Coastlines October 2001 Issue 11.5


Coastlines October 2001

k

I

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Information About Estuaries and Near Coastal Waters

October 2001 - Issue 11.5

Table of Contents

San Francisco Conducts Bay Seafood Consumption Study

Preventing Biolnvasions in Australia

Balancing Coastal Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Needs

The Future of the Graviota Coast
Southern California's Last Coast

Where Did All The Grass Go?

Sudden Marsh Loss in Jamaica Bay, New York

EPA Makes Grants Available to States for Beach Monitoring Programs

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/ (1 of 2) [6/17/04 1:18:52 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands

Interagency Campaign to Celebrate National Estuaries Day over the Internet

Using Remote Sensing to Address Coastal Management Issues: The Main Project

Fisheries in Hot Water!

Remote Sensing and Thermal Impacts in Mt. Hope Bay

Rhode Island Coastal Eelgrass Habitat Maps Now Available Through Interactive Website

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/(2 of 2) [6/17/04 1:18:52 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published between
1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated, since the original publication date. Users are
cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have becom e outdated.

San Francisco Conducts Bay Seafood Consumption Study

Introduction

Elevated levels of contaminants in fish from San Francisco
Bay have raised concerns for bay anglers who consume
these fish regularly. High levels of mercury and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in bay fish led the state
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to issue
a health advisory in 1994 recommending that individuals
limit their bay fish consumption and suggesting ways to
prepare and eat bay fish that lessen chemical exposure. To
learn more about San Francisco Bay anglers and their
potential exposure to chemicals in bay fish, the San
Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program and
California Department of Health Services sponsored a
survey of San Francisco Bay anglers and their fish
consumption habits.

Collecting the data

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/sfconducts.html (1 of 5) [6/17/04 1:18:56 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Between July, 1998, and June, 1999, interviewers visited
over 150 fishing sites from Fremont to Martinez and San
Mateo to Vallejo and interviewed over 1,300 San Francisco
Bay anglers. Five languages (English, Spanish, Vietnamese,
Cantonese and Mandarin) were spoken among the ten
interviewers of the study. Typically, a site was visited by a
pair of interviewers, who attempted to interview all persons
over 18 years of age holding a fishing rod. The survey
included questions on ethnicity, income, education, age,
amount of fish eaten within the last four weeks, species and
parts of fish eaten, preparation and cooking methods, others
in the household who eat the catch, and awareness and
knowledge of the state health advisory. The entire interview
took about 20 minutes per angler.

Angler awareness of health advisory

Alt anglers

Aware
61%

Not aware

39%

| Ms H •

COSfTA* COST*

SMiafiitiO

r- ml

Sampling Sites

Snn Francisco 8jy
Seafood Consumption Study

m i it

(Click on image for larger version)

Results

Results indicate that the majority of people who eat fish from the bay do so safely, without exceeding the
health advisory recommendations. However, about one in ten eats more than the recommended amount.
Among ethnic groups, Asian anglers stand out as a group of concern due to their large numbers,
consumption rates, and methods of preparation and consumption.

When asked about their recent bay fish consumption, anglers' responses ranged from no consumption to
the equivalent of an 8-ounce meal of bay fish every day. Responses regarding consumption indicated that
about 80% of anglers eat the equivalent of one meal a month or less, about 10% eats roughly two meals a
month, and another one in ten eats more than two meals a month. The fish consumption health advisory
suggests anglers consume no more than two meals of fish from San Francisco Bay per month (see
sidebar). Among the 10% eating over the advisory level, about two-thirds are eating twice the advisory

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/sfconducts.html (2 of 5) [6/17/04 1:18:56 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

level or more.

Anglers' likelihood of eating over the advisory limit varied with ethnicity, with Asians and African
Americans more likely than other ethnic groups to eat above the limit. Differences in income, education,
or fishing mode did not markedly affect anglers' likelihood of eating over the advisory limit.

The five most popular fishes eaten by bay anglers were striped bass, halibut, jacksmelt, sturgeon, and
white croaker, in that order. Striped bass was by far the most popular, with over twice the angler share
than the next most popular fish, halibut. The popularity of a fish often varied depending on the angler's
fishing mode, ethnicity, income, and education. For example, Asians as well as people of lower income or
education were more likely than other groups to consume white croaker, a fish of particular concern due to
high contamination levels.

