SEPA
EPA 841 -R-21 -001 | August 2021
United States
Environmental Protect
Agency
National Coastal
Condition
Assessment
A Collaborative Survey
of the Nation's Estuaries and
Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
-------
Acknowledgments
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, taxono-
mists, 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 appreciation.
A team of contributors led by Hugh Sullivan, EPA Program Manager, wrote this report, with editorial support from
Natalie Auer of Crow Insight. This team included David Bolgrien, Cheryl Brown, Linda Harwell, John Kiddon (retired),
and Marguerite Pelletier, EPA Office of Research and Development; Mari Nord, EPA Region 5; Matthew Pawlowski, EPA
Great Lakes National Program Office; and Shari Barash, Lareina Guenzel, Susan Holdsworth, Sarah Lehmann, Michelle
Maier, Menchu Martinez, Megan O'Brien, Leanne Stahl, and Garrett Stillings, EPA Office of Water. Crow Insight (as a
subcontractor to Avanti Corporation and Industrial Economics Inc.) provided layout, graphics and additional editorial
support.
State 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
Contractor Support
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
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Washington Department of Ecology
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Avanti Corporation
Crow Insight
Dynamac
EcoAnalysts Inc.
Environmental Institute of Houston at
University of Houston-Clear Lake
Enviroscience Inc.
Great Lakes Environmental Center Inc.
Industrial Economics Inc.
PG Environmental
Physis
SRA International
Tetra Tech
NCCA Report | Acknowledgments
-------
Acknowledgments (continued)
The following individuals played a pivotal role in this project and lent their expertise to project planning and imple-
mentation as well as oversight and data analysis:
Academic, Local, State, Federal and International Partners
Angel Borja, AZTI Tecnalia Marine Research Division
Donald Cadien, Ocean Monitoring Research Group, County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Paul Carlson, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
Judy Crane, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Daniel Dauer, Old Dominion University
Robert Diaz, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
Eva DiDonato, National Park Service
Margaret Dutch, Washington State Department of Ecology
David J. Gillett, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Jeffrey L. Hyland, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service
Michael Kellogg, Oceanside Biology Laboratory
Peter F. Larsen, Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences
Jeffrey S. Levinton, Stony Brook University
Roberto Llanso.Versar
Lawrence L. Lovell, Ocean Monitoring Research Group, County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Paul A. Montagna,Texas A&M University
Christine Olsen, Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Valerie Partridge, Washington State Department of Ecology
Dean Pasko, Orange County Sanitation District
Charles A. Phillips, Dancing Coyote Environmental
Chet Rakocinski.The University of Southern Mississippi
J. Ananda Ranasinghe, Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project
Denise M. Sanger, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
HelianaTeixeira, European Commission, Joint Research Centre,
Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Water Resources Unit
Robert F. Van Dolah, South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources
Ronald G.Velarde, City of San Diego, Marine Biology Laboratory
Catherine Wazniak, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Stephan B. Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project
Kathy Welch, Washington State Department of Ecology
Laura Yarbro, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
EPA
Darvene Adams (retired). Region 2
Ted Angradi, Office of Research and Development
Vince Bacalan, Office of Water
Joe Beamon, Office of Water
Elizabeth Belk, Region 4
Alexandra Bijak (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
research participant)
Karen Blocksom, Office of Research and Development
Matthew Bolt, Region 9
Cheryl Brown, Office of Research and Development
Robert Cook, Region 6
Gabriella DiPreta (Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
research participant)
Kate Drisco, Region 2
Tom Faber, Region 1
Terry Fleming, Region 9
Kendra Forde, Office of Water
Treda Grayson, Office ofWater
Danielle Grunzke, Office ofWater
Edward Hammer, Region 5
John Healey, Office ofWater
Lil Herger, Region 10
Elizabeth Hinchey-Malloy, Great Lakes National Program Office
Amanda Jarvis, Office ofWater
Cynthia N. Johnson, Office ofWater
Peter Kalla, Region 4
Tom Kincaid, Office of Research and Development
Karolyn Locke, Office ofWater
Chris McArthur, Region 4
Richard Mitchell, Office ofWater
Walt Nelson (retired). Office of Research and Development
Emily Nering, Region 2
Mari Nord, Region 5
Tony Olsen, Office of Research and Development
Steve Paulsen, Office of Research and Development
Matthew Pawlowski, Great Lakes National Program Office
Dave Peck, Office of Research and Development
Amina Pollard, Office ofWater
William Richardson, Region 3
Jill Scharold, Office of Research and Development
Bernice Smith, Office ofWater
Elizabeth Smith, Region 4
Maria Smith, Office ofWater
NCCA Report | Acknowledgments
ii
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments i
Figures and Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Executive Summary 1
How Was the Survey Done? 1
What Did the Survey Evaluate? 2
Key Findings 3
Estuaries 3
Ecological Indicators 3
Human Health Indicators 4
Nearshore Great Lakes 5
Ecological Indicators 5
Human Health Indicators 6
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study 6
Conclusion 7
Chapter 1 Introduction 8
Why Are These Coastal Areas Important? 8
What Is the Purpose of the Study? 8
How Was the Survey Done? 9
How Does EPA Use Data From the Study? 9
Chapter 2 Design of the Coastal Survey 1 o
Waters Surveyed by the NCCA 10
How Were Sampling Sites Chosen? 12
How Were Sampling Sites Evaluated for Validity and Availability? 12
What Did the Survey Measure? 13
How Were Data and Samples Collected? 14
Sampling Locations 14
In Situ Measurements 14
Water Sample Collection and Processing 14
Sediment Sample Collection and Processing 14
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Collection and Processing 14
Fish Sample Collection and Processing 15
How Did EPA Analyze the Results? 16
Biological Condition 16
Eutrophication 16
Sediment Quality 17
Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish 17
Enterococci Contamination 17
NCCA Report | Table of Contents iii
-------
Microcystins 18
Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs 18
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study 18
Chapter 3 The Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters 19
How This Chapter is Organized 20
How the Results Are Presented 21
3.1 Biological Condition 23
What Was the Condition in 2015? 23
Did the Condition Change? 24
Comparing Benthic Communities Nationwide 24
3.2 Eutrophication Index 25
What Was the Condition in 2015? 25
Did the Condition Change? 26
Low Oxygen in the Gulf of Mexico 26
3.3 Sediment Quality 27
What Was the Condition in 2015? 27
Did the Condition Change? 28
3.4 Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish 29
What Was the Condition in 2015? 29
Did the Condition Change? 30
Assessing Selenium in Fish Tissue 30
3.5 Enterococci Contamination 31
What Was the Condition in 2015? 31
Did the Condition Change? 31
3.6 Microcystins 32
What Was the Condition in 2015? 32
Did the Condition Change? 32
3.7 Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs 33
What Was the Condition in 2015? 33
Did the Condition Change? 33
Chapter 4 The Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters 34
How This Chapter is Organized 35
How the Results Are Presented 36
4.1 Biological Condition 37
What Was the Condition in 2015? 37
Did the Condition Change? 38
Using Underwater Video to Supplement Grab Sampling 38
4.2 Eutrophication Index 39
What Was the Condition in 2015? 39
Did the Condition Change? 40
Eutrophication: Lake Erie Case Study 40
NCCA Report | Table of Contents iv
-------
4.3 Sediment Quality 41
What Was the Condition in 2015? 41
Did the Condition Change? 42
4.4 Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish 43
What Was the Condition in 2015? 43
Did the Condition Change? 44
Assessing Selenium in Fish Tissue 44
4.5 Enterococci Contamination 45
What Was the Condition in 2015? 45
Did the Condition Change? 45
4.6 Microcystins 46
What Was the Condition in 2015? 46
Did the Condition Change? 46
4.7 Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs 47
What Was the Condition in 2015? 47
Did the Condition Change? 47
4.8 Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study 48
Targeted Fish Tissue Contaminants 49
Mercury 49
PCBs 49
PFAS 49
What Was the Condition in 2015? 49
Mercury in Great Lakes Fish Fillets 50
PCBs in Great Lakes Fish Fillets 51
PFAS in Great Lakes Fish Fillets 51
Chapter 5 Summary and Next Steps 52
Key Results and Comparisons to Other NARS Assessments 52
Biological Condition 53
Eutrophication 53
Sediment Quality 53
Ecological Effects of Fish Contamination 54
Human Health Indicators 54
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study 54
What Was New for NCCA in 2015? 55
How Are the Report and Underlying Data Used? 55
What's Next for the NCCA? 56
References 57
Image Credits 60
Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015 A.1
Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed B.1
NCCA Report | Table of Contents v
-------
Figures and Tables
Figure ES.1 Percent of Estuarine Coastal Area in Good Condition (2015) 3
Figure ES.2 Percent of Great Lakes Nearshore Area in Good Condition (2015) 5
Figure 2.1 What Coastal Areas Were Included in the NCCA? 11
Figure 2.2 Where Did the NCCA Collect Samples? 14
Table 2.1 Water Quality Characteristics in Each Stage of Eutrophication 16
Figure 3.0.1 Characteristics and Sample Size of the NCCA Estuarine Regions 21
Figure 3.0.2 Data on 2015 Condition 22
Figure 3.0.3 Data on Change from 2005-06 to 2015 22
Figure 3.1.1 Estuarine Biological Condition 23
Figure 3.1.2 Change in Estuarine Biological Condition 24
Figure 3.2.1 Estuarine Eutrophication Condition 25
Figure 3.2.2 Change in Estuarine Eutrophication Condition 26
Figure 3.3.1 Estuarine Sediment Quality 27
Figure 3.3.2 Changes in Estuarine Sediment Quality 28
Figure 3.4.1 Estuarine Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects) 29
Figure 3.4.2 Changes in Estuarine Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects) 30
Figure 3.5.1 Estuarine Enterococci Condition 31
Figure 3.6.1 Estuarine Microcystins Condition 32
Figure 3.7.1 Estuarine Condition Based on Mercury in Plugs from Fish Fillets 33
Figure 4.0.1 Characteristics and 2015 Sample Size of the Individual Great Lakes 36
Figure 4.1.1 Great Lakes Biological Condition 37
Figure 4.1.2 Change in Great Lakes Biological Condition 38
Figure 4.2.1 Great Lakes Eutrophication Condition 39
Figure 4.2.2 Change in Great Lakes Eutrophication Condition 40
Figure 4.3.1 Great Lakes Sediment Quality 41
Figure 4.3.2 Change in Great Lakes Sediment Quality 42
Figure 4.4.1 Great Lakes Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects) 43
Figure 4.4.2 Change in Great Lakes Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects) 44
Figure 4.5.1 Great Lakes Enterococci Condition 45
Figure 4.6.1 Great Lakes Microcystins Condition 46
Figure 4.7.1 Great Lakes Condition Based on Mercury in Plugs from Fish Fillets 47
Table 4.8.1 Summary of Detections and Contaminant Concentrations in 152 Great Lake Fish Fillet
Composite Samples 49
Figure 4.8.1 Percentage of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled Population Containing Fish with Fillet Mercury
Concentrations Above the EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmark 50
Figure 4.8.2 Percentage of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled Population Containing Fish with Fillet Total PCB
Concentrations Above EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmarks 51
Figure 4.8.3 Percentage of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled Population Containing Fish with Fillet PFOS
Concentrations Above the EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmark 51
Figure 5.1 Change in Estuarine and Great Lakes Biological Condition as Assessed with Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Indices 53
NCCA Report | Figures and Tables vi
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CCE Calibrator cell equivalents
ELISA Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
M-AMBI Multivariate AMBI (AZTI Marine Biotic Index)
NARS National Aquatic Resource Surveys
NCCA National Coastal Condition Assessment
OTI Oligochaete trophic index
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PFAS Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane sulfonate
ppb Parts per billion
qPCR Quantitative polymerase chain reaction
NCCA Report | Acronyms and Abbreviations
vii
-------
Executive Summary
Estuaries and the Great Lakes are vital to American culture and the U.S. economy.These water bodies support
commercial fishing, shellfish, tourism and shipping industries, as well as the cultural traditions of local residents.
The Great Lakes provide drinking water to nearby cities, while Great Lakes and estuarine wetlands protect our coasts
from the effects of storms. Coastal areas also provide important habitat for fish and wildlife, EPA and its partners
monitor estuaries and nearshore Great Lakes waters to assess their suitability to support these functions.
The National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA) is one of four National
Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) designed to assess the condition of America's
water resources. The NCCA focuses on estuaries and the Great Lakes due to their
ecological and economic importance.The survey helps answer such questions
as: what is the condition of the nation's coastal waters, what are key problems
in our waters, and are conditions getting better or worse over time? NCCA data
help water resource managers evaluate the progress of programs to protect and
restore estuaries and the Great Lakes. For example, data from this NCCA have
been leveraged by the state of Ohio and the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary
Program.
NCCA data help water
resource managers
evaluate progress
toward protecting and
restoring estuaries
and the Great Lakes.
Prior to the NCCA's establishment in the 2000s, there was no national dataset that allowed tracking and comparison
of conditions in estuaries and the nearshore Great Lakes over time. The NCCA survey design and standardized
monitoring and laboratory protocols ensure that survey results are nationally representative and comparable over
time. Data collected through the NCCA can also supplement state and tribal data collection.
HOW WAS THE SURVEY DONE?
In the summer of 2015, EPA and its partners visited a total of 1,060 randomly selected sites in 28 coastal states
(excluding Alaska and Hawaii): 699 sites in estuaries and 361 in the Great Lakes, representing about 27,479
square miles and 7,118 square miles of coastal waters, respectively. Survey field crews collected samples and
took measurements to characterize the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the nation's coastal waters
(see Chapter 2 to learn how these waters were defined). The NCCA did not specifically target areas with known
contamination for sampling, although such sites might have been selected for sampling by chance.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
-------
At some sites, field crews experienced difficulty collecting fish or sediments (or other samples), hindering EPA's ability
to assess condition for one or more indicators. Where samples could not be collected for a particular indicator, the area
represented by a given site was considered "not assessed"for that indicator * EPA and its partners are continuously
working on techniques to improve sample collection and minimize the area that is not assessed. See Chapter 2 and
Appendix B for more discussion.
Because the ecology and geography of U.S. coastal waters varies, EPA divided estuarine waters into four regions—the
Northeast, Southeast, Gulf and West (Coast)—when designing the survey. This ensured that each region included
enough sampling sites to be representative of conditions in the region. Regional results allow decision-makers to
focus on each region individually. EPA similarly designed the survey to ensure each of the Great Lakes had enough
sites to be representative of the condition of each lake. Detailed maps of the regions and Great Lakes are shown in
Appendix A. This report summarizes the results of the NCCA nationally and regionally. It also compares conditions for
certain indicators to those from the first NCCA (conducted in 2010) and an earlier survey from 2005-06.
WHAT DID THE SURVEY EVALUATE?
The NCCA used four ecological indicators and three human health indicators (below) to characterize conditions in
estuaries and the nearshore Great Lakes. Some ecological indicators directly describe the condition of organisms in
coastal waters, while others describe environmental conditions that could affect the ability of organisms to survive
and reproduce. Several human health indicators were assessed for the first time in 2015. These included enterococci
bacteria, microcystins (toxins produced by cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae), and mercury in fish fillet plug samples.
In the Great Lakes only, EPA conducted a supplemental study of human health indicators in fish fillet tissue, measuring
several contaminants in fillets (EPA collected similar data in 2010 as well). Human health indicators describe conditions
that could affect people's recreational use of coastal waters (e.g., for boating, fishing, or swimming).
NCCA Indicators
The NCCA uses four ecological and three human health indicators to assess the conditions in both estuaries
and nearshore Great Lakes waters.
Ecological Indicators
Human Health Indicators
Biological Condition. Condition of the
community of worms, mollusks and
crustaceans living in lake or estuarine
sediment, based on diversity, abundance and
pollution sensitivity.
Eutrophication. Index based on levels of
nutrients, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a and
water clarity.
Sediment Quality. Index assessing
contaminant levels in sediment, along with
the toxicity of the sediment to live organisms.
Ecological Effects of Fish Tissue
Contamination. Index measuring the
concentrations of metals and organic
contaminants in whole fish to estimate the
likelihood of negative effects to wildlife eating
these fish.
Enterococci. Enterococci bacteria are used as
an indicator of possible fecal contamination.
Microcystins. Microcystins are a group
of toxins produced by some types of
cyanobacteria (commonly called blue-green
algae).
Contaminants in Fish Tissue
• Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs. Mercury in
fish fillet"plug"samples (small samples
taken from fish muscle tissue).
• Contaminants in Fish Fillet Tissue.
In the Great Lakes only, EPA collected
additional fish to assess fillet tissue for
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
mercury, using entire fillets.
*Note that EPA accounted for unassessed area differently for one part of the NCCA—the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study—as described below
and in Section 4.8.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
2
-------
KEY FINDINGS
The key findings for estuaries and nearshore Great Lakes waters are described separately below. Results provided here
focus primarily on coastal area in good condition; see Chapters 3 and 4 for more details on each indicator, including
estimates of fair and poor condition. These chapters also present regional data. Additional data from the assessment,
including underlying parameters used to calculate indicator scores, are available at the NCCA dashboard at https://
coastalcondition.epa.gov.
Estuaries
Figure ES.1 summarizes the percentage of estuarine coastal area in good condition for the four ecological indicators
and three human health indicators. The percentage of area that was not assessed for each indicator is listed in
parentheses. Key findings are discussed below. For additional information about the full range of conditions for these
indicators, please see Chapter 3.
Figure ES.1. Percent of Estuarine Coastal Area in Good Condition (2015)
Ecological
Indicators
Human
Health
Indicators
Biological Condition
Eutrophication Index
Sediment Quality
Ecological Effects of
Contaminated Fish
Microcystins
Enterococci
Mercury in Fish Fillets
(Plug Samples)
¦ 71% (7% not assessed)
33% (<1% not assessed)
1 76% (3% not assessed)
15% (10% not assessed)
100% (0% not assessed)
99% (1% not assessed)
0%
50%
¦ 55% (43% not assessed)
100%
Ecological Indicators
Biological condition was overall good, with 71% of estuarine area in good condition. From 2005-06 to 2015, the
percentage of area in good condition increased (from 51% to 71%), while "not assessed" area decreased. Continued
assessments will reveal whether this change represents a real improvement in biological condition. Biological
condition was worst in the Southeast, where only 62% of area was rated good.
Eutrophication is the most widespread problem in estuaries. Only 33% of estuarine area was rated good. Conditions
were worst in the Gulf of Mexico region, where only 18% of area was rated good. Nutrient pollution from the
Mississippi River basin could be contributing to poor conditions in the Gulf region. Low levels of dissolved oxygen
and high nutrient levels associated with eutrophication can stress or even kill fish and other aquatic organisms.
Eutrophication also contributes to harmful algal blooms, some of which produce toxins such as microcystins.
Sediment quality in estuaries was good. Seventy-six percent of estuarine area was rated good nationally, although
low levels of metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons were widely detected. In West Coast estuaries, although
most area (67%) was rated good, 12% was rated poor.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
3
-------
Fish tissue contamination could affect predators of fish, such as predatory mammals, birds, or other fish, in most
area assessed. Fifteen percent of estuarine area was rated good, and 55% was rated poor (10% of the area was not
assessed). The benchmarks used to evaluate these ecological effects are conservative.They indicate that contaminants
at low levels may cause effects such as reduced reproductive success in predators. They do not imply risk to people.
