveys, EPA cannot assess changes in the fish tissue
contaminant index in this report. More details about these updates are found in the descriptions
of the indices in this chapter.
In addition to updating assessment protocols to reflect improved science, indicators are also
evaluated to determine the value of the information they provide. For 2010, the coastal habitat
index—which measures trends in coastal wetland loss—has been removed from this
assessment. An assessment of the quality of coastal wetlands is now included as part of the
National Wetland Condition Assessment, the newest in the NARS series.
One of the most significant changes in the NCCA 2010 is that, for the first time, EPA and its
partners have collected data on the Great Lakes specifically for this program. In previous
NCCRs, the overall condition and index ratings for the Great Lakes were derived from
information provided by the State of the Great Lakes reports developed through a collaborative
effort between Environment Canada and EPA. All of the indices used to assess the Great Lakes
in this report are being used in this manner for the first time by the NCCA program.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 7
-------
What Waters Are Included in the NCCA?
This report assesses both the marine coastal waters of the conterminous United States and the
freshwater coastal waters of the Great Lakes. These waters are the fringing, relatively shallow
band of coastal waters most heavily used by humans and most vulnerable to activities within
adjacent coastal watersheds. Combined, these coastal waters are referred to as the "sample
frame" or the target population of this assessment, and they cover an area of 35,400 square
miles.
As in previous coastal assessments, marine coastal waters are defined as those from the head-
of-salt (i.e., the landward extent of saltwater incursions) to the confluence with the open ocean.
In the Great Lakes, coastal waters are those within three miles of shore that are also 100 feet or
less in depth. This unique coastal land-water interface zone includes inland waterways, river
mouths, open and semi-enclosed estuaries, bays, embayments, and the more open shallow
waters adjacent to East Coast and Gulf Coast shorelines. Excluded are the very deep waters
adjacent to steep shorelines along the West Coast, and the connecting channels of the Great
Lakes (the St. Lawrence River outlet and waters between the lakes).
For reporting purposes, coastal waters are divided into five regions: 1) the Northeast Coast—
Maine through Virginia (including Chesapeake Bay), with an area of 10,700 square miles; 2) the
Southeast Coast—North Carolina through south Florida's Biscayne Bay (4,500 square miles); 3)
the Gulf Coast (11,300 square miles); 4) the West Coast (2,200 square miles); and 5) the Great
Lakes (6,700 square miles) (see Figure 2-1). This assessment does not include the coastal
waters of Alaska, Hawaii, and other islands.
How Were Sampling Sites Chosen?
This coastal assessment is based on data from 1,104 sites sampled during the summer of 2010.
The design used to select the sites is a statistical survey approach based on random selection.
Similar to designs used for health surveys and election polls, this approach yields statistically
valid estimates of the condition of the population of interest (in this case, all coastal waters) with
known confidence, based on data from a relatively small number of sites.
This survey design is efficient and cost-effective compared with the alternative of conducting a
complete census survey. In the NCCA, sampling sites were selected using a technique called
"Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified" (GRTS) survey design, which minimizes clumping
of site locations that may result from a purely randomized design. It also provides weighting
factors that are used during the analysis stage.
In the GRTS approach, estuarine coasts are divided into nearly fifty non-overlapping sub-
regions (strata) based on waterbody location. The Great Lakes are divided into six strata, one
for each lake, and a separate non-overlapping stratum representing small embayments. "Base"
sampling sites are then distributed uniformly among all strata, thereby ensuring a spatially
balanced distribution of sampling sites among the five reporting regions (Figure 2-1). Additional
"oversample" locations are identified that could serve as replacement sites in the event a base
site is inaccessible or is determined not to meet the definition of coastal water used for NCCA
Page 8 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
2010. Oversample locations can also be used to supplement the base sites for potential
statewide or other region-wide assessments or enhancements. Finally, GRTS provides
weighting factors for each site that are proportional to the area represented by the site. The
weights, calculated as the stratum area divided by the number of sites in the stratum, are used
to determine the amount of coastal area represented by an individual site during the analysis
stage.
Figure 2-1. Location of NCCA 2010 sampling sites by region.
Why Doesn't This Assessment Use Other Coastal Data?
Many agencies and organizations conduct detailed assessments in U.S. estuaries and
coastal regions; however, data from these studies are not incorporated in this report for
several reasons. Most sampling designs used in these assessments are not compatible with
the national statistical design used by the NCCA. Other monitoring programs may also
assess different parameters and use different methods of data collection, analysis, and
evaluation. While these studies provide data sets that are invaluable for assessing the
conditions and program goals they are targeting, incompatibility with NCCA data and
methods makes it difficult to include outside data sets in this national assessment.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 9
-------
How Were Waters Sampled?
During the 2010 field season, 1,104 sites were sampled once between June and September.
Ten percent of sites were revisited for quality assurance purposes. In some cases, sites
identified for sampling were dropped and replaced because of logistical issues that precluded
sampling. For example, sampling sites were replaced if they were too shallow for a sampling
vessel to navigate, or if they were unsafe because they were in the middle of heavily traveled
shipping lanes. A dropped site was replaced by selecting a pre-identified "oversample" site,
maintaining the spatially balanced random design.
Sampling a statistically selected site once for a survey is appropriate and valid because the goal
of the survey is to determine, during the sampling period, what proportion of coastal waters
have stressors above or below various thresholds. In this sense, the NCCA is much like human
health surveys used to estimate public health issues. For example, in national health surveys,
the interest is not in whether an individual is obese at a particular point in time, but rather what
proportion of the entire population of people of interest are obese at a particular point in time.
The repeat samples (sites revisited at another time during the index period) give analysts an
estimate of how different the answer might be if they had sampled the sites at different times
during the index period.
Using water chemistry as an example, scientists expect that phosphorus values at any particular
site will fluctuate over time. Site X may be high for phosphorus while site Y is low. Several days
or weeks later, the situation may be reversed, but the proportion of all coastal waters with high
or low phosphorus remains the same.
For the NCCA 2010, nearly 50 trained field crews—composed primarily of state/tribal
environmental agency, EPA, and contractor staff—collected samples and information from the
water column, sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities. They followed
specific protocols detailed in the survey field manual (U.S. EPA 2010a). The sampling
procedures were the same as those used in previous coastal assessments.
Field crews collected water samples for nutrients, chlorophyll a, and other parameters using
specialized collection bottles at a depth of 0.5 meters (i.e., surface waters). They collected
sediment and benthic samples using a sediment grab sampler. The grab sampler was lowered
to the estuarine or Great Lake floor where it took a "bite" out of the sediment. Field crews either
placed the sediment sample directly into a sample bottle or sieved it to collect benthic
macroinvertebrates. Crews collected fish using several different methods: some trawled for fish,
others used gill or seine nets, and still others used hook and line sampling. Specimens that met
the target species and size requirements were frozen and shipped to the lab on dry ice.
In addition to collecting samples to send to labs, crews recorded extensive in situ data on field
forms, documenting information about the physical characteristics of each site. At all sites, they
measured salinity/conductivity, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and other parameters using
specialized probes throughout the water column. (Note: The water quality index uses only the
DO measurements taken at the bottom of the water column.) They measured water clarity using
Page 10 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Secchi disks and light transmissivity using photosynthetically active radiation meters. In
addition, at all Great Lakes sites, crews filmed one-minute videos of the substrate using an
underwater video camera system. At all survey sites, field crews used comparable collection
and measurement techniques.
What Was Sampled?
The NCCA 2010 uses benthic macroinvertebrates (small animals such as worms and clams that
live in and on the bottoms of estuaries, the Great Lakes, and other waters) as biological
indicators of ecological condition. Because they are sensitive to disturbances that result from
human activities, macroinvertebrates provide an estimate of the biological quality of estuaries
and coastal areas. Macroinvertebrate population assessments are included in almost every
state and federal aquatic resource-monitoring program.
The NCCA 2010 includes measurements of key stressors to document their relative extent.
Stressors are the chemical and physical components of the ecosystem that have the potential to
degrade biological integrity. Some of these are naturally occurring and others result only from
human activities, but most come from both sources.
Examples of chemical stressors are excess nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) and
chemical contaminants (e.g., legacy contaminants like DDT and polychlorinated biphenyls
[PCBs]). The NCCA 2010 measures nutrients in water samples sent to a laboratory.
Concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue are measured because, over time, fish can
accumulate chemical contaminants found in their food, the water column, or the bottom
sediment. These measurements provide insight into what contaminants are found in coastal
waters and the risk presented when these fish are consumed by other wildlife. Physical
stressors include water clarity and low dissolved oxygen.
In addition to these stressors, the NCCA 2010 measures the levels of mercury, PCBs,
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE), and perfluorinated chemicals (PFC) in fish tissue in the
Great Lakes as human health indicators. Table 2-1 shows the key indicators evaluated for this
report.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 11
-------
Table 2-1. Indicators evaluated for the NCCA 2010.
Biological Indicator Chemical Indicators Physical Indicators
• Benthic
macro-invertebrates
• Phosphorus
• Nitrogen*
• Ecological fish tissue
contaminants
• Sediment
contaminants
• Sediment toxicity
*Nitrogen was measured but not assessed in the Great Lakes.
Dissolved oxygen
Salinity
Water clarity
PH
Chlorophyll a
Human Health
Indicators
(Great Lakes Only)
• Mercury, PCBs,
PBDEs, and PFCs
in fish filet tissue
What Are the Indices of Coastal Condition?
Four primary indices of environmental condition (benthic, water quality, sediment quality, and
ecological fish tissue contaminant) are used in this report. Three of the indices—those used to
assess benthic quality, water quality, and sediment quality—vary across regions. They were
developed and verified by regional experts familiar with natural variability in the chemistry,
geomorphology, habitats, and community structures in the five regions highlighted in this report.
For example, the rocky coasts of the Northeast are very different from the lagoons, coral reefs,
and mangrove forests of the Gulf Coast. Likewise, ecological processes in the freshwater Great
Lakes are quite distinct from processes in marine estuaries. All three indices reflect established
science and are comparable to indices used in previous assessments, providing consistent
indication of change over time.
The fourth index used in the NCCA 2010, the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, is new
for this assessment and consists of a single index for all regions. It cannot be compared to
similar indices used in previous reports.
Benthic Index
The worms, mollusks, crustaceans and other invertebrates that inhabit the bottom substrates of
coastal waters are an important food source for a wide variety of fish, mammals, and birds.
Benthic populations and communities serve as reliable biological indicators of coastal
environmental quality because they are sensitive to chemical contamination, dissolved oxygen
stresses, salinity fluctuations, and sediment disturbances.
To assess biological conditions, EPA and its partners have developed comparable regional
benthic indices for the Northeast/Acadian, Northeast/Virginian, Southeast/Carolinian, and
Gulf/Louisianan coasts (Table 2-2). These indices reflect changes in benthic community
diversity and the abundance of pollution-tolerant and pollution-sensitive macroinvertebrate
species. A good benthic index rating means that benthic habitats contain a wide variety of
Page 12
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
species, including low proportions of pollution-tolerant species and high proportions of
pollution-sensitive species. A poor benthic index rating indicates that benthic communities are
less diverse than expected and are populated by more pollution-tolerant species and fewer
pollution-sensitive species than expected. A list of the macroinvertebrates identified in each
region is available on the NARS website at http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-
surveys.
Table 2-2. Regional benthic indices for the Northeast, Southeast, and Gulf coasts.
Region/
Province
Northeast/
Acadian
Northeast/
Virginian
Southeast/
Carolinian
Gulf/
Louisianan
Data
Source
Statistical
Method
NCA Logistic
2000-2001 Regression
Analysis
EMAP Discriminant
1990-1993 Analysis
EMAP Cluster
1993-1994 Analysis
EMAP Discriminant
1991-1992 Analysis
Component Metrics
Diversity (Shannon H')
Pollution Tolerant Taxa
Proportion Capitellids
Diversity (Gleason D)
Abundance Tubificids
Abundance Spionids
Abundance
Species Richness
Dominance
Pollution Sensitive Taxa
Diversity (Shannon H')
Abundance Tubificids
Proportion Capitellids
Proportion Bivalves
Proportion Amphipods
Index Condition Scale
Good Fair Poor
>5 4-5 <4
> 0 n/a < 0
>2.5 2-2.5 <2
>5 3-5 <3
A regional multi-metric benthic index has not been developed for the West Coast, although
several local indices have been developed. As in past NCCRs, species richness was used as a
surrogate for a West Coast regional benthic index. Analysts compared regional values for
species richness with salinity to determine if a significant relationship existed. They found a
highly significant relationship for the region, although variability was high. They then calculated
a surrogate benthic index for the West Coast by determining the expected species richness
from the statistical relationship to salinity and calculating the ratio of observed to expected
species richness. Poor condition was defined as less than 75% of the expected benthic species
richness at a particular salinity (Table 2-3).
In the Great Lakes, the 2011 State of the Great Lakes Report (Environment Canada and EPA)
assesses benthic community condition using an oligochaete trophic index (OTI). The OTI is
based on the classification of oligochaete species (i.e., worms) by their known tolerance to
organic enrichment. The OTI ranges from 0 to 3, where scores less than 0.6 indicate
oligotrophic (good) conditions, scores between 0.6 and 1.0 indicate mesotrophic (fair)
conditions, and scores above 1.0 indicate eutrophic (poor) conditions (Table 2-3).
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 13
-------
Table 2-3. Thresholds for assessing biological quality based on regional benthic indices for
the West Coast and Great Lakes
Great Lakes
Observed species richness
is more than 90% of the
lower 95% confidence
Observed species richness Observed species richness is
is between 75% and 90% of less than 75% of the lower
the lower 95% confidence 95% confidence interval of
interval of expected species interval of expected species expected species richness for
richness for a specific
salinity.
Oligochaete trophic index
score is less than 0.6.
richness for a specific
salinity.
Oligochaete trophic index
score is between 0.6 and
1.0.
a specific salinity.
Oligochaete trophic index
score is greater than 1.0.
Water Quality Index
Assessing water quality in the nation's coastal waters is a challenging undertaking. No single
definition of good or poor water quality applies to all waterbodies. For instance, while people
prefer beaches that feature clean and clear waters, a viable fish nursery needs nutrient-rich
water with plenty of suspended organic material.
Conditions vary widely by region for natural reasons. Nutrient levels along the Pacific coast are
naturally high due to seasonal upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water. Nearshore waters along the
Southeast and Gulf coasts are more turbid than elsewhere, reflecting the heavy loads of
sediment delivered by rivers meandering over fertile watersheds. Water quality processes in the
freshwater Great Lakes differ markedly from those in the coastal estuaries, where salinities
range from 0.5 to roughly 35 parts per thousand.
Processes affecting coastal water quality are complex, change quickly, and are highly localized.
Figure 2-2 and the box below explain some of the complex cycles occurring in the water column
and describe how parameters such as water clarity and dissolved oxygen concentrations can be
adversely affected by human activities. The NCCA 2010 addresses these issues of variability
and complexity by using slightly different indicators in coastal estuaries and in the Great Lakes,
and applying different regional thresholds to reflect the influence of natural processes.
The NCCA 2010 measures several key indicators of water quality to provide a broad
perspective on conditions. These include measures of nutrient levels, algal biomass, dissolved
oxygen concentration, and water clarity. These indicators often change in a complementary
manner. For example, while nutrient levels may drop as an algal bloom develops, chlorophyll
levels may rise. One or the other indicator will likely record the degraded condition. Similarly,
signals for chlorophyll, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen levels are likely to change in later
phases of a bloom event as the excess algal material decays and depletes dissolved oxygen
levels. These metrics are combined into an integrated water quality index (WQI) to create a
measure of water quality that is more robust than its individual components.
Page 14
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Despite the complex and variable nature of processes affecting water quality, the NCCA
assessment process effectively portrays water quality at a national and regional scale. However,
the NCCA 2010 does not provide an intensive characterization of localized water quality
conditions.
Heading out for a sampling trip. (Photo courtesy of Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 15
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
trapped in the upper
• « lower-salinity layer
Dead
material
settles _
Decomposition
.V I
. Dissolved Oxygen used up
* by microorganism respiration
• if
• % i Nutrients
Dissolved Oxygen
from wave action
and photosynthesis
Lower-density
surface water
Higher-density
bottom water
Fish will avoid
hypoxia if possible
..released by bottom sediments
Dissolved Oxygen consumed
Shellfish M gfc
and other
benthic —-St
organisms
unable
to escape
hypoxia
Decomposition of organic
matter in sediments
Figure 2-2. Accelerated eutrophication can
occur when the concentration of available
nutrients increases above normal levels
(U.S. EPA/NCA).
Water Column Processes and
Eutrophication
Figure 2-2 illustrates the food production
cycle in a typical coastal ecosystem. A
warm, sunlit upper water layer overlays a
denser and darker bottom layer.
Seagrass beds in shallow water provide
critical nursery habitat for fish and
crustaceans and act to stabilize
sediments. These grasses need light to
flourish. In a healthy system, floating
microscopic algae called phytoplankton
draw on nutrients and light in the surface
layer to generate sporadic "blooms" of
plant material that first feed organisms in
the upper layer. As organic matter
decomposes, it sinks to nourish the
organisms living on or in the bottom
sediments. In a process termed
eutrophication, the amount of organic
matter in the system increases over
many decades in response to gradually
increasing nutrient supplies. This gradual
transition allows the systems to adapt
and maintain fine-tuned estuarine cycles.
The increasing activity of humans along
coastlines can result in accelerated
eutrophication. Cities, farms, and industry
discharge nutrients to coastal waters
more quickly than the ecosystem can
process them. Excess bloom material
chokes beaches, hampers navigation,
and releases toxins that can harm fish,
shellfish, birds, and humans. It also
blocks light from reaching seagrass beds
and, as it decays, depletes oxygen
needed by fish and benthic inhabitants.
Page 16
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Thresholds for Interpreting Water Quality Data
Different thresholds are used to evaluate the marine waters of coastal estuaries and the fresh
waters of the Great Lakes. Table 2-4 lists the five indicators used to evaluate water quality in
coastal estuaries (also used in previous NCCRs):
• Two measures of surface nutrient enrichment—dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and
dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP) concentrations;
• An indication of the amount (biomass) of algae—surface chlorophyll a concentration;
and
• Two indicators of potential adverse effects of eutrophication—water clarity and bottom
dissolved oxygen levels.
Table 2-4 also lists the indicators used to evaluate water quality in the Great Lakes. The
indicators differ somewhat from those used in coastal estuaries because the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of estuarine and freshwater environments differ. Nitrogen was
measured but not assessed in the Great Lakes because conventional approaches focused on
phosphorus as a driver for nutrient enrichment in freshwater. However, recent analyses using
national data sets from the draft National Lakes Assessment indicate that nitrogen levels are
also associated with increased risk of the algal toxin microcystin. Future analyses of NCCA data
will explore the role that nitrogen levels play in the health of the Great Lakes. See the NCCA
2010 Technical Report for a summary of total nitrogen concentrations in the Great Lakes.
Table 2-4. Water quality indicators used to assess conditions.
Metric
Coastal Estuaries
Great Lakes
Surface Phosphorus
Surface Nitrogen
Surface Chlorophyll a
Bottom Dissolved Oxygen
Water Clarity
DIP(mg P/L)a
DIN (mg N/L)c
Chla (ug/L)
DO (mg/L)
Transmittance @1 m d
TP (mg P/L)b
Not used in analysis
Chla (ug/L)
DO (mg/L)
Secchi depth (m)
aDIP: Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus; PCU
bTP: Total Phosphorus
c DIN: Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen; sum of NOs, NO2, and NhU
d Calculated from Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) vs. depth profiles or Secchi depth
Table 2-5 lists the thresholds used to evaluate water quality in coastal estuaries; they vary by
region to take natural variability into account. These are the same thresholds used in previous
NCCRs, providing continuity when considering change over time. The thresholds were initially
set based on published references and the best professional judgment of regional experts (see
the NCCA 2010 Technical Report for more details).
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 17
-------
Table 2-5. NCCA guidelines for evaluating the five component indicators used in the water
quality index to assess estuarine coastal condition.
Estuarine Water Quality Thresholds
Surface
Concentrations of
Dissolved Inorganic
Nitrogen (DIN):
Estuaries
Surface
Concentrations of
Dissolved Inorganic
Phosphorus (DIP):
Estuaries
Surface
Concentrations of
Chlorophyll a:
Estuaries
Water Clarity (percent
of incident light
remaining after
passing through 1
meter of water):
Estuaries
Bottom Water
Concentrations of
Dissolved Oxygen:
Estuaries
Region
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
Tropicala
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
Tropicala
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
Tropicala
Waters with
naturally high
turbidity
Waters with
normal
turbidity
Waters that
support SAVb
All
Good
< 0.1 mg/L
< 0.35 mg/L
< 0.05 mg/L
< 0.01 mg/L
< 0.07 mg/L
< 0.005 mg/L
< 5 ug/L
< 0.5 ug/L
> 20%
> 40%
> 5 mg/L
0.1 -0.5 mg/L
0.35-0.5 mg/L
0.05-0.1 mg/L
0.01 - 0.05 mg/L
0.07-0.1 mg/L
0.005 - 0.01 mg/L
5-20 ug/L
0.5 - 1 ug/L
5-10%
10-20%
20 - 40%
2-5 mg/L
> 0.5 mg/L
> 0.5 mg/L
>0.1 mg/L
> 0.05 mg/L
>0.1 mg/L
> 0.01 mg/L
> 20 ug/L
> 1 ug/L
< 1 0%
< 20%
< 2 mg/L
a Tropical refers to NCCA Florida Bay sites. b Submerged Aquatic Vegetation.
Table 2-6 lists the assessment thresholds used to evaluate the Great Lakes region. To consider
natural variability, the thresholds are specific to each of the eight basins of the Great Lakes
region—Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan, Saginaw Bay, Lake Ontario, and the
western, central, and eastern basins of Lake Erie. These thresholds follow the guidelines
recommended by the Great Lakes International Joint Commission, the organization that
regulates shared water uses and investigates and recommends solutions for transboundary
Page 18
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
issues. These guidelines are currently under review (refer to the NCCA 2010 Technical Report
for further details).
Table 2-6. Guidelines used to evaluate water quality at sites in Great Lakes basins.
Great Lakes Water Quality Thresholds
Surface Concentrations
of Total Phosphorus
(TP): Great Lakes
Basins
Surface Concentrations
of Chlorophyll a: Great
Lakes Basins
Water Clarity (Secchi
Depth): Great Lakes
Basins
Bottom Water
Concentrations of
Dissolved Oxygen:
Great Lakes Basins
Lake Area
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Huron/Saginaw
Erie/West
Erie/Central
Erie/East
Ontario
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Huron/Saginaw
Erie/West
Erie/Central
Erie/East
Ontario
Superior
Huron
Michigan
Huron/Saginaw
Erie/West
Erie/Central
Erie/East
Ontario
All
Good
< 0.005 mg/L 0.005-0.01 mg/L > 0.01 mg/L
< 0.007 mg/L 0.007-0.01 mg/L > 0.01 mg/L
< 0.015 mg/L 0.015 - 0.032 mg/L > 0.032 mg/L
< 0.01 mg/L 0.01 - 0.015 mg/L > 0.015 mg/L
< 1.3 ug/L 1.3-2.6 ug/L
< 1.8 ug/L 1.8-2.6 ug/L
< 3.6 ug/L 3.6-6.0 ug/L
< 2.6 ug/L
>8.0 m
>6.7 m
>3.9 m
>5.3 m
> 5 mg/L
2.6-3.6 ug/L
5.3-8.0 m
5.3-6.7m
2.1 -3.9m
3.9-5.3 m
2-5 mg/L
> 2.6 ug/L
> 2.6 ug/L
> 6.0 ug/L
> 3.6 ug/L
< 5.3 m
< 5.3 m
<2.1 m
< 3.9 m
< 2 mg/L
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 19
-------
HIGHLIGHT: Watershed Influence on Open Nearshore Waters
and Embayments of the U.S. Great Lakes Coastal Zone
In the NCCA 2010 survey design for the Great Lakes, two aquatic resource classes are
defined. The first is a nearshore population of waters extending from the shoreline to an
outer boundary (as far as 3.1 miles from shore or as deep as the 129-foot depth contour,
whichever is reached first). The second resource class is small embayments:
semi-enclosed areas formed by the configuration of the shoreline, tucked in along the
shore and often more vulnerable to land drainage. Embayment areas are a small portion
of the nearshore zone totaling 359 square miles, compared to 6,931 square miles of U.S.
Great Lakes nearshore coast.
NCCA 2010 sampling for the Great Lakes Region as a whole was conducted at 251 open
nearshore sites and an additional 154 sites in embayment areas. Embayments were
expected to show evidence of higher exposure to land drainage because of more
sheltered conditions, shallower waters, perhaps longer residence times, and less overall
dilution than the more "open" nearshore. Statistical analyses demonstrate that
embayments have higher phosphorus concentrations, lower bottom water dissolved
oxygen concentrations, shallower measured Secchi depth, and a faster light extinction
than the open nearshore. There is no difference between embayment and nearshore
chlorophyll a and nitrogen levels. It may be that more turbidity (from suspended solids
loading and/or wind-driven sediment resuspension in shallower waters in embayments)
inhibits plankton growth slightly, in spite of a nearly doubled phosphorus concentration on
average.
To assess the potential influence of watershed disturbance upon observed coastal
conditions, analysts compared NCCA 2010 data and watershed land use patterns at
appropriate lake-basin scales for each of the five Great Lakes (Figure 2-3). This analysis
provides evidence of a strong relationship between phosphorus and agricultural intensity
in the watershed. When compared to equivalent nearshore areas, the pattern for
embayments reflects generally higher phosphorus concentrations as watershed
agricultural intensity increases. Phosphorus concentrations are highest in the areas of
greatest agricultural intensity in the western basin of Lake Erie. Water quality changes
and associated increasing plankton blooms have been seen in the past decade in this
basin.
Further analyses of these NCCA 2010 data will study the watershed drivers at play
because the effects of agricultural development, human population growth and urban
coastal development, forested area declines, and other factors are not fully independent
of each other. Nonetheless, the results suggest that embayments are indeed more
vulnerable to landscape-derived stressors than the more open nearshore zone and thus
may be more sensitive sentinels of water quality changes.
Page 20 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Embayment
Nearshore
shoreline segment, Agriculture metric
Increasing Agricultural Intensity
Figure 2-3. Total phosphorus as a function of increasing agricultural intensity shows that
embayments have higher levels of TP than nearshore areas. Mean and 95% confidence intervals
are shown for NCCA 2010 results by lake (identified by first letter of lake name) for nearshore (in black) and
embayment populations (in red). From Kelly et al., 2015.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 21
-------
Calculating the Water Quality Index
The water quality indicators measured in this survey—nutrients, chlorophyll, dissolved oxygen,
and water clarity—reflect complex and quickly changing processes occuring in the water
column. Excess nutrients promote algal blooms that can create problematic low-oxygen events
or inadequate water clarity (Figure 2-2). Not all indicators are likely to record the same
conditions at the same time. Therefore, the NCCA 2010 calculates a water quality index (WQI)
to suggest whether a site is susceptible to, or is suffering from, water quality problems. This
calculation is based upon guidelines established in earlier coastal condition reports that
consider the number of component indicators that suggest problems (Table 2-7).
Table 2-7. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the water quality index (WQI).
Water Quality Index Guidelines
No component indicators are
rated poor, and a maximum of
one is rated fair.
One component indicator is rated
poor, or two or more component
indicators are rated fair.
Two or more component
indicators are rated poor.
Note: Component indicators are phosphorus, nitrogen, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen.
Sediment Quality Index
Sediments serve as important indicators because they can accumulate contaminants that
adversely affect ecosystems and human health. Such contaminants are introduced into the
environment by a number of sources, including metal-based marine antifouling paints, nonpoint
source pollution from agricultural and urban areas, and industry and atmospheric deposition.
Scientists measure sediment contaminants such as metals (e.g., arsenic and lead) and organic
substances (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], PCBs, and pesticides) because
they are persistent, bioaccumulative, and associated with acute and chronic effects on aquatic
life.
Many contaminants adsorb onto suspended particles and accumulate in areas where sediments
are deposited. The accumulated contaminants, either individually or in mixtures, may adversely
affect sediment-dwelling organisms. As other organisms eat contaminated sediment-dwellers,
the contaminants can become concentrated throughout the food web, potentially affecting fish,
marine mammals, and humans who consume contaminated fish and shellfish. The NCCA
program uses a Sediment Quality Index (SQI) to assess the potential for sediment to adversely
affect ecosystems.
Two sediment quality indicators (sediment toxicity and sediment contaminants) are evaluated
separately and combined into the SQI. Sediment toxicity is evaluated because risk-based
thresholds do not exist for most of the thousands of chemicals that are introduced into the
Page 22
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
environment through human or natural activities. In addition, sediment toxicity tests show the
additive and synergistic effects of chemical combinations on the ability of organisms to survive
and reproduce in the environment. Scientists assess sediment toxicity by measuring the survival
of estuarine and freshwater amphipods (Leptocheirus plumulosus and Eohaustorius estuarius
for estuarine sediments; Hyallella azteca for freshwater sediments). They expose organisms to
field-collected sediments for ten days and compare survival rates to the survival rates of
organisms exposed to control sediments. They then calculate control-corrected survival
percentages for both estuarine and freshwater sediments. In addition, for estuarine samples,
analysts calculate the statistical significance (p < 0.05) of the difference between the control and
test results. Because the standard method for freshwater sediments uses fewer test organisms
and fewer replicates than the standard method for estuarine sediments, statistical signficance
for freshwater sediment toxicity tests is not calculated.
Sediments are analyzed for a wide variety of chemical contaminants. Analysts use sediment
quality guidelines (SQGs) to assess sediment contamination. The SQG used in estuarine
waters is called the mean Effects Range Median Quotient (mERM-Q); the SQG used to assess
Great Lakes sediment contaminants is the mean Probable Effects Concentration Quotient
(mPEC-Q). Both approaches are similar in that they assess the relative degree of sediment
contamination and estimate the probability of toxicity to benthic organisms from sediment
contaminants. In addition to the mERM-Q, estuarine sediments are also evaluated using the
Logistic Regression Model (LRM). The LRM calculates the probability of observing a toxic effect
based on individual contaminant concentrations and the maximum probability (Pmax) of
observing toxicity from all contaminants in a sample. The weight of evidence from mERM-Q and
LRM gives the best possible evaluation of sediment contamination in estuaries. The LRM has
not been developed for the freshwaters of the Great Lakes, however, so the mPEC-Q is the only
method used to assess Great Lakes sediment contamination.
Concentrations of total organic carbon in the sediment samples and sediment grain size are
analyzed and used as ancillary information to help further explain effects, but they are not a
component of the SQL EPA updated the SQI used for the NCCA 2010 to reflect the current
practices for marine and freshwater sediments. The NCCA 2010 Technical Report describes
how these indicators are calculated and applied to past data sets from previous reports to
examine change in sediment quality.
Table 2-8 lists the thresholds used to rate sites in marine and Great Lakes coasts as good, fair,
or poor for sediment quality. Thresholds vary between marine and freshwater sediments due to
the different approaches that were used. For each region, analysts determine what percentage
of a region's area is rated good, fair, or poor for individual indicators.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 23
-------
Table 2-8. NCCA guidelines for the two component indicators used in the sediment quality
index.
Ecological Condition by Site
Sediment
Contaminants:
Great Lakes
Sediment
Contaminants:
Marine
Sediment Toxicity:
Great Lakes
mean PEC-Q < 0.1
mean ERM-Q < 0.1 and
LRM Pmax < 0.5
> 90% control-adjusted
survival
Mean PEC-Q > 0.1 but <
0.6
mean PEC-Q > 0.6
mean ERM-Q > 0.1 but mean ERM-Q > 0.5 or
< 0.5 or LRM Pmax > 0.5 but LRM Pmax > 0.75
<0.75
> 75% but < 90% control-
adjusted survival
< 75% control-adjusted
survival
Sediment Toxicity:
Marine
Test not significantly
different from control
(o > 0.05) and > 80%
control-adjusted survival
Test significantly different
from control (p < 0.05) and
> 80% control-adjusted
survival or Test not
significantly different from
control (p > 0.05) and
< 80% control-adjusted
survival
Test significantly
different from control
(p < 0.05) and < 80%
control-adjusted
survival
See Technical Report for details on calculation of sediment contaminants index and sediment toxicity index.
mean ERM-Q = mean Effects Range Median Quotient
LRM Pmax = Logistic Regression Model Maximum Probability
mean PEC-Q = mean Probable Effects Concentration Quotient
p > 0.05 orp < 0.05 = probability value of test statistic being greater than or less than 0.05
The NCCA 2010 uses guidelines established in earlier coastal condition reports to determine
the SQI rating for a site, based on the condition of its two component metrics (Table 2-9). It
evaluates the likelihood that sediments at a site will adversely affect benthic organisms.
Table 2-9. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the sediment quality index*.
Sediment Quality Index Guidelines
Both indicators are rated good.
At least one indicator is rated fair At least one indicator is rated
and none are rated poor. poor.
This index is based on measurements of two sediment condition indicators-
toxicity.
sediment contaminants and sediment
Page 24
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Ecological Fish Tissue Contaminant Index
Chemical contaminants may enter an aquatic organism in several ways: direct uptake from
contaminated water, consumption of contaminated sediment, or consumption of previously
contaminated organisms (Figure 2-4). Once these contaminants enter an organism, they tend to
remain in its tissues and may build up over time. When predators consume contaminated
organisms, they may accumulate the levels of persistent contaminants present in those
organisms. Environmentally persistent contaminants, including some pesticides, PCBs and
mercury, can contribute to ecological degradation and pose a threat to human health.
Figure 2-4. Sources of and pathways for pollution in aquatic ecosystems (U.S. EPA GLNPO).
In previous reports, impacts on wildlife were estimated by comparing contaminant concentration
values to human health fish-consumption advisory thresholds. For this report, a new approach
for calculating the fish tissue contaminant index uses ecological risk-based thresholds, rather
than human health-related advisories. Ecological risk-based thresholds better align the indicator
with the ecosystem focus of the NCCA 2010. This method assesses contaminant levels in
whole-body fish tissue using an approach based on EPA's Ecological Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments
(1997). The approach evaluates whether environmental concentrations of contaminants in soil,
sediment, water, and fish tissue pose a potential risk to fish and wildlife (referred to as receptors
of concern).
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 25
-------
For this assessment, threshold values are calculated to examine fish tissue contaminant
concentrations using established toxicity reference values (TRVs) for predatory fish and fish-
eating birds and mammals (receptor groups). Within each of these groups, the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL) estimates are derived from TRVs associated with a number of
specific species (receptors), such as great blue heron, osprey, harbor seal, mink, largemouth
bass, swordfish, and bluefin tuna. The LOAEL screening value for the most sensitive
receptor within each receptor group is selected to evaluate measured contaminant
concentrations (Table 2-10). This approach helps ensure that the fish tissue contaminant
assessment is nationally applicable, ecologically relevant, and conservatively protective of most
potential receptors.
Tissue sample collection methods were revised for NCCA 2010 to specify consistent sample
collection guidelines. Analysts developed a regionally-calibrated species list to identify target
specimens for tissue analysis. Specimens were selected for contaminant analyses using size
standards (i.e., 100-400 mm), and a single species per sampled site was retained for laboratory
analysis. The NCCA 2010 does not evaluate changes in tissue concentrations from 2000-2010
because different fish tissue collection and assessment methods were used in the past.
Table 2-10. Potential ecological risk-based thresholds for receptors of concern (calculated).
Whole-Body Tissue Concentration (ug / dry g)
by Receptor Group
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
Arsenic (Inorganic)
Cadmium
Mercury (methyl)
Selenium
Chlordane
DDTs
Dieldrin
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachloro benzene
Lindane
Mi rex
Toxaphene
PCBs
Mammala
3.81
32.13
1.12
2.31
55.38
28.03
1.2
42.84
5.56
7.46
14.01
280.25
4.6
280.25
3.93
Avian
9.2
13.97
0.13
0.57
2.87
1.59
0.33
43.15
0.11
6.26
0.6
2.36
0.72
3.59
1.29
m
ii
Fish"
0.69
3828.13
1.41
33.6
7.12
1.64
0.003
3.92
81.12
0.044
375.78
9.91
0.03
1.95
a Two mammal receptor group threshold values calculated. The more sensitive freshwater mammal group was used
for assessment.
b Two fish receptor group threshold values calculated. The more sensitive freshwater fish group was used for
assessment.
Page 26
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Table 2-11 lists the criteria for rating all coastal and Great Lakes nearshore sites as good, fair,
or poor for potential risk of contaminant exposure to predatory fish and fish-eating wildlife. An
indicator rating is assigned to each site based on LOAEL contaminant threshold exceedances
across receptor groups (mammal, avian, and fish). The regional assessment estimates the
percentage of area within the region that meets or exceeds tissue contaminant threshold values.
The NCCA 2010 Technical Report provides further discussion of these particular indicators and
thresholds
Table 2-11. Guidelines used to evaluate sites for the ecological fish tissue contaminant
index.
Ecological Fish Tissue Contaminant Index Guidelines
None of the measured
contaminant
concentrations exceed
LOAEL for any receptor
group.
At least one measured
contaminant
concentration exceeds
LOAEL for one receptor
group.
At least one measured
contaminant
concentration exceeds
LOAEL for two or more
receptor groups.
Isle Royale, in Lake Superior. (Photo Courtesy of Great Lakes
Environmental Center, Inc.)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 27
-------
HIGHLIGHT: An Underwater View
The Potential Utility of Video Sampling in Assessing Coastal Condition
In 2010, researchers added underwater video to the NCCA sampling protocol in the
Great Lakes to evaluate whether video can supplement traditional benthic sampling.
Video sampling is simple and can provide rapid visual feedback, a historical archive, and
sometimes a different perspective on local conditions. More specifically, researchers
expected that video sampling would accurately show the presence or absence of
invasive species such as dreissenid mussels (zebra and quagga mussels) and round
gobies (bottom-dwelling fish). These invasives can cause ecological changes that affect
coastal condition.
Traditionally, deep water benthic sampling is conducted using a grab sampler, such as a
Ponar or Ekman dredge, lowered from a boat to the bottom of the waterbody.
Processing benthic grab samples takes time and expertise. Grab samplers are also
limited to sampling soft sediments, such as sand, silt, clay, or mud. For Great Lakes
video sampling, a SeaViewer Sea-Drop color camera 950 with Unified Sea-Light™ LED
light and a Sea-DVR: Mini Digital Video Recorder were used. Once a clear image of the
station bottom was observed on the Sea-DVR screen, researchers held the camera as
still as possible and began recording. Recording duration was at least one minute, and
309 videos were collected.
Some of the findings of this video sampling pilot in the Great Lakes include the following:
• Video sampling can be more effective than a grab sampler in detecting mussels
on rocky substrate that is not amenable to dredge grab sampling (Figure 2-5).