Human Health Indicators
Conditions pose little risk to human health in most estuaries. Human health indicators were assessed for the
first time in 2015. In most estuaries, recreational users faced a low risk of exposure to enterococci and cyanotoxins
(microcystins); enterococci samples rarely exceeded benchmarks, and microcystins did not at all. Note that results
for microcystins do not mean there are never problems—harmful algal blooms are ephemeral and may develop and
produce toxins quickly, and other toxins not measured as part of the NCCA may be present. The NCCA also assessed
mercury in plug samples taken from fish fillet tissue. Again, the risk to humans was low; while 55% of estuarine area
was at or below EPA's human health benchmark for mercury in fish tissue, 43% of estuarine area was not assessed due
in part to failure to catch fish of the correct species or size. People should check with their state, tribal or local health
department for information about local fish consumption advisories in coastal waters.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
-------
Nearshore Great Lakes
Figure ES.2 shows the percentage of Great Lakes coastal area in good condition for the four ecological indicators and
three human health indicators (additional information on contaminants in fish fillets is provided later in the executive
summary). The percentage of area that was not assessed for each indicator is listed in parentheses. Key findings are
discussed below. For more information about the full range of conditions for these indicators, please see Chapter 4.
Figure ES.2. Percent of Great Lakes Nearshore Area in Good Condition (2015)
Ecological
Indicators
Human
Health
Indicators
Biological Condition
Eutrophication Index
Sediment Quality
Ecological Effects of
Contaminated Fish
Microcystins
Enterococci
Mercury in Fish Fillets
(Plug Samples)
131% (33% not assessed)
54% (<1% not assessed)
62% (21% not assessed)
17% (17% not assessed)
>99% (0% not assessed)
99% (1% not assessed)
0%
50%
65% (29% not assessed)
100%
Ecological Indicators
In 2015,31% of Great Lakes nearshore area was in good biological condition, but not all area was assessed.
Inability to collect samples for analysis of biological condition was a problem in the Great Lakes. Areas with hard lake
bottoms or invasive zebra and quagga mussel colonies often prevented crews from collecting a sample, limiting the
ability to determine condition in many areas. To help inform future efforts, EPA is investigating the use of underwater
video to provide supplemental information about the lake floor and to determine the presence of invasive species.
Eutrophication is a persistent problem in the Great Lakes. The extent of eutrophication in most of the nearshore
Great Lakes remained unchanged from 2010 to 2015, except in Lake Huron, where area in good condition declined
from 76% to 48% due mainly to increased phosphorus pollution. In Lake Erie, 23% of area was rated good, compared
to 54% in the nearshore Great Lakes overall.
Almost two-thirds of the nearshore area in the Great Lakes was in good condition based on sediment quality.
Overall, 62% of nearshore area was in good condition for sediment quality, with 21 % of area not assessed. Hardpan
areas and invasive mussel beds at sampling sites impeded sample collection. Sample collection improved in some
lakes, so unassessed area decreased compared to 2010. The NCCA continues to investigate ways to improve sediment
assessment.
As with estuaries, fish tissue contamination in the Great Lakes is likely to affect fish-eating predators. Fish tissue
contamination potentially leading to adverse predator effects was notable. Only 17% of nearshore area was rated
good, and 47% was rated poor (17% was unassessed). Again, the benchmarks used to predict adverse effects on
predators do not equate to human health risk.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
5
-------
Human Health Indicators
At the time of sampling in 2015, human health
indicators indicated low risk in most of the Great
Lakes. Enterococci concentrations in 2015 were
below the EPA benchmark in 99% of the Great
Lakes nearshore area. Microcystins were also not
detected at high levels. They were not detected in
69% of nearshore area; all microcystin samples but
one (in Lake Erie) were at concentrations below the
EPA benchmark. Note that although the results for
microcystins were good, this does not mean the risk
was zero. Harmful algal blooms arise quickly, and
some less common types of cyanobacteria produce
toxins not measured as part of the NCCA. Six percent
of nearshore area had fish with mercury levels above
the human health benchmark based on analysis of
plug samples from fish fillet tissue. However, 29%
of nearshore area was not assessed due to failure
to catch fish. People should consult state, tribal and
local advisories for additional information on human
health concerns associated with a particular water
body.
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study
All 152 fish fillet tissue samples in the Great Lakes
had detectable levels of mercury, PFAS, and PCBs,
and PCB levels exceeded the EPA cancer risk
benchmark for total PCBs in most samples. In the
Great Lakes, EPA conducted an additional study
of contaminants in fish fillet tissue using whole
fillets rather than fillet plugs. Whole fillet composite
samples were analyzed for mercury, PCBs, and PFAS.
Mercury results from this study cannot be directly
compared to those for the fillet plug indicator
because the fish plug analysis includes assessed
and unassessed nearshore areas and the whole filiet
analysis includes only the assessed nearshore area,
See Chapter 2, Section 4.8 and Appendix B for more
detail on these differences.
For mercury, EPA found that 13% of the assessed
Great Lakes nearshore area contained fish with fillet
concentrations above the EPA human health mercury
benchmark (300 parts per billion or ppb). For
PCBs, EPA found that 53% and 79% of the assessed
Great Lakes nearshore area contained fish with
fiilet concentrations above the EPA human health
total PCB benchmarks for noncancer effects (49
ppb) and cancer effects (12 ppb), respectively. For
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), the most common
PFAS detected in Great Lakes fish, EPA found that 5%
of the assessed Great Lakes nearshore area contained
fish with fillet concentrations above the EPA human
health PFOS benchmark (46 ppb).
PFAS PRESENCE
IN FISH FILLET TISSUE
PFAS are recognized as contaminants of concern. In
response, scientists are intensifying efforts to study
the occurrence of PFAS in the environment, as well as
the sources, levels, and risks of human exposure. PFAS
have been used in manufacturing and firefighting and
have been detected in some drinking water sources.
While levels were low overall, PFAS were detected
in every fish fillet sample in the Great Lakes Human
Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study. PFAS monitoring like
that in the study will be important for documenting
the presence of persistent chemicals as their usage
changes over time.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
6
-------
CONCLUSION
Eutrophication continues to be the most significant problem in coastal waters, consistent with data from other
NARS reports showing elevated nutrient levels in rivers. Many of these rivers feed into estuaries and the Great Lakes.
Although NARS reports for lakes and for rivers and streams indicate increased nutrient concentrations since previous
surveys, eutrophication condition in estuaries did not reflect these increases, perhaps due to the influence of open
waters and associated tidal flushing.The combined results, however, support the need to continue and expand efforts
to address sources of nutrient pollution.
The NCCA is invaluable for determining the extent of coastal waters that support healthy biological condition,
recreation and fish consumption. Where conditions are good, continued monitoring provides a bellwether to identify
whether degradation occurs. Where conditions are poor, the results can help coastal managers develop policies
to address problems and determine where further monitoring is needed (see examples in Chapter 5). Changes in
nutrient pollution and water temperature can exacerbate eutrophication and harmful algal blooms and affect the
survival of marine and aquatic organisms. Programs such as the NCCA are particularly important for detecting these
effects.
The NCCA and other NARS findings suggest the need for continued collective efforts to understand and address
the many sources of stressors to the nation's aquatic resources. EPA, other federal agencies, tribes and states are
collaborating on programs to reduce nutrient and other forms of pollution and to restore and protect U.S. coastal
ecosystems. NCCA data will continue to inform the public, resource managers and decision-makers of these programs'
progress.
NCCA Report | Executive Summary
-------
Introduction
In the summer of 2015, EPA and states partnered to conduct the National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA), a
representative survey of estuaries and U.S. Great Lakes nearshore waters in 28 coastal states, excluding Alaska and
Hawaii. The survey measured indicators of ecological condition and human health risk.
What Is an Estuary?
An estuary is a complex
ecosystem between a river and
nearshore ocean waters where
freshwater and saltwater mix.
These brackish areas include
water bodies such as bays,
mouths of rivers, salt marshes,
wetlands, and lagoons and are
influenced by tides and currents.1
See https://www.epa.gov/
nep/basic-information-about-
estuaries for more information.
WHY ARE THESE COASTAL AREAS IMPORTANT?
Estuaries and the Great Lakes contribute to economic prosperity through their
commercial fishing, shellfish and shipping industries. Coastal waters are also
important to the tourism industry as well as local residents who enjoy boating,
fishing and swimming. In addition, the Great Lakes provide drinking water
to nearby population centers. Coastal areas also provide important habitat
for fish and wildlife, supporting biodiversity necessary to maintain high-
functioning ecosystems.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SURVEY?
The NCCA assessed the condition of estuaries and the nearshore Great
Lakes to support coastal zone decision-making by national, state, tribal
and local coastal managers and to inform the public about impacts to
those water bodies. To determine condition, the survey examines core
indicators of biological condition, water and sediment quality, and fish tissue
contamination. A variety of factors can affect the health of these waters,
including industrial activity; stormwater, groundwater, and wastewater discharge; changes in land use or fishing
activity; invasive species; and climate change. In addition to local discharges, estuaries and the Great Lakes also receive
pollutants and sediments from activities within their watersheds.
The 2015 survey follows two others conducted in 2010 and 2005-06 that used a comparable survey design and
methodology. This survey and the 2010 survey were conducted as part of the National Aquatic Resource Surveys
program (NARS). The NCCA is designed to answer the following questions:
• Condition of coastal waters. What is the condition of the nation's estuarine and Great Lakes nearshore waters?
• Change over time. Are conditions in these waters getting better, worse or staying the same?
• Impact of stressors on aquatic and estuarine life. How widespread are major pollutants and other stressors that
affect estuarine and Great Lakes nearshore waters?
To answer such questions, EPA, states and tribes collaborate on national surveys like the NCCA. The NARS program's
focus on national waters is unique. Prior to its establishment, there was no national source of data that allowed
tracking of conditions over time. While states and tribes collect data under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act,
they design their water quality programs to determine conditions locally, using differing methods that may change
with local priorities. These programs are not intended to answer questions about conditions nationally. The NCCA
supplements state and tribal data, supporting consistent, nationwide reporting on the condition of coastal waters.2
1 Some people also refer to areas where small tributaries flow into the Great Lakes as estuaries; to avoid confusion throughout this report,"estuary"and its
derivatives will only be used to refer to areas where freshwater flows into the ocean.
2The NARS program uses data collection and survey protocols that in many cases differ from existing state water quality programs. In addition, it does not assess
water bodies against state water quality standards. As a result, state water quality assessment determinations may differ from those of the NARS program.
NCCA Report | Introduction
8
-------
HOW WAS THE SURVEY DONE?
Other National Aquatic Resource
Surveys
In addition to the coastal survey,
the NARS program also includes the
following surveys:
• The National Lakes Assessment (2007,
2012 and 2017).
• The National Rivers and Streams
Assessment (2008-09, 2013-14 and
2018-19)
• The National Wetland Condition
Assessment (2011 and 2016)
Reports on surveys through 2015 are
available at https://epa.gov/national-
aquatic-resource-survevs. EPA will
post additional reports and data as they
become available.
The NCCA survey design included site selection using stratified
random sampling, a method commonly used in scientific and
social science studies (see Chapter 2 for details). The NCCA also
standardized sample collection and analysis protocols to reduce
sampling error. Together these steps ensured that results were
nationally representative and comparable over time. In 2015, EPA
and its partners visited a total of 1,060 sites during the survey: 699
in estuaries and 361 in the Great Lakes. To maintain the hallmark
continuity of the NARS program, EPA trained all NCCA field crews
on sampling, processing and shipping protocols. Laboratories
underwent review prior to approval to analyze samples, and all field
and lab data were scrutinized under a national quality assurance
program. EPA scientists then analyzed the data to develop the
condition estimates reported here. Every NCCA is conducted
during the summer months, so changes in condition across surveys
reflect condition during the summer only.
HOW DOES EPA USE DATA FROM THE SURVEY?
EPA analyzes NCCA data to report on the condition of coastal
waters and to determine the success of federal, state, tribal and
local investments in water quality programs. This information
helps EPA, as well as states and tribes, set priorities for water resource protection and restoration. The NCCA focused
on estuaries and Great Lakes waters in the continental United States (except Alaska); however, NARS works with
Alaska, Hawaii and U.S. territories to implement related statistical surveys. Some highlights of this work can be found
at https://www.epa.gov/national-aauatic-resource-survevs. Additionally, researchers are considering using NCCA
protocols to assess the waters that connect the Great Lakes to each other (Wick et al. 2019).
Chapter 2, Design of the Coastal Survey,
identifies the ecological and human health
indicators reported by the NCCA and
discusses the survey's sampling and analytical
methodologies.
Chapter 3, The Condition of Our Estuarine
Coastal Waters, presents results from the
survey of estuaries, with one section for each
of seven estuarine indicators.
Chapter 4, The Condition of Our Great
Lakes Nearshore Waters, focuses on findings
from the Great Lakes survey, again with
one section for each of seven Great Lakes
indicators and one section on the Great Lakes
Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study.
Chapter 5, Conclusion, presents conclusions
and describes next steps for the NCCA and
NARS program.
NCCA Report | Introduction
9
-------
Design of the Coastal Survey
The NCCA is a large-scale statistical survey of the condition of U.S. estuaries and the nearshore Great Lakes. Such
surveys cost-effectively ensure that data collected from a sample (subset) of waters represent the broader
population of sites being surveyed. The NCCA results are representative of these waters on a national and regional
scale (this includes being representative of the nearshore Great Lakes as a whole, as well as of individual Great Lakes).
However, these national and regional results cannot be used to infer condition at specific estuaries or nearshore Great
Lakes locations. As a statistical survey of coastal waters, the NCCA design does not target known contaminated areas.
This chapter describes the elements that make up the NCCA, including the estuarine and nearshore Great Lakes waters
available to be assessed (or target populations), site selection procedures, and indicators. It also briefly describes how
samples are collected and analyzed and how data are used to develop assessments of condition. For more details on
these topics, please see the NCCA 2015 Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2021).
WATERS SURVEYED BY THE NCCA
EPA chose to focus on estuaries and the nearshore Great Lakes for the NCCA due to these waters' ecological and
economic importance. Estuarine and nearshore Great Lakes waters were assessed separately because they have
different water chemistry and ecology and are subject to different physical phenomena. See Figure 2.1 for illustrations
of the two coastal water types.
EPA defined the upstream boundary of an estuary as the location at which salinity is 0.5 parts per thousand (or ppt),
meaning little seawater is present (average salinity in the open ocean is 35 ppt). The boundary with the ocean was
defined by an imaginary line drawn between the two outermost land features bordering the estuary. Examples of
estuaries include San Francisco Bay and Puget Sound, portions of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, and barrier island
lagoon systems such as Santa Rosa Sound in the Florida panhandle.
The nearshore Great Lakes were defined as waters up to 30 meters in depth but extending no more than 5 kilometers
from shore.The NCCA focused on the nearshore zone because conditions there were expected to be directly
influenced by watershed conditions or tributary inflows (Yurista et al. 2016).
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
10
-------
Figure 2.1. What Coastal Areas Were Included in the NCCA?
The NCCA assessed estuaries and the Great Lakes separately. The areas covered by these two sets of waters are
referred to as the target populations for the survey. Sampling sites were drawn from maps representing these two
distinct populations.
Estuarine Waters
The target population for estuaries included all
U.S. estuarine coastal waters bordering the 48
contiguous states.
Within these areas, estuarine waters were defined
as extending from the head of salt1 to the ocean
confluence.+ The image below shows an example of an
estuary and its borders as defined for the NCCA.
Great Lakes Waters
The Great Lakes target population included all
nearshore Great Lakes waters within U.S. boundaries.
Great Lakes nearshore waters were defined as all waters
up to 30 meters in depth but no more than 5 kilometers
from shore.The image below shows an example of
nearshore waters at a local scale.
Estuarine Waters:
Between head of salt
and ocean confluence
(any depth)
Ocean
confluence
Nearshore Waters:
< 30 m depth and
< 5 km from shore
Legend
< 30 m depth
>30 m depth
lie
Waters excluded from target population
+ Salinity of 0.5 ppt
* Delineated by an invisible line drawn between the outermost land features bordering the estuary.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
-------
HOWWERE SAMPLING SITES CHOSEN?
As with other NARS surveys, the survey approach estimates the status of the target population (consisting of all
estuarine and nearshore Great Lakes waters, as defined above), using a representative sample of comparatively few
population members, or sites. EPA statisticians selected sampling locations based on stratified random sampling,
an approach often used in ecological, social science and public health surveys. This process divides estuaries and
nearshore Great Lakes waters into groups (called strata) based on characteristics such as ecology and geography and
allows determination of conditions at regional and national scales.
EPA randomly selected sites with unequal probability of selection within each stratum. EPA sampled new sites, as
well as sites randomly selected from those previously sampled in NCCA 2010. Resampling sites from 2010 improved
EPA's estimate of changes in estuary and nearshore Great Lakes condition. The survey design requires that estimates
presented in the report are weighted means, where the weights account for the stratification and unequal probability
of selection.
EPA designed the NCCA to estimate the national condition of coastal waters with a margin of error of ±5% and 95%
confidence.That is, enough sites were sampled that one can be 95% confident that the actual coastal area in good
condition (or fair or poor condition) was within 5% of the estimated value. The NCCA also allows condition estimates
at smaller scales (e.g., at regional scales or for individual Great Lakes), but with a wider margin of error because there
are fewer sites per region. Data collected by the NCCA can be used to supplement state and tribal data collection, but
they are not intended to be used to assess conditions in areas known to be contaminated, such as those designated as
Areas of Concern under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
HOWWERE SAMPLING SITES EVALUATED FOR VALIDITY AND AVAILABILITY?
• After site selection, field crews conducted desktop reconnaissance, reviewing maps and geographic information
systems to ensure that the selected sites were part of the target population and were in safe and accessible waters.
• Sites that were not dropped as a result of desktop reconnaissance were verified in the field to ensure they met the
definition of the target population and were accessible.
• Any site disqualified during the desktop or field evaluation was dropped and replaced with an alternate site in the
same stratum; alternate sites came from a separate group of randomly selected replacement sites. Crews followed
specific rules when replacing sites to maintain the statistical validity of the survey. In 2015, fewer than 10% of the
sites in the original draw needed to be replaced.
^patter?'
2820X1"
An NCCA crew measures light penetration with an underwater light meter.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
12
-------
WHAT DID THE SURVEY MEASURE?
NCCA field crews collected data on water clarity,
dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a and pollutants
(nutrients, bacteria and microcystins).The NCCA also
assessed contamination of sediment and fish tissue and
analyzed benthic macroinvertebrate populations.3See
the descriptions of indicators below.
NCCA staff then used these data to calculate values
for several ecological and human health indicators,
analyzing those values to determine condition. EPA
evaluated each ecological indicator by combining data
on multiple parameters into one index score or rating.
For example, the eutrophication index was based on
a combination of water chemistry, water clarity and
chlorophyll a data. Human health indicator scores were
determined by comparing concentrations of individual parameters to scientific or regulatory benchmarks. Note that
the NCCA included three different indicators for measuring contaminants in fish tissue (one ecological indicator and
two human health indicators). The NCCA indicators are described briefly below, and the methodology for determining
indicator ratings is shown later in this chapter.
Ecological Indicators
• Biological Condition. Estimates the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community, combining
measurements of organism diversity, abundance and sensitivity to pollution into one index score.
• Eutrophication. Describes the impacts of nutrient over-enrichment, which may lead to conditions associated
with different stages of harmful algal blooms, it is based on measurements of nutrients, dissolved oxygen,
chlorophyll a and water clarity. (Chlorophyll a indicates the presence of phytoplankton, such as microscopic
algae and cyanobacteria, which under certain conditions can cause such blooms.)
• Sediment Quality. Combines two sediment indices, one that measures concentrations of chemical
contaminants found in sediment and another that assesses how toxic the sediment is to live organisms.
• Ecological Effects of Fish Tissue Contamination. Measures the concentrations of metals and organic
contaminants in a whole fish composite sample to estimate the likelihood of negative effects to wildlife eating
these fish.
Human Health Indicators
• Enterococci Contamination. Enterococci bacteria are used as indicators of possible fecal contamination.This
indicator assesses enterococci DNA.
• Microcystes. Measures microcystins, a group of naturally occurring toxins produced by some types of
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae).
• Contaminants in Fish Tissue
• Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs. Based on fish fillet "plug" samples analyzed for mercury. Uses fish species
commonly eaten by recreational anglers. A "plug" is a small (~ 8 mm) biopsy taken from muscle tissue.
• Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study. In the Great Lakes only, assesses mercury,
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in fillets offish species
that are commonly consumed by humans.
'Benthic macroinvertebrates are insects, worms, mollusks and crustaceans that live in sediments.
A Secchi disk used to measure water clarity.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
13
-------
HOW WERE DATA AND SAMPLES COLLECTED?
Sampling Locations. Field crews collected samples and data at the pre-selected sampling coordinates (called
the X-site). Protocols allowed sampling from an area with an expanded radius if necessary (see Figure 2.2). Field
measurements were recorded electronically and samples were sent to laboratories for analysis. EPA trained and
audited each crew to ensure protocols were followed, and 10% of the survey sites were revisited as part of the survey's
quality assurance measures. For detailed information on NCCA sample collection and processing, please see the NCCA
2015 Field Operations Manual (U.S. EPA 2015) and NCCA 2015 Laboratory Operations Manual (U.S. EPA 2016a).
Figure 2.2. Where Did the NCCA Collect Samples?
Improving Sampling Success.
Crews attempted to collect all
samples at the pre-selected X-site.
In some cases, fish were not present,
or the crew found an impenetrable
• Water samples and profile data were collected within 100 m;
• Sediment and benthic macroinvertebrates were collected up to
500 m away;
• Fish specimens were collected up to 1,000 m* away
¦
substrate or submerged vegetation
that prevented collection of sediment
or benthic macroinvertebrates. In
such cases, crews were permitted to
extend the sample zone outward.
*For Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study specimens only, crews could extend the collection radius up to 1,500 meters from the X-site.
In Situ Measurements. Crews used instruments to determine the depth of the water and to collect profile data for
temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity or conductivity, and pH.They determined water clarity using a Secchi disc and
light attenuation using a light meter.4 At Great Lakes sites only, crews collected video footage of the lake bottom to
identify invasive species.
Water Sample Collection and Processing. Field crews collected water samples for total and dissolved nitrogen and
phosphorus, chlorophyll a, enterococci, and microcystes.They used equipment such as submersible water collection
bottles or pumps. Some types of water samples were filtered. All water samples were either shipped chilled overnight
or frozen and shipped to laboratories on dry ice.
Sediment Sample Collection and Processing. The objective of
sediment collection is to obtain a thin layer of sediment from the
sediment/water column interface. Crews collected about 2 to 4 liters
of sediment for use in contaminant analysis and toxicity testing. They
used a stainless steel grab apparatus, carefully scraping the top 2
centimeters from multiple grabs, and thoroughly mixed the samples
into a composite.The mixture was divided into several containers, whi
were shipped to the laboratories.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Collection and Processing.
A sediment grab was used to collect invertebrates. The sample was
gently rinsed using site water over a 500-micron (0.5-millimeter) sieve
to remove sediment but retain organisms. The material remaining on
the sieve was placed into a jar with preservative and shipped to the
laboratory. Benthic macroinvertebrate specimens were also stained to
facilitate identification.
4Secchi discs are blackand white discs lowered into the water.The point at which they are no longer visible is the Secchi depth, used to measure clarity.The NCCA
used light meters that detect light at wavelengths active in photosynthesis (400 to 700 nanometers).
A Young-modified Van Veen grab sampler used for
sediment collection.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
14
-------
Fish Sample Collection and Processing. At each estuarine and Great Lakes site, crews collected a whole fish
composite sample for ecological contaminant analysis and a fish fillet plug sample to analyze for mercury. At Great
Lakes sites only, crews collected a third fish sample to analyze fillets for a suite of contaminants that may impact
human health.The collection procedures for each indicator are summarized below. For further details, please see the
NCCA 2015 Technical Support Document.
Whole Fish Composite for Ecological Contaminant Analysis
Whole fish were collected because this analysis looks at the impact on fish predators, which eat the entire fish.
• Fish species collected were targeted from a list of common forage fish.
• The minimum targeted fish size was 100 millimeters (mm); the maximum targeted size was 400 mm, with the
smallest fish being no smaller than 75% of the length of the largest fish.
• The minimum targeted composite mass was 300 grams (g).
• The targeted number of specimens in a composite: five to 20.
• Collected fish were composited into one bag and frozen.
• Sometimes the species and size targets could not be met; in such cases, crews collected non-target fish.
Fish Fillet Plug Sample for Mercury Analysis
Fish fillet (muscle) biopsy samples (plugs) were collected to assess human exposure to mercury from fish
consumption; this is an inexpensive method for assessing risk and was applied at both estuarine and Great Lakes
sites. This method was new for NCCA 2015.
• Fish species were targeted from a list of species consumed by people.
• The minimum length was 190 mm.
• Fish not meeting size or species requirements were released and not sampled.
• An 8-mm biopsy plug was taken from fillet tissue of either two fish of the same species, or both sides of one
fish.
• Sometimes plugs could be collected from ecological fish tissue specimens. When they could not, samples were
instead collected from live fish that were then treated with antibiotic salve and released.
• Samples were frozen in a glass vial.
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Sample for Analysis of Multiple Contaminants
In the Great Lakes only, fish samples were collected for analysis of fillets to assess human exposure to multiple
chemical contaminants due to fish consumption. This method accommodates analysis of a number of
contaminants in fillets offish species eaten by people.
• Fish species were targeted from a narrow list of those commonly consumed by people.
• The minimum size was 190 mm, with the smallest fish being no smaller than 75% of the length of the largest
fish.
• Fish not meeting size or species requirements were released and not sampled.
• The number of specimens in a fish composite sample was ideally five of the same species, but samples
containing one to 10 specimens of the same species were accepted.
• Whole fish samples were frozen on dry ice and shipped to the laboratory for filleting and preparation of fillet
composite samples.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
15
-------
HOW DID EPA ANALYZE THE RESULTS?
To characterize coastal conditions, EPA interpreted the data collected by field crews using applicable and available
benchmarks. For each ecological indicator, EPA calculated an index score to rate a site good, fair or poor, as described
below. For human health indicators, EPA compared the numeric results to human health benchmarks and evaluated
condition in relation to the benchmarks (i.e., "at or below" or "above" the benchmark). For details about the analyses
described below, please see Appendix B (for ecological indicators) or the NCCA 2015 Technical Support Document (U.S.
EPA 2021).
In some cases, field crews were unable to collect samples at a site, or the samples that were collected could not be
analyzed. EPA considered the area represented by that site to be"unassessed"or"not assessed"for the associated
indicator. Appendix B discusses some of the reasons coastal area might not be assessed. With every NCCA, EPA strives
to improve sampling and other procedures to reduce the amount of area that is not assessed.
For most NCCA indicators, EPA provides results as a percentage of the target population, where the assessed area
(e.g., the sum of area in good, fair and poor condition) and the unassessed area add to 100%. For the Great Lakes
Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study only, results are provided as a percentage of the assessed area, which is referred
to as the sampled population, along with the number of square miles of Great Lakes nearshore area in the sampled
population.
Biological Condition. The NCCA assessed the biological condition of estuaries using a new national benthic
macroinvertebrate index called the M-AMBI, a modification of an index used in water quality programs in Europe
(Pelletier et al. 2018). The index considers the relative abundance of benthic taxa that tolerate degraded conditions,
along with measures of overall diversity and species richness.5 These three metrics are combined to develop an index
value. Good sites have a wide variety of species, more diversity, and fewer pollution-tolerant species than fair or poor
sites. Scores range from zero to 1, with scores <0.39 indicating poor condition.
In the Great Lakes, the NCCA used an index called the oligochaete trophic index (Milbrink 1983; Environment Canada
and U.S. EPA 2014) to assess biological condition. This index relies on the classification of oligochaete species (aquatic
worms) by their known tolerance to organic enrichment, taking abundance into account. A higher proportion of
species that are tolerant to organic enrichment reflects poorer biological condition. Scores range from zero (indicating
more species with low tolerance to enrichment) to 3 (indicating more species with high tolerance). A score >1
indicates poor condition.
Eutrophication. This water quality indicator measures nutrients, chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen and water clarity to
characterize the possibility that a water body is experiencing one of three stages of eutrophication: pre-algal bloom,
bloom or post-bloom. Using regionally relevant benchmarks, EPA assigned each individual parameter a rating of good,
fair or poor.Table 2.1 illustrates how poor condition (shown in pink) for different parameters is associated with each
stage.
A site's overall rating
depended on the number
of good, fair and poor
ratings for individual
parameters. If any two
individual parameters were
in poor condition, the site
was rated "poor" for the
eutrophication index.The
site was rated fair if any
two parameters were in fair
condition or any one was
in poor condition.
Table 2.1. Water Quality Characteristics in Each Stage of Eutrophication
Parameters
Nutrients1
Chlorophyll a
Water Clarity
Dissolved Oxygen
Pre-Bloom
Excessive
Normal
Clear
Normal
Bloom
Diminishing
Over-abundant
Low
Normal
Post-Bloom
Depleted
Clearing
Low
Depleted
~The NCCA assesses dissolved inorganic phosphorus and dissolved inorganic nitrogen for estuaries and total
phosphorus for the Great Lakes.
5Taxa are groups of organisms used for classification. Examples include species, families, and orders. Diversity indices account for the number of species present
and the abundance of each species, while species richness refers to just the number of species.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
16
-------
An NCCA crew fills a plastic bag with a sediment sample.
Sediment Quality. The NCCA sediment quality index
combines indices of contamination and toxicity to
estimate whether sediments have the potential to
cause adverse health effects to benthic organisms.
For the contaminant index, EPA compared sediment
concentrations of metals, PCBs, polyaromatic
hydrocarbons and pesticides to benchmarks for
adverse effects from scientific literature, including
studies by EPA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. EPA rated sites good,
fair or poor based on whether and by how much they
exceeded the benchmarks.
For the toxicity index, the survival of laboratory
organisms exposed to sampled sediments was
compared to that of organisms exposed to clean
uncontaminated sediments. Good, fair and poor
ratings were developed based upon the difference in
survival between these two groups.
The NCCA combined results of these two indices to give each site a sediment quality condition score of good, fair
or poor. Combining the results provides a fuller picture of the sediment quality at a site. The sediment contaminant
index accounts for ecological risk for a select group of well-characterized contaminants. The sediment toxicity index
accounts for the fact that risk-based thresholds do not exist for most of the thousands of chemicals introduced into
the 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 in the environment.
Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish. The ecological fish tissue contamination index indicates whether
predatory fish, birds or mammals ("receptor groups") could experience adverse, nonlethal effects such as stunted
growth or reduced reproductive success from eating contaminated fish. Whole-body fish composites from each site
were analyzed for concentrations of metals, pesticides and PCBs. Results were compared to toxicity screening values
(concentrations at which contaminants are known to cause adverse effects in receptors, based on lab studies). EPA
rated sites good, fair or poor based on the number of receptor groups for which screening values were exceeded. EPA
updated the methods used to calculate this indicator to more appropriately account for predator body weights and
ingestion rates and applied the update to 2010 and 2015 data. Please see the NCCA 2015 Technical Support Document
for a description of the update. In addition, the NCCA has compared the concentration of selenium alone in fish
composites to EPA's recommended whole-body Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater
(2016b), developed under Clean Water Act section 304(a).s
Enterococci Contamination. The NCCA used a method called quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to
detect and quantify enterococci DNA in water from each site. This rapid analysis method produces results expressed
in units of calibrator cell equivalents (CCE) per 100 milliliters (mL). Results from each site sample were compared to the
benchmark of 1,280 CCE/100 mL from EPA's 2012 recreational water quality criteria document.
[1 —
1 ""I I1,
6 EPA applied the freshwater criterion in both the Great Lakes and estuaries. EPA's 1999 saltwater aquatic life criterion for selenium (U.S. EPA n.d.) is based on con-
centration in water rather than in fish tissue and is not applicable to this analysis.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
17
-------
Microcystins. Microcystins were measured using a technique called enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).
Concentrations of microcystins at each site were evaluated against the EPA 2019 recreational water quality criterion
benchmark of 8 micrograms per liter (pg/L).
Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs. EPA's fish-tissue-based human health water quality criterion (2001) for methylmercury
is 0.3 milligrams of methylmercury per kilogram of tissue (wet weight), or 300 parts per billion (ppb). Because most
mercury in fish tissue is methylmercury, EPA guidance recommends measuring total mercury. The NCCA rated sites by
comparing the total mercury concentrations in fish fillet plugs to the 300 ppb benchmark.
The results for mercury in fish fillet plugs (Figures 3.7.1 and 4.7.1) apply to the entire target populations of estuarine
and nearshore Great Lakes sites, the same populations defined for the other indicators in this report (except the
Great Lakes human health fish fillet indicator, as noted below). Consistent with those other indicators, sites at which
plug samples were not collected contribute to estimation of the unassessed area for the indicator, for each target
population.
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study. In the Great Lakes only, the NCCA included collection of
additional fish composite samples to prepare and analyze fillet composite samples for multiple contaminants in
fish that could affect human health. Fillet composite samples were homogenized and analyzed for total mercury,
total PCBs, and PFAS. Mercury results were compared to the 300 ppb mercury benchmark described above for plug
samples. Results from the PCB and PFAS analyses were compared to EPA human health fish tissue benchmarks that
were derived using a 32 g/day (one 8-ounce meal/week) fish consumption rate. These benchmarks are 49 ppb for
total PCB noncancer effects, 12 ppb for total PCB cancer effects, and 46 ppb for perfiuorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), a
common PFAS.The benchmarks are associated with the average consumption rate for people who consume Great
Lakes fish, EPA has not established benchmarks for other PFAS.
The sampled population for the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study is the subset of the NCCA Great
Lakes nearshore target population assessed for this study. It consists of 6,862 square miles of U.S. Great Lakes
nearshore area.The mercury, PCB, and PFAS results for fillet composite samples (Figures 4.8.1,4.8.2, and 4.8.3) apply to
this sampled population. Mercury results from this study should not be compared to Great Lakes fillet plug mercury
results because the fillet plug analysis includes assessed and unassessed Great Lakes nearshore areas.
NCCA Report | Design of the Coastal Survey
-------
3 The Condition of Our
Estuarine Coastal Waters
T
his chapter summarizes the NCCA's key findings from the 2015 assessment of U.S. estuary condition.
Estuaries are particularly productive habitats for fish and wildlife, due to tidal mixing of the nutrients brought
downstream by fresh waters. However, estuaries also receive inputs from agriculture, industry and growing coastal
cities, which can result in excess nutrients and other pollutants.7 Rising sea levels and temperatures are also changing
estuarine ecology (Sweet et al. 2017; Fleming et al. 2018; Jewett and Romanou 2017).
As described in Chapter 2, for the NCCA, estuaries are defined as the area between the head of salt (where salinity is
0.5 parts per thousand) and the confluence with the ocean. (See Figure 2.1.)
mm"
WSmSszZat/0 *
t a , „ - * ,
-------
HOW THIS CHAPTER IS ORGANIZED
This chapter presents information pertaining to each
health indicators (see box).
Each indicator section contains three parts: a brief
explanation of why each indicator matters for U.S.
estuaries, results from the 2015 survey, and change
in condition over time, if data were available.8 Some
sections present additional information about
methodology or findings.
four NCCA ecological indicators and the three human
NCCA Estuarine Indicators
The NCCA uses seven indicators to assess the
conditions of estuaries.
Ecological Indicators
• Biological Condition (See Section 3.1)
• Eutrophication (See Section 3.2)
• Sediment Quality (See Section 3.3)
• Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish
(See Section 3.4)
Human Health Indicators
• Enterococci Contamination (See Section 3.5)
• Microcystes (See Section 3.6)
• Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs (See Section 3.7)
8 Data on the ecological effects offish tissue contamination were collected in both 2015 and 2010. Data were collected in 2015,2010 and 2005-06 for the other
three ecological indicators. (For brevity, the 2005-06 assessment is referred to in the bar graphs as simply '05.) The NCCA only began data collection for human
health indicators in 2015, so no change analysis is possible at this time for those indicators.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters 20
-------
HOW THE RESULTS ARE PRESENTED
For estuaries, results are reported at the national level and for each of four distinct regions: Northeast, Southeast,
Gulf and West (see Figure 3.0,1). For detailed maps of the sampling locations, see Appendix A.
Figure 3.0.1. Characteristics and Sample Size of the NCCA Estuarine Regions
NORTHEAST
• Extent. Maine to the Virginia - North Carolina Border
• Area Assessed. 9,956 square miles by sampling 252 sites
• Points of Interest. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the Northeast and in the
country as a whole.
SOUTHEAST
• Extent. Virginia - North Carolina Border to Biscayne Bay, Florida
• Area Assessed. 4,604 square miles by sampling 86 sites
• Points of Interest. Coastal populations in the Southeast have more than doubled since 1970.
GULF
• Extent. Florida Bay to the Texas - Mexico Border
• Area Assessed. 10,715 square miles by sampling 237 sites.
• Points of Interest. Estuaries in Louisiana are disappearing due to sea level rise, land subsidence
and reduced sediment input from the Mississippi River (U.S. Geological Survey 2017).
WEST
• Extent. Puget Sound, Washington to the California - Mexico Border.
• Area Assessed. 2,204 square miles by sampling 124 sites.
• Points of Interest. The West has a drier climate and fewer rivers, so overall estuary area is
smaller than in other regions. San Francisco Bay is the largest estuary in the West.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
-------
The chapter uses bar graphs to compare data across the estuarine regions. Figures 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 describe some of the
features of these graphs.
Figure 3.0.2. Data on 2015 Condition
For each indicator, graphs show the percentage of U.S. estuarine area in each condition category. Categories
include good, fair, or poor for ecological indicators; not detected, at or below benchmark, or above benchmark for
human health indicators; or not assessed when samples could not be collected. Below, for one indicator, we see
the percentage in good condition for the estuaries as a whole and for each of the four NCCA estuarine regions. This
report contains similar graphs for the other condition categories. Note that, due to rounding, percentages across
all condition categories may not always add to 100%.