• When mussel or vegetation distribution is variable or dispersed, video sampling
can provide a better estimate of the presence or absence of mussels and
vegetation than a single grab sample at that site (Figures 2-6 and 2-7).
• Video sampling detected dreissenid mussels at 8 sites where grab sampling did
not, and at 17 sites where grab sampling was unsuccessful. At 32 sites, video
sampling did not detect dreissenids despite grab sample data showing they were
present. Video was better able to detect mussels as their abundance increased.
• 45% of videos are rated as marginal or poor in quality, either because of
controllable reasons such as the view not being close enough to the bottom, or
because of uncontrollable reasons such as poor visibility due to high suspended
solids or chlorophyll a concentrations.
• Because video sampling provides a broad site view, researchers were
occasionally treated to glimpses of passing native fish (Figure 2-8).
Page 28 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
• To get a broader understanding of a sample site's dreissenid and vegetation
density and distribution, taking a video in addition to a grab sample provides
more comprehensive data.
A
Figure 2-5. Video screen shots from sites in Lake Ontario where grab sampling was not
successful. Site A shows colonization by dreissenid mussels (A.1) and round gobies (A.2). Site B shows large
rocks encrusted with dreissenid mussels, a substrate not effectively sampled by grab techniques. .
5 E fl U ] [ U E R
Figure 2-6. A video screen shot in Lake Huron where grab sampling collected no
dreissenid mussels. Dreissenid mussels are visible on the left-hand side of the image.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 29
-------
B
C
Figure 2-7. Video screen shots from sites in Lake Huron (A) and Lake Michigan (B & C)
where grab sampling collected no vegetation. Sites A & c shows patchy vegetation on sediment,
while Site B shows vegetation only on rock.
Figure 2-8. Video screen shots of a lake whitefish in Lake Huron (A) and a
freshwater drum in Lake Ontario (B).
Conclusion
Grab and video sampling have unique strengths and weaknesses as sampling
techniques; when paired together, they are complementary and appear to provide a
more complete benthic data set that can be used for purposes beyond the NCCA
analysis.The "landscape" perspective provided by video sampling creates a useful visual
archive. In fact, having images from the same area over time could be a new way for
researchers to document change in coastal resources.
Page 30
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
CHAPTER 3.
NATIONAL COASTAL CONDITION
This chapter examines national findings for each index and for each of the components that
make up the water quality and sediment quality indices. It includes information on national
change in coastal conditions based on a comparison of three time periods (1999-2001, 2005-
2006, and 2010). All results from the NCCA 2010 cannot be compared directly to results
reported in earlier NCCRs because of changes in methods and indicators between coastal
surveys. Analyses of change in coastal conditions are presented only when indicators and
target populations are comparable across the three time periods. This chapter also includes
highlights on interpreting coastal condition graphics; on the findings of an EPA Great Lakes
human health fish tissue study; and on Gulf of Mexico offshore surveys conducted by NOAA.
Summary of National Findings
For the NCCA 2010, findings for the four indices of condition (as shown in Figure 3-1) are as
follows:
• 56% of the nation's coastal waters are rated good for biological condition based on the
benthic index;
• 36% of coastal waters are rated good for the water quality index;
• The sediment quality index is rated good in 55% of coastal waters; and
• Less than 1% of coastal waters are rated good based on ecologically relevant levels of
fish tissue contamination (i.e., based on potential harm to other fish and wildlife that
consume the fish).
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 31
-------
Highlight: Interpreting Coastal Condition Graphics
This highlight provides the reader with information on understanding and interpreting the
primary graphics in this report.
*-T,
/ Areas
( represented
\ in graph
V^ (inblua)
Area (ml1)
Percent of coastal
area in each of the
condition categories
1 ' 1
Percent value represented by the bar
6.490
5.311
12875
16927
5.066
Confidence Interval-displays
level of certainty or confidence
in the estimate
214
9.327
17.331
8.521
«> 60
Percent of Area
Coastal area in
square miles, for
each condition
category
Condition categories are indicated by colors
Green = Good Condition
Yellow = Fair Condition
Red = Poor Condition
Gray
= Missing (area that could not be assessed)
What is a Confidence Interval?
Results generated by any sampling effort are estimates of the true condition. Surveys such
as the NCCA are designed to quantify the uncertainty in the estimates. Uncertainty is
reported as a confidence interval. For example, the national water quality findings in 2010
indicate that 36 ± 4% of the nation's coastal area is in good condition, meaning that we are
95% certain that the true value is between 32% and 40%. The confidence interval is
displayed by thin "error bars" on the graphics throughout this report.
Missing Data?
Gray bars in many of the summary graphics in this report represent sites that were visited
but could not be assessed for some indicators. Reasons for the missing data include natural
conditions (e.g., powerful ocean currents and the prevalence of rocky or hard substrates that
prevent collection of sediment); the inability to collect target fish or benthic invertebrate
species; and laboratory analytical concerns. In some regions, a large percentage of waters
are unassessed for certain indicators, which could affect the reliability of results. The areas in
good, fair, and poor condition are distributed in unknown proportions within the unassessed
areas. See Chapter 5 for a discussion of how EPA is working with its partners to address the
issue of missing data in future surveys.
Page 32
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
National Condition
Area (mi2)
Biological Quality
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Ecological Fish
Tissue Quality
20
Good
40 60
Percent of Area
Fair ^^H Poor
80
Missing
100
Figure 3-1. Condition of the nation's coastal waters for each of the four NCCA indices (U.S.
EPA/NCCA 2010).
Fish tissue contamination findings are based on ecological guidelines designed to evaluate the
potential harm that contaminant concentrations in fish tissue pose to predator fish and wildlife.
Human health risks due to fish consumption are not evaluated nationally in this report. EPA has
implemented a supplemental study in the Great Lakes looking at mercury, PCBs, and other
compounds in fish tissue fillets to identify concentrations above those established in human
health criteria for the edible portion offish. This information is presented later in this chapter
(see "Highlight: Great Lakes Human Health Fish Tissue Study.")
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 33
-------
National Coastal Condition Indicators
Benthic Index
Invertebrates such as crustaceans, clams, and worms that live in and on the bottom
(i.e., benthic) substrates of coastal estuaries and the Great Lakes are useful indicators of
condition. Many of these benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to stresses caused by
chemical contamination, fluctuating or low dissolved oxygen levels, changes in salinity and
water clarity, and sediment disturbance. Other macroinvertebrates are more tolerant of pollution
stresses. Benthic indices used in the NCCA 2010 vary by region because of differences in
prevailing temperatures, salinities, and the silt-clay content of sediments. The benthic indices
used in this assessment are generally based on multi-metric indices—that is, they incorporate a
variety of individual measures (metrics) such as taxa composition, diversity, richness,
abundance, and pollution tolerance. Exceptions occur in the West and the Great Lakes, where
regional multi-metric benthic indices have not yet been developed (see Chapter 2 for a
discussion of benthic indices).
The NCCA 2010 finds that 56% (19,932 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes waters are
rated good for the benthic index; 10% (3,670 square miles) are rated fair; and 18% (6,490
square miles) are rated poor (Figure 3-2). Another 15% of the waters (5,311 square miles) could
not be assessed because of missing or incomplete data. The rating of poor applies when
benthic communities have lower-than-expected diversity, are populated by more
pollution-tolerant species than expected, or contain fewer pollution-sensitive species than
expected, as measured by regional multi-metric benthic indices.
Marina at Smith Island, Maryland. (Photo courtesy of Eric Vance)
Page 34
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
National Biological Quality
Good
Fair
Poor
i 56.3%
10.4%
18.3%
Missing -
I--M5%
19,932
3,670
6,490
5,311
40 60
Percent of Area
80
100
Figure 3-2. Biological quality of the nation's coastal waters based on the benthic index (U.S.
EPA/NCCA 2010).
Water Quality Index
The water quality index is rated good in 36% (12,874 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes
waters; fair in 48% (16,927 square miles); and poor in 14% (5,086 square miles) (Figure 3-3). In
coastal estuaries, the water quality index is determined based on measurements of five
component indicators: nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll a, water clarity, and dissolved oxygen
(discussed below). Nitrogen was measured but not included in the index for the Great Lakes.
This accounts for the amount of missing data for nitrogen nationally.
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary and natural nutrients required for the growth of algae,
which is the base of the food web in coastal waters. However, excessive levels of these
nutrients from sources such as sewage and fertilizers can result in accelerated eutrophication, a
process characterized by large, undesirable algal blooms, increased chlorophyll a
concentrations, reduced water clarity, and lower concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Nitrogen is
not assessed in the Great Lakes because it historically has not been considered to be a
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 35
-------
controlling nutrient in freshwater environments and because currently there are no established
nitrogen assessment thresholds for the Great Lakes. Future reports may include nitrogen
assessments for this region.
The NCCA 2010 shows that phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 40%
(14,233 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes waters; at moderate levels (rated fair) in 38%
(13,315 square miles); and at high levels (rated poor) in 21% (7,393 square miles).
Nitrogen is found at low levels (rated good) in 69% (24,398 square miles) of the nation's coastal
waters; at moderate levels (rated fair) in 7% (2,442 square miles); and at high levels (rated
poor) in 4% (1,426 square miles). Nitrogen data are missing for 20% of coastal waters (primarily
because nitrogen data were collected but not assessed in the Great Lakes).
National Water Quality
Area (mi )
Water Quality Index
Phosphorus
Nitro§en •-
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Clarity
Chlorophyll a
20
Good
40 60
Percent of Area
Fair ^H Poor
80
Missing
100
Figure 3-3. Coastal water quality based on the water quality index (U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010).
Note: Nitrogen was measured but not evaluated as part of the water quality index in the Great Lakes. This accounts
for the large percentage of missing results for nitrogen at the national scale.
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen is essential for all aquatic life. Low concentrations (less than 2 mg/L) can lead
to hypoxia, which is detrimental to most organisms. Oxygen levels can change rapidly in
response to physical and biological processes (e.g., temperature changes, wind and wave
Page 36
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
action, and photosynthesis and respiration). Levels may also change more gradually in
response to large algal blooms that sink to the bottom, where bacteria use oxygen as they
degrade the algal mass. Hypoxia can also result from stratification due to strong freshwater river
discharge on the surface, which overrides the heavier, saltier bottom water of a coastal
waterbody. This assessment incorporates dissolved oxygen measurements from the bottom of
the water column to develop water quality index ratings.
Overall, 73% (25,866 square miles) of coastal area is rated good, with high dissolved oxygen
concentrations; 16% (5,722 square miles) is rated fair, with moderate dissolved oxygen levels;
and only 5% (1,781 square miles) is rated poor, with low dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e.,
hypoxic conditions may be present) (Figure 3-3). Data on dissolved oxygen levels are missing
or incomplete for 6% (2,035 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes waters.
Interpretation of Instantaneous Dissolved Oxygen Information
The NCCA 2010 results suggest that low dissolved oxygen concentrations are not a
pervasive problem nationwide. In interpreting these results, it is important to keep in mind
that the NCCA is not designed to detect and track the magnitude and duration of low
dissolved oxygen events (hypoxia) at particular sites over time. Rather, the NCCA estimates
the condition of the nation's near coastal waters as a whole using a wide range of
parameters, including dissolved oxygen concentrations. The duration, frequency, and
location of coastal hypoxic episodes can vary widely.
Other investigations with different objectives have focused on tracking long-term trends in the
frequency and areal extent of low oxygen events in targeted coastal areas, which may or may
not overlap the areas assessed for the NCCA. For example, extensive year-round or
seasonal monitoring over multiple years in the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake Bay
documents widespread and recurring hypoxia in these systems. These hypoxic zones
threaten valuable commercial and recreational fisheries and the overall health of these
waters. The NCCA 2010 does not cover any part of the 2010 Gulf hypoxic zone. For more
information on the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone, see http://www.epa.gov/ms-htf.
Water Clarity
Clear water is important for sunlight to reach and support submerged aquatic vegetation; this
vegetation, in turn, provides essential habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms and helps
oxygenate the water. Water clarity is affected by physical factors such as wind, which suspends
sediments and particulate matter in the water; by chemical factors that influence the amount of
colored dissolved organic matter; and by biological factors such as algae levels in the water.
Naturally turbid waters can support healthy and productive ecosystems by supplying sediment
for coastal wetlands and food and protection to resident organisms. However, excessively turbid
waters can be harmful to coastal ecosystems if sediment loads bury benthic communities,
adversely affect filter feeders such as clams, or block sunlight needed by submerged aquatic
vegetation.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 37
-------
Water clarity is rated good in 62% (21,850 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes waters; fair
in 16% (5,811 square miles); and poor in another 16% (5,676 square miles) (Figure 3-3). In 6%
of coastal waters (2,067 square miles), data on water clarity from the NCCA 2010 are missing or
incomplete.
Chlorophyll a
Chlorophyll a is a photosynthesizing green pigment in plants and algae. The concentration of
chlorophyll a in water indicates the amount of microscopic algae (i.e., phytoplankton) growing in
a waterbody. High concentrations, often caused by excess nutrients, can indicate the
overproduction of algae (algal blooms).
As noted in Figure 3-3, 40% of coastal area (14,098 square miles) is rated good, with low
chlorophyll a concentrations; 46% (16,111 square miles) is rated fair, with moderate
chlorophyll a concentration; and 12% (4,401 square miles) of coastal area is rated poor, with
high chlorophyll a concentrations.
Sediment Quality Index
Overall, 55% (19,591 square miles) of coastal and Great Lakes area has good sediment quality
based on the sediment quality index; 21% (7,302 square miles) has fair quality; and 13% (4,714
square miles) has poor sediment quality (Figure 3-4). Data are missing or incomplete in another
11% of waters (3,795 square miles). The sediment quality index is based on two component
indicators: sediment contaminants and sediment toxicity.
Sediment Contaminants
Environmentally persistent contaminants from urban, industrial, and agricultural sources from
inland, upstream, and coastal areas can settle in coastal sediments. These contaminants
include a wide variety of toxic chemicals, such as metals, pesticides, and PAHs. When
contaminants accumulate in the tissues of organisms such as clams and crabs that live in or on
sediments, they pose a risk to fish and other animals—including humans—who consume them.
Overall, 79% (27,859 square miles) of coastal area is rated good based on low levels of
sediment contamination. Moderate concentrations are observed in 11% (3,700 square miles) of
coastal area, which is rated fair. High concentrations are observed in less than 1% (49 square
miles) of coastal area, which is rated poor. In 11% of coastal waters (3,795 square miles),
sediment contaminant data are incomplete or missing (Figure 3-4).
Sediment Toxicity
To determine the aggregate impacts of multiple contaminants accumulating over time in coastal
bottom sediments, researchers looked at sediment toxicity by measuring the survival of
shrimp-like crustaceans (known as amphipods) exposed to sediments that were collected at
NCCA sites. The amphipods were exposed to the sediments for ten days under laboratory
conditions to determine their rate of survival and provide important information on sediment
Page 38 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
toxicity. Overall, 57% (20,111 miles) of coastal area is rated good for sediment toxicity; 13%
(4,689 square miles) is rated fair; and 13% (4,698 square miles) is rated poor (Figure 3-4). In
17% of coastal waters (5,905 square miles), sediment toxicity data are incomplete or missing.
National Sediment Quality
Area (mi )
Sediment Quality Index
Sediment Contaminants
Sediment Toxicity
•
~
•
_t
h
0.1%
-
I-JH55.3%
H""1 20.6%
pl3.3%
H 10.7%
\-\-\ 78.7%
H 10.5%
H 10.7%
\-\-\ 56.8%
•
HH13.2%
1-113.3%
fl-116.7%
)
El
19,591
7,302
4,714
3,795
27,859
3,700
49
3,795
20,111
4,689
4,698
5,905
20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Area
ID Good i i Fair ^H Poor i i Missing
Figure 3-4. Sediment quality in the nation's coastal waters based on the sediment quality
index (U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010).
Ecological Fish Tissue Contaminant Index
When contaminants such as arsenic, mercury, selenium, DDT and PCBs enter an organism,
they tend to remain in its tissues and may build up over time. Such build-up, known as
bioaccumulation, poses a health risk to predators who consume the contaminated organisms.
For the NCCA 2010, whole-body fish samples are used to determine contaminant levels. Fish
tissue contamination findings are based on ecological guidelines designed to evaluate whether
concentrations of contaminants in fish tissue pose a potential to harm predator fish and fish-
eating wildlife. With the exception of a supplemental study in the Great Lakes, human health
risks have not been not evaluated for the NCCA 2010 (see the highlight: "Great Lakes Human
Health Fish Tissue Study").
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 39
-------
Based on the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, less than 1% (214 square miles) of
coastal area is rated good; 26% (9,327 square miles) is rated fair; and 49% (17,331 square
miles) is rated poor, where fish tissue demonstrated contaminant exceedances of the LOAEL. In
24% (8,521 square miles) of coastal area, fish tissue contaminants cannot be assessed
because data are missing (Figure 3-5). Sites in poor and fair condition are dominated by tissue
samples exhibiting elevated concentrations of selenium.
National Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Good
Fair •
Poor
Missing
49%
Area (mi )
214
9,327
17,331
8.521
40 60
Percent of Area
80
100
Figure 3-5. Ecological fish tissue quality for the nation's coastal waters based on the
ecological fish tissue contaminant index (U.S. EPA/NCCA 2010).
The poor tissue quality conditions in 2010 reflect the use of ecologically-oriented threshold
values for whole fish. (See the NCCA 2010 Technical Report for more detail.) These results
provide one measure of the potential harm to birds, fish, and other wildlife from the consumption
of contaminated fish. Using three receptor groups to help estimate conditions associated with
fish tissue is particularly important because only a limited number of wildlife-related threshold
values are available. Because wildlife consume the whole fish, whole-body fish samples, rather
than fillets, are used to determine contaminant levels. Figure 3-6 shows the distribution of
LOAEL exceedances for each of the three receptor groups based on the thresholds in Table 2-
10. Almost 75% of coastal area shows at least one contaminant level in fish that could harm
birds that consume them.
Page 40
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level
Exceedances by Receptor Group
Mammal
Avian
Fish
Figure 3-6. Percent of assessed area of the nation's coastal waters in which at least one fish
tissue contaminant exceeds upper threshold levels in at least one receptor group. Twenty-
four percent of waters have missing ecological fish tissue contaminant data and are
unassessed.
Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level Exceedances
Selenium
Mercury
Arsenic
Total PCBs t^
Hexachlorobenzene
Total DDTs |<
0
20 40 60
Percent of Assessed Area
80
100
Figure 3-7. Percent of assessed area of the nation's coastal waters that exceed LOAEL levels
for each of six measured fish tissue contaminants. Twenty-four percent of coastal waters
have missing ecological fish tissue contaminant data and are unassessed.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 41
-------
Selenium is the most widespread contaminant exceeding the fish tissue contaminant thresholds
for predators. While selenium occurs naturally and is nutritionally valuable, too much selenium
can be toxic. Current literature suggests that more research is needed to clarify the differences
between beneficial and harmful concentrations of selenium. Figure 3-7 identifies the
contaminants that most frequently exceed the LOAEL threshold and are therefore most
responsible for the fair and poor ratings for the ecological fish tissue contaminant index.
A Word about Selenium
Selenium (Se) is a naturally occurring element. It is found globally in
petroleum source rocks and organic-rich marine sedimentary rocks such
as black shales. In limited amounts, selenium is important for nutritional
health in wildlife. However, too much selenium adversely affects
reproductive success and, overtime, biodiversity—from fish and
amphibians to birds and mammals. Certain chemical forms of selenium
are considered more bioaccumulative and toxic than others. The scientific
community suggests that human activities may be increasing the amount
of selenium that is bioavailable in the environment.