Good
J7T
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
¦71%
-75% <-
-62%
¦ 68%
¦-85%
0%
50%
Percent Area
100%
Both number and the length of the bar represent an
estimate of the percentage of area in good condition.
The length of the line represents the margin of error around
each estimate. EPA is 95% confident that the true percentage
of area in good condition lies within the boundaries of the
margin of error.
Figure 3.0.3. Data on Change from 2005-06 to 2015
For each ecological indicator, graphs show the change in percentage of estuarine area in each condition category
over time. Below we see the change in percentage in good condition for one indicator for U.S. estuaries nationally.
(In this case, we can see that the estimated area in good condition has been increasing since the 2005-06
assessment.) The chapter contains similar graphs for the other condition categories and the individual NCCA
estuarine regions. Note that, due to rounding, percentages across all condition categories may not always add to
100%.
All Estuaries
Percent
Area
100%
50%
o%
49%
65% 7!%
For brevity, the 2005-06 assessment is referred to in the bar
graphs as'"05."
The height of the bar and the number displayed represent
the estimate of the percentage of area in good condition for
an assessment period (in this case, 2015).Text throughout
the chapter identifies statistically meaningful changes where
relevant.
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
22
-------
Biological Condition
The benthic macroinvertebrates that the
NCCA uses to assess biological condition
are animals such as worms, mollusks and
crustaceans that live in the sediment of
the estuary floor. They play an important
role cycling carbon and nutrients and are
food for many predators in the food web.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are used as
indicators of biological condition because
they are relatively immobile, show signs
of stress month to years after exposure
and respond predictably to pollution. See
Chapter 2 or Appendix B for information
about how the NCCA assesses the benthic
macroinvertebrate community in estuaries.
Benthic communities include worms, clams and crustaceans that live on and in the
sediment. Mercenaria mercenaria (hard clams or quahogs) are bivalve filter feeders that
can be a member of these communities. (Also shown: Fundulus heteroclitus, a small fish
commonly known as a mummichog.)
What Was the Condition in 2015?
Nationally, about 71% of the nation's estuarine waters were in good biological condition based upon
the new national index (the M-AMBI, discussed further on the next page).This indicates that, in 2015,
most of the nation's estuarine waters supported a healthy benthic community.
Figure 3.1.1. Estuarine Biological Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
The estuarine waters of the West Coast had a higher proportion of area in good condition than other regions of the country, although not
significantly different than the Northeast.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
23
-------
Did the Condition Change?
M-AMBI results indicate biological quality has been gradually improving overtime in estuaries nationwide.
Figure 3.1.2. Change in Estuarine Biological Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
100%
All Estuaries 50%
o%
71%
12% 15% 15%
7% 12% 7%
31%
8% 7%
•*- -f »¦
65%
51% i I Ti
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 . '05 '10 "15
68% 63% 62%
t_±
100% 65% ™
51%
Northeast 50% i= I
o%
100%
Southeast 50%
o%
100%
Gulf 50%
0%
14% 10% 8%
10% ?%
26%
22% 25°/'° 21 %
6% 7% 11%
4% 5% 6%
65%
1 I, H
54%
36%
17% 20% 14%
6% 4% 7%
5% 6%
Across all estuaries nationally,
the NCCA identified a statistically
significant increase in area rated good
from 2005-06 to 2015, driven by changes
in the Northeast and Gulf regions
over the same time frame (below). It is
possible the improvement was due in
part to improved sample collection (i.e.,
reduction in area that was not assessed)
rather than actual improved condition.
There was a significant reduction
in area not assessed from 2005-06
to 2010 nationally, largely due to
increased benthic sampling success
across the estuaries of the Gulf Coast
and the Northeast.
Hurricane Katrina heavily impacted
field sampling efforts during 2005,
preventing crews from sampling a
large portion of the Gulf of Mexico.
100% 81%
,1.
West 50%
o%
85%
it*—
11% 15% 9%
7% 3% 4%
13%
2% 2%
"05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 "15
Comparing Benthic Communities Nationwide
Historically, the NCCA used different regional multimetric benthic
indices and measures of diversity to assess biological condition. The
different methods made it difficult to make national comparisons.To
address this issue, scientists worked to develop a nationwide index,
adapting a European marine biotic index (AMBI) for use in U.S. coastal
waters.The Multivariate AMBI (M-AMBI) used in NCCA 2015 accounts
for the biological responses of organisms to salinity. Although the
M-AMBI itself is new, the data necessary to calculate M-AMBI scores
are available from previous coastal surveys, so the M-AMBI can be
used to calculate national estimates of change in biological condition
over time, along with comparable regional estimates. For more
information about the M-AMBI, please see Appendix B or the NCCA
2015 Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2021).
Sediment samples are placed on a sieve and washed to
remove sediment and expose macroinvertebrates.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
24
-------
B
y^Eui
INDICATORS OF ESTUARINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
Eutrophication Index
One of the most critical water quality problems in
estuaries is eutrophication, a condition caused by an
overabundance of nutrients (NOAA National Centers
for Coastal Science 2007). Excess nutrients can cause
increased growth of phytoplankton (microscopic
algae and cyanobacteria), known as harmful algal
blooms. Blooms may prevent light from reaching
seagrass beds that serve as nursery habitat for marine
species. Post-bloom, decaying organic matter then
consumes dissolved oxygen, stressing aquatic life and
ecosystems. Sources of excess nutrients include urban
and agricultural runoff and treated wastewater.
The eutrophication index assesses nutrient, dissolved
oxygen and chlorophyll a concentrations, as well as
water clarity. See Chapter 2 or Appendix B for more
information about the eutrophication index and
Section 3.6 for more on harmful algal blooms.
A red tide in Puget Sound, Washington, in 2013. Red tides are a
type of harmful algal bloom often associated with eutrophication
in estuaries.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
Nationally, results indicate that 66% of estuaririe waters have an increased likelihood of being
impacted by eutrophication, with about 51% in fair condition and 15% in poor condition. Elevated
phosphorus and chlorophyll a were the underlying indicators driving fair and poor eutrophication
index ratings.
Figure 3.2.1. Estuarine Eutrophication Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
Good
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Guif
West
33%
48%
76%
0%
50
The estuarine waters of the
Southeast and Guif Coasts were
least likely to have good conditions.
air
51%
71%
55%
19%
100 0%
50
100
The West Coast was most likely
to experience good conditions.
^Jot Assessed
<1%
0%
j-2%
0%
0%
0% 50 100
The Gulf had the greatest area in
poor condition.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
25
-------
Did the Condition Change?
From 2005-06 to 2010, and from 2010 to 2015, there were no statistically significant changes in national estuarine
eutrophication condition.
Figure 3.2.2. Change in Estuarine Eutrophication Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
49%
33% -
55%
51%
>
>
28% 31%
i '
11%
14%
15%
12%
<1%
<1%
°
IX)
o
'15 ! '05
'10
'15
'05
'10
'15
'05
'10
'15
100%
All Estuaries 50%
o%
100% '
cn„, 44% 48% 45% 19% 45%
Northeast 50% 33%
0%
100%
Southeast 50%
0%
7% 6% 7%
15%
_^^_J%__0%_
67% 69% 71%
14% ^ ™
9% 10%
1 6 • 8
1% <1% 2% I
Across all estuaries, a large
proportion of the area was unassessed
in 2005 -06, due to sampling issues in
all regions except the Southeast.
Estuarine area rated fair fluctuated
across the three periods, showing no
clear pattern nationally; however, any
changes in estimates of good, fair and
poor from 2005 -06 to 2010 may be due
in part to improved sampling success in
the Northeast, Gulf and West Coasts
and not to changing condition.
100%
52% 59% 55%
50%
16% 18%
14% 25% 28%
10%
0%
|^i |
100% 70% 76%
49%
West 50% ,L 1
0%
2f° .2f°. 19%
5% 2% 5%
22%
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
Algal blooms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Low Oxygen in the Gulf of Mexico
Eutrophication occurs in estuaries across the
country. For example, a hypoxic (low oxygen) zone
forms offshore in the northern Gulf of Mexico every
year as nutrient-laden water is delivered from the
Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin. Although most
of this "dead zone" forms in open water, estuaries
may also be affected. In 2010, more than 400 coastal
ecosystems (including some of the Great Lakes)
were found to be hypoxic or at risk of hypoxia (U.S.
EPA 2020). As part of the U.S. Hypoxia Task Force,
EPA supports state members implementing nutrient
reduction strategies to reduce the size of the hypoxic
zone and improve local waters. EPA collaborates
with other federal agencies on this effort. For more
information, please visit https://www.epa.gov/ms-htf.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
-------
INDICATORS OF ESTUARiNE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
Sediment Quality
Sediments serve as important indicators of estuarine
condition because they can accumulate persistent
contaminants. These contaminants may adversely
affect bottom-dwelling organisms. As predators eat
sediment-dwellers, the contaminants can become
concentrated throughout the food web, potentially
affecting fish, marine mammals and humans who eat
contaminated fish and shellfish.
The NCCA measures sediment contaminant
concentrations and overall toxicity. Sediment
contaminant tests detect select metals and organic
compounds, while toxicity tests assess whether each
estuarine sediment sample as a whole is toxic to
laboratory organisms. See Chapter 2 or Appendix B
for details about the sediment quality index.
> wj|J. E .
Wf r,
Sediment in Boston Harbor, from a U.S. Geological Survey mapping
study.
What Was the Condition in 20151
More than three-quarters of the estuarine waters were in good condition based on sediment quality,
with no significant differences in good or fair ratings among the four NCCA regions.
Figure 3.3.1. Estuarine Sediment Quality
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
The West Coast had the largest proportion of estuarine area in poor condition; this difference was statistically significant.
Further study is needed to determine the reason for the difference.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
27
-------
Did the Condition Change?
Nationally, estuarine sediment quality has fluctuated since 2005-06, but there has been no significant change in
area rated good or poor since then.
Figure 3.3.2. Change in Estuarine Sediment Quality
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
100%
All Estuaries 50%
o%
100%
Northeast 50%
o%
100%
Southeast 50%
o%
93%
77% 84%
197° 13%
2%
-o
CO
ub
1% <1% <1%
74%
54%
i
76%
23% 19o/o
6%
qo/ 17%
9/0 3%
1°.% 6% 3%
Across all estuaries, there was a
statistically significant increase in area
rated fair from 2005-06 to 2010 but
no significant change in fair area from
2010 to 2015. That pattern holds for
'05
'10
'15
LO
O
LO
o
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
68%
55%
76%
each of the four regions.
25%
10% 16/0
,6% ^ 1%
15% A J 0/
11/o 6o/o
100%
Gulf 50%
0%
72%
48%
75%
1
23% 23%
4%
25%
13% „
| 2%
12% ,o,
3%
-------
B
y/Ec
INDICATORS OF ESTIJARINE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish
Estuarine organisms at all levels of the food web may
absorb chemical contaminants from the environment,
although pathways differ depending on the organism.
Organisms may take up contaminants directly from
water, consume contaminated sediment, or consume
contaminated organisms. Contaminants acquired from
eating prey tend to remain in tissues and may build up over
time. This is known as biomagnification. High contaminant
levels can reduce reproductive success or cause death.
This indicator is used to evaluate whether contamination
in fish might lead to lethal or nonlethal effects in predators
(birds, mammals or other fish). See Chapter 2 or Appendix B
for details about how the NCCA assesses ecological effects
offish contamination. Note that a rating of poor here does
not equate to a human health risk.
In some estuaries, birds such as this double-crested cormorant
(Phalacrocoraxauritus) could experience adverse effects from
eating contaminated prey fish.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
About 15% of estuarine waters had fish tissue in good condition, while 20% were in fair and 55% were
in poor condition. Thus, in 75% of estuarine area, wildlife that eat fish from estuaries may experience
some level of adverse effects. The benchmarks used to assess condition are very low and are intended
to protect wildlife against nonlethal effects. Selenium, arsenic and mercury were the contaminants that
most frequently exceeded benchmarks in estuarine fish sample composites.
Figure 3.4.1. Estuarine Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects)
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
Good
Not Assessed
10%
20%
00 0%
Although the Gulf had a significantly higher percentage of area in
poor condition than other regions, it also had the most assessed area.
Use caution when comparing results in other regions to the Gulf.
In some instances, crews were not able to collect fish for this
indicator. As a result, 10% of estuarine waters were unassessed.
The amount of unassessed waters ranged from just 1% in the
Gulf to 28% in the West.
This index is used to assess potential harm to wildlife, not people.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
29
-------
Did the Condition Change?
Area rated fair and poor increased by 7.2 and 4.7 percentage points, respectively. Unassessed area decreased
by 10.4 percentage points. This reflects an increase in confidence in the assessment due to improved sampling
success, but may not reflect a true change in condition.This indicator was not assessed prior to 2010.
Figure 3.4.2. Change in Estuarine Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects)
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
100%
All Estuaries 50%
0%
51% 55%
, 1 1
16% 15%
12% 20%
II
21%
1 10%
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
100%
Northeast 50%
o%
100%
Southeast 50%
o%
51%
43%
18% 18%
r„, 15%
5%
I'll
if
A
38%
48%
I 35%
2|4% 15%
21%
Hi
7% 12|%
Nationally, crews significantly
improved their sampling success in
2015, likely because they sampled
a larger radius around the selected
coordinates at each site. While
sampling success improved nationally,
it did not improve in every region.
The Northeast saw a significant increase
in estuarine area in poor condition
for fish quality. It is possible that this
may be related to improved sampling
techniques.
69%
1
74%
1
11% 9%
14% 15%
_5% 1%
37%
25%
j
26% 24%
i
2Wo
*
28%
18% _i_
1 1
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
This index is used to assess potential harm to wildlife, not people.
Assessing Selenium in Fish Tissue
Selenium is a naturally occurring element. It can enter the water through the weathering of rocks and via human
activities such as mining, coal combustion and agriculture. Selenium is essential to animals in very small amounts but
becomes toxic at higher concentrations. In addition to assessing selenium as part of the indicator described above,
EPA also assessed it separately against a different benchmark. Unlike most of the other contaminants assessed above,
selenium has a whole-body aquatic life criterion (U.S. EPA 2016b) developed under section 304(a) of the Clean Water
Act. The criterion protects prey fish against adverse effects of selenium exposure, whereas the benchmark for the
contaminant index above protects fish predators from exposure to multiple contaminants.The whole-body criterion
does not address risk to predators.
When compared to the EPA whole-body aquatic life criterion of 8.5 mg/kg dry weight, none of the fish representing
estuarine waters had selenium concentrations exceeding the benchmark.This indicates that fish were unlikely to
experience negative impacts from the concentrations of selenium within their tissue. That is, 79% of estuarine waters,
or 21,594 square miles, were at or below the benchmark, and the remaining 21% of waters, or 21,594 square miles,
were not assessed because no fish specimens suitable for analysis were caught.
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
30
-------
ESTUARINE HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
Enterococci Contamination
In 2015, the NCCA measured enterococci (a group of
bacteria that live in the intestines of humans and other
warm-blooded animals) to assess the contamination
of estuaries from human and animal waste. While
enterococci typically do not cause illness, they can signal
the presence of fecal matter and, possibly, disease-causing
bacteria, viruses and protozoa in the water. Sources of
contamination include wastewater treatment plants,
leaking septic systems, urban stormwater and agricultural
runoff. The NCCA assesses risk of exposure to enterococci
at national and regional levels. For information about risks
at specific locations, recreational users should check with
local beach monitoring programs. See Chapter 2 for details
about how the NCCA assesses enterococci.
HEALTH ADVISORY
Do not swim or wade in this
area for 48 hours after rainfall.
Stormwater flowing into this
area may be polluted.
Do not collect or eat shellfish
from this area.
^^0 Tacoma-Pierce County
•' \ Health Department
' Healthy People in Healthy Communities
Scan the code, call (253) 798-6470, or
visit www.tpchd.org/healthadvisoryQR » v
for more information.
Washington State Beach Program
http://bit.ly/WAswimming (360) 407-6543
Stormwater runoff often contains fecal pathogens that
can sicken those who come into contact with it.
What Was the Condition in 20151
Nationally, enterococci levels were at or below the EPA limit of 1,280 CCE/10Q m!_ in almost 99% of
estuarine waters.This limit was set to protect human health during swimming. For information about
risk at local beaches, visit https://www.epa.aov/beaches/find-information-about-particular-us-beach.
Figure 3.5.1. Estuarine Enterococci Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
At or Below Benchmark
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
o%
99%
99%
99%
98%
99%
Above Benchmark
1% -
1%
1%
1%
<1%
50
100 0%
In every region, nearly 100% of the
estuarine area was at or below the human
health benchmark for enterococci.
50
100
slot Assessed
1%
0%
0%
H%
<1%
0% 50 100
Nationwide, less than 1 % of estuarine area
was above the human health limit, and less
than 1% of the area was unassessed.
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did not report on enterococci levels prior to 2015, so no estimate of change is available.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
31
-------
ESTUARINE HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
3-6 S Microcystes
Cyanobacteria are one-celled photosynthetic organisms
that normally occur at low levels. Under high-nutrient
(eutrophic) conditions, they can multiply rapidly and form
harmful algal blooms. Not all blooms are toxic, but some
may release cyanotoxins such as microcystins into the water.
Health effects of exposure include skin rashes, eye irritation,
respiratory symptoms, gastroenteritis, and in severe cases,
liver or kidney failure and death. Microcystins are potent
liver toxins and suspected carcinogens.
EPA has set a recreational freshwater benchmark of 8 ng/L.
No benchmarks exist for marine waters or the brackish
water found in estuaries. Therefore, the NCCA compared
the estuarine results to the freshwater benchmark. Note that some types of cyanobacteria and
algae release other toxins not monitored under the NCCA. The NCCA assesses risk of exposure
to microcystins at national and regional levels. For information about risks at specific locations,
recreational water users should check with state, tribal or local governments.
BEACH CLOSED
Harmful Blue-green Algae Blooms
No Swimming or Wading
Contact can make people and animals sick.
If contact occurs, rinse with clean water.
If symptoms occur, contact a medical provider.
If you see blooms or scum outside the beach,
don't swim, fish or boat in those areas. Keep kids and pets away.
Learn more: www.healtfi.nv.gov/HarmfulAlaaeandon.nv.qov/hab
During toxic harmful algal blooms, beaches are often closed
to protect the public.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
Nationally, microcystins were at or below EPA's 8 pg/L human health benchmark in all estuarine waters.
Microcystins were detected in only 6% of these waters.
Figure 3.6.1. Estuarine Microcystins Condition
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
At or Below Benchmark
Above Benchmark
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
¦100%
0%
50
100
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 50 100
Mot Assessed
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 50 100
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did not report microcystin levels prior to 2015, so no estimate of change is available.
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
32
-------
E
ESTUARINE HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs
Mercury is a toxic metal that occurs naturally in the
ecosystem in very small amounts. Human activities
such as combustion of fossil fuels release additional
mercury into the environment. Mercury in the form
of methylmercury is commonly found at detectable
levels in fish tissue. Consumption of contaminated fish
by pregnant women can lead to vision, hearing and
nervous system defects in babies. Methylmercury may
also impair brain development in young children and,
at elevated levels, can lead to other physiological and
cognitive impairments. However, the health benefits
of eating fish are widely known. People should consult
local fish consumption advisories to find out if fish
they have caught are safe to eat.
Although primarily a freshwater species, channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) can withstand low to moderate salinity. This species was
on the target list of species to be sampled for mercury in estuaries.
For estuaries, EPA analyzed total mercury in small plugs of fillet tissue. This approach was designed
to minimize harm to fish. Where possible, fish were released after plug samples were taken.
See Chapter 2 for details.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
Nationally, based on results from fish fillet plugs, almost 55% of estuarine area had mercury
concentrations at or below the benchmark value of 300 ppb.
Figure 3.7.1. Estuarine Condition Based on Mercury in Plugs from Fish Fillets
Percent of estuarine area in each condition category (2015)
At or Below Benchmark
All Estuaries
Northeast
Southeast
Gulf
West
55%
60%
24%
66%
46%
0%
50
100
Above Benchmark
2%
<1%
1%
4%
<1%
0% 50 100
\lot Assessed
43% <-
40%
75%
30%
54%
100 0% 50 100
About 43% of the area was unassessed nationally because fish caught were not species eaten by
humans or did not meet minimum size requirements, or fish were not caught at all.
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did riot measure mercury in plug samples prior to 2015, so an estimate of change is not available.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Estuarine Coastal Waters
33
-------
4 The Condition of Our
Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
This chapter summarizes the key findings from the NCCA 2015 assessment of Great Lakes nearshore water
conditions in the United States.The Great Lakes form the largest freshwater system on Earth and provide drinking
water to many cities in adjacent states.They also provide habitat to wildlife and recreational and commercial
opportunities to millions of people. Like estuaries, the nearshore waters of the Great Lakes are impacted by stressors
that include fertilizer, animal and human waste, toxins in sediment and fish, and invasive species. However, the Great
Lakes have different water chemistry than estuaries, and mixing at the surface is due to waves rather than tides.
As described in Chapter 2, the Great Lakes waters assessed for the NCCA included all U.S. Great Lakes nearshore waters
up to 30 meters in depth but no more than 5 kilometers from shore. Impaired sites such as Areas of Concern under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement were not specifically targeted. The NCCA began assessing the Great Lakes in
2010 for the ecological indicators and the contaminants included in the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Tissue Study.
Enterococci, microcystins and mercury in fish fillet tissue plugs were added to the NCCA in 2015.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
34
-------
HOW THIS CHAPTER IS ORGANIZED
This chapter presents each of the four NCCA ecological indicators and each of the human health indicators. A more
detailed discussion is included for the Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study.
Each indicator section listed in the box contains three
parts: an introduction to the indicator and why it matters
for the Great Lakes, results from the 2015 survey, and
change in condition from 2010 to 2015 (for the ecological
indicators). Some sections present additional information
about methodology or findings.
NCCA Great Lakes Indicators
The NCCA uses the same seven indicators for the
Great Lakes as it uses for estuaries but includes
additional data collection on contaminants in fish
tissue as part of the Great Lakes Human Health
Fish Fillet Tissue Study.
Ecological Indicators
Biological Condition (See Section 4.1)
Eutrophication (See Section 4.2)
Sediment Quality (See Section 4.3)
Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish (See
Section 4.4)
Human Health Indicators
Enterococci Contamination (See Section 4.5)
Microcystins (See Section 4.6)
Contaminants in Fish Tissue
• Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs (See Section 4.7)
• Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue
Study (See Section 4.8)
35
-------
HOW THE RESULTS ARE PRESENTED
Great Lakes results are reported at the national level and for each of the Great Lakes: Lake Superior, Lake Michigan,
Lake Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. See Appendix A for detailed maps of sampling locations.
Figure 4.0.1. Characteristics and 2015 Sample Size of the individual Great Lakes
LAKE SUPERIOR
• Area Assessed. 1,236 square miles of nearshore waters by sampling 78 sites.
• Points of Interest. The largest by both volume and surface area as well as the deepest of the
Great Lakes. Its basin is forested and sparsely populated.
LAKE MICHIGAN
• Area Assessed. 3,038 square miles of nearshore waters by sampling 100 sites.
• Points of Interest. The second largest lake by volume, it is the only one of the Great Lakes
entirely within the United States. Milwaukee and Chicago are on its shores.
LAKE HURON
• Area Assessed. 1,270 square miles of nearshore waters by sampling 67 sites.
• Points of Interest. Lake Huron is the third-largest lake by volume. It includes two large bays:
Georgian Bay and Saginaw Bay.
LAKE ERIE
• Area Assessed. 1,042 square miles of nearshore waters by sampling 57 sites.
• Points of Interest. The smallest Great Lake by volume, and the shallowest. It also has the
warmest summer surface water temperatures. Its watershed is the most densely populated of
all the Great Lakes. Cleveland,Toledo and Buffalo are all located on its shores.
LAKE ONTARIO
• Area Assessed. 532 square miles of nearshore waters by sampling 59 sites.
• Points of Interest. The fourth-largest lake by volume. It has a steeply sloped lake bed, so its
nearshore waters are deeper and colder than the other Great Lakes. Water flows to Lake Ontario
from Lake Erie via the Niagara River and from Lake Ontario to the Atlantic via the St. Lawrence.
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
-------
INDICATORS OF GREAT LAKES ECOLOGICAL CONDITION
Biological Condition
1 mm
050-109.2
The NCCA assesses biological condition in the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes using an index known as the
oligochaete trophic index. Oligochaetes are aquatic
worms that live in lake sediments. Different groups of
oligochaetes exhibit varying degrees of tolerance or
sensitivity to changes in the nutrient concentrations
in a lake. The presence of pollution-sensitive species is
an indication of good biological condition, while areas
dominated by tolerant species may indicate degraded
condition. Therefore, EPA developed good, fair and poor
ratings by comparing the numbers of pollution-sensitive
oligochaetes living in the sediment to the number of
more tolerant individuals. For details about the index,
Potamothrix moldaviensis, a normative tubificid worm, is one of
please see Chapter 2 or Appendix B. the species used to calculate values for the OTI.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
In the Great Lakes, the NCCA found that 31% of the total nearshore area was in good condition, 15% was in
fair condition and 21 % was in poor condition. One-third of nearshore waters could not be assessed because a
sample could not be collected, the sample contained no oligochaetes, or the sensitivity of the oligochaetes in
the sample to nutrient enrichment was not known. Unassessed area should be considered when interpreting
results.
Figure 4.1.1. Great Lakes Biological Condition
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
Good
Fair
Great Lakes
31%
15%
Lake Superior
40%
10%
Lake Michigan
- 45%
16%
Lake Huron
- -13%
19%
Lake Erie
13%
14%
Lake Ontario
10%
-9%
0%
50
100 0%
50
The NCCA was unable to estimate the biological
condition of 33% of the Great Lakes nearshore area.
Poor
21%
Not Assessed
33% •*-
100 0%
100 0%
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior
had significantly more nearshore area
rated good than the other three lakes.
Lake Ontario had the highest proportion of unassessed
area due to the hard bottom of the lake and the presence of
invasive zebra and quagga mussels, which make it difficult to
sample the sediment where oligochaetes are found.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
37
-------
Did the Condition Change?
From 2010 to 2015, there was a statistically significant increase in area rated good in the Great Lakes. Such area
accounted for 22% of the nearshore area in 2010 and 31% in 2015, There was no significant change in area
rated fair or poor. While there was a significant increase in sampling success, a third of Great Lakes area was not
assessed. This should be taken into account while interpreting the changes in other categories.
Figure 4.1.2. Change in Great Lakes Biological Condition
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good
100%
Great Lakes 50%
22%
31%
Fair
10%
Poor Not Assessed
50%
55 21% I 33%
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 , '10 '15,
100%
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
32%
J, I
64%
47%
to
o
<1% 4°^
100%
I 1 1
45%
i
50%
21%
12% 16%
17% 20%
19%
97%
42% 41%
23% _
I 13%
16% 19%
19% '
In 2010, half of all Great Lakes
nearshore area was unassessed.
This figure has dropped to one-third,
a statistically significant change.
This change may be partly due to
improvements in sampling in
Lake Michigan and Lake Superior.
Nearshore area rated good in Lake
Michigan improved by 24 percentage
points, while area not assessed
decreased by 31 percentage points.
Both of these changes are statistically
significant. Improved sampling
success in 2015 gives the NCCA more
confidence in the assessment of
condition than in 2010.
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
100%
46% 42o/o
32% 31%
ou /o
0%
10% 13%
11% 14%
100%
19%
10%
5% 9%
6% 11%
The NCCA was unable to estimate the
biological condition in nearly 70% of
the nearshore waters in Lake Ontario in
2010 and 2015.
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
Round goby (Neogobius melanostomus)
and dreissenid mussels from underwater
video collected in the Great Lakes.
Using Underwater Video to
Supplement Grab Sampling
Underwater video can provide additional information about benthic habitat
at sites where impenetrable substrate prevents grab sampling, along with
information on the presence of invasive species. In 2010 and 2015, crews collected
video, allowing them to assess the presence of invasive fish and mussels (Wick
et al. 2020). Invasive species can cause water quality, habitat, and food web
changes that affect coastal condition. Researchers are investigating the use of
videos and grab sample data to determine the extent of invasive dreissenid (zebra
and quagga) mussels in the Great Lakes nearshore area. EPA has developed a
crowdsourcing application called Deep Lake Explorer to help expedite analysis of
large video datasets. Learn how to help at: https://www.zooniverse.org/proiects/
usepa/deep-lake-explorer. View NCCA underwater videos at https://qispub.epa.
aov/NCCA/.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
38
-------
y^Eu
Eutrophication Index
Similar to estuaries, a common water quality
problem in the Great Lakes is eutrophication,
stemming in large part from nutrient over-
enrichment, This condition can result in
increased growth of algae. Excess algal growth
can impact beaches and hamper navigation.
Decomposing organic matter uses up oxygen
in the water, stressing and sometimes
killing aquatic life. See Section 4.6 for more
information on harmful algal blooms.The
Great Lakes eutrophication index is based on
total phosphorus, chlorophyll a concentration,
water clarity and dissolved oxygen.
A scientist processing samples on board a research ship in the Great Lakes.
What Was the Condition in 20151
The NCCA estimates that 54% of the total nearshore area was in good condition based on the
eutrophication index. Reduced water clarity and elevated total phosphorus were the drivers behind
poor condition (see the NCCA dashboard).
Figure 4.2.1. Great Lakes Eutrophication Condition
Percent of nearshore area by condition category (2015)
Good
Great Lakes
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
54%
62%
62%
- 48%
23%
61% -*
0%
50
22%
100 0%
Not Assessed
<1%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
0%
0% 50 100
More than 60% of the nearshore area in Lake
Michigan, Lake Ontario and Lake Superior was in
good condition.
Overall, Lake Erie had 60% of its nearshore
area in poor condition and only 17% and 23%
in fair and good condition, respectively.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
39
-------
Did the Condition Change?
There was no statistically significant change in the eutrophication index for the combined Great Lakes from
2010 to 2015.
Figure 4.2.2. Change in Great Lakes Eutrophication Condition
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2005-2015)
100%
Great Lakes 50%
100%
Lake Superior 50%
59%
-
54%
22% 22%
19%
<1% <1%
'05
"10
'15
'05 '10 '15
'05 '10 '15
'05 '10 '15
63%
i
62%
32% 30%
5% 8%
0% 0%
100%
65% 62%
50%
0%
| k 1
18% 15o/o
17% 23%
<1% <1%
Lake Huron 50%
100%
Lake Ontario 50%
76%
1
48%
18%
17%
6%
0% (
I I
57% 60%
_J 1
16%
23%
27% 17%
0% 0%
1
64%
1
61%
23% 24%
13% 15%
Lake Huron saw a substantial,
statistically significant drop in area rated
good-the only such drop among the
Great Lakes. Changes in area in fair and
poor condition were also significant.
Lake Erie consistently had less than 25%
of nearshore area in good condition and
more than 55% of area in poor condition.
Collecting water is less difficult than
obtaining sediment or fish. As in all the
Great Lakes, virtually all the nearshore
area of Lake Ontario was assessed for
eutrophication in 2010 and 2015.
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
Farmland near the Lake Erie shoreline.
Eutrophication: Lake Erie Case Study
In recent decades, excess eutrophication and harmful algal blooms
have become relatively common and widespread in Lake Erie. At the
request of EPA's Region 5 office, 33 additional sites were assessed in Lake
Erie for eutrophication and cyanotoxin indicators in 2015.This special
intensification study was designed to provide a baseline for tracking
responses to total phosphorus load reduction implemented under the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United
States. In addition to assessing Lake Erie as a whole, the intensification
study assessed the Western, Central and Eastern Basins of Lake Erie
separately.
When data from NCCA base sites and from the Lake Erie special
intensification study were combined, more than 50% of Lake Erie nearshore
waters were in poor condition for chlorophyll a, water clarity and total
phosphorus, driven chiefly by results in the Western and Central Basins.
Agriculture is a major source of nutrients in the Lake Erie watershed.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
40
-------
^^Sediment Quality
Sediments are habitat for many organisms near the
base of the aquatic food web. High concentrations
of contaminants can accumulate in sediment and
persist over time. Individually or in mixtures, high
levels of contaminants can be associated with
harmful effects on human health and aquatic life.
The NCCA uses a two-pronged approach to assess
sediment quality, analyzing sediment samples from
each site for contaminant concentrations as well
as testing samples for overall toxicity. Sediment
toxicity tests compare survival of test organisms
placed in an NCCA sediment sample to that of
organisms placed in a clean control sample.The
two test results are combined to calculate the
index. For details about the sediment quality index,
please see Chapter 2 or Appendix B,
A field crew collects and records field data while sampling a site on
the Great Lakes.
What Was the Condition in 20151
In 2015, the NCCA found 62% of the total nearshore area of the Great Lakes had good sediment quality, while
15% had fair and 2% had poor. Sediment was not assessed in 21% of the area because samples could not be
collected.
Figure 4.3.1. Great Lakes Sediment Quality
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
Good
Great Lakes
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
15%
12%
-9%
- 9%
¦[—
38%
21%
0% 50 100
Poor
2%
2%
4%
0%
2%
0%
0% 50 100
Not Assessed
21%
0%
50
100
Lake Erie had more area
in fair condition than in
good condition.
The unassessed nearshore area of Lake Ontario was very large. The
hard lake bottom and dreissenid mussel beds made sampling more
challenging than in the other lakes. Readers should use caution
when comparing Lake Ontario results to those of other lakes.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
41
-------
Did the Condition Change?
Great Lakes nearshore area rated good increased by 11 percentage points, which was a statistically significant
change. Most other changes from 2010 to 2015 were not statistically significant.
Figure 4.3.2. Change in Great Lakes Sediment Quality
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good Fair Poor Not Assessed
100%
Great Lakes 50%
100%
Lake Superior 50%
0%
100%
Lake Michigan 50%
_n
51%
¦1
71%
51% I
¦I
21°/o 15%
2% 2%
26% 21%
dr1-
'05 '10 '15
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
!8% n%
2% 2%
28%
j 15%
¦ mkm
75%
60%
15% g%
4% 4%
2* 12%
The Great Lakes as a whole showed
a statistically significant increase in
nearshore area rated good.
There was a 20% increase in nearshore
area rated good for Lake Superior, a
statistically significant change and the
largest change observed among all
the lakes, which may be influenced by
a 13% drop in area unassessed from
2010 to 2015.
100%
Lake Huron 50%
o%
100%
Lake Erie 50%
0%
100%
Lake Ontario 50%
64%
64%
f
11% 9%
<1% 0%
i>o
1
hO
30% 34%
43%
38%
Lii
2% 2%
32% 21%
16% 2\%
I1 ' 1
0% 0%
24% 25%
¦¦
1—1—1
51% 58%
II
The NCCA was unable to assess the
sediment condition of more than
50% of the nearshore waters of Lake
Ontario in both 2010 and 2015.
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
42
-------
Ecological Effects of Contamination in Fish
The ecological fish tissue quality indicator
assesses whether predators, including birds,
mammals and other fish that predominantly or
exclusively eat fish, will be exposed to elevated
levels of contaminants. These predators are
typically sensitive to low levels of contaminants
in the fish they eat. Such exposure can lead to
problems including reduced growth, reduced
reproductive success (fewer offspring, less
viable offspring, sterile offspring) and shorter
lifespans. See Chapter 2 or Appendix B for
details on how crews collect samples and EPA
assesses ecological effects of contamination in
fish in the nearshore Great Lakes.
In parts of the Great Lakes, mammals such as this American mink (Neovison vison)
could experience adverse effects from eating contaminated prey fish.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
Of the Great Lakes nearshore area, 17% was in good, 19% was in fair, and 47% was in poor condition. Thus, in 66%
of the nearshore Great Lakes area, wildlife that depend on fish may experience some level of adverse effects. The
benchmarks used to assess condition are very low and are intended to protect wildlife againt nonlethal effects.
Selenium, arsenic and PCBs were the contaminants that most frequently exceeded benchmarks in fish samples.
Figure 4.4.1. Great Lakes Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects)
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
Fair
19%
26%
Good
Great Lakes
¦- 17%
Lake Superior
a-?
Lake Michigan
11%
Lake Huron
7%
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
1-7%
38%
16%
21%
14%
30%
-13%
0%
50
100 0%
50
Poor
100
Not Assessed
17%
0%
50
100 0%
50
100
47% of all Great Lakes nearshore area
was in poor condition, with only Lake
Erie below 30%.
Approximately 17% of all nearshore area
was unassessed because the crews were
unable to catch fish suitable for analysis.
This index is used to assess potential harm to wildlife, not people.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
43
-------
Did the Condition Change?
From 2010 to 2015, the nearshore area rated good increased by 9.3 percentage points, and fair increased by 9.7
percentage points.These changes were statistically significant.The area that couldn't be assessed decreased from
42% to 17%.This reflects an increase in confidence in the assessment due to improved sampling success, but may
not reflect a true change in condition. Unassessed area should be considered when interpreting results.
Figure 4.4.2. Change in Great Lakes Fish Contamination (Ecological Effects)
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2005-2015)
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Assessed
100%
Great Lakes 50%
100%
Lake Superior 50%
0%
100%
Lake Michigan so%
41%
47%
42%
7%
17%
10% 19%
17%
^
'05 '10
'15
'05
'10 '15
'05 '10
'15
'05
'10
'15
47%
52%
2%
26%
21% 16o/0
26%
11%
41%
52%
6% 11%
-1 -
21%
3%
||
100%
Lake Huron 50%
0%
100%
Lake Erie 50%
0%
100%
Lake Ontario 50%
53%
54%
41%
14%
5%
26%
38%
51%
I
20% HLr,
15%
28%
14%
J 4%
51%
| 45%
35%
14% |
T: 7%
20% 13o/o
Condition may have improved in Lake Erie,
which appear s to show area shifting from poor
condition to fair and good. The lake saw a 23
percentage point decrease in nearshore area
rated poor with an increase in area rated fair and
good. Some but not all of this change could be
due to a decrease in area that was not assessed.