Page 42
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
HIGHLIGHT: The Great Lakes Human Health Fish Tissue Study
Studying Chemicals in Great Lakes Fish to Protect Human Health
As part of the NCCA 2010, EPA has conducted the first human health-related study to
provide statistically based data on toxic chemicals in Great Lakes fish. For this Great
Lakes Human Health Fish Tissue Study, EPA collected samples offish commonly
consumed by humans at 157 of the statistically representative 225 Great Lakes
nearshore sampling locations (about 30 fish samples per lake) and analyzed the fillet
(muscle) tissue for toxic chemicals. EPA analyzed the tissue samples for total mercury,
all 209 congeners of PCBs, 52 PBDE congeners, and 13 PFCs. The results identify
which chemicals pose greater risks to people who eat Great Lakes fish. The following
section briefly describes the contaminants examined and associated human health risk
concerns.
The Targeted Contaminants
PCBs
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) bioaccumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms,
and people can be exposed to potentially harmful levels of PCBs through fish
consumption. Animal studies have established that PCBs cause cancer. Based on those
findings and additional evidence from human studies, EPA classifies PCBs as probable
human carcinogens. Other potential health effects include suppression of the immune
system, reproductive effects (e.g., lower birth weight and reduced periods for fetus
development), thyroid-function impacts, and effects on nervous system development
related to short-term memory and learning.
Mercury
People are exposed to methylmercury primarily by eating fish and shellfish. Monitoring
mercury levels in fish is critical because about 80% of all fish consumption advisories in
the United States involve mercury. Fetuses and young children can be exposed to
harmful amounts of methylmercury when pregnant women and nursing mothers eat fish
with elevated mercury concentrations. These exposures can lead to impairments in
neurological development that may impact cognitive and fine motor skills. Exposure to
unsafe levels of methylmercury can also affect adult health, leading to cardiovascular
disease, loss of coordination, muscle weakness, and impairment of speech and hearing.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 43
-------
PBDEs
A number of studies conducted since 2000 confirm that polybrominated diphenyl ethers
(PBDEs), often referred to as brominated flame retardants, biomagnify (increase in
concentration from one level in a food chain to another) in aquatic environments and
accumulate in fish. In 2003, EPA began testing fish for the presence of PBDEs because
they are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemicals with widespread distribution in the
environment. Potential human health impacts include endocrine disruption (e.g., thyroid
function effects) and neurodevelopmental toxicity.
PFCs
Perflourinated compounds (PFCs) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in the
manufacture of a wide variety of commercial products, including non-stick cookware,
food packaging, waterproof clothing, and stain-resistant carpeting. They have emerged
as contaminants of concern due to their toxicity, global distribution, and persistence in
the environment. Studies have shown that a majority of people living in industrialized
nations have detectable concentrations of a number of PFCs in their blood serum.
Higher concentrations of PFCs in human blood have been linked to potential health
effects, such as decreased sperm count, low birth weight, and thyroid disease. Recent
studies estimate that PFC contamination in food may account for more than 90% of
human exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), and they indicate that fish from contaminated waters may be the primary source
of exposure to PFOS.
Results
Results from this Great Lakes study show that all 157 fish fillet samples contained
detectable levels of mercury, PCBs, PBDEs and PFCs. PCBs and mercury occur most
frequently in these samples at levels exceeding human health thresholds for fish
consumption. Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present a summary of the analytical and statistical
results.
Of note, nearly 99% of the Great Lakes nearshore area sampled (or 4,227 square miles)
exceed the 12 ppb human health screening value for PCBs (Table 3-2). There are
currently fish consumption advisories in all of the Great Lakes because of the presence
of toxic contaminants in fish. States, tribes, and the province of Ontario have extensive
fish contaminant monitoring programs and issue advice to their residents on which fish
are safe to eat and how much of each identified variety can be safely consumed.
Page 44 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Table 3-1. Summary of detections and contaminant concentrations in 157 Great
Lakes fish fillet samples (EPA GLHHFT Study).
Number of Minimum Median Maximum
Detections Concentration3 Concentration15 Concentration3
(ppb) (ppb) (ppb)
Mercury (Total)
157
157
23
179
139
2,379
956
PBDEs (Summed)
157
157
<1
13
15
227
80
3 Observed data (minimum and maximum concentrations) measured in 157 Great lakes fish fillet samples.
b Statistical estimates of the median fish fillet concentrations for the nearshore Great lakes sampled population
of 4,282 square miles.
Table 3-2. Human health screening value exceedances for contaminants in Great
Lakes fish (EPA GLHHFT Study).
Human Health Screening Value
(SV)
Percentage
Total of Sampled
Sampled Population
Population Exceeding
theSV
Nearshore
Area of
Sampled
Population
Exceeding
theSV
12 ppb EPA cancer health threshold
60 ppb Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Task Force non-cancer
threshold
300 ppb EPA tissue-based water
quality criterion for methylmercury
110 ppb Great Lakes Sport Fish
Advisory Task Force non-cancer
threshold
210 ppb California Environmental
Protection Agency non-cancer
threshold
40 ppb Minnesota Department of
Health Fish Consumption Advisory
Program non-cancer threshold
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 45
-------
Changes in Coastal Condition
Among the long-term goals of the NARS is detecting trends over time in the condition of U.S.
waters and in the stressors that affect them. This information can help policymakers evaluate
the effectiveness of national and regional programs and policies, and can allow them to
determine whether different approaches are needed to meet water quality goals.
For the NCCA 2010, analysts evaluate change in U.S. coastal condition using a comparable
subset of data from each of three periods: 1999-2001, 2005-2006, and 2010. This change
analysis looks at the Northeast, Southeast, Gulf, and West Coast regions. The Great Lakes are
not included in the analysis because they were not surveyed using NARS protocols prior to
2010. Some coastal areas are excluded from the change analysis because they were not
included in the sample frame in all three time periods. Change results for the nation are
presented here, and change results for the different regions are presented in Chapter 4.
The analysis of change in condition includes findings for the water quality index, sediment
quality index, and benthic index. Analysts could not calculate the ecological fish tissue
contaminant index comparably in all three time periods because of differences in fish collection
and analysis. Results are presented using bar charts showing the percent area in good
condition for each time period (Figures 3-8 and 3-9), and in tables showing percent changes in
good, fair, and poor conditions (Tables 3-3 and 3-4). Statistically significant changes are
highlighted with an asterisk.
While index results (especially for sediment and benthos) in this report might appear
contradictory, they do not necessarily respond to stressors in the same manner. The indices
also do not reflect all stressors that may impact coastal waters. As additional data are collected
and analyzed for the NCCA 2015, clearer patterns may emerge.
Preparing to lower a grab sampler to the ocean floor.
(Photo courtesy of Treda Grayson)
Page 46
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Changes in Water Quality
The percent area rated good for the overall water quality index decreases significantly from
1999-2001 (42% rated good) to 2005-2006 (30% rated good). There is no significant change
from 2005-2006 to 2010 (Figure 3-8). For the components of the water quality index, there is no
clear improvement or degradation (Figure 3-8 and Table 3-3). For example, between 1999-
2001 and 2005-2006, phosphorus and dissolved oxygen show a statistically significant decline
in area rated good, but they do not continue that decline in 2010. Nitrogen and water clarity
show no significant change from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006, but both show an increase in area
rated good in 2010.
Change in National Water Quality
Water Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Figure 3-8. Comparison of the percent area rated good for national water quality indicators
over three periods. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change from the previous period. Change
analysis does not include the Great Lakes.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 47
-------
Table 3-3. Change in national condition status for water quality indicators.
Indicator
Water
Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Status
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
2005-2006 to
2010
42
40
10
7
50
30
12
8
77
10
5
8
74
18
2
7
59
11
16
14
44
40
7
30
51
11
34
39
14
12
78
29
56
13
29
44
25
2
85
• :
66
22
6
5
57
16
18
8
44
42
7
71
21
3
4
66
14
13
6
32
55
10
-12.0*
+10.4*
+1.3
+0.3
-15.4*
+9.0*
+1.9
+4.5*
+0.7
-3.9*
-2.7*
+5.9*
-7.5*
+4.9*
+4.2*
-1.5
-1.7
+5.4*
+2.3
-6.0*
-0.2
+2.8
0.0
-2.7*
-1.5
+5.6
+1.5
-5.6*
-5.1
+4.9
+11.0*
-10.8*
+6.6*
+2.8
+2.6*
-12.0*
+5.2
-1.2
-3.3*
-0.8
+8.5*
-1.9
-4.8*
-1.8
-11.5*
+12.2*
+3.0
-3.7*
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically significant change from the previous period. Change analysis does not include the Great Lakes.
Page 48
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Changes in Sediment Quality
In the period from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006, the percent area rated good for the sediment
quality index increases from 69% to 78%, a statistically significant change. At the same time,
the percent area rated good for the sediment contaminants indicator also increases significantly.
However, from 2005-2006 to 2010, the percent area rated good for the sediment quality index
decreases significantly from 78% to 56%; the area rated good for sediment contaminants
decreases from 89% to 83%; and the area rated good for sediment toxicity decreases from 72%
to 55% (Figure 3-9 and Table 3-4). Review of the regional results shows that the national
changes from 2005-2006 to 2010 are shaped by changes in the Gulf Coast and, to a lesser
extent, the West Coast.
Change in National Sediment and Biological Quality
Sediment
Quality Index
100
o
o
90 -
80
•5 70
0)
« 60
Of
3 50
< 40
§ 30
S. 20
10
,>
-------
Changes in Biological Quality
For the benthic index, the area of waters rated good shows no significant change between
1999-2001 and 2005-2006, followed by a statistically significant increase from 50% to 67% in
waters rated good from 2005-2006 to 2010 (Figure 3-9 and Table 3-4). More benthic data are
missing from the 2005-2006 period than from either of the two other periods. A portion of the
observed change may be associated with the differences in missing data between the periods.
Table 3-4. Change in national condition status for sediment quality and biological quality.
Indicator
Sediment
Quality
Index
Status
% Area
1999-
2001
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
% Area %
2005- Area
2006 2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to 2005-
2006
2005-2006 to 2010
Missing 11
24
+13.5*
-17.9*
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically significant change from the previous period. Change analysis does not include the Great Lakes.
Page 50
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
HIGHLIGHT: NCAA Gulf of Mexico Offshore Surveys
Between 2007 and 2011, NOAA conducted surveys to assess the ecological condition of
the coastal-ocean (shelf) waters of the northwestern (NW), northeastern (NE), and
southeastern (SE) Gulf of Mexico (GOM). The study area encompassed a total of 89,280
square miles, with each of the regions (NW, NE, SE) covering 29,180 square miles,
27,050 square miles, and 33,050 square miles, respectively. These surveys, extending
beyond the NCCA nearshore design, provide additional information to describe ocean
condition further offshore.
NOAA's offshore surveys incorporated a probabilistic sampling design similar to the
NCCA and included stations distributed randomly throughout each of the three Gulf
regions (Figure 3-10). They also included similar measures of water quality, sediment
quality, benthic condition, and fish-tissue contamination. Along with NCCA data, these
measures can be used to provide a framework for evaluating future changes due to
natural or human-induced disturbances. The following is a general description of results
for selected parameters. More-detailed reports on results of these individual Gulf
offshore assessments are provided in the references at the end of this report.
100m
Survey
NW Shelf (2011)
NE Shelf (2010)
SE Shelf (2007)
50 100 150 200
Nautical Miles
Figure 3-10. Map of sampled station locations in the NW, NE, and SE shelf portions of
the Gulf.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 51
-------
Water Quality
Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus
The average concentration of nitrogen (DIN: nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) in Gulf
offshore surface waters ranges from 0.005 mg/L in SE shelf waters to 0.026 mg/L in the
NW shelf waters (Figure 3-11). Water-quality assessment thresholds for nitrogen have
not been established for ocean waters; however, using NCCA thresholds for estuaries
for comparison, 100% of the GOM shelf survey area would be rated good for surface-
water nitrogen and none of the area would be rated poor. Bottom water levels of nitrogen
tend to be higher, exceeding surface water concentrations by roughly a factor of two. By
comparison, surface levels of nitrogen in the offshore Gulf waters are about 1.8-8 times
lower than those measured in offshore shelf waters in the South Atlantic Bight (Cooksey
et al., 2010) and the Mid Atlantic Bight (Balthis et al., 2009).
Average phosphorus (DIP: orthophosphate) concentrations in surface waters vary
between 0.002 mg/L and 0.004 mg/L (see Figure 3-11). As with nitrogen, there are no
available water-quality assessment thresholds for rating phosphorus in coastal-ocean
waters. However, using NCCA estuarine thresholds for comparison, more than 90% of
the survey area would be rated good (SE Shelf = 91%, NE Shelf = 98%, NW Shelf =
94%), and the remaining area would be rated fair. As a further comparison, phosphorus
concentrations in offshore surface waters of the South Atlantic Bight (Cooksey et al.,
2010) and Mid Atlantic Bight (Balthis et al., 2009) are an order of magnitude higher.
NW Shelf •{_
NE Shelf £
SE Shelf ~
_' '
All Regions
0,01 0.02
DIM (mg.'L)
0.03
NW Shelf
NE Shelf
SE Shelf "
All Regions
0.000 0.002 0.004
DIP (mg/L)
0-006
NW Shelf
NE Shelf
SE Shelf
All Regions
Figure 3-11. Mean concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll a in Gulf
surface waters (NOAA).
Page 52
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Additionally, nitrogen/phosphorus ratios were calculated as an indicator of which nutrient
may be controlling primary production. A ratio above 16 indicates that phosphorus is the
limiting nutrient, whereas a ratio below 16 is indicative of nitrogen limitation (Geider and
La Roche, 2002). Average nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratios for offshore surface waters
range from 2.3-7.3, with calculated ratios at all stations throughout the three survey
areas indicating a nitrogen-limited environment (i.e., there is proportionally less nitrogen
than phosphorus).
Chlorophyll a
Concentrations of chlorophyll a in surface waters of the SE Shelf, NE Shelf, and NW
Shelf average 0.19, 1.16, and 1.19 ug/L, respectively (Figure 3-11). As with nutrients,
there are no available water-quality assessment thresholds for rating chlorophyll a in
coastal-ocean waters. Overall, 97% of the combined survey area has chlorophyll a
concentrations below the NCCA threshold of 5 ug/L, which indicates good water quality
for estuaries. The average concentration Gulf-wide (0.8 ug/L) is about 2-4 times higher
than the concentrations observed in the offshore waters of the South Atlantic Bight and
Mid Atlantic Bight.
Dissolved Oxygen
Near-bottom concentrations of dissolved oxygen in offshore waters average 5.6 mg/L
overall, with 83% of the study area having dissolved oxygen in the good range (> 5
mg/L), 12% in the fair range (2-5 mg/L), and 5% in the hypoxic range (< 2 mg/L), which
is considered poor based on NCCA thresholds for bottom water dissolved oxygen in
estuaries. The highest proportion of low dissolved oxygen is observed in the NW Shelf
(Figure 3-12) in an area off the Louisiana coast known for experiencing annual hypoxia
from spring to early fall. For the NW Shelf region, 15% of the area is rated poor, 15%
fair, and 70% good. In NE Shelf waters, 2% of the area is rated poor, 22% fair, and 76%
good. Dissolved oxygen in the hypoxic to intermediate range in the NE Shelf is
concentrated mostly in an area slightly east of the Mississippi River delta, in the vicinity
of Chandeleur Sound and the Mississippi Bight, where there is also a documented
record of seasonal hypoxic events. Low dissolved oxygen is not a problem in SE Shelf
waters, where 99% of the area is rated good and the remaining 1% fair.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 53
-------
Figure 3-12. Dissolved oxygen data from the Gulf.
Note: Pie charts compare dissolved oxygen levels among regions using NCCA thresholds for rating categories.
Sediment Quality
Sediment Contaminants
Shelf sediments of the Gulf appear to be relatively uncontaminated. Based on the two
NCCA sediment chemistry measures, 99% of the offshore Gulf survey area is rated
good for the sediment contaminant indicator and 1% fair (Figure 3-13). None of these
offshore sampling sites have individual chemical contaminants in sediments above their
respective sediment quality guidelines.
• Good - (P^s. 5 0,5) AND (mERMq < 0.1)
o Fair = (0.5 < P,™ < 0.75) OR f0.1 <: mERMq £ 0.5)
• Poor = (P.-*, 2 0.75) OR (mEflMq > 0.5)
Figure 3-13. Sediment contaminant data from the Gulf.
Note: Pie charts compare contaminant levels among regions using NCCA thresholds for rating categories.
Page 54
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Benthic Condition
Benthic community characteristics (richness, density, and diversity) vary notably
between the eastern and western regions of the Gulf (Figure 3-14). The NE Shelf and
SE Shelf are similar to one another, but benthic community characteristics are all lower
for the NW Shelf. Polychaete worms are the dominant taxa, both by percent abundance
and percent taxa, followed by crustaceans.
NW Shelf
NE Shelf
SE Shelf
All Regions -
2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000
Density (#m?}
NW Shelf {
NE Shelf "
SE Shelf \
All Regions
_H
10 20 30 40 50 60
Richness (it laxa.'grab)
NW Shelf
NE Shelf -|
SE Shelf
All Regions -
2345
Diversity (H'/grab)
Figure 3-14. Species density, richness, and diversity data from the Gulf.
Although related benthic condition indices have been developed for Gulf estuaries and
near coastal waters, there is currently no such index available for coastal-ocean (shelf)
applications. Therefore, potential stressor impacts in these offshore waters were
assessed by looking for co-occurrences of reduced values of key biological attributes
and indicators of poor sediment or water quality, similar to the approach used for
assessing offshore condition in the NCCR IV. Low, moderate, and high values of benthic
attributes were defined as the lower 10th, 10th-to-50th, and upper 50th percentiles of
observed values, respectively. Evidence of poor sediment quality was defined using the
following metrics and thresholds: probability of sediment toxicity (Pmax) ^ 0.75, or mean
ERM quotient (Long et al., 1995) > 0.5, or total organic carbon > 5%. Evidence of poor
water quality was defined as dissolved oxygen in near-bottom water < 2.0 mg/L. Areal
percentages of non-degraded, intermediate/indeterminate, and degraded biological
condition were estimated using the combination of thresholds defined in Figure 3-15.
Using this approach, 84% of the Gulf offshore ocean survey area is rated non-degraded,
2% is degraded, and 14% is intermediate/indeterminate (Figure 3-15
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 55
-------
Biological Condition
r,irirel ;NDS - [ Density, rkfrnnss. and rivnfsily :- 5frn pell & An-/ WHfimrrrl pv*7i1cf qu^iry |
OR [ AH 3 bBfTlt-ir; measures ^= i «i pell tMl ml 5113 = SWi pctl I Good ssdlmern 5 walor q
o miemiedlste (I) - I All 3 tjenlf«c measu^s « icmpcllbuinolalij = 50* pell » ft)&'5«)imsnl
OR I Any 3 banihlc measures -• 10lh sell j Gocd asdiinam a «aier n
= [Ar-y 3 bfimhic measures < 10ir pctl & PCKX s&aiiriei'ii o
Figure 3-15. Estimated percent area of non-degraded, intermediate/indeterminate, and
degraded benthic condition based on various combinations of key biological attributes
and synoptically measured indicators of sediment and water quality.
Fish Tissue Contaminants
Analysis of chemical contaminants (metals, pesticides, PAHs, PCBs) in fish tissues was
performed on homogenized fillets (including skin) from 146 samples of 21 fish species.