"05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
Lake Ontario alone showed an increase in
unassessed area. All other lakes showed
dramatic improvements in sampling
success rates.
This index is used to assess potential harm to wildlife, not people.
Assessing Selenium in Fish Tissue
Cisco or lake herring (Coregonus artedi) was one of the species
collected for tissue analysis.
The NCCA assessed selenium in fish tissue composites in the
Great Lakes as it did for estuaries, using the NCCA ecological fish
tissue contaminants index and the 2016 EPA freshwater aquatic
life criterion (see Section 3.4 for details). When compared to the
EPA whole-body selenium aquatic life criterion of 8.5 mg/kg dry
weight, none of the fish representing Great Lakes waters had
selenium concentrations exceeding the benchmark.This indicates
that fish were unlikely to experience negative impacts from the
concentrations of selenium within their tissue. That is, 5,910 square
miles, representing 83% of all Great Lakes nearshore waters, were at
or below the benchmark, and the remaining 17% of nearshore area,
or 1,209 square miles, was not assessed because no fish specimens
suitable for analysis were caught.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
44
-------
Enterococci Contamination
In 2015, the NCCA first measured enterococci in the nearshore
waters of the Great Lakes to assess contamination from
human and animal waste. Enterococci are a group of bacteria
that live in the intestines of humans and other animals.
While enterococci typically do not cause illness, they can
signal the presence of pathogens in the water. Sources of
contamination include wastewater treatment plants, leaking
septic systems, urban stormwater and agricultural runoff.
Fecal pathogen levels tend to increase after storms due to
inputs from stormwater runoff, and in some areas, combined
sewer overflows. The NCCA assesses risk of exposure to
enterococci at national and regional levels. For information
about risks of exposure at specific locations, recreational users
should check with local monitoring programs.
Local water quality alerts keep recreational users informed
about water safety.
What Was the Condition in 20151
Enterococci levels in 99% of the Great Lakes nearshore waters were at or below the 1,280 CCE/100 mL EPA
benchmark.This limit was set to protect human health during swimming. For information about local beaches,
visit https://www. epa.aov/beaches/find-information-about-particular-us-beach.
Figure 4.5.1. Great Lakes Enterococci Condition
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
Great Lakes
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
At or Below Benchmark
99%
0%
50
Above Benchmark
<1%
Not Assessed
1%
>99%
<1%
>99%
<1%
100%
0%^
95%
0%
98%
2%
100
0%
50
100
0%
0%
0%
8~ 5%
0%
0% 50 100
No sites sampled at Lake Huron or Lake Erie had
enterococci levels above the human health benchmark.
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did not measure enterococci levels prior to 2015, so no estimate of change is available.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
45
-------
GREAT LAKES HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
Microcystins
Under high-nutrient conditions, cyanobacteria can
reproduce rapidly, causing harmful algal blooms.
Under some conditions, cyanobacteria release
toxins that can harm aquatic organisms, wildlife and
humans. The NCCA assessed Great Lakes nearshore
waters for microcystins, one class of cyanotoxins.
Health effects of exposure include skin rashes, eye
irritation, respiratory symptoms, gastroenteritis, and
in severe cases, liver or kidney failure and death,
Microcystins are potent liver toxins and suspected
carcinogens. EPA has set a recreational freshwater
benchmark of 8 pg/L. Note that some cyanobacteria
and microscopic algae may release toxins not
measured under the NCCA. For details about how the
EPA assesses microcystins, see Chapter 2.
What Was the Condition in 20151
The NCCA found just one site (on Lake Erie) with concentrations above the 8 pg/L human risk benchmark EPA
set to protect people from recreational exposure. Microcystins were detected in 31% of Great Lakes nearshore
waters.
Figure 4.6.1. Great Lakes Microcystins Condition
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
At or Beiow Benchmark
Above Benchmark
Not Assessed
Great Lakes
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
o%
50
100
<1%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0% 50 100
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 50 100
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did not measure microcystins levels prior to 2015, so no estimate of change is available.
I?w
A cyanobacterial bloom on the shore of Lake Erie.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
46
-------
K
GREAT LAKES HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
Mercury in Fish Fillet Plugs
Mercury is a toxic metal that occurs naturally in the ecosystem in very small amounts; however,
human activities such as fossil fuels combustion and some types of manufacturing release
additional mercury into the environment. Fish accumulate a form called methylmercury in their
tissues. Consumption of contaminated fish by pregnant women can lead to vision, hearing, and
nervous system defects in babies. Methylmercury may also impair brain development in young
children and, at elevated levels, can lead to other physiological and cognitive impairments. Fish are
part of a healthy diet, but people should consult local fish consumption advisories to determine if
fish they have caught are safe to eat.
The NCCA assessed total mercury levels in small plugs of tissue taken from fish fillets and compared
against EPA's benchmark of 300 ppb (U.S. EPA 2010). See Section 4.8 for the results of additional
Great Lakes mercury and contaminant testing conducted using a different sampling approach.
What Was the Condition in 2015?
In 65% of the nearshore area of the Great Lakes, mercury concentrations in fish fillet plugs were at or
below the benchmark of 300 ppb. In 6% of the area, fish were above the benchmark. The remaining 29% of
nearshore waters were not assessed because crews were unable to collect suitable fish samples.
Figure 4.7.1. Great Lakes Condition Based on Mercury in Plugs from Fish Fillets
Percent of nearshore area in each condition category (2015)
At or Below Benchmark
Great Lakes
Lake Superior
Lake Michigan
Lake Huron
Lake Erie
Lake Ontario
— 65%
89%
-60%
53%
86%
|— 27%
Above Benchmark
|- 6%
<1% -<¦
-8%
-7%
-4%
-9%
0%
50
100 0%
—11%
Not Assessed
29%
|—32%
-40%
—10%
¦64%
50
100 0%
50
100
Lake Superior in particular stands out, with almost no
nearshore area above the human health benchmark.
Lake Ontario had a much larger unassessed area than
any other lake, at 64%, so use caution when interpreting
its ratings. NCCA is continually reviewing its field
procedures to improve sampling for this indicator.
Did the Condition Change?
The NCCA did not measure mercury in plug samples prior to 2015, so an estimate of change is not available.
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
47
-------
GREAT LAKES HUMAN HEALTH INDICATORS
4.8 / Great Lakes Human Health Fish F illet Tissue Study
As part of the NCCA 2015, EPA conducted the second statistically based Great Lakes Human Health
Fish Fillet Tissue Study to assess toxic chemicals in composite samples offish commonly consumed
by humans.9 Fish were collected from 152 NCCA Great Lakes nearshore sampling locations (about
30 fish composite samples per lake) representing 6,862 square miles of nearshore area. Fish fillet
composites were analyzed for total mercury, all 209 PCB congeners, and 13 PFAS. Results in this
section show the occurrence of these chemicals in fish and identify which chemicals may be a
health concern for people who eat Great Lakes fish, based on a comparison against relevant human
health fish tissue benchmarks.10
Consuming fish can be an important part of a balanced diet. Fish provide protein, are low in
saturated fat, are rich in many micronutrients, and provide certain omega-3 fatty acids that the body
cannot make and that are important for normal growth and development. However, fish tissue may
also contain contaminants; at high enough levels, these contaminants may contribute to a variety of
human health impacts in consumers. These impacts can disproportionately affect consumers who
eat more than the average amount of fish. These contaminants enter the aquatic environment via
human activity and natural processes and can then accumulate in fish.
'For the NCCA 2015 survey, a composite sample was formed by combining fillet tissue from up to five adult fish of the same species and similar size from the same
site. Use of composite sampling for screening studies is a cost-effective way to estimate average contaminant concentrations while also ensuring that there is
sufficient fish tissue to analyze for all contaminants of concern.
10 Each human health fish tissue benchmark represents the chemical concentration in fish tissue that, if exceeded, may adversely impact human health, based on
fish consumption.
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
48
-------
TARGETED FISH TISSUE CONTAMINANTS
Mercury. About 80% of all fish consumption advisories in the United States involve mercury. People are exposed
to methylmercury (the most toxic form of mercury) primarily by eating fish and shellfish. Fetal or early childhood
exposures to mercury transmitted from pregnant and nursing mothers can lead to impaired neurological
development affecting 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 impaired speech and
hearing. EPA applies the conservative assumption that all mercury in fish is methylmercury and therefore measures
total mercury in fillet tissue to be most protective of human health."
PCBs. PCBs accumulate in the tissues of aquatic organisms and are known to cause cancer in animals. Based on those
findings and additional evidence from human studies, EPA classifies PCBs as probable human carcinogens. Other
potential human health effects, which are known as noncancer endpoints, include liver disease and reproductive
impacts, along with neurological effects in infants and young children.
PFAS. PFAS are a group of synthetic chemicals used in the manufacture of many products, including non-stick
cookware, food packaging, waterproof clothing and stain-resistant carpeting. PFAS are toxic and persistent in
the environment. Research has shown that a majority of people living in industrialized nations have PFAS in their
blood. Elevated PFAS levels have been linked to health effects such as decreased sperm count, low birth weight and
thyroid disease. Some studies estimate that PFAS in food may account for more than 90% of human exposure to
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). PFOS is the predominant PFAS in fish tissue, and
it is the only frequently detected PFAS for which EPA has been able to establish a fish tissue human health benchmark.
Great Lakes results for the 13 PFAS that were analyzed are included in the NCCA2015 Technical Support Document (U.S.
EPA 2021); only PFOS results are described in this section.
WHAT WAS THE CONDITION IN 2015?
Chemical results from the 2015 Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study show that mercury, PCBs and PFOS
were detected in 100% of the 152 fish fillet composite samples (see Table 4.8.1). However, the percentages of the
sampled population of Great Lakes nearshore area containing fish with fillet concentrations above the relevant human
health fish tissue benchmarks for each contaminant are very different. Statistical results from this study are described
below in Figures 4.8.1 to 4.8.3, and they indicate that PCBs occurred most frequently at levels above human health
protection benchmarks for fish consumption. The benchmarks EPA used are described following the table.
Table 4.8.1. Summary of Detections and Contaminant Concentrations in 152 Great Lakes Fish Fillet Composite Samples
(EPA 2015 Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study)
Chemical
Number of
Detections
Minimum
Concentration3
(ppb)
Median
Concentration*3
(ppb)
Maximum
Concentration3
(ppb)
Mercury (Total)
152
26
123
557
Total PCBsc
152
3
50
1,168
PFOS
152
<1
11
64
a.Observed data (minimum and maximum concentrations) measured in 152 Great Lakes fish fillet samples.
b. Statistical estimates of the median fish fillet composite concentrations for the nearshore Great Lakes sampled population of 6,862 square miles.
c. Total PCB concentrations are the sum of the concentrations of the 209 PCB congeners.
11 EPA analyzes fish tissue samples for total mercury (using EPA method 1631 Revision E) since the major pathway for human exposure to methylmercury is
consumption of contaminated fish and practically all mercury in fish tissue is methylmercury. See U.S. EPA (2001) and Bloom (1992).
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
49
-------
For mercury, EPA used its human health fish-tissue-
based water quality criterion for methylmercury as the
benchmark. Since EPA does not currently have fish-
tissue-based water quality criteria for PCBs or PFOS, EPA
used the equations found in its Guidance for Assessing
Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories (U.S.
EPA 2000) to develop benchmarks.These incorporated
updated body weights from EPA's Exposure Factors
Handbook (U.S. EPA 2011) and a nutritionally focused fish
consumption rate consistent with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human
Services' Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025, of
32 grams/day (equivalent to one 8-ounce meal offish
and shellfish per week). EPA notes that it is not using
the national default fish consumption rate of 22 grams/
day from EPA's Estimated Fish Consumption Rates for
the U.S. Population and Selected Subpopulations (2014)
that is used to calculate EPA's national ambient water
quality human health criteria recommendations.The default rate reflects the national fish consumption rate at the 90th
percentile of the adult population and includes both fish consumers and nonconsumers.
The fish consumption rate of 32 grams/day better reflects the role and purpose offish advisory programs because it
is in line with nutrition-based goals for dietary consumption and is also consistent with the rate used in fish advisory
programs across the Great Lakes. EPA acknowledges this rate does not reflect"high frequency consumers"such as
subsistence fishers or those who eat several meals offish per week, which often includes individuals in underserved
communities. In an effort to provide information to state, territorial, or tribal programs with populations of frequent fish
consumers, EPA has provided an analysis in the Technical Support Document for this report (U.S. EPA 2021) that includes
estimated benchmark exceedances for PCBs and PFOS using fish consumption rates that are more typical of
such populations.
Mercury in Great Lakes Fish Fillets. The mercury levels in fillet composite samples (and in fish fillet plug samples
discussed in Section 4.7) were compared to EPA's fish-tissue-based water quality criterion for mercury of 0.3 milligrams
of methylmercury per kilogram of tissue (wet weight), or 300 ppb (U.S. EPA 2001). Mercury results from the NCCA 2015
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study show that 13% of the Great Lakes nearshore sampled population
contained fish with mercury concentrations above this benchmark (see Figure 4,8.1). Comparisons of fillet composite
results for mercury between NCCA 2010 and NCCA 2015 did not reveal statistically significant differences.
'^ENVIRONMENTAL
protectonagency
NCCA Report | I he Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters 50
Figure 4.8.1. Percentage of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled
Population Containing Fish with Fillet Mercury Concentrations
Above the EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmark
Mercury Benchmark 300 ppb
13% of the sampled
population had fish with
concentrations above
300 ppb (representing
892 square miles of
the total represented
nearshore area of 6,862
square miles)
-------
Figure 4.8.2. Percentages of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled Population Containing Fish with Fillet Total PCB Concentrations
Above EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmarks
PCB Cancer Benchmark 12 ppb
(32 g/day Fish Consumption Rate)
79% of the sampled
population had fish with
concentrations above 12
ppb (representing 5,421
square miles of the total
represented nearshore
area of 6,862 square miles)
PCB Noncancer Benchmark 49 ppb
(32 g/day Fish Consumption Rate)
47%
53% of the sampled
population had fish with
concentrations above 49
ppb (representing 3,637
square miles of the total
assessed nearshore area
of 6,862 square miles)
PCBs in Great Lakes Fish Fillets. Total PCB results from the NCCA 2015 Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue
Study (see Figure 4.8.2) show that 53% of the Great Lakes nearshore sampled population contained fish with total PCB
fillet concentrations above the EPA total PCB noncancer benchmark of 49 ppb (based on a 32 g/day fish consumption
rate). The results also show that 79% of the Great Lakes nearshore sampled population contained fish with total PCB
fillet concentrations above the EPA total PCB cancer benchmark of 12 ppb (also based on a 32 g/day fish consumption
rate). Comparisons of fillet composite results between
NCCA 2010 and NCCA 2015 show PCB concentrations
may have decreased across the Great Lakes when
samples from all species are combined. Comparisons
of fillet composite results within the most abundant
and commonly consumed species (e.g., lake trout to
lake trout, walleye to walleye) showed no statistically
significant decrease in PCB levels.
PFAS in Great Lakes Fish Fillets. PFOS was the most
commonly detected PFAS in the Great Lakes fillet
composite samples. PFOS results from the NCCA 2015
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study (see
Figure 4.8.3) show that 5% of the Great Lakes nearshore
sampled population contained fish with PFOS fillet
concentrations above the EPA PFOS benchmark of
46 ppb (based on a 32 g/day fish consumption rate).
Comparisons of fillet composite results for PFOS
between NCCA 2010 and NRSA 2015 did not reveal
statistically significant differences.
Figure 4.8.3. Percentage of the Great Lakes Nearshore Sampled
Population Containing Fish with Fillet PFOS Concentrations
Above the EPA Human Health Fish Tissue Benchmark
PFOS Benchmark 46 ppb
(32 g/day Fish Consumption Rate)
5%
95%
5% of the sampled
population had fish with
concentrations above 46
ppb (representing 343
square miles of the total
represented nearshore
area of 6,862 square miles)
SagaagV-?;-''.*
NCCA Report | The Condition of Our Great Lakes Nearshore Waters
-------
Summary and Next Steps
This report describes a national assessment of estuarine and nearshore Great Lakes waters and changes over time.12
EPA, states and other federal agencies collaborated throughout the design and implementation of the survey.
The national and regional estimates of condition in this report offer coastal managers insight into how well coastal
conservation efforts are working. The recurring nature of the NCCA and the use of consistent methodology over time
result in valuable information about current conditions as well as change since previous surveys.
The sections below summarize these NCCA results and compare coastal waters to NARS results for rivers and streams,
lakes, and wetlands. Such comparisons are useful because the same factors that affect coastal water quality and
condition can affect these other waters, and local or regional water quality managers may choose to target all waters
simultaneously. A holistic approach to addressing stressors can benefit all waters. In addition, some of these NARS
reports provide information about water bodies that feed into estuaries and the nearshore Great Lakes.Taken as a
whole, these data inform government agencies about the condition of coastal waters, condition of waters influencing
coastal waters, and the stressors impacting both.
Beside releasing the NCCA report, EPA is also sharing NCCA and NARS data and information with the public through its
website, fact sheets and other materials.This information can help people take action in their own neighborhoods to
protect and conserve downstream coastal resources.
KEY RESULTS AND COMPARISONS TO OTHER NARS ASSESSMENTS
The paragraphs below describe NCCA results and their similarities and connections to other NARS results. Each of
these assessments includes information on biological, chemical and physical indicators. While the specific indicators
chosen are those most suited to the particular water body type and are not necessarily exactly the same, we can look
across these assessments to get a broad picture of the health of waters across the country.
12 Several estuarine assessments were conducted prior to the establishment of the NCCA. Of those, the 2005-06 assessment is comparable to the NCCA and is used
as a baseline for comparison. Three other, earlier reports also assessed estuarine resources, but differing designs and/or methods did not allow EPA to compare
results to the current assessment. The first Great Lakes assessment was conducted in 2010.
NCCA Report | Summary and Next Steps 52
-------
Biological Condition
To assess biological condition, each of the surveys under NARS used indicators appropriate to the water body type
(e.g., estuaries, the nearshore Great Lakes, lakes, and rivers and streams used benthic macroinvertebrate indices
appropriate to the aquatic resource types, while wetlands used a vegetation index).13 Based on information from the
most recent reports in the NARS program, estuarine waters had the most area in good condition at 71 % (see Figure
5.1), followed by wetlands with 48%. Approximately one-third of lakes, river and stream miles, and Great Lakes
nearshore area were in good condition based on biological indicators.14
The area rated good in estuaries has increased from 51% to 71% since
2005, and the area in good condition in the Great Lakes has shown
improvement since 2010 as well. It should be noted, however, that
change in condition across those intervals coincides with improved
sampling success, so further studies are needed to find the underlying
reasons for the increase in area in good condition.
Eutrophication
NCCA results indicate that 33% of estuarine waters and 54% of
Great Lakes waters were in good condition based on eutrophication
index scores. While other NARS reports do not assess eutrophication
the same way, they all report nutrient concentrations in one
form or another, and the lakes assessment uses chlorophyll a as a
eutrophication indicator. In the rivers and streams survey, only 18%
of river and stream miles were in good condition for phosphorus, and
32% for nitrogen. Similar to findings from other assessments, the NCCA
found that elevated nutrient levels are widespread stressors.
Sediment Quality
The NCCA found that the majority of estuarine and nearshore Great
Lakes sediments were in good condition (76% and 62%, respectively). While other NARS reports have not included
an indicator of sediment condition in the past, the next National Lakes Assessment will report results of a sediment
contamination analysis on the NARS website.. Additionally, the wetlands assessment collects soils and analyzes for a
wide array of constituents. Sediment and wetland soils data are available on the NARS website (https://www.epa.gov/
national-aquatic-resource-survevs).
\
Figure 5.1. Change in Estuarine and Great -
Lakes Biological Condition As Assessed With
ESenthic Macroinvertebrate Indices
100%
50%
All Estuaries
Good Not Assessed
8% 7%
'05 10 '15 '05 '10 '15
Great Lakes
Good Not Assessed
'05 '10 '15 '05 '10 '15
BThe lakes assessment also used zooplankton as an indicator of biological condition. The rivers and streams assessment used fish populations as a second indicator
of biological condition.
' * I hirty three percent of nearshore Great Lakes area could not be assessed.
NCCA Report | Summary and Next Steps
53
-------
Ecological Effects of Fish Tissue Contamination
The ecological fish tissue indicator assesses the likelihood that predators offish such as birds, mammals, and other fish
will experience adverse yet nonlethal effects from contaminants in the fish that they consume. EPA began measuring
this indicator during the 2010 NCCA and updated the way it was calculated in 2015. Fifty-five percent of estuarine
area and 47% of Great Lakes nearshore area was in poor condition according to this sensitive indicator. Although
condition appears to have declined (that is, area rated poor and fair has increased), the decline coincides with a
decline in area that was not assessed. Thus, the extent of area in poor and fair condition in 2010 might have been
obscured by failure to collect fish for samples. Elements (particularly selenium, arsenic and mercury) and PCBs were
the contaminants that most frequently occurred in fish at levels that may adversely affect fish-eating predators. When
selenium concentrations were compared to EPA's freshwater aquatic life use criterion, no estuarine area and Great
Lakes nearshore area exceeded the criterion.
Human Health Indicators
Human health indicators generally indicated more coastal waters were in good condition (i.e., concentrations of the
contaminant were not above benchmarks and posed few risks to human health) than other types of water bodies.
Enterococci data from the NCCA showed that 99% of both estuary and Great Lakes nearshore area were below the
benchmark value, while 69% of rivers and streams were at or below the benchmark. Exceedances of the microcystins
benchmark were nonexistent or very rare in all waters. However, that does not mean microcystins were never
detected. They were detected at or below benchmark levels in 6% of estuarine area and in 31% of nearshore Great
Lakes waters, in comparison, microcystins were detected at or below the benchmark in 39% of lakes and in 37% of
river and stream miles.15 Continued research will help us understand formation and transport of microcystins and
other algal toxins in the two types of coastal waters. Mercury in fish fillet plugs was also low in estuaries and the
nearshore Great Lakes, with 2% and 6% of area, respectively, exceeding EPA benchmarks, compared to 7% in rivers
and streams. However, 65% of river and stream miles were unassessed due to failure to catch fish, while only 43% of
estuaries and 29% of nearshore Great Lakes were unassessed. The lakes and wetland assessments did not include
evaluation offish fillet plugs for mercury.
Great Lakes Human Health Fish Fillet Tissue Study
in the Great Lakes, the EPA Office of Science and Technology led an additional collaborative study with Great Lakes
states and the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office.This study analyzed fish fillet tissue contaminants, comparing
concentrations of mercury, PCBs and PFOS to human health fish tissue benchmarks. Each of the three types of
contaminants was found in every one of the 152 fillet composite tissue samples analyzed in 2015.
'• A v
•MM,
.. 'ft F- k* '
p
-f* —:
IFllSi
5The lakes assessment used a different benchmark than the NCCA. Future NARS reports will use the updated EPA benchmark.
NCCA Report | Summary and Next Steps
54
-------
WHAT WAS NEW FOR NCCA 2015?
The new M-AMBI was used to assess biological
condition in estuaries, allowing estuarine results
to be compared nationally for the first time.
The ecological fish tissue contaminant index
was updated to more appropriately account for
predator body weights and ingestion rates.
HOW ARE THE REPORT AND
UNDERLYING DATA USED?
In addition to using NCCA data to evaluate
current restoration and protection efforts,
coastal managers can place site-specific data
into a broader context and initiate additional
research into why certain patterns or changes
occur. Already, states and others are using NCCA
data to plan coastal management actions, supplement their existing coastal water monitoring programs and address
Clean Water Act reporting requirements. See examples below.
Beyond addressing the core NCCA questions, results and data from the survey are used to support other priorities
and programs. For example, the 2014 reauthorization of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act recognizes the importance of expanding monitoring efforts to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. The
addition of microcystins to NCCA 2015, as well as NCCA research with the U.S. Geological Survey on a broader suite of
aigal toxins, will contribute to improved ability to detect and understand harmful aigai blooms.
Data generated by the NCCA can be used to measure the effectiveness of efforts to improve the health of aquatic
resources. For example, the Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy (SECAS) is an initiative that spans the
Southeastern United States and Caribbean. Information from the coastal survey is being used in measuring SECAS'
progress toward its goal of "a 10% or greater improvement in the health, function and connectivity of Southeastern
ecosystems by 2060" (SECAS, n.d.).
States and participants in the National Estuary Program have built on the NCCA to expand their own monitoring
and assessment capabilities. The state of Ohio built on NCCA to develop a new Lake Erie monitoring program, while
the Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program added sites to provide statistically significant findings to inform
decision-makers about the quality of the estuary system as a whole.
Data from the survey can also be used in research into possible effects of climate change. For example, in 2017, EPA
scientists Hale et ai. published findings indicating thaf'centers of abundance for 60% of the benthic species studied
shifted north along the U.S. Atlantic coast during the period 1990-2010, in concordance with increasing water
temperatures." EPA anticipates the release of the NCCA 2015 data and results will further contribute to scientific
advancements.
EPA researchers have also used NCCA data to develop tools to quantify the economic benefits that healthy ecosystems
offer to coastal communities.
Taken together, NCCA and other NARS findings suggest the need for continued collective efforts to address the many
sources of stressors. With the assistance of EPA and other federal agencies, states are adopting numeric phosphorus
and nitrogen water quality criteria and developing and implementing programs that reduce excess nutrients in
waterways. For example, see the writeup on eutrophication in the Gulf of Mexico in Section 3.2. These activities, which
are designed to improve the condition of upstream waters, will likely benefit the estuaries and Great Lakes into which
they flow.
I he Lake Erie water snake!Nerodia sipedon insularum) lives on the islands of western Lake Erie
and on the Catawba-Marblehead peninsula on the mainland. It feeds primarily on fish.
NCCA Report | Summary and Next Steps
55
-------
WHAT'S NEXT FOR THE NCCA?
As this report was being written and reviewed, the NCCA 2020 field season had begun. During June through
September 2020, crews from states, tribes, EPA and other federal agencies sampled more than 1,000 sites in estuarine
and Great Lakes nearshore waters. Challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic left about 20% of the planned sites
unsampled; crews will complete sampling of those sites between June 1 and September 30, 2021. The NCCA
team applied a variety of lessons learned from NCCA 2015 as well as other NARS for 2020 and 2021. Among other
improvements, field crew training now includes video demonstrations of sampling methods. All NCCA crews collected
and submitted field data using an electronic tablet, reducing opportunities for transcription errors and reducing the
time it takes to publish the data. NCCA 2020 includes several research indicators as weli. These include totai alkalinity
in water and microplastics and nitrogen isotopes in sediments.16 In addition, several states and estuary programs are
adding sites to allow for smaller-scale assessments, and EPA is working with states and estuary programs to test new
ways to identify relationships between stressors and biological condition, such as modeling and analyzing differences
in condition in large and small estuaries. Finally, EPA will continue to review how the NCCA assesses coastal condition.
Areas of continued research include the following:
• Evaluating coastal waters where underwater grasses may grow and whether water clarity benchmarks should
be updated in those areas (EPA uses different benchmarks for water clarity in such waters when calculating
eutrophication index scores).
• Reevaluation of total nitrogen and phosphorus benchmarks, and
• Updating the methods that the NCCA uses to assess contaminants in whole fish and cyanotoxins in coastal
environments.
The NCCA 2015 report would not have been possible without the assistance of hundreds of dedicated scientists
working for state, federal and tribal agencies and universities across the country.These partners helped plan and
design the survey, select and refine indicators, train field crews, conduct sampling, track samples, review data for
quality control, analyze data, and review and write up the findings. Future coastal surveys will continue to rely on this
close collaboration between EPA and its partners.
"The isotopes present in sediment can help researchers determine whether nitrogen comes from manmade or naturally occurring sources.
NCCA Report | Summary and Next Steps
56
-------
References
Bloom, N.S. 1992. On the chemical form of mercury in edible fish and marine invertebrate tissue. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49(5):1010-1017.
Borja, A, J. Franco, and V. Perez. 2000. A marine biotic index to establish the ecological quality of soft-bottom benthos
within European estuarine and coastal environments. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(12):1100-1114.
Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. State of the Great Lakes 2011. Cat No. En161-
3/1 -2011E-PDF. EPA 950-R-13-002. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. https://archive.epa.aov/solec/web/pdf/soal-2011-technical-report-en.pdf
Fleming, E., J., W. Payne, W. Sweet, M. Craghan, J. Haines, J.F. Hart, H. Stiller, and A. Sutton-Grier, 2018: Coastal effects. In
Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth National Climate Assessment, volume II [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W.
Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis,T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research
Program, Washington, DC, 322-352. https://doi.ora/10.7930/NCA4.2018.CH8
Hale, S.S., H.W. Buffum, J.A. Kiddon, and M.M. Hughes. 2017. Subtidal benthic invertebrates shifting northward along
the U.S. Atlantic coast. Estuaries and Coasts 40:1744-1756. https://doi.ora/10.1007/s12237-017-0236-z
Jewett, L. and A. Romanou, 2017. Ocean acidification and other ocean changes. In: Climate science special report: fourth
National Climate Assessment, volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K.
Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 364-392, https://doi.ora/10.7930/J0QV3JQB
Kildow, J.T., C. S. Colgan, P. Johnston, J. D. Scorse, and M. G. Farnum, 2016: State of the U.S. ocean and coastal
economies: 2016 update. National Ocean Economics Program, Monterey, CA, 31 pp. https://www.midatlanticocean.
ora/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NQEP National Report 2016.pdf
Milbrink, G. 1983. An improved environmental index based on the relative abundance of oligochaete species.
Hydrobiologia 102:89-97.
NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 2007. National estuarine eutrophication assessment update.
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MP. https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/proiect/national-
estuarine-eutrophication-assessment-update/
Pelletier, M.C., D.J. Gillett, A. Hamilton, T. Grayson, V. Hansen, E.W. Leppo, S.B. Weisberg, and A. Borja. 2018. Adaptation
and application of multivariate AMBI (M-AMBI) in U.S. coastal waters. Ecological Indicators 89:818-827. https://doi.
ora/10.1016/i.ecolind.2017.08.067
SECAS (Southeast Conservation Adaptation Strategy). No date. Our goal, https://secassoutheast.org/our-aoal.
Accessed July 9, 2021.
Sweet, W.V., R. Horton, R.E. Kopp, A.N. LeGrande, and A. Romanou, 2017: Sea level rise. In: Climate sciences special report:
fourth National Climate Assessment, volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, DJ. Dokken, B.C. Stewart,
and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 333-363, https://doi.org/10.7930/
J0VM49F2
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2020. Dietary guidelines for
Americans. 2020-2025. https://www.dietarvguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietarv Guidelines for
Americans 2020-2025.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidance for assessing chemical contaminant data for use in fish advisories.
Volume 2: Risk assessment and fish consumption limits. Third edition. EPA 823-B-00-008. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/
ZvPDF.cgi/20003P11 .PDF?Dockev=20003P11 .PDF
NCCA Report | References
57
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Water quality criterion for the protection of human health: methylmercury.
EPA-823-R-01 -001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC. https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2020-01/documents/methvlmercurv-criterion-2001.
Edf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Guidance for implementing the January 2001 methylmercury water quality
criterion. EPA-823-R-10-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington,
DC. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cai/P1007BKQ.PDF?Dockev=P1007BKQ.PDF
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Exposure factors handbook2011 edition (final report). EPA/600/R-09/052F.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC,. https://www.epa.
gov/expobox/about-exposure-factors-handbook
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Recreational water quality criteria. EPA 820-F-12-058. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/
documents/rwgc2012.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Estimated fish consumption rates for the U.S. population and selected
subpopulations (NHANES 2003-2010). Final report. EPA-820-R-14-002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2015-01/documents/fish-consumption-rates-2014.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. National coastal condition assessment 2015 field operations manual. EPA-
841-R-14-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2016-03/documents/national coastal condition assessment 2015 field operation manual
version 1.0 1.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016a. National coastal condition assessment 2015 laboratory operations manual.
Version 2.1. EPA-841-R-14-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. https://www.
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/ncca 2015 lom version 2.0 iulv 2015.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016b. Aquatic life ambient water quality criterion for selenium - freshwater. EPA
822-R-16-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington,
DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/aguatic life awgc for selenium -
freshwater 2016.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Recommended human health recreational ambient water quality criteria
or swimming advisories for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. EPA-822-R-19-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2019-05/documents/hh-rec-criteria-habs-document-2019.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020. Documented hypoxia and associated risk factors in estuaries, coastal
waters, and the Great Lakes ecosystems, https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policv-data/documented-hvpoxia-and-
associated-risk-factors-estuaries-coastal-waters-and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. National coastal condition assessment 2015 technical support document.
EPA 841 -R-21 -002. https://www.epa.gov/national-aguatic-resource-survevs/national-coastal-condition-assessment-
2015-technical-support
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No date. National recommended water quality criteria - aquatic life criteria
table, https://www.epa.gov/wgc/national-recommended-water-gualitv-criteria-aguatic-life-criteria-table. Accessed
July 9, 2021.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2017. Louisiana's rate of coastal wetland loss continues to slow: Louisiana's changing wetlands.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Society, Office of Communications and Publishing, Reston, VA. https://
www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-louisiana-s-rate-coastal-wetland-loss-continues-slow
Wick, M.,T.R. Angradi, M. Pawlowski, D. Bolgrien, J. Launspach, J. Kiddon, and M. Nord. 2019. An assessment of
water quality in two Great Lakes connecting channels. Journal of Great Lakes Research 45(5): 901-911. https://doi.
org/10.1016/i.iglr.2019.08.001
NCCA Report | References
58
-------
Wick, M.,T.R. Angradi, M. Pawlowski, D. Bolgrien, R. Debbout, J. Launspach, M. Nord. 2020. Deep Lake Explorer: A web
application for crowdsourcing the classification of benthic underwater video from the Laurentian Great Lakes
Journal of Great Lakes Research 46(5): 1469-1478. https://doi.ora/10.1016/i.ialr.2020.07.009
Yurista, P.M, J. R. Kelly, and J. V. Scharrold. 2016. Great Lakes nearshore-offshore: Distinct water quality regions. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 42(2): 375-385. https://doi.ora/10.1016/i.ialr.2015.12.002
NCCA Report | References
59
-------
Image Credits
Page
Description
Location
Credit
Cover
Point Loma Lighthouse sunset, entrance to
San Diego Bay
Point Loma, CA
Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast
Guard. DVIDS
Cover
Swamp rose mallow
Cape Hatteras National
Seashore, NC
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
Cover
Pelican
Key Colony Beach, FL
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
Cover
The Lake Explorer II
St. Marys River, Ml
EPA
Banner
Point Loma Lighthouse
Point Loma, CA
Henry Dumphy, U.S. Coast
Guard. DVIDS
Banner
Ospreys roosting on pier
Currituck Sound, NC
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
Banner
Loggerhead Key Light
Loggerhead Key, FL
Jennifer Johnson, U.S. Coast
Guard. Wikioedia
1
Lake Michigan Overlook
Sleeping Bear Dunes Na-
tional Lakeshore, Ml
Ken Bosma. Flickr
(CC BY 2.0). cropped
5
Aerial view of a series of small islands,
boat slips, and roadways leading to Miami,
Florida
Biscayne Bay, FL
Carol Highsmith,
Librarv of Conaress
6
Milwaukee skyline from a sailboat
Milwaukee, Wl
Mike Strande. Flickr (CC BY
2.0). cropped
7
Thomas Point lighthouse
Chesapeake Bay, MD
Pete Milnes, U.S. Coast Guard
9
Sand Beach
Acadia National Park, ME
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
10
San Francisco Bay, from El Cerrito
San Francisco Bay, CA
Natalie Auer
11
Lake Michigan, sailboats and students
Evanston, IL
Natalie Auer
12
Taking a light meter reading
Gulf Breeze, FL
Great Lakes Environmental
Center
13
Secchi disk
Minnesota Pollution
Control Aaencv. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0)
14
Young modified Van Veen
sediment grabber
Pensacola Bay, FL
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
17
Collecting a sediment sample
EPA
17
Sunrise on the rock
Morro Bay, CA
David Seibold. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0). cropped
18
Mackinac Bridge
Mackinaw City, Ml
James Marvin Phelps. Flickr.
(CC BY-NC 2.0)
19
Marsh vegetation
Duck, NC
Mike Crow
20
Small waves on Chesapeake Bay shore
Chesapeake Bay
Mike Crow
21
Boardwalk to salt marsh
Mike Crow
23
Mercenaria mercenaria illustration
Mary Koger, Crow Insight
NCCA Report | Image Credits
60
-------
Page
Description
Location
Credit
24
Benthic macroinvertebrate sample after
sediment is washed away
Pensacola Bay, FL
Hugh Sullivan, EPA
25
Algae bloom in Puget Sound
near Edmonds
Edmonds, WA
Washington State Dept. of
Ecoloav. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0)
26
Gulf of Mexico algal bloom
Satellite image
NASA
27
Sediment, Boston Harbor,
Station 110
Boston, MA
U.S. Geoloaical Survev
28
Scorpionfish in seagrass
Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary, FL
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric
Administration. Wikimedia
28
Nudibranch (Acanthodoris hudsoni)
Humboldt Bay, CA
Robin Aaarwal. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0)
29
Luck at the locks
[cormorant eating a fish]
Ballard Locks,
Seattle, WA
Inarid Tavlar. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0). cropped
33
Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)
Virginia Living Museum,
Norfolk, VA
Will Parson, Chesapeake Bay
Proaram. Flickr (CC BY-NC
2.0). cropped
34
Sunset on Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario, NY
EPA
35
Sunrise on Lake Erie
Lake Erie
EPA
36
North shore of Lake Superior
Lake Superior, MN
EPA
37
Tubificid worm,
Potamothrix moldaviensis
Susan Daniel,
Great Lakes Center. NOAA
38
Round goby and dreissenid mussels
on underwater video
EPA
39
Processing samples on the boat
EPA
40
The Lake Erie shore at Reno Beach-Howard
Farms
Reno Beach, OH
Ken Winters, U.S. Army Corps,
Wikioedia
41
Collecting field data
St. Marys River, Ml
EPA
42
Underwater rocks
Presqu'ile Park, Lake
Ontario, ON
Andres Musta. Flickr.