Contaminant concentrations were compared to EPA's risk-based human-health advisory
values for recreational fishers using the same approach applied in the NCCR IV. Of the
74 stations where fish were caught, 24.3% are rated poor, 32.4% are rated fair, and
43.3% are rated good based on non-cancer health endpoints. The most prevalent
contaminant region-wide is methylmercury, which is found above advisory guidelines in
67 of the 146 fish measured. Only two other contaminants are found in excess of
guidelines: PCBs in one fish from the NW Shelf and one fish from the SE Shelf, and
inorganic arsenic in one fish from the SE Shelf. This approach is different from the
NCCA ecological assessment offish tissue contaminants presented elsewhere in this
report that focuses on potential harm to predatory fish and wildlife.
Summary
These NOAA Gulf survey results suggest that the majority of these offshore shelf waters (an
estimated 84% overall) are in good condition based on present sampling, with the notable
exception of impacts coinciding with the well-documented hypoxic "dead zone" in the
Mississippi River delta area. In an effort to be consistent with the underlying concepts and
protocols of earlier programs, the indicators used in these offshore assessments include
measures of stressors (e.g., chemical contaminants and symptoms of eutrophication), which
are often associated with adverse biological impacts in shallower estuarine and inland
ecosystems. However, there may be other sources of human-induced stress in these
coastal-ocean systems, particularly those causing physical disruption of the seafloor (e.g.,
commercial bottom trawling, oil pipeline and platform placements, and minerals extraction)
that may pose risks to living resources and that have not been captured adequately here.
Page 56
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
CHAPTER 4.
REGIONAL COASTAL CONDITION
This chapter presents results for the four indices and their component indicators for each of five
geographic regions of the United States: the Northeast Coast, the Southeast Coast, the Gulf
Coast, the West Coast, and the Great Lakes. Figures 4-1 through 4-4 show summary results for
each of the overall indices for all geographic regions. This illustrates the geographic variability in
coastal conditions across the nation.
This chapter has a separate section for each coastal region. Each section includes a brief
discussion of the geographic setting that defines the region, in order to help illustrate the variety
of conditions and stressors affecting the nation's diverse coastal resources. Results should not
be extrapolated to an individual state or waterbody within a geographic region (e.g., Tampa
Bay) because the NCCA 2010 was not intended or designed to characterize conditions at these
finer scales. This chapter also includes highlights on the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico; on a
condition assessment conducted by the state of Alaska in the Chukchi Sea, off Alaska's
northwest coast; and on a study of cyanobacteria in the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes.
Filtering and preserving a sample aboard the EPA Ocean Survey
Vessel Bold. (Photo courtesy of Eric Vance)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 57
-------
Biological Quality
Nationally, 56% of coastal waters are in good condition for the benthic index used to measure
biological quality. In estuarine regions, the proportion rated good varies from 61% to 77%
(Figure 4-1). Findings are less clear in the Great Lakes, where data are classified as missing for
half the nearshore waters due to the absence of suitable substrate or appropriate test
organisms. Chapter 2 and the NCCA 2010 Technical Report provide more detail on the benthic
indices applied to each biogeographic region.
west coast Benthic Index
Great Lakes
2.9%
5.3%
Northeast
'.5%
10.4%
I Good
Missing
Figure 4-1. Biological quality of the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the benthic
index (NCCA 2010).
Page 58
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Water Quality
Findings for the water quality index (which includes dissolved oxygen, water clarity, chlorophyll
a, and nutrients) show a wide range of results among the regions (Figure 4-2). Nationally, 36%
of coastal waters are in good condition for the water quality index. The proportion of waters in
good condition for water quality ranges from only 16% in the Gulf Coast to 60% or more in the
Great Lakes and the West Coast. Large proportions of waters—half or more—are rated fair in
the Gulf, Southeast, and Northeast coasts.
West Coast
8.3%
Water Quality Index
Great Lakes
0.1%
Northeast
0.6%
Gulf Coast
Good Fair Poor _\ Missing
Figure 4-2. Quality of the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the water quality
index (NCCA 2010).
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 59
-------
Sediment Quality
Findings for the sediment quality index (which includes indicators of sediment contaminants and
sediment toxicity) show that over half the waters are rated good in four of the five regions
(Figure 4-3). In the Gulf Coast and the West Coast, approximately one quarter of coastal waters
are rated poor for sediment quality. One fifth of the waters in the West Coast and about one
quarter of waters in the Great Lakes have no data for sediment quality. Data are missing due to
a combination of reasons, ranging from laboratory analytical concerns to field conditions that
make sediment sampling difficult.
Sediment Quality Index
Great Lakes
West Coast
Northeast
Figure 4-3. Sediment quality for the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on the
sediment quality index (NCCA 2010).
Page 60
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Nationally, 49% of coastal waters are in poor condition based on the ecological fish tissue
contaminant index. Regional findings for this index illustrate the widespread nature of
contamination—primarily by selenium and mercury—in fish nationwide. The proportion of
waters rated poor for the ecological fish tissue contaminant index ranges from 33% in the
Northeast to 69% in the Gulf Coast (Figure 4-4). Very few waters are rated good. In the West
Coast, Northeast Coast, and Great Lakes, data are missing for a large percentage of waters
because target fish were not caught. Coastal waters are rated here based on ecological risk-
based thresholds, not human health thresholds.
Ecological Fish Tissue Contaminant Index
West Coast
.4.9%
0.2%
Northeast
0.8%
I Good | | Fair
Missing
Figure 4-4. Ecological fish tissue quality for the nation's coastal waters, by region, based on
the ecological fish tissue contaminant index (NCCA 2010). The index reflects the risk of contaminant
exposure to fish and wildlife through fish consumption.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 61
-------
The Northeast Coast
Setting
The Northeast Coast refers to the coastal waters of Maine through Virginia, including the
Chesapeake Bay. A wide variety of coastal environments are found in the region, including
rocky coasts, drowned river valleys, estuaries, salt marshes, and city harbors, accounting for a
total of approximately 10,700 square miles. This coastline is divided into two biogeographical
provinces. The Acadian Province—lying north of Cape Cod, Massachusetts—features smaller
watersheds, rocky coasts, and open, well-flushed estuaries. Population density is concentrated
in a few urban areas along the coast, and modern-era industrialization is light. In contrast, the
Virginian Province—Cape Cod to the Chesapeake Bay—consists of larger watersheds that are
drained by riverine systems such as the Hudson, Delaware, and Susquehanna rivers that empty
into relatively shallow and poorly flushed estuaries. The estuaries of the Virginian Province are
very vulnerable to the pressures of a highly populated and industrialized coastal region.
Coastal activities account for an important share of the Northeast's economy. Commercial and
recreational fishing are key industries, particularly in the Chesapeake Bay and on Georges Bank
off the New England coast. Crop and livestock production are major components of the
mid-Atlantic coastal economy, but they can also be sources of negative environmental impacts
associated with the runoff of nutrients, pesticides, and eroded soil. The coastal estuaries
provide indispensable habitat for juvenile fish, shellfish, and wintering waterfowl, and they
function as buffers against coastal storms and sea level rise.
The Northeast Coast region is the most populous coastal region in the United States. In 2010,
the region was home to 54.2 million people, representing about a third of the nation's total
coastal population. The population in this area has increased by ten million residents since
1970, a rise of about 23%.
Summary of NCCA 2010 Findings
A total of 238 NCCA sites were sampled to assess approximately 10,700 square miles of
Northeast Coast waters. The assessment findings are shown in Figure 4-5.
Page 62 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Northeast
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Biological Quality
Benthic Index
^—161.9%
0.3%
27.3%
10.5%
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue
Contaminant Index
Sediment Quality Index
160.1%
20.2%
h
H 10.8%
Sedim
ent Conta
h
h
H8.E
0.2%
h
Hi
%
0.8%
s
I-
1
sdiment T
— \ 58.2%
(- H80.3°/c
20 40
60
80 100 0
Good
20 40 60 80
Percent of Area
100 0
60
80 100
Fair
Poor
Missing
Figure 4-5. NCCA findings for the Northeast Coast. Bars show the percentage of coastal area within a
condition class for a given indicator. Error bars represent 95% confidence levels. Note: The sum of percent of area for
each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Biological Quality
Biological quality is rated good in 62% of the Northeast Coast region based on the benthic
index. Poor biological conditions occur in 27% of the coastal area. About 11% of the region
reported missing results, due primarily to difficulties in collecting benthic samples along the
rocky Acadian coast.
Water Quality
Based on the water quality index, 44% of the Northeast Coast is in good condition, 49% is rated
fair, and 6% is rated poor. Fair ratings for phosphorus and chlorophyll a contribute most to the
fair water quality index scores for this region. The ratings of the component indicators are
included below:
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 63
-------
• Phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 35% of waters in the Northeast Coast,
at moderate levels (rated fair) in 55%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 10%.
• Nitrogen is found at low levels (rated good) in 86% of waters, at moderate levels (rated
fair) in 11 % of waters, and at high levels(rated poor) in 3% of Northeast Coast waters.
• For dissolved oxygen (DO) 73% of waters have high levels (rated good), 11% have
moderate levels (rated fair), and 8% have low levels (rated poor).
• Water clarity is rated good in 73% of waters in this region, fair in 15%, and poor in 10%.
• Chlorophyll a is found at low levels (rated good) in 44% of coastal area, at moderate
levels (rated fair) in 50%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 5%.
Sediment Quality
Based on the sediment quality index, in the Northeast Coast 60% of coastal area is in good
condition, 20% is in fair condition, and 9% is in poor condition. Missing results were reported in
11% of the region, primarily along the rocky Acadian coast where sediments could not be
collected. For sediment contaminants, 80% of Northeast Coast sediments are in good condition,
9% are in fair condition, and less than 1% are in poor condition. Results are missing in 11% of
the Northeast Coast region. Sediment toxicity tests indicate that 58% of coastal sediments are
rated in good condition, 16% are in fair condition, and 9% are in poor condition. Sediment
toxicity results are missing for 17% of coastal sediments in the area.
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Compared to ecological risk-based thresholds for fish tissue contamination, less than 1% of the
Northeast Coast is rated as good, 27% is rated fair, and 33% is rated poor. Researchers were
unable to evaluate fish tissue for 39% of the region, including almost the entire Acadian
Province, because target species were not caught for analysis. The distribution of good, fair,
and poor conditions is not known in the unassessed areas. The contaminants that most often
exceed the LOAEL (or poor) thresholds in the assessed areas of the Northeast Coast are
selenium, mercury, arsenic, and, in a small proportion of the area, total PCBs.
Change in Northeast Coastal Condition
Change in Water Quality
For the overall water quality index and two of its component indicators—dissolved oxygen and
water clarity—the Northeast Coast shows consistent increases over time in the amount of area
ranked in good condition. For chlorophyll a, nitrogen, and phosphorus, results are mixed over
the three time periods, though statistically significant increases in the percent area rated good
are evident in almost all indicators from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006 (Figure 4-6 and Table 4-1).
Page 64 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Change in Northeast Water Quality
Water Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
^ f
Figure 4-6. Comparison of the percent area rated good for water quality indicators over
three periods in the Northeast Coast. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between
periods.
Acadia National Park, Maine. (Photo courtesy of Hugh Sullivan)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 65
-------
Table 4-1. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Northeast Coast.
Indicator
Water
Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Status
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
% Area % Area % Area
1999-2001 2005-2006 2010
Change in % Area
22
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
2005-2006 to
2010
10
1
-11.6*
-9.6*
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically significant change between periods.
Page 66
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Change in Sediment and Biological Quality
The sediment quality index and benthic index display improvement from 1999-2001 to 2005-
2006, as indicated by large, statistically significant increases in the percentage area rated good.
From 2005-2006 to 2010, the percent area rated good declined for sediment quality and
showed no significant change for the benthic index. The overall sediment quality index is most
strongly influenced by the sediment toxicity indicator (Figure 4-7 and Table 4-2).
Change in Northeast Sediment and Biological Quality
100
-o 90
8 80
Sediment
Quality Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
I
60
-
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 4-7. Comparison of the percent area rated good for sediment and biological quality
over three periods in the Northeast Coast. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between
periods.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 67
-------
Table 4-2. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the Northeast
Coast.
Indicator
Status
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
Sediment
Quality
Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
2005-2006
to 2010
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically significant change between periods.
Page 68
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
The Southeast Coast
Setting
The Southeast Coast stretches from the Virginia-North Carolina border south to Biscayne Bay,
Florida. Southeast coastal waters are located within two biogeographical provinces: the
Carolinian Province and the West Indian Province. The Carolinian Province extends from the
Virginia-North Carolina border to the Indian River Lagoon in Florida. It reflects a warm,
temperate climate similar to the northern Gulf. The West Indian Province reaches from the Port
St. Lucie Inlet to Biscayne Bay, Florida, and represents a more subtropical environment.
Southeast estuarine resources are diverse and extensive, covering an estimated 4,500 square
miles. They feature a variety of habitats, including salt marshes, tidal rivers, coastal lagoons,
and open-water embayments and sounds. As one of the largest estuary systems in the United
States, the Albemarle-Pamlico estuary is a prominent feature in the southeastern coastline. The
scenic waters of the Indian River Lagoon stretch along 40% of the length of Florida's east coast.
The Southeast Coast provides a wealth of economic and ecosystem services that sustain local
economies and quality of life. These services include storm-surge and sea-level protection,
maritime transportation and trade, commercial and recreational fisheries, and tourism. In 2010,
over 15 million people called this area home. Between 1970 and 2010, the population in the
southeastern coastal counties increased by 127%, the greatest percent increase among the
coastal regions.
Summary of NCCA 2010 Findings
Eighty-seven sites were sampled to characterize the condition of waters in the Southeast Coast
region. The assessment findings are shown in Figure 4-8.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 69
-------
Southeast
Water Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Sediment Quality
Sediment Quality Index
I
1 I 4.3%
I 0.4%
H 30.1%
Sedin
lent Con
77.2% 1
1
0.1%
0.4%
|22.4%
c
ediment
80.8% I—
hH
IH 4.3%
H 1.8%
652%
taminant
I
Toxicity
H
20 40 60 80 100 0
20 40 60 80 100
20 40 60 80 100 0
Percent of Area
i Good i i Fair ^^f Poor i i Missing
Figure 4-8. NCCA 2010 survey results for the Southeast Coast. Bars show the percent of coastal
area within a condition category for specific indicators. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Note: The sum
of percent of area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Biological Quality
Biological quality is rated good in 77% of waters in the Southeast Coast region, based on the
benthic index. Fair biological conditions occur in 10% of the coastal area, while 12% of the area
is rated poor.
Water Quality
In the Southeast, 21% of the coastal area is in good condition based on the water quality index,
69% is in fair condition, and 9% is in poor condition. Ratings for chlorophyll a and phosphorus
contribute most to the region's fair and poor water quality scores. The ratings of the component
indicators are included below:
• Phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 41% of waters, moderate levels (rated
fair) in 48%, and high levels (rated poor) in 11%.
Page 70
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
• Nitrogen is found at low levels (rated good) in 96% of Southeast Coast waters, moderate
levels (rated fair) in 4%, and high levels (rated poor) in less than 1%.
• DO is found at high levels (rated good) in 67% of waters, moderate levels (rated fair) in
32%, and low levels (rated poor) in less than 1%.
• Water clarity is rated good in 63% of waters, fair in 16%, and poor in 16%. Water clarity
data are missing for 5% of waters.
• Chlorophyll a is found at low levels (rated good) in 22% of coastal area, at moderate
levels (rated fair) in 63%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 14%.
Sediment Quality
Based on the sediment quality index, 65% of the Southeast Coast region is rated good for
sediment conditions, 30% is rated fair, and 4% is rated poor. Sediment contaminant analyses
indicate that 77% of the area is in good condition, 22% is in fair condition, and less than 1% is in
poor condition for contaminants. Sediment toxicity findings indicate that 81%, 13%, and 4% of
Southeast coastal waters are in good, fair, and poor conditions, respectively.
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Based on the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, 57% of the coastal area in the Southeast
is rated poor and 36% is rated fair. None of the area is rated good. The contaminants that most
often exceed the LOAEL (or poor) thresholds are selenium, mercury, arsenic, and (in rare
instances) total DDTs.
Change in Southeast Coastal Condition
Change in Water Quality
Between 1999-2001 and 2005-2006, the area rated good based on the water quality index
declines significantly by 27% in the Southeast Coast (Figure 4-9 and Table 4-3). Dissolved
oxygen and water clarity seem to be primary drivers for this decrease in quality. Between 2005-
2006 and 2010, there is a modest increase in the percent area rated good based on the water
quality index. A significant rise in the percent area rated good for dissolved oxygen and water
clarity conditions and a small but significant change in nitrogen conditions contribute to the
improvement in 2010.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 71
-------
Change in Southeast Water Quality
Water Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Figure 4-9. Comparison of the percent area rated good for water quality indicators over
three periods in the Southeast Coast. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between
periods.
Enjoying a sunny day on the water. (Photo courtesy of Eric Vance)
Page 72
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Table 4-3. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Southeast Coast.
Indicator
Water
Quality
Index
Status
% Area
1999-
2001
% Area
2005-
2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
2005-2006
to 2010
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically signficant change between periods.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 73
-------
Change in Sediment and Biological Quality
There is a significant decrease of 27% in the area rated good for sediment quality between
2005-2006 and 2010. The sediment contaminants indicator appears to be the driver for this
change, while the sediment toxicity indicator shows an opposite result. For the benthic quality
index, there is a large, statistically significant increase of 14% in waters rated good between
2005-2006 and 2010 (Figure 4-10 and Table 4-4). While these results might appear
contradictory, the sediment and benthic indicators do not necessarily respond to stressors in the
same manner. As additional data are collected and analyzed for the NCCA 2015, clearer
patterns may emerge.
Change in Southeast Sediment and Biological Quality
Sediment
Quality Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
Figure 4-10. Comparison of the percent area rated good for sediment and biological quality
over three periods in the Southeast. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between
periods.
Page 74
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Table 4-4. Change in condition status for sediment quality and biological quality in the
Southeast Coast.
Indicator
Sediment
Quality
Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
Status
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
2005-2006
to 2010
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically signficant change between periods.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 75
-------
The Gulf Coast
Setting
The Gulf of Mexico coastal region comprises more than 750 estuaries, bays, and sub-estuary
systems associated with larger estuaries. The total area of these estuaries, bays, and
sub-estuaries is 11,300 square miles. The waters of the Gulf Coast are located in two
biogeographical provinces: the Louisianian Province and the West Indian Province. The
Louisianian Province extends from the Texas-Mexico border east to Anclote Key, Florida, and
is similar to warm-temperate latitudes on the southeastern U.S. Atlantic coast. The West Indian
Province portion extends from Tampa Bay to Florida Bay in Florida and is more representative
of subtropical latitudes.
Gulf Coast estuaries, bays, and wetlands provide critical feeding, spawning, and nursery habitat
for a rich assemblage of fish and wildlife, including essential habitat for commercially and
recreationally important fish, shrimp, and birds. The Gulf Coast is also home to a diverse array
of unique coastal ecosystems, including hypersaline lagoons, coral reefs, and mangrove forests.
More than half of the coastal wetlands in the conterminous United States occur along the Gulf
Coast, providing a wide range of ecosystem services, such as fishery support, storm-surge and
sea-level protection, water quality improvement, wildlife habitat provision, recreational
opportunities, and carbon sequestration.
The waters of the Gulf Coast region are essential to building local economies, providing
recreational experiences, and sustaining overall quality of life. In 2010, the Gulf Coast was
home to approximately 21 million people, representing 13% of the U.S. population residing in
coastal watershed counties and 37% of the total population in Gulf Coast states. Between 1970
and 2010, the population in coastal watershed counties more than doubled in the Gulf Coast
region, growing from 10 million to 21 million people.
Summary of NCCA 2010 Findings
A total of 240 NCCA sites were sampled during the summer of 2010 to characterize the
condition of waters in the Gulf Coast region. An overview of the findings is presented in Figure
4-11.
Page 76 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Gulf of Mexico
Water Quality
\
Biological Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Sediment Quality
-H4.4%
Sediment Contamina
92.6% h
|l 3%
0%
|-H 4.4%
1-
Sediment Toxici
—\ 46.2%
U-j 15%
40
60
80 0
Good
20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of Area
Fair ^H Poor I I Missing
Figure 4-11. NCCA findings for the Gulf Coast. Bars show the percentage of coastal area within a
condition class for a given indicator. Error bars represent 95% confidence levels. Note: The sum of percent of area for
each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Biological Quality
Biological quality is rated good in 61% of Gulf Coast waters, based on the benthic index. Fair
biological quality occurs in 20% of these waters, and poor biological quality occurs in 15%.
Water Quality
Based on the water quality index, 16% of Gulf Coast waters are in good condition, 58% are
rated fair, and 24% are rated poor. Phosphorus and chlorophyll a contribute most to the fair and
poor water quality index scores in this region. The ratings of the component indicators are
included below:
• Phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 19%, at medium levels (rated fair) in
35%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 44% of Gulf Coast waters.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 77
-------
• Nitrogen is found at low levels (rated good) for 81%, moderate levels (rated fair) in 8%,
and at high levels (rated poor) in 10%.
• DO is found at high levels (rated good) in 65%, moderate levels (rated fair) in 24%, and
low levels (rated poor) in 7%.
• Water clarity is good in 61% of Gulf Coast waters, fair in 16%, and poor in 16%. Data are
missing for 8%.
• Chlorophyll a is found at low levels (rated good) in 23% of coastal area, at moderate
levels (rated fair) in 56%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 17%.
Sediment Quality
Based on the sediment quality index, 54% of Gulf Coast waters are in good condition, 17% are
in fair condition, and 25% are in poor condition. For the Gulf Coast region, sediment
contaminant analyses indicate that 93% of coastal waters are in good condition, 3% are in fair
condition, and none are in poor condition. Sediment toxicity tests indicate that 46% of Gulf
Coast waters are in good condition, 15% are in fair condition, and 25% are in poor condition.
Sediment toxicity data are missing for 14% of Gulf Coast waters.
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Based on the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, 69% of the Gulf Coast area is in poor
condition, 26% is in fair condition, and 0% is in good condition. Of the total area, 6% has not
been assessed for fish tissue contaminants. The contaminants that most often exceed the
LOAEL (poor) thresholds in the Gulf Coast are selenium, mercury, and arsenic.
Change in Gulf Coastal Condition
Change in Water Quality
The Gulf Coast shows statistically significant decreases in the percent area rated good for the
water quality index across all three periods, from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006 (16%) and from
2005-2006 to 2010 (10%). Phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and (to a lesser extent) dissolved oxygen
contribute most to this change. Other components of the water quality index show mixed
change from one period to the next or change that is not statistically significant (Figure 4-12 and
Table 4-5).
Page 78 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Change in Gulf Water Quality
Water Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Dissolved
Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 i
20 4-1
10
0
i
Figure 4-12. Comparison of the percent area rated good for Gulf Coast water quality
indicators over three periods. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between periods.
The end of a sampling day in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo courtesy of The
Environmental Institute of Houston, University of Houston-Clear Lake)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 79
-------
Table 4-5. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the Gulf Coast.
Indicator
Status
% Area
1999-
2001
% Area
2005-
2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to 2005-2006 to
2005-2006 2010
Water
Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Dissolved Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically signficant change between periods.
Page 80
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Change in Sediment and Biological Quality
The percent area rated good for the Gulf Coast sediment quality index decreases consistently
over the three periods, with the 15% change from 2005-2006 to 2010 being statistically
significant. This change is primarily due to sediment toxicity, which shows a 25% decline in area
rated good during from 2005-2006 to 2010. For sediment contaminants, results show a different
pattern of change (a consistent increase in the area rated good), although this change is
statistically significant only between 1999-2001 and 2005-2006. Changes in the benthic index
over time are variable, primarily due to the change in the percent area with missing data (Figure
4-13 and Table 4-6).
Change in Gulf Sediment and Biological Quality
Sediment
Quality Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
O
o
(D
_
c
ro
a:
ro
ai
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 4-13. Comparison of the percent area rated good for Gulf Coast sediment quality and
benthic indicators over three periods. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between
periods.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 81
-------
Table 4-6. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the Gulf Coast.
Change in % Area
Sediment
Quality
Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Status
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
% Area
2010
1999-2001
to 2005-
2006
Benthic
Index
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks
statistically signficant change between periods.
2005-
2006 to
2010
Page 82
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
HIGHLIGHT: The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
Sediment Findings from the NCCA 2010
Background
On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) oil rig exploded in the Gulf. Eleven
people lost their lives. The rig was on fire for 36 hours before it sank, and the well
continued to leak for another 87 days, resulting in the largest marine oil spill in
U.S. history. Millions of barrels of oil leaked into the Gulf before the well was sealed. The
U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, EPA, and other federal, state, and local agencies immediately
responded and began remediation efforts in the open waters of the Gulf. However, oil,
oil-related compounds, and oil-dispersant mixtures accumulated along hundreds of miles
of coastline. Beaches, wetlands, bays, and estuaries from the Florida Panhandle to
western Louisiana were fouled by these contaminants.
In addition to oil spill response efforts, EPA and state partners conducted routine sample
collection in the Gulf during the summer of 2010 as part of the NCCA. (Not specifically
designed to address oil spill issues, the NCCA collects water, sediment, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish tissue samples to assess the condition of coasts in the
conterminous United States.) Earlier iterations of the survey used comparable methods
to collect samples from over 1,600 sites in the Gulf between 2000 and 2006. Sixty-five
percent of those historical sites were within the boundaries of the area impacted by the
DWH oil spill (from the Florida panhandle to western Louisiana). In 2010, 143 sites fell
within the "impact area." Comparable sampling methods and boundaries among survey
years allow post-DWH spill conditions in 2010 to be compared to earlier, pre-DWH spill
conditions.
Some of the analytes targeted by the NCCA in 2010 and by the NCA in earlier years
were oil-related compounds. However, the NCCA 2010 analyses did not target all of the
compounds necessary to confirm the presence or absence of either oil released from the
DWH spill or of dispersants used in subsequent remediation efforts. For this report, EPA
used the available historical data collected during earlier NCA surveys to represent
baseline conditions pre-spill and compared them to conditions from 2010 data collected
post-spill.
This highlight section presents an assessment of one aspect of ecological condition in
the Gulf —sediment quality—based on analysis of the NCA baseline data collected in
1999-2001 and 2005-2006, compared to findings from the NCCA 2010. Findings are
based on two sediment condition indicators: sediment toxicity and sediment
contaminants (not on oil-related constituents alone). See Chapter 2, "Design of the
NCCA 2010," for more information on how the NCCA assesses sediment condition.
Comparison of NCCA 2010 data to earlier NCA findings shows that the percent area
rated good for sediment toxicity declined in 2010 in U.S. coastal waters overall, while the
area rated fair and poor increased over time (Figure 4-14). The Northeast, Gulf, and
West coasts display this pattern of change.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 83
-------
NCCA Sediment Toxicity Index
U.S. Coastal
Northeast
Southeast t:
Gulf
West
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
1999-2001
2005-2006
2010
Figure 4-14. NCCA sediment toxicity results for the nation's coastal waters and for each
coastal region. Gulf scores are for the entire Gulf of Mexico.
In the section of the Gulf impacted by the DWH oil spill, the area rated poor for sediment
toxicity increased from approximately 8% in 2005-06 to about 27% in 2010. The increase
in sediment toxicity inside the DWH impact area was consistently observed whether the
NCCA sediment toxicity index was used or whether toxicity thresholds applied by the
Operational Science Advisory Team (an advisory group of various agency
representatives under the direction of the U.S. Coast Guard) were used. The increase in
the area rated poor for sediment toxicity was more significant within the impact area than
in other portions of the Gulf (Figure 4-15).
In contrast to sediment toxicity results, the sediment contaminants results for the area
impacted by the DWH oil spill in 2010 did not indicate a corresponding increase in the
percent area rated poor.
Page 84
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Inside Impact Area
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004 2005-06 2010
Gulf of Mexico - Outside Impact Area
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005-06 2010
Figure 4-15. Sediment toxicity results for Gulf area inside and outside the DWH impact
zone. Toxicity increased significantly inside the impact area between 2005-2006 and 2010.
Conclusion
Data show a significant increase in sediment toxicity in the DWH oil spill impact area
from 2005-06 to 2010. This same pattern is seen nationally. Sediment contaminant data
from the same area reveal no significant change. Because the NCCA sediment toxicity
index reflects the cumulative, synergistic, and additive effects of all contaminants in
sediment, it is not possible to establish a cause-effect relationship between the DWH oil
spill and the increase in percent area rated poor for sediment toxicity. The suite of
contaminants analyzed in each sediment sample does not include all of the constituents
needed to confirm the presence or absence of oil released by the DWH spill or of
dispersants used in subsequent remediation efforts.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 85
-------
The West Coast
Setting
The total area of the West Coast's 410 estuaries, bays, and sub-estuaries is 2,200 square
miles. More than 60% of this area consists of three large estuarine systems—the San Francisco
Estuary, Columbia River Estuary, and Puget Sound (including the Strait of Juan de Fuca). Sub-
estuary systems associated with these large systems make up another 27% of the West Coast.
The remaining West Coast waterbodies, combined, compose only 12% of the total coastal area
of the region.
There are major transitions in the distribution of human population along the West Coast, with
increased population density occurring in the Seattle-Tacoma area of Puget Sound, around San
Francisco Bay, and around most of the coastal waters of southern California. In contrast, the
section of coastline north of the San Francisco Bay through northern Puget Sound (excluding
the Seattle-Tacoma area) has a much lower population density.
The majority of the population in the West Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington
lives in coastal counties. In 2010, the West Coast was home to approximately 40 million people,
representing 19% of the U.S. population residing in coastal watershed counties and 63% of the
total population in West Coast states. Between 1970 and 2010, the population in the coastal
watershed counties of the West Coast region almost doubled, growing from 22 million to 39
million people.
Summary of NCCA 2010 Findings
A total of 134 NCCA sites were sampled to characterize the condition of West Coast waters. An
overview of the findings is presented in Figure 4-16.
Page 86 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
West Coast
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue
Contaminant Index
20 40 60 80 100 0
Percent of Area
40
60
80 100
i i Good I I Fair ^H Poor I I Missing
Figure 4-16. NCCA findings for the West Coast. Bars show the percentage of coastal area
within a condition Class for a given indicator. Error bars represent 95% confidence levels. Note: The sum
of percent of area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
Biological Quality
Biological quality is rated good in 71% of West Coast waters, based on the benthic index. Fair
biological quality occurs in 5% of these waters, and poor biological quality occurs in 3%.
Biological data are missing or incomplete for an additional 21% of waters due to difficulty in
obtaining successful sediment grab samples.
Water Quality
Based on the water quality index, 64% of waters in the West Coast region are in good condition,
26% are rated fair, and 2% are rated poor. Chlorophyll a and phosphorus contribute most to the
fair and poor water quality index scores for this region. The ratings of the component indicators
are included below:
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 87
-------
• Phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 64% of West Coast waters, at
moderate levels (rated fair) in 15%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 14%. Phosphorus
data are missing for 8% of waters.
• Nitrogen is found at low levels (rated good) in 80% of waters, at moderate levels (rated
fair) in 12%, and at high levels (rated poor) in less than 1%. Nitrogen data are missing
for 8% of West Coast waters.
• DO is at high levels (rated good) in 80% of waters and at moderate levels (rated fair) in
8%. Data are missing or incomplete for 12% of waters.
• Water clarity is rated good in 79% of waters, fair in 7%, and poor in 2%. Water clarity
data are missing for 12% of waters in the West Coast region.
• Chlorophyll a is found at low levels (rated good) in 51% of West Coast area, at moderate
levels (rated fair) in 35%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 3%. Data are missing or
incomplete for 10% of waters.
Sediment Quality
In the waters of the West Coast, 31% of the area is in good condition, 23% is in fair condition,
and 27% is in poor condition based on the sediment quality index. Sediment samples were not
available for 19% of the region due to difficulty in obtaining successful sediment grab samples.
For sediment contaminants, 72% of coastal waters are in good condition, 9% are in fair
condition, and 0% are in poor condition. Data are missing or incomplete for 19% of waters in
this region. For sediment toxicity, 30% of coastal waters are in good condition, 19% are in fair
condition, and 27% are in poor condition. Sediment toxicity data are missing or incomplete for
25% of waters in the West Coast region.
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Based on the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, 42% of West Coast waters are in poor
condition, 29% in fair condition, and 5% in good condition. Data are missing or incomplete for
25% of the West Coast area. The contaminants that most often exceed the LOAEL (poor)
thresholds are selenium, mercury, arsenic, and, in a very small proportion of the area,
hexachlorobenzene.
Change in West Coastal Condition
Change in Water Quality
The water quality index for the West Coast shows mixed changes, with a statistically significant
decline (25%) in waters rated good from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006, followed by a smaller
increase of 15% in waters rated good from 2005-2006 to 2010. Similar mixed findings are seen
in phosphorus, nitrogen, and dissolved oxygen. Chlorophyll a is the only indicator that shows an
opposite pattern, with the area rated good increasing significantly from 1999-2001 to 2005-
2006 and declining from 2005-2006 to 2010. Water clarity is the only indicator with a consistent
Page 88 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
decline in area rated good for all periods, although the decline is not statistically significant from
2005-2006 to 2010 (Figure 4-17).
Water Quality
Index
Change in West Coast Water Quality
Dissolved Water
Phosphorus Nitrogen Oxygen Clarity
Chlorophyll
Figure 4-17. Comparison of the percent area rated good for West Coast water quality
indicators over three periods. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between periods.
Admiralty Inlet, Port Townsend, Washington. (Photo courtesy of Eric Vance)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 89
-------
Table 4-7. Change in condition status for water quality indicators in the West Coast.
Indicator
Water
Quality
Index
Phosphorus
Dissolved Oxygen
Water
Clarity
Chlorophyll
Status
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
-24.7*
2005-2006
to 2010
+14.6
Missing
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically signficant change between periods.
Page 90
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Change in Sediment and Biological Quality
The sediment quality index shows a statistically significant rise of 14% in area rated good from
1999-2001 to 2005-2006, and a much larger 49% decline in area rated good from 2005-2006
to 2010. Sediment contaminants exhibit a similar, though less marked, pattern, with a
statistically significant (14%) rise in quality during the first period and a statistically significant
decline of 28% in the second. On the other hand, the sediment toxicity index shows a
consistent, statistically significant decline in area rated good of 29% from 1999-2001 to 2005-
2006, and of 20% from 2005-2006 to 2010. The benthic index shows significant decline (15%)
only from 2005-2006 to 2010 (Figure 4-18 and Table 4-8).
Change in West Coast Sediment and Biological Quality
Sediment
Quality Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
Figure 4-18. Comparison of the percent area rated good for West Coast sediment quality
indicators over three periods. Note: Asterisks indicate statistically significant change between periods.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 91
-------
Table 4-8. Change in condition status for sediment and biological quality in the West Coast.
Indicator
Sediment
Quality
Index
Sediment
Contaminants
Sediment
Toxicity
Benthic
Index
Status
% Area
1999-2001
% Area
2005-2006
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
Good
Fair
Poor
Missing
84
15
1
87
9
4
1
99
1
13
86
6
6
2
% Area
2010
Change in % Area
33
21
26
20
70
10
<1
20
30
18
26
26
70
5
3
21
1999-2001 to
2005-2006
+13.6*
-25.1*
+11.3*
-
+14.4*
-13.8*
-0.8
-28.7*
-11.8*
+12.1*
+28.3*
-1.8
-2.6
+2.7
+1.7*
2005-2006
to 2010
-49.0*
+16.2*
+13.2
+19.6*
-28.4*
+8.7*
+0.1
+19.6*
-20.2*
+14.3*
+13.2
-7.4
-15.2*
-0.6
-3.4
+19.2*
Note: The sum of percent area for each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Asterisks indicate
statistically signficant change between periods.
Page 92
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
HIGHLIGHT: Monitoring in Alaska's Northeastern
Chukchi Sea, 2010-2012
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the University of
Alaska established the Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program (AKMAP) in 2004.
This program focuses on conducting surveys of Alaska's waters. One of the most recent
AKMAP surveys was in the Chukchi Sea, off the northeastern coast of Alaska in the
Arctic Ocean.
With funding from the Coastal Impact Assistance Program, AKMAP and NOAA's
National Status and Trends Program conducted the Northeastern Chukchi Sea Survey
from 2010 to 2012. This survey focused on the nearshore environment from Point Lay to
Barrow, in water depths of 10-50 meters. It was conducted during open-water time
periods, typically August or September.
Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program (AKAiAP)
Chukchi Sea 2010-2012 Stations
f * m m Vtoinvwight
. ••*
Point Lay
'Point Hope
Stations Sampled
2010 Ledraid Bar
201 1 Ptaid Bar and Bailors- Canyon
2012 Supplemental
iMiles
037575 150 225 300
A
Figure 4-19. Alaska Monitoring and Assessment Program.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 93
-------
The Chukchi Sea lies between the Arctic Ocean and the Bering Sea. It is a shallow shelf
system affected by four water masses: the Alaska Coastal Current, the Bering Sea, the
Siberian Coastal Current, and the Beaufort Gyre. The convergence of these masses
creates a rich and dynamic environment, with one of the highest rates of primary
production of any of the world's oceans.
Similar to the NCCA, the Chukchi Sea Survey was designed to assess ecological
conditions based on several measured indicators of marine environmental quality and to
establish baseline measurements to evaluate future changes in condition.
This survey used NCCA 2010 methodology and sampling parameters. Additionally,
scientists sampled for ocean acidification, air hydrocarbon analysis, fish stomach
contents, zooplankton abundance and biomass, and benthic contaminants; they also
observed marine mammal and seabird populations. They sampled 71 randomly selected
nearshore sites in 2010 and 2011. Because randomly selected sites in Alaska tend to be
in reference or near-reference condition due to Alaska's small population and
remoteness, ten targeted sites were also sampled in 2012 (Figure 4-19).
Survey results are in various stages of completion. Data from stations sampled in 2010
and 2011 have undergone quality assurance reviews and are final. Results from 2012
will be finalized in 2015.
Findings to date include the following:
• Total petroleum
hydrocarbon concentrations
of sediments were below
NOAA benchmark
concentrations (Screening
Quick Reference Tables,
Effects Range - Low) by a
factor of 10, with the highest
concentrations being in the
southern area (Figure 4-20).
Further investigations will
assess the individual
Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbon profiles,
sediment grain size, and total
organic carbon.
ERLValue-4,022 ng/g dw
Figure 4-20. Results of AKMAP sampling for
petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments.
Page 94
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
• Equilibrium partitioning sediment benchmarks toxicity units (ESBTU) were used to
assess the toxicity of PAH mixtures to benthic organisms. Overall, sediment PAH
concentrations were found to be acceptable for the protection of benthic organisms. Only
one station, with a value of 1.06 ESBTU, exceeded values that may affect sensitive
benthic organisms. The threshold value is 1. The ratios suggest PAHs originate primarily
from the rocky substrate of the sea floor.