(CC BY 2.0)
43
American mink
Lake Erie
Jan Den Ouden. Pixabav
(Pixabav license)
44
Cisco captured at the Les Cheneaux
Islands, Lake Huron
Les Cheneaux Islands,
Cedarville, Ml
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Flickr
(CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
45
Lake Michigan paddleboarders
Evanston, IL
Natalie Auer
46
Harmful algal bloom. Bolles Harbor,
Monroe, Ml, Lake Erie.
Monroe, Ml
NOAA Great Lakes
Environmental Research
Laboratory. Flickr
48
Fishing on Lake Huron
Lake Huron, Ml
EPA
50
The Lake Explorer II
St. Marys River, Ml
EPA
51
Gulls on Lake Ontario
Lake Ontario, NY
EPA
NCCA Report | Image Credits
61
-------
Page
Description
Location
Credit
52
Buffalo skyline
Buffalo, NY
Sean Marshall. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0)
53
Dutch Island Lighthouse
Rhode Island
Don Cobb, EPA
54
Buffalo water crib intake
Buffalo, NY
Charles W. Bash. Flickr (CC BY-
NC 2.0). cropped
55
Lake Erie water snake
Lake Erie, OH
Donna Braig, Ohio Sea Grant,
Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)
56
Chesapeake Bay beach
BeveryTriton Beach
Beach Park,
Edgewater, MD
Matthew Beziat. Flickr
(CC BY-NC 2.0). cropped
NCCA Report | Image Credits
62
-------
Appendix A:
Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
For NCCA 2015. EPA divided the target population for estuaries by region because each region has different ecology,
water chemistry, and geography, EPA did the same for the Great Lakes. Regional divisions were also important for
determining condition. For some indicators, the benchmarks EPA used to determine condition also differed by region
(see Appendix B).
For estuaries, a total of 699 sites representing 27,479 square miles of estuarine area was sampled. For the Great Lakes,
361 sites were sampled, representing 7,118 square miles of nearshore area.
This appendix shows the sampling locations for NCCA 2015; a list of maps is shown below.
• All Estuaries, Figure A.1
• Northeast, Figure A.2
• Southeast, Figure A.3
• Gulf, Figure A.4
• West, Figure A.5
• All Great Lakes, Figure A.6
• Lake Superior, Figure A.7
• Lake Michigan, Figure A.8
• Lake Huron, Figure A.9
• Lake Erie, Figure A.10
• Lake Ontario, Figure A.11
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.1
-------
Figure A.I. Sampling Locations—All Estuaries
Kilometers
Esri, GEBCO, DeLorme, NaturalVue, Esri, GEBGO, IHO-BDC GEBCD, DeLorme, NGS
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
-------
Figure A.2. Sampling Locations—Northeast
The Northeast NCCA Region
includes Atlantic coastal waters
from Maine south to the Virginia -
North Carolina Border.
Number of sites: 252
Total area: 9,956 square miles
N
A
• %
*
h
• ••
. »• .
a*i i • •
• s • ••
•» ^ •
*
%
. /• s
*.V .•
r>
j
mm 0 ®
• •*»
bj *
•
••
0 37.5 75
0 62.5 125
150
250
225
375
300
I Miles
500
I Kilometers
Esri, GEBCO, DeLorme, NaturaiVue, Esri, GEBCO, HO-IOC GEBG3, DeLorme, NGS
NCGA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NGCA 2015
A.3
-------
Figure A3. Sampling Locations—Southeast
The Southeast NCCA Region
includes Atlantic coastal waters
from the Virginia - North Carolina
border south to Barnes Sound in
Florida.
Number of sites: 86
Total area: 4,604 square miles
: 1
V.
w
• • ¦¦
N
A
• •
4«*
% •
• t
••
iH
j
0 37.5 75
0 62.5 125
150
250
225
375
300
I Miles
500
I Kilometers
Esri, GEBCO, DeLomne, NaturalVue, Esri, GffiCD, IHO-DC GECO, DeLorme, NGS
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.4
-------
Figure A.4. Sampling Locations—Gulf
The NCCA Gulf of Mexico Region
includes coastal waters from
Blackwater Sound in Florida west
to the Texas - Mexico Border.
Number of sites: 237
Total area: 10,715 square miles
N
A
< V ..
jr
•%
%
* .*•
a V-
*r
•s<#
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
¦i ¦ — •*
0 62.5 125 250 375 500
— wm —— Kilometers
Esri, GE300, DeLorme, NaturalVue, Esri, GEESCO, IHO-IOC GEBCO, Deborme, NGS
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015 A.5
-------
Figure A.5. Sampling Locations—West
The NCCA West Coast Region
includes coastal waters of
Washington, Oregon and
California.
Number of sites: 124
Total area: 2,204 square miles
N
A
r
Kilometers
Esri,GEBCO, DeLorme, NaturalVue, Esri,GEECO,IHO IOC GEBGO, DeLorme,NGS
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.6
-------
Figure A.6. Sampling Locations—All Great Lakes
r ~ v
J
• »-• f x %
• _ N
• m ••
\
« *" M \
• • • V '
* • *•••«
V -
en • ' '
V
•If .* A
v
• #
/
/
N
A
• ^ /
/
•» . v
I
• K ^ \ _ -'
/
j
JW
A
t _
• 4 ^
*
• * —® •
•/
i
/ ^
v
<*
• ••
0 37.5 75
150
225
300
>. .•••
S X
.1 - ^
0 62.5 125 250 375 500 CHS, Esri, GB3GO, DHO-IOC GffiCO, DeLorme, NGS, CHS, Esri, GEBCO, DeLorme, NaturaiVue
I Kilometers
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015 A.7
-------
Figure A.7. Sampling Locations—Lake Superior
f ~ \
I ~ K "" \
V ^ - _
In Lake Superior, the NCCA
assessed nearshore waters
of Minnesota, Wisconsin and
Michigan.
Number of sites: 78
Total area: 1,236 square miles
N
A
• •
*
4* #
• •
\
• • v
• •
• •
\
0 25 50
100
150
200
hi Miles
0 37.5 75
150
225
300
! Kilometers
CHS, Esti, GEBCQ, HO-IOC GEBCO, DeLorme, NGS, CHS, Esri, GEBCD, DeLomne, IMaturalVue
HI
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.8
-------
Figure A.8. Sampling Locations—Lake Michigan
In Lake Michigan, the NCCA
assessed nearshore waters of
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and
Michigan,
Number of sites: 100
Total area: 3,038 square miles
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.9
-------
Figure A.9. Sampling Locations—Lake Huron
N
A
>
In Lake Huron, the NCCA assessed
nearshore waters of the State of
Michigan.
Number of sites: 67
Total area: 1,270 square miles
• ••
• •
15 30
25 50
60
90
100
150
CHS, Esri, DeLorme, NaturalVue, CHS, NOAA DCS, Esri, DeLorme
120 * /
¦ Miles /
i
200 i
¦ Kilometers
i
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
A.10
-------
Figure A.10. Sampling Locations-—Lake Erie
In Lake Erie, the NCCA assessed
nearshore waters of Michigan,
Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.
Number of sites: 57
Total area: 1,042 square miles
/
/
/
/
!
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
N
k
v
i
jL^
7
\
i
/
/ •
~
' •/
%
^ • V
• »
A
*
12.5 25 50 75 100
I Miles
20 40 80 120 160
=-^_-^Baaa^^Haaaa |
-------
Figure A.11. Sampling Locations—Lake Ontario
In Lake Ontario, the NCCA assessed
nearshore waters of New York.
Number of sites: 59
Total area: 532 square miles
NCCA Report | Appendix A: Sampling Locations for NCCA 2015
"• •
* •
N
/
K
/
A
/
/ •
' 0 . •
/
/ •
/ • •
' \
/
/ #.
/ •
/
/ • •
j •
m
/ •
• * * * ^
50 75 100
¦ - i Miles
80 120 160
^ Kilometers
CHS, Esri, GEBGO, IHO-IOC GEBCQ, DeLorme, NGS, CHS, Esri, GEBCO, DeLorme, NaturalVue
A.1 2
-------
BIOLOGICAL CONDITION
Estuarine Biological Condition
The M-AMBI used in estuarine waters incorporates AMBI (an abundance-weighted tolerance index; Borja et al. 2000),
the Shannon Wiener diversity index, and species richness into a single index value that ranges from 0 to 1, where
higher scores indicate better condition.1,2 Sites rated good have a wide variety of species, including low proportions of
pollution-tolerant species and high proportions of pollution-sensitive species. Poor sites are less diverse and are pop-
ulated by more pollution-tolerant species and fewer pollution-sensitive species. See Table B.1 for M-AMBI benchmarks,
and Section 4.4.1 of the NCCA2015 Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA 2021) for more information.
Table B.I Benchmarks for NCCA Estuarine Benthic Index (M-AMBI)
Condition
Index Value
Good
M-AMBI > 0.53
Fair
M-AMBI < 0.53 and > 0.39
Poor
M-AMBI < 0.39
Nearshore Great Lakes Biological Condition
The oligochaete trophic index (OTI) classifies oligochaete worms in the Great Lakes into groups according to their tol-
erance to organic enrichment and calculates an index score based upon the relative abundance of more tolerant and
less tolerant species. For the OTI, higher scores indicate worse condition. Poor sites had a greater relative abundance
of tolerant organisms and scores above 1, while good sites had a higher relative abundance of intolerant organisms
and scores closer to 0. See Table B.2 for OTI benchmarks, and the Technical Support Document (Section 4.4.2) for more
information.
Table B.2 Benchmarks for NCCA Great Lakes Benthic Index (OTI)
Condition
Index Value
Good
OTI < 0.6
Fair
OTI > 0.6 and < 1
Poor
OTI > 1
'This diversity index accounts for both the number of species present and the percentage of the total community each species represents. Species richness is
defined as the number of species present.
2 In the tidal freshwater habitat, percent oligochaetes, the number of oligochaetes divided by the total number of organisms in the sample multiplied by 100, was
substituted for species richness in the calculation of M-AMBI.
NCCA Report | Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed
B.1
-------
EUTROPHICATION INDEX
Eutrophication index ratings were based on the underlying ratings for several component indicators.The estuarine
index includes five components, while the nearshore Great Lakes index includes four. The benchmarks for the underly-
ing indicators differed in some cases depending on naturally occurring conditions in the estuary or with location.The
overall index rating guidelines are shown in Table B.3, the benchmarks for the component indicators in estuaries are
in Tables B.4 to B.8, and the benchmarks for the nearshore Great Lakes are in Tables B.9 to B.12. See Chapter 5 of the
Technical Support Document for more information.
Table B.3 Eutrophication Index Rating Guidelines (Estuaries and Nearshore Great Lakes)
Condition
Eutrophication Index Combined Ratings
Good
A maximum of one indicator is rated fair; no indicators are rated poor.
Fair
One of the indicators is rated poor; or two or more indicators are rated fair.
Poor
Two or more of the component indicators are rated poor.
Not Assessed
Two indicators are missing, and the available indicators do not suggest a fair/poor rating.
Estuarine Eutrophication Index
Table B.4 Benchmarks for Estuarine Eutrophication Index—Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (Surface Concentration) (mg/L)
Condition
Northeast, Southeast and Gulf
West
South Florida*
Good
<0.1
<0.35
<0.05
Fair
O
I
O
In
0.35-0.5
0.05-0.1
Poor
>0.5
>0.5
>0.1
*South Florida is a subregion of the Gulf region that includes the Florida Keys and Florida Bay.
Table B.5 Benchmarks for Estuarine Eutrophication Index—Dissolved Inorganic Phosphorus (Surface Concentration) (mg/L)
Condition
Northeast, Southeast and Gulf
West
South Florida
Good
<0.01
<0.07
< 0.005
Fair
0.01 - 0.05
0.07-0.1
0.005-0.01
Poor
>0.05
>0.1
>0.01
Table B.6 Benchmarks for Estuarine Eutrophication Index—Dissolved Chlorophyll a (Surface Concentration) (|ig/L)
Condition
Northeast, Southeast, Gulf and West
South Florida
Good
<5
<0.5
Fair
5-20
0.5-1
Poor
>20
> 1
NCCA Report | Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed
B.2
-------
Table B.7 Benchmarks for Estuarine Eutrophication Index—Water Clarity
(Percent of Incident Light Remaining After Passing Through 1 Meter of Water)
Condition
Waters With Naturally
High Turbidity
Waters With
Normal Turbidity
Waters That Support
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Good
> 10%
> 20%
> 40%
Fair
5% - 10%
10%-20%
20% - 40%
Poor
<5%
< 10%
< 20%
Table B.8 Benchmarks for Estuarine Eutrophication Index—Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Condition
All Regions
Good
>5
Fair
2-5
Poor
<2
Nearshore Great Lakes Eutrophication Index
Table B.9 Benchmarks for Great Lakes Eutrophication Index—Total Phosphorus Concentration (|ig/L)
Condition
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Huron
Saginaw
Bay
Western
Lake Erie
Central
Lake Erie
Eastern
Lake Erie
Lake
Ontario
Good
<5
< 7
<5
< 15
< 15
< 10
< 10
< 10
Fair
> 5 and <
10
> 7 and
< 10
> 5 and <
10
> 15 and
< 32
> 15 and
<32
>10 and
< 15
> 10 and
< 15
>10 and
< 15
Poor
> 10
> 10
> 10
> 32
>32
> 15
> 15
> 15
Table B.10 Benchmarks for Great Lakes Eutrophication Index—Chlorophyll a Concentration (|ig/L))
Condition
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Huron
Saginaw
Bay
Western
Lake Erie
Central
Lake Erie
Eastern
Lake Erie
Lake
Ontario
Good
<1.3
< 1.8
< 1.3
<3.6
<3.6
>2.6
>2.6
>2.6
Fair
> 1.3 and
<2.6
> 1.8 and <
2.6
> 1.3 and
<2.6
> 3.6 and
<6
> 3.6 and
<6
> 2.6 and
<3.6
> 2.6 and
<3.6
> 2.6 and
<3.6
Poor
>2.6
<2.6
<2.6
<6
<6
<3.6
<3.6
<3.6
Table B.11 Benchmarks for Great Lakes Eutro
>hication Index—Secchi Depth (in meters)
Condition
Lake
Superior
Lake
Michigan
Lake
Huron
Saginaw
Bay
Western
Lake Erie
Central
Lake Erie
Eastern
Lake Erie
Lake
Ontario
Good
> 8
> 6.7
> 8
>3.9
> 3.9
> 5.3
>5.3
>5.3
Fair
< 8 and
>5.3
< 6.7 and
> 5.3
< 8 and
>5.3
< 3.9 and
>2.1
< 3.9 and
> 2.1
< 5.3 and
> 3.9
< 5.3 and
>3.9
< 5.3 and
>3.9
Poor
<5.3
< 5.3
<5.3
<2.1
< 2.1
< 3.9
<3.9
<3.9
NCCA Report | Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed
B.3
-------
Table B.I2 Benchmarks for Great Lakes Eutrophication Index—Dissolved Oxygen Concentration (mg/L)
Condition
All Great Lakes
Good
>5
Fair
< 5 and > 2
Poor
<2
SEDIMENT QUALITY INDEX
The NCCA sediment quality index is based on two component indices, the sediment contaminant index and the
sediment toxicity index. These indices are calculated differently for estuaries and the Great Lakes; see Chapter 6 of the
Technical Support Document for details on calculation.
Table B.13 Sediment Quality Index Rating Guidelines (Estuaries and Nearshore Great Lakes)
Condition
Sediment Quality Index Combined Ratings
Good
Both indicators are rated good.
Fair
At least one indicator is rated fair, and none are rated poor.
Poor
At least one indicator is rated poor.
Table B.14 Benchmarks for Estuarine Sediment Quality Index Components
Condition
Sediment Contaminant Index Values
Sediment Toxicity Index Values
Good
mean ERM-Q < 0.1 and LRM P <0.5
max
Test not significantly different from control (p > 0.05)
and > 80% control adjusted survival
Fair
mean ERM-Q > 0.1 but < 0.5 or
LRM P > 0.5 but < 0.75
max
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
Poor
mean ERM-Q > 0.5 or
LRM P > 0.75
max
Test significantly different from control (p < 0.05) and
< 80% control adjusted survival
mean ERM-Q = mean effects range median quotient
LRM Pmax= logistic regression model maximum probability
p > 0.05 or p < 0.05 = probability of test statistic value being greater than or less than 0.05
Table B.15 Benchmarks for Nearshore Great Lakes Sediment Quality Index Components
Condition
Sediment Contaminant Index Values
Sediment Toxicity Index Values
Good
mean PEC-Q < 0.1
> 90% control adjusted survival
Fair
mean PEC-Q > 0.1 but < 0.6
> 75% but < 90% control-adjusted survival
Poor
mean PEC-Q > 0.6
< 75% control adjusted survival
mean PEC-Q = mean probable effects concentration quotient
NCCA Report | Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed
B.4
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF CONTAMINATION IN FISH
The NCCA measures concentrations of select contaminants in whole-fish tissue composites to assess the biologi-
cally available contaminant levels in the nation's coastal waters. Tissue contaminant results are compared to a suite of
screening values to evaluate whether exposure could lead to adverse effects for sensitive fish, birds or mammals that
eat fish as a primary food source (i.e., predatory wildlife receptor groups). Ratings of good, fair or poor are based upon
the degree to which contaminants are found in fish composite samples and the number of wildlife receptor groups
potentially affected. Note that EPA updated the screening values for the 2015 report. See Section 7 of the Technical
Support Document for details about these changes and how this indicator is assessed.
Table B.16 Fish Contamination Index (Ecological Effects) Rating Guidelines
Condition
Fish Contamination Index Condition
Good
All of the measured contaminant concentrations < screening value for all receptor groups.
Fair
At least one measured contaminant concentration > screening value for one receptor group.
Poor
At least one measured contaminant concentration > screening value for two or more receptor groups.
UNASSESSEDAREA
The NCCA is a complex scientific endeavor that involves multiple steps for collecting and analyzing environmental
data. As a result, there are a variety of reasons that coastal area could be"unassessed"for an indicator:
• Malfunctioning field equipment prevented sample collection.
• Samples were delayed (and thus spoiled) or were lost in shipment.
• Organisms required for assessment were not collected (e.g., no fish of the appropriate size or species were
collected, no fish were collected at all because they were not present on the day of sampling, or the type of
oligochaetes used in the OTI were not present in the collected sediment).
• Hard or soft substrate prevented sediment or benthic macroinvertebrate sampling in some areas.
Regardless of the reason, the NCCA, like other surveys in the NARS program, does not extrapolate condition from
the proportion of the assessed area in good, fair or poor condition to the proportion of the area that is not assessed.
Instead, the NCCA presents the proportion of area that is unassessed. EPA and its partners continue to look for ways to
reduce the number of sites where samples are not collected.
NCCA Report | Appendix B: Determining Good, Fair, and Poor Condition and Area Not Assessed
B.5
------- |