Preliminary results suggest a healthy ecosystem that supports its many uses. Wind
stress, the only stressor identified thus far, is a natural phenomenon that may affect the
distribution of physical, chemical, and biological indicators. Few previous studies have
occurred in this region, so trend analysis is not possible at this time. Comparisons to
outer continental shelf surveys in the Chukchi Sea are planned.
The scenario for most of Alaska's coastal aquatic resources is not one of existing
degradation from agricultural, industrialization, and urbanization, but one of possible
large-scale changes due to climate change and future resource development. Climate
change has the potential to affect nearshore ecosystems through water temperature
change, variations in upwelling nutrient input, and ocean acidification. As the Arctic ice
pack recedes and the Northern Sea routes open up, a major increase in shipping
through this region is expected. Activities from oil and gas exploration increase the risk
of hydrocarbon or other spills that can affect nearshore ecosystems. Information
gathered from this survey will be useful in supporting the protection and restoration of
coastal marine environments, mitigating damage to the marine ecosystem, and
implementing discharge-monitoring requirements of industry.
Sea ice in the Chukchi Sea. (Photo courtesy of Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation)
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 Page 95
-------
The Great Lakes
Setting
The Great Lakes basin ecosystem covers 295,000 square miles, with nearly 11,000 miles of
shoreline. The Great Lakes nearshore and embayment area assessed as part of the
NCCA 2010 totals approximately 6,700 square miles. The Great Lakes are the largest system of
fresh surface water on earth, containing an estimated 18% of the world's total supply. Only the
polar ice caps contain more freshwater. Because of the large size of the watershed, physical
characteristics such as climate, soils, and topography vary across the basin.
To the north, the climate is cold and the terrain is dominated by granite bedrock called the
Canadian (or Laurentian) Shield under a generally thin layer of acidic soils. Conifers dominate
the northern forests and the area is sparsely populated. In the southern areas of the basin, the
climate is much warmer and the soils are deeper, with layers or mixtures of clays, silts, sands,
gravels and boulders deposited as glacial drift or as glacial lake and river sediments. The
original deciduous forests have been replaced by agriculture and sprawling urban development.
Although part of a single system, each Great Lake is different. Lake Superior is the largest by
volume and surface area, and its basin is mostly forested and sparsely populated. The
temperate southern basin of Lake Michigan, the second-largest Great Lake by volume, is
among the most urbanized in the system and is home to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Chicago,
Illinois. Lake Huron is the third-largest Great Lake by volume and includes Georgian Bay and
Saginaw Bay. Major urban industrial centers (including Hamilton and Toronto in Ontario) are
located on the shores of Lake Ontario, the fourth-largest Great Lake by volume. Lake Erie, the
smallest Great Lake by volume, is the shallowest, warmest, and most biologically productive of
the Great Lakes. It is the most densely populated of all the Great Lake basins and has several
large cities within it, including Detroit, Michigan; Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio; and Buffalo, New
York. Agriculture is the predominant land use (66%) in Lake Erie's Western Basin.
In addition to supporting recreation, tourism, and freight transportation for the region, the coastal
Great Lakes provide spawning grounds, shelter, and food for fish, shellfish, and wildlife. The
coastal counties of the U.S. Great Lakes region represent the third-largest coastal population in
the nation. In 2010, the Great Lakes region was home to approximately 27 million people,
representing 17% of the U.S. population residing in coastal watershed counties. The Great
Lakes coastal watershed counties have a fairly stable population, with a population growth rate
of 4% since 1970.
Summary of NCCA 2010 Findings
A total of 405 NCCA sites were sampled in the summer of 2010 to characterize the condition of
the Great Lakes nearshore coastal waters. An overview of the findings is presented in Figure
4-21. Change analysis could not be conducted for the Great Lakes because they were first
assessed as part of this survey series in 2010.
Page 96 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Great Lakes
Water Quality
Sediment Quality
Ecological Fish Tissue Quality
Dissolved Oxygen
Water Clarity
Sediment Quality Index
50.9%
I 121.1%
Sediment Contaminants
I 55.8%
Sediment Toxicity
64.9%
20
40
60
80
100 0
Good
20 40 60 80
Percent of Area
I I Fair ^H Poor
100 0
40
60
80
100
Missing
Figure 4-21. NCCA findings for the Great Lakes Coast. Bars show the percentage of area within a
condition class for a given indicator. Error bars represent 95% confidence levels. Note: The sum of percent of area for
each indicator may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Nitrogen was measured but not used in the assessment of
Great Lakes waters; therefore, it is labeled as missing.
Biological Quality
For the Great Lakes, biological quality is determined using an oligochaete trophic index
(oligochaetes are benthic aquatic worms). Based on this index, biological quality is rated good in
20% of the nearshore Great Lakes coastal waters, fair in 12%, and poor in 18%. However, half
of the Great Lakes nearshore area has not been assessed because of missing data points.
These data are missing because of unsuitable substrate conditions or because the necessary
species of oligochaetes are not found in the samples. Therefore, care should be taken in
interpreting these results or when comparing them with other regions.
Water Quality
Based on the water quality index, 60% of Great Lakes nearshore waters are rated good for
water quality, 22% are rated fair, and 18% are rated poor. (See the Great Lakes watershed
highlight in Chapter 2 for a discussion of higher phosphorus concentrations in embayments
compared to nearshore waters.) Water clarity contributes most to the fair and poor water quality
scores for this region. There may be instances where invasive mussel species are filtering
nutrients, increasing the water clarity rating and altering the nutrient cycling and ecology of the
ecosystem. The ratings of the component indicators are included below:
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 97
-------
• Phosphorus is found at low levels (rated good) in 76% of nearshore waters, at moderate
levels (rated fair) in 14%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 10% of nearshore waters.
• DO levels are high (rated good) for 90% of the nearshore waters, moderate (rated fair) in
3% of the waters, and low (rated poor) in 1%. Data are missing or incomplete for 6% of
waters.
• Water clarity is rated good in 39% of nearshore waters, fair in 24%, and poor in 31%.
Data are missing for 6% of waters.
• Chlorophyll a is found at low levels (rated good) in 70% of the area, at moderate levels
(rated fair) in 12%, and at high levels (rated poor) in 18%.
Sediment Quality
The sediment quality index for the Great Lakes nearshore coastal region shows that 51% of
nearshore area is in good condition, 21% is in fair condition, and 2% is in poor condition. Crews
attempted to collect samples at all sites, but due to the prevalence of invasive mussel species
and rocky or hard substrates, 26% of the nearshore area cannot be assessed for sediment
quality. For sediment contaminants, 56% of the Great Lakes coastal sediments are in good
condition and 18% are in fair condition. Less than 1% are in poor condition. Data for sediment
contaminants are missing or incomplete for 26% of the nearshore coastal area. For sediment
toxicity, 65% of Great Lakes coastal sediments are rated good, 4% are rated fair, and 2% are
rated poor. Data are missing or incomplete for 29%.
Fish Tissue Quality
Based on the ecological fish tissue contaminant index, 38% of waters are rated poor, 20% are
rated fair, and less than 1% are rated good. Crews attempted to collect fish at all sites, but were
unable to obtain fish in 42% of the Great Lakes nearshore coastal area. The contaminants that
most often exceed the LOAEL (poor) thresholds are selenium, mercury, and (to a lesser extent)
total PCBs, hexachlorobenzene, and total DDTs.
The values used for ecological fish tissue assessment for PCBs and mercury are much higher
than the human health cancer and non-cancer values used in the Great Lakes Human Health
Fish Tissue Study (see Chapter 3). For example, the ecological fish tissue value for PCBs for
the avian group is 1.29 ppm (or 1,290 ppb), while the human health cancer value is 0.012 ppm
(or 12 ppb). As such, a lower percentage of waters exceed the values established for ecological
assessments. Values used to assess ecological fish tissue for the NCCA 2010 are higher than
the values used in the Great Lakes Region for assessment. Canada and the U.S. use the 2012
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement General Objective 9, which is essentially the no
observed adverse effect level. As a result, the findings of this report will differ from assessments
conducted by the governments in the Great Lakes Region.
Page 98 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
HIGHLIGHT: Cyanobacteria in Nearshore Waters of the
Great Lakes
For the Great Lakes portion of the NCCA 2010, analyses of phytoplankton (free-floating
algae) were conducted to examine potential risks to human health through recreational
exposure. Some phytoplankton are known as blue-green algae or cyanobacteria
because they have characteristics of both algae and bacteria. Some cyanobacteria
species produce toxins that can affect the health of animals and humans. Cyanobacteria
are generally found at low cell counts, but occasionally conditions are right for
populations to "bloom" to high cell concentrations; under extreme conditions, they can
form visible green scum coating the surface of the water. High nutrient levels, other
water quality measures, and certain weather conditions can trigger phytoplankton (and,
potentially, cyanobacteria) blooms.
The World Health Organization (WHO) published guidelines for potential human health
risks based in part on cyanobacteria cell counts (Table 4-9). The guidelines are intended
as general alert levels.
Table 4-9. Cyanobacteria guidelines for safe practice in managing freshwaters for
recreation use (modified from World Health Organization, 2003, Table 8.3, p. 150).
Guidance Level or Situation
Health Risks
Relatively low probability of adverse health effects
20,000 cyanobacteria cells/mL
or 10 |jg chlorophyll a /L with dominance of
cyanobacteria
Moderate probability of adverse health effects
100,000 cyanobacterial cells/mL
or 50 |jg chlorophyll a /L with dominance of
cyanobacteria
High probability of adverse health effects
Cyanobacterial scum formation in areas where
whole body contact and/or risk of
ingestion/aspiration occur
Short-term adverse health outcomes (e.g.
skin irritations, gastrointestinal illness)
• Potential for long-term illness with some
cyanobacterial species
• Short-term adverse health outcomes (e.g.
skin irritations, gastrointestinal illness)
Potential for acute poisoning
Potential for long-term illness with some
cyanobacterial species
Short-term adverse health outcomes (e.g.
skin irritations, gastrointestinal illness)
The NCCA 2010 survey data indicate that a relatively small percentage of Great Lakes
nearshore areas have cyanobacteria levels warranting alert actions. The U.S. nearshore
area occupies 7,290 square miles. Of this nearshore area, 12% ± 3% exceeds the
threshold for a low WHO guideline risk and < 2.4% (± 1.8%) exceeds the moderate
WHO guideline risk category. No area exceeds the high risk category as delineated by
WHO guidelines.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
Page 99
-------
Figure 4-22 displays results from 371 sites where phytoplankton samples were collected
and analyzed. Alert levels were concentrated in small clusters of sites, particularly within
the lower lakes (lower Lake Huron, western Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario), as well as
Green Bay within Lake Michigan. Sites were sampled once from May through
September; estimates of risk might have been higher if all sampling had occurred in late
summer when peak chlorophyll/bloom conditions often occur.
Both embayment and nearshore sites are affected; however, embayments on average
have slightly higher cyanobacterial counts than the open nearshore sites. In general, the
pattern confirms a number of historically known problem areas where phytoplankton
blooms have occurred, including those dominated by cyanobacteria (western Lake
Erie/Maumee Bay, Saginaw Bay, Green Bay, and southeastern Lake Ontario). Some of
these areas receive regular remote sensing and intensive field sampling for harmful algal
bloom species, including sensing and field sampling by NOAA's Watch Program.
NCCA-2010-Great Lakes
Cyanobacterial Counts (cells/ml)
Embayments & Nearshore
/"*
>•
WHO Human Health Risks
Guidelines for
Recreational Waters
Embtymcnl
* < 20.000 colWfrt.
20.000 eels/ml.
^ Moderate > 100 000 cofc/mL
Nurahor*
• < 20.000 crttmL
Q Low. > 20.000 cvMt/mL
O
Mod«™l« > 100 000 ote/ml
°
MIA
Figure 4-22. Sampled sites categorized by WHO alert levels according to
cyanobacteria cell counts.
One of the benefits of the NCCA 2010 survey style of sampling, illustrated by Figure 4-
22, is a broad-scale picture of where certain problems are likely. The NCCA survey thus
complements more intensive and/or frequent local surveillance of cyanobacteria, yet
offers additional information to help view local trends in a broader context. This view may
assist in setting priorities among different environmental protection and restoration
issues.
Page 100
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
CHAPTER 5.
SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS
The waters assessed in this report include nearshore marine coastal waters of the conterminous
United States, its estuaries and bays, and the coastal waters and embayments of the Great
Lakes. These ecosystems support varied habitat types, wildlife populations, and fisheries, and
they contribute substantially to the nation's economy.
In the summer of 2010, field crews sampled over a thousand sites for the NCCA in order to
provide information on ecological condition and key stressors in the coastal waters of the
Northeast, Southeast, Gulf, Great Lakes, and West Coast regions. As it is repeated over time,
this assessment will track trends in coastal condition, helping EPA and its partners evaluate the
collective successes of management efforts to protect, preserve, and restore U.S. coastal
waters.
Condition of the Nation's Coastal Waters
This NCCA reports on national and regional coastal condition using indicators of biological
quality, water quality, sediment quality, and ecological contaminants in fish tissue. Findings for
2010 indicate that over half of the nation's coastal waters are in good biological and sediment
quality condition. For water quality, slightly over a third of the nation's coastal waters are rated
good. The leading factors associated with fair and poor water quality are elevated levels of
phosphorus and chlorophyll a, both of which are indicators of eutrophication. For ecological fish
tissue quality, less than 1% of waters are rated good, and half are rated poor based on
thresholds set to protect sensitive fish and wildlife species. This poor rating is mainly due to
concentrations of selenium, mercury, and arsenic that are high enough to pose a risk to
sensitive wildlife that eat fish. It should be noted, however, that the fish tissue data set is not a
complete one, which could affect the reliability of these results.
An important objective of the NCCA is to track changes in the condition of coastal waters over
time. This report includes an analysis of change in coastal condition using a consistent set of
data from three periods: 1999-2001, 2005-2006, and 2010.
For the nation as a whole, several NCCA indicators show statistically significant change
compared to previous periods. The percent area rated good for the water quality index shows
statistically significant decline from 1999-2001 to 2005-2006. From 2005-2006 to 2010,
nitrogen and water clarity, which are two components of the water quality index, improve
significantly. Biological quality improves 17% from 2005-2006 to 2010. Sediment quality
declines by 22% during the same period, primarily due to changes in sediment toxicity. While
these results might appear contradictory, these three indicators do not necessarily respond to
stressors in the same manner, nor do the indicators included in the NCCA reflect all stressors
that impact coastal waters.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 101
-------
The NCCA 2010 findings, along with the change analysis, support the need for continued
management attention to coastal stressors at the national, regional, state, and watershed scales
to mitigate problems where they exist and protect those areas that are still in good condition.
Moving the Science Forward
Many of the contributions of the NCCA 2010 go beyond the findings discussed in this report.
EPA and its partners revised the way coastal condition indicators are analyzed and assessed,
updating the sediment quality and fish tissue contaminant indicators to reflect the current state
of the science. Partners gained—and shared—new expertise in state-of-the-art field monitoring
methods and probability-based surveys, including, for the first time, the nearshore waters of the
Great Lakes. Transferring NCCA methods and technology to state and tribal programs is a key
aspect of moving the science forward.
EPA scientists and partners continue to evaluate and improve the indicators that are the core of
the NCCA. A current focus is an advanced method to assess the benthic macroinvertebrate
community using the Multivariate AZTI Marine Biotic Index (M-AMBI), a benthic assessment tool
developed and widely used in Europe. This approach combines knowledge about pollution
tolerance and stressor sensitivity of benthic species with measures of diversity to rank sites on a
disturbance scale (highly disturbed to not disturbed). NCCA scientists published supplemental
benthic analyses using the M-AMBI and set the stage for incorporating this procedure into the
next NCCA report.
Another important aspect in moving the science forward is reducing the amount of missing data
in future NCCAs. In the NCCA 2010, benthic data are missing for 15% of the coastal waters,
sediment data are missing for nearly 11% of the coastal waters, and fish contaminants data are
missing for 24% of the coastal waters represented by this survey.
EPA and states have developed several strategies for addressing this challenge in the 2015
sampling season. For example, in the Great Lakes, benthic data are missing in large part due to
the absence of key benthic organisms (oligochaetes) in the collected sediment samples. EPA is
investigating whether a more inclusive benthic index—one that assesses condition based upon
a wider array of organisms—may solve this problem.
For sediments, data are missing at some sites due to rocky substrates that make sediment
collection at the target location difficult. The 2015 Field Operation Manual directs crews to
collect sediment from a larger radius around the sampling location. Some of the missing 2010
sediment data resulted from procedural failures in the laboratory that disqualified sediment data
from certain samples; laboratory procedures have been corrected for future analyses.
It can be difficult to collect fish for tissue analysis at some locations. Similar to the changes
made for sediment sampling, the Field Operation Manual directs crews to expand the sampling
radius for fish whenever they are unable to obtain fish at the initial collection site. By allowing
field crews greater latitude to determine the best locations to collect sediment and fish, and by
continuing best practices in laboratory processing, EPA made changes to decrease the amount
of missing data and increase the percentage of the target population assessed for each
indicator in future surveys.
102 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
EPA continues to look at ways to expand upon and improve the ecological and
recreational/human health assessment of coastal waters. Examples highlighted in this
document include use of underwater video in the Great Lakes to supplement benthic grab
sampling, the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Tissue Study that characterizes toxic chemicals
in fish that are consumed by people, and a NOAA Gulf offshore survey. Interpretation of fish
tissue findings in this report may lead researchers to study additional approaches to assessing
ecological fish tissue contaminants. EPA and its partners continue to evaluate other indicators
that provide important baseline information related to ecological concerns and human health.
Additionally, EPA continues to investigate state-of-the-science indicators, particularly indicators
that integrate ecological condition with indicators of human health and well-being, ecosystem
services, economics, and climate change.
Next Steps
EPA completed field sampling for the 2015 survey using updated protocols to reduce the
incidence of missing data. In addition to the core set of indicators, researchers are analyzing
data on new indicators, including microcystins and other algal toxins, mercury in fillets from fish
taken in coastal and Great Lakes nearshore waters, and the types and extent of land-based
trash in the water. EPA also implemented efficiencies in data reporting, quality assurance and
analyses to reduce the time between collection and publication.
EPA, in partnership with states, tribes, and other federal agencies, produces national water
quality assessments on a regular cycle under the NARS program. Other NARS reports include
the first national wetlands condition assessment based on 2011 field sampling, a second
national lakes assessment based on sampling conducted during the summer of 2012, and a
second national rivers and streams assessment based on sampling during 2013-2014.
As these national assessments continue, many states are developing and conducting their own
regional- and state-scale probability surveys of their rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, and
coastal waters. EPA continues to explore ways to best support states as they sample, analyze,
and report on their waters using these surveys. For example, EPA is working to build and refine
tools that states can use to assess survey data at different scales, and is exploring options for
providing direct technical support. As a first step, EPA will make available the statistical analysis
codes that were used to develop the coastal indicators and thresholds for assessment. EPA is
also piloting in-person training on the statistical tools and methods that are used in the NARS
programs.
In Closing
This survey would not have been possible without the assistance and collaboration of hundreds
of scientists and water quality professionals working for state, federal, and tribal agencies and
universities across the country. These scientists helped plan and design the survey, select sites
and indicators, develop and improve monitoring methods, train crew members, conduct
sampling, track samples, screen and analyze results, and review and write up the findings.
Working together on future national-, regional-, and state-scale surveys of similar design, EPA
and its partners will continue developing high quality information on coastal waters that can be
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 103
-------
used to evaluate the nation's progress in protecting and restoring these critically important
resources.
Marina at sunset. (Photo courtesy of Eric Vance)
104
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
.. • -
REFERENCES
Benthic Condition
Engle, V. D., & Summers, J. K. (1999). Refinement, validation, and application of a benthic
condition index for northern Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries,22(3), 624-635.
Engle, V. D., Summers, J. K., & Gaston, G. R. (1994). A benthic index of environmental
condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries, 17(2), 372-384.
Environment Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). State of the Great Lakes
2011. Retrieved from http://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sogl-2011-technical-
report-en.pdf
Hale, S. S., & Heltshe, J. F. (2008). Signals from the benthos: Development and evaluation of a
benthic index for the nearshore Gulf of Maine. Ecological Indicators, 8(4), 338-350.
Howmiller, R. P., & Scott, M. A. (1977). An environmental index based on relative abundance of
oligochaete species. Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), 809-815.
Lauritsen, D. D., Mozley, S. C., & White, D. S. (1985). Distribution of oligochaetes in Lake
Michigan and comments on their use as indices of pollution. Journal of Great Lakes
Research, 11(1), 67-76.
Milbrink, G. (1983). An improved environmental index based on the relative abundance of
oligochaete species. Hydrobiologia, 102(2), 89-97.
Paul, J. F., Scott, K. J., Campbell, D. E., Gentile, J. H., Strobel, C. S., Valente, R. M., ... &
Ranasinghe, J. A. (2001). Developing and applying a benthic index of estuarine condition for
the Virginian biogeographic province. Ecological Indicators, 1(2), 83-99.
Ranasinghe, J. A., Weisberg, S. B., Smith, R. W., Montagne, D. E., Thompson, B., Oakden, J.
M., ... & Ritter, K. J. (2009). Calibration and evaluation of five indicators of benthic
community condition in two California bay and estuary habitats. Marine Pollution
Bulletin, 59(1), 5-13.
Smith, R. W., Bergen, M., Weisberg, S. B., Cadien, D., Dalkey, A., Montagne, D., ... & Velarde,
R. G. (2001). Benthic response index for assessing infaunal communities on the southern
California mainland shelf. Ecological Applications, 11(4), 1073-1087.
Van Dolah, R. F., Hyland, J. L, Holland, A. F., Rosen, J. S., & Snoots, T. R. (1999). A benthic
index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern
USA. Marine Environmental Research, 48(4-5), 269-283.
Coastal Population and Economics
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011).
Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2009. Retrieved from
https://www.st.nmfs. noaa.gov/st5/publication/index. html
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 105
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. (2013).
Fisheries of the United States 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus11/FUS 2011.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Census 2010. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. (2013,
March). National coastal population report: Population trends from 1970 to 2020. Retrieved
from http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/features/coastal-population-report.pdf
Vaccaro, L, & Read, J. (2011). Vital to our nation's economy: Great Lakes jobs, 2011 report.
Retrieved from http://www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/economy/11-203-Great-Lakes-
Jobs-report.pdf
Cyanobacteria and Great Lakes
Makarewicz, J. C., Boyer, G. L, Lewis, T. W., Guenther, W., Atkinson, J., & Arnold, M. (2009).
Spatial and temporal distribution of the cyanotoxin microcystin-LR in the Lake Ontario
ecosystem: Coastal embayments, rivers, nearshore and offshore, and upland lakes. Journal
of Great Lakes Research, 35, 83-89.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (n.d.) Harmful algal blooms. Retrieved from
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/hab/
Stone, D., & Bress, W. (2007). Addressing public health risks for cyanobacteria in recreational
freshwaters: The Oregon and Vermont framework. Integrated Environmental Assessment
and Management, 3(1), 137-143.
Watson, S. B., & Boyer, G. L. (2009). Harmful algal blooms (HABs) in the Great Lakes: Current
status and concerns. In Environment Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Eds.) Nearshore areas of the Great Lakes 2009 (EPA 905-R-09-013, pp. 78-91). Retrieved
from http://binational.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SOGL 2009 nearshore en.pdf
World Health Organization. (2003). Guidelines for safe recreational water environments: Coastal
and fresh waters (Vol. 1). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/water sanitation health/bathing/srwel-chap8.pdf
Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters
Balthis, W., Hyland, J. L., Fulton, M. H., Wirth, E. F., Kiddon, J. A., & Macauley, J. M. (2009).
Ecological condition of coastal ocean waters along the U.S. Mid-Atlantic Bight: 2006 (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 109). Charleston, SC: NOAA National Ocean
Service.
Balthis, W. L, Hyland, J. L., Cooksey, C., Fulton, M. H, & Wirth, E. F. (2013). Ecological
condition of coastal ocean waters of the northwestern Gulf of Mexico: 2011 (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 171). Charleston, SC: NOAA National Ocean
Service.
106 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Cooksey, C., Harvey, J., Harwell, L, Hyland, J., & Summers, J. K. (2010). Ecological condition
of coastal ocean and estuarine waters of the U.S. South Atlantic Bight: 2000 - 2004 (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 114). Charleston, SC: NOAA National Ocean
Service.
Cooksey, C., Hyland, J., Fulton., M. H., Wirth, E., & Balthis, L. (2012). Ecological condition of
coastal ocean waters of the U.S. continental shelf off south Florida: 2007 (NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 159). Charleston, SC: NOAA National Ocean Service.
Cooksey, C., J. Hyland, M.H. Fulton., L. Balthis, E. Wirth. (2014). Ecological condition of coastal
ocean waters of the U.S. continental shelf of the northeastern Gulf of Mexico (NOAA
Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 188). Silver Spring, MD: NOAA National Ocean
Service.
Fish Tissue
Fahraeus-van Ree, G. E., & Payne, J. F. (1997). Effect of toxaphene on reproduction offish.
Chemosphere, 34(4), 855-867.
Heinz, G. H., & Locke, L. N. (1976). Brain lesions in mallard ducklings from parents fed
methylmercury. Avian Diseases, 20(1), 9-17.
Hyde, K. M., Graves, J. B., Watts, A. B., & Bonner, F. L. (1973). Reproductive success of
mallard ducks fed mirex. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 37(4), 479-484.
Lundebye, A. K., Lock, E. J., Boyle, D., Ruohonen, K., & Berntssen, M. H. (2010). Tolerance of
Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) to dietborne endosulfan assessed by haematology,
biochemistry, histology and growth. Aquaculture Nutrition, 16(5), 549-558.
Nagy, K. A. (1987). Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and
birds. Ecological Monographs, 57(2) 111-128.
Pedlar, R. M., Ptashynski, M. D., Evans, R., & Klaverkamp, J. F. (2002). Toxicological effects of
dietary arsenic exposure in lake whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis). Aquatic
Toxicology, 57(3), 167-189.
Sample, B. E., Opresko, D. M., &Suter, G. W. II. (1996). Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife:
1996 revision (ES/ER/TM-86/R3). Oak Ridge, TN: Health Sciences Research Division Risk
Assessment Program.
Stahl, L. L, Snyder, B. D., Olsen, A. R., Kincaid, T. M., Wathen, J. B., & McCarty, H. B. (2014).
Perfluorinated compounds in fish from U.S. urban rivers and the Great Lakes. Science of the
Total Environment, 499, 185-195.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. (1964) Pesticide-wildlife studies: A
review of Fish and Wildlife Service investigations during 1961-1962. Gulf Breeze, FL:
Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Response Team. (1997). Ecological risk
assessment guidance for Superfund: Process for designing and conducting ecological risk
assessments- Interim final (EPA/540/R-97/OOQ). Edison, NJ: Author.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 107
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1972). Heptachlor: A review of its uses, chemistry,
environmental hazards, and toxicology. Retrieved from
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockev=9100CQF3.txt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
(1995). Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative criteria documents for the protection of wildlife:
DDT, mercury, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCBs (EPA/820/B-95/008). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6. (2012). Development of§ 303(d) listing
mechanism, TMDL targets and National Coastal Conditions Assessment (NCCA)
benchmarks for selected bioaccumulative pollutants. Owings Mills, MD: Tetra Tech.
General
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Basic information about estuaries. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/nep.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2001). National coastal condition report (EPA 620-R-01-005). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2004). National coastal condition report II (EPA 620-R-03-002). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2006). Wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the nation's streams (EPA
841-B-06-002). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2008). National coastal condition report III (EPA 620-R-08-002). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2009). National lakes assessment: A collaborative survey of the nation's lakes (EPA 841-R-
09-001). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2012a). Draft national rivers and streams assessment: A collaborative survey. Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development & Office of Water.
(2012b). National coastal condition report IV (EPA 842-R-10-003). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. (2010a). National coastal condition
assessment: Field operations manual (EPA-841-R-09-003). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. (201 Ob). National coastal condition
assessment: Laboratory methods manual (EPA 841-R-09-002). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. (201 Oc). National coastal condition
assessment: Quality assurance project plan 2008-2012 (EPA/841-R-09-004). Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. (2010d). National coastal condition
assessment: Site evaluation guidelines. Washington, DC: Author.
108 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Great Lakes
Bridgeman, T. B., Chaffin, J. D., Kane, D. D., Conroy, J. D., Panek, S. E., & Armenio, P. M.
(2012). From river to lake: Phosphorus partitioning and algal community compositional
changes in western Lake Erie. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 38(1), 90-97.
Danz, N. P., Regal, R. R., Niemi, G. J., Brady, V. J., Hollenhorst, T., Johnson, L B., ... & Kelly,
J. R. (2005). Environmentally stratified sampling design for the development of Great Lakes
environmental indicators. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 102, 41-65.
Danz, N. P., Niemi, G. J., Regal, R. R., Hollenhorst, T., Johnson, L. B., Hanowski, J. M., ... &
Host, G. E. (2007). Integrated measures of anthropogenic stress in the US Great Lakes
basin. Environmental Management, 39(5), 631-647.
Gregor, D. J., & Rast, W. (1979). Trophic characterization of the US and Canadian nearshore
zones of the Great Lakes. Windsor, ON, Canada: International Joint Commission, Great
Lakes Regional Office. Retrieved from http://www.iic.org/files/publications/ID530.pdf
Kelly, J. R. (2009). Nutrients and the Great Lakes nearshore, circa 2002-2007. In Environment
Canada & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Eds.) State of the Lakes Ecosystem
Conference 2008 background paper: Nearshore areas of the Great Lakes (EPA Report No.
905-R-09-013, pp. 49-60). Retrieved from http://binational.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/SOGL 2009 nearshore en.pdf
Kelly, J. R., & Yurista, P. M. (2013). Development of an integrated assessment of large lakes
using towed in situ sensor technologies: Linking nearshore conditions with adjacent
watersheds. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 16(3), 248-266.
Kelly, J. R., Yurista, P. M., Starry, M., Scharold, J., Bartsch, W., & Cotter, A. (2015). Exploration
of spatial variability in nearshore water quality using the first Great Lakes National Coastal
Condition Assessment survey. Journal of Great Lakes Research. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1016/j.jglr.2015.09.007
Morrice, J. A., Danz, N. P., Regal, R. R., Kelly, J. R., Niemi, G. J., Reavie, E. D., ... & Peterson,
G. S. (2008). Human influences on water quality in Great Lakes coastal
wetlands. Environmental Management, 41(3), 347-357. doi:10.1007/s00267-007-9055-5
Niemi, G. J., Kelly, J. R., & Danz, N. P. (2007). Environmental indicators for the coastal region
of the North American Great Lakes: Introduction and prospectus [Special issue]. Journal of
Great Lakes Research, 33(3), 1-12.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water. (2010, April). Ohio Lake Erie
phosphorus task force final report. Columbus, OH: Author.
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force. (1980, July). Phosphorus management for the
Great Lakes: Final report of the Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force to the
International Joint Commission's Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science
Advisory Board. Retrieved from http://agrienvarchive.ca/download/P-
management G lakes.pdf
Stahl, L. L, Snyder, B. D., Olsen, A. R., Kincaid, T. M., Wathen, J. B., & McCarty, H. B. (2014).
Perfluorinated compounds in fish from US urban rivers and the Great Lakes. Science of the
Total Environment, 499, 185-195.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 109
-------
Yurista, P. M., & Kelly, J. R. (2009). Spatial patterns of water quality and plankton from high-
resolution continuous in situ sensing along a 537-km nearshore transect of western Lake
Superior, 2004. In M. Munawar & I. F. Munawar (Eds.), State of Lake Superior (pp. 439-
471). Burlington, ON, Canada: Aquatic Ecosystem Health and Management Society.
Yurista, P., Kelly, J. R., & Miller, S. E. (2011). Lake Superior: Nearshore variability and a
landscape driver concept. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 14(4), 345-355.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/qreatlakestfPhysical Characteristics.
Invasive Species and Video Sampling
Hecky, R. E., Smith, R. E. H., Barton, D. R., Guildford, S. J., Taylor, W. D., Charlton, M. N., &
Howell, T. (2004). The nearshore phosphorus shunt: A consequence of ecosystem
engineering by dreissenids in the Laurentian Great Lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences, 61(7), 1285-1293.
Jones, L. A., & Ricciardi, A. (2005). Influence of physicochemical factors on the distribution and
biomass of invasive mussels (Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena bugensis) in the St.
Lawrence River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 62(9), 1953-1962.
Kornis, M. S., Mercado-Silva, N., & Vander Zanden, M. J. (2012). Twenty years of invasion: A
review of round goby Neogobius melanostomus biology, spread and ecological
implications. Journal of Fish Biology, 80(2), 235-285.
Lietz, J. E., Kelly, J.R., Scharold, J.V., Yurista, P.M. (2015). Can a Rapid Underwater Video
Approach Enhance the Benthic Assessment Capability of the National Coastal Condition
Assessment in the Great Lakes? Environmental Management? Environmental Management,
55(6), 1446-1456.
Ozersky, T., Evans, D. O., & Barton, D. R. (2012). Invasive mussels alter the littoral food web of
a large lake: Stable isotopes reveal drastic shifts in sources and flow of energy. PLoS ONE
7(12), 1-11.
Van Rein, H. B., Brown, C. J., Quinn, R., & Breen, J. (2009). A review of sublittoral monitoring
methods in temperate waters: A focus on scale. Underwater Technology, 28(3), 99-113.
Probability Design
Olsen, A. R., Sedransk, J., Edwards, D., Gotway, C. A., Liggett, W., Rathbun, S., ... & Young, L.
J. (1999). Statistical issues for monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United
States. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 54(1), 1-45.
Stevens, D. L., Jr. (1997). Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial
populations. Environmetrics, 8(3), 167-195.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (1999). Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic
resources. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 4(4), 415-428.
110 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
Stevens, D. L, Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (2003). Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of
environmental resources. Environmetrics, 14(0), 593-610.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Olsen, A. R. (2004). Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources in
the presence of frame imperfections. Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 99(465), 262-278.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., & Urquhart, N. S. (2000). Response designs and support regions in sampling
continuous domains. Environmetrics, 11(\), 13-41.
Sediment Quality
Field, L. J., MacDonald, D. D., Norton, S. B., Ingersoll, C. G., Severn, C. G., Smorong, D., &
Lindskoog, R. (2002). Predicting amphipod toxicity from sediment chemistry using logistic
regression models. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 21(9), 1993-2005.
Greenstein, D. J., & Bay, S. M. (2011). Selection of methods for assessing sediment toxicity in
California bays and estuaries. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 8,
625-637.
Ingersoll, C. G., MacDonald, D. D., Wang, N., Crane, J. L, Field, L. J., Haverland, P. S., ... &
Smorong, D. E. (2001). Predictions of sediment toxicity using consensus-based freshwater
sediment quality guidelines. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, 47(1), 8-21.
Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L, & Calder, F. D. (1995). Incidence of adverse
biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine
sediments. Environmental Management, 79(1), 81-97.
Long, E. R., Field, L. J., & MacDonald, D. D. (1998). Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with
numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17(4), 714-
727.
Long, E. R., Ingersoll, C. G., & MacDonald, D. D. (2006). Calculation and uses of mean
sediment quality guideline quotients: A critical review. Environmental Science &
Technology, 40(6), 1726-1736.
Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Severn, C. G., & Hong, C. B. (2000). Classifying probabilities of
acute toxicity in marine sediments with empirically derived sediment quality
guidelines. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 79(10), 2598-2601.
MacDonald, D. D., Ingersoll, C. G., & Berger, T. A. (2000). Development and evaluation of
consensus-based sediment quality guidelines for freshwater ecosystems. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 39(1), 20-31.
Thursby, G. B., Heltshe, J., & Scott, K. J. (1997). Revised approach to toxicity test acceptability
criteria using a statistical performance assessment. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, 16(6), 1322-1329.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 111
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. (2002).
Interpretation of the results of sediment quality investigations. In A Guidance Manual to
Support the Assessment of Contaminated Sediments in Freshwater Ecosystems (Vol. Ill,
EPA-905-B02-001-C). Chicago, IL: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. (1994). Methods
for assessing the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with estuarine and marine
amphipods (EPA 600-R-94-025). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center
for Environmental Assessment. (2005). Predicting toxicity to amphipods from sediment
chemistry (EPA/600/R-04/030). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and
Health Protection Division. (2004). The incidence and severity of sediment contamination in
surface waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey (2nd ed., EPA-823-
R-04-007). Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
(2000). Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated
contaminants with freshwater invertebrates (2nd ed., EPA 600-R-99-064). Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
(2001). Method for assessing the chronic toxicity of marine and estuarine sediment-
associated contaminants with the amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus. (EPA 600-R-01-020).
Washington, DC: U.S. Author.
Water Quality
Bricker, S. B., Clement, C. G., Pirhalla, D. E., Orlando, S. P., & Farrow, D. R. G. (1999).
National estuarine eutrophication assessment: Effects of nutrient enrichment in the nation's
estuaries. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Office and
the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science.
Chan, F., Earth, J. A., Lubchenco, J., Kirincich, A., Weeks, H., Peterson, W. T., & Menge, B. A.
(2008). Emergence of anoxia in the California Current large marine
ecosystem. Science, 319, 920.
Cloern, J. E. (2001). Our evolving conceptual model of the coastal eutrophication
problem. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 210, 223-253.
Diaz, R. J., & Rosenberg, R. (1995). Marine benthic hypoxia: A review of its ecological effects
and the behavioral responses of benthic macrofauna. Oceanography and Marine Biology
Annual Review, 33, 245-303.
Hagy, J. D., Boynton, W. R., Keefe, C. W., & Wood, K. V. (2004). Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay,
1950-2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries, 27(4),
634-658.
112 National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium.
(2010). Hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico: Areal extent ofhypoxia, 1985 - 2005.
Chauvin, LA: Author. Retrieved November 2010, from
http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/all cruises.asp
National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
(2000). Integrated assessment ofhypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Washington, DC:
Author.
National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources.
(2003). An assessment of coastal hypoxia and eutrophication in U.S. waters. Washington,
DC: Author.
Nelson, W. G., & Brown, C. A. (2008). Use of probability-based sampling of water-quality
indicators in supporting development of quality criteria. /CES Journal of Marine Science, 65,
1421-1427.
Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force. (1980, July). Phosphorus management for the
Great Lakes: Final report of the Phosphorus Management Strategies Task Force to the
International Joint Commission's Great Lakes Water Quality Board and Great Lakes Science
Advisory Board. Retrieved from http://agrienvarchive.ca/download/P-
manaqement G lakes.pdf
Smith, L. M., Engle, V. D., & Summers, J. K. (2006). Assessing water clarity as a component of
water quality in Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 115,
291-305.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology.
(2000). Ambient water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen (saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape
Hatteras (EPA-822-R-00-012). Washington, DC: Author.
Van Sickle, J., Stoddard, J. L., Paulsen, S. G., & Olsen, A. R. (2006). Using relative risk to
compare the effects of aquatic stressors at a regional scale. Environmental
Management, 38(6), 1020-1030.
National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010 113
------- |