Angler consumption relative to the health advisory

Consumption slatus of all
interviewed anglers

Consumption level of
Bay fish consumers

How far above Ihe advised limit
are anglers consuming7

ntuVCOclSurtlCri

above advisory

1 5k Ad

Irfrf fnp*ij

8* aterw ftw _ v

larit Of marw l|4l!
tut*6> . V--4|

|i?*» than 2s
jLovt1 (he
y limit

mrnm

below idvluty

91%

Mfflft w fpwt.
Dl1 under St

1T%

2k above U-c

lm*lcr more
bud under 4a

Some contaminants in fish, such as PCBs and pesticides, concentrate in fatty tissues, such as the skin and
internal organs. The consumption of certain fish parts and the way the fish is prepared may have a
considerable impact on angler exposure to these types of contaminants. For some of the commonly
consumed fishes the study found that Asian anglers were more likely than other ethnic groups to eat the
skin of the fish, eat the cooking juices, and eat the fish raw or in soup, thus increasing their exposure to
contaminants. Shore-based anglers and anglers of lower income and education also consumed fish skin
more frequently.

Many anglers reported that other household members ate some of the fish they caught from San Francisco
Bay. About 40% reported that women of childbearing age eat some of the fish they catch. (In addition,
about 5% of the fish-consuming anglers interviewed were themselves women of childbearing age). About
11% reported that children under the age of six eat the fish they catch, and 2% reported that pregnant or
breastfeeding women eat a portion of their catch. Shore-based anglers were more likely to have fish-
consuming household members than boat anglers.

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/sfconducts.html (3 of 5) [6/17/04 1:18:56 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Percentage of anglers consuming above advisory recommendations

Anglers with Bay fish consumption

Anglers grouped by Fishing Mode

30%
25%

cv 20%

IE g

If15%

ll 10%
* 5%
0%

13%

free
P«r

Ek'.:-i-h
Bartt

P™sta
8c>*$

Anglers grouped by Income

30%
25%

£ S 20%
Is 15%

10%

* S20k
/year

$20-45*
fy*ar

> $4 5k
i1 year

Anglers grouped by Ethnicity

Anglers grouped by Education

30%
25%
20%

I ^

tl 15%
>£

i* 10%

15%

11%

r? Q.

* 2

30%
25%

B 2C%

'1 D.

1| 15*

ji io%

¦t

* 5%
0%

11%

A3noui
Americans

Latinos Caucasians

Anars,

•c 12^
grade

High sch. Somo cO^gs/ t or mcjru
-------
Coastlines October 2001

who were not.

During the interview, anglers were asked how they preferred to
receive information regarding fish consumption advisories.
Newspapers and television were the leading preferred methods,
followed by fishing-site signs, friends and family, and text in the
fishing regulations pamphlet. Although newspapers and television
were the most popular, each was cited by only 35% of the anglers,
indicating that a variety of approaches are necessary to reach all
anglers.

Conclusions

The fact that the vast majority of San Francisco Bay anglers are eating within the limit recommended by
the state health advisory is good news. However, the one in ten anglers who eat above the advisory levels
remains a cause for concern. Among ethnic groups, Asian and African American anglers appear to be at
greatest risk for chemical exposure. Asians are most likely to eat over the advised limit, to consume fish in
a way that increases their exposure to organic contaminants, and most likely to eat white croaker, a fish
known for its highest organic contaminants (such as DDT and PCBs). African Americans share many of
the same high-risk consumption practices as Asians, though typically to a lesser extent.

body weight ~ roughly one ounce of
uncooked fish per 20 pounds of body
weight. For example, a meal for a
person weighing 154 pounds is eight
ounces. For a 40-pound child, the meal
size is two ounces.

* Note that the advisory does not apply
to salmon, anchovies, herring, and
smelt. In this study these fish were
excluded from the consumption values
that were compared to the advisoiy.

For angler exposure to fish contaminants to be reduced, either anglers must change their consumption
habits, or the contamination of the fish must be reduced. While the bay environmental management
community is pursuing the latter as a long-term goal, even under the best circumstances, significant
decreases will take many years. Meanwhile, anglers should make informed decisions regarding their
consumption habits. With 40 percent of the fishing population having no knowledge of the advisory at all,
outreach and education must be improved.

For further information, contact Rainer Hoenicke, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Phone: (510) 231-9539;
Email: rainer@sfei.org, or read the San Francisco Bay Seafood Consumption Report, available from the
website at http://www.sfei.org/.

K \ IT d in l' 11 iriL' r V

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/sfconducts.html (5 of 5) [6/17/04 1:18:56 PM]

-------
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/sanipliiig_sites_lrg.jpg

SOLANO

MARIN Mi _ i

Ifrrrffpnrr /Wi>-

.%<5rAVnr\ /Vir» h i'urt

f ,*r/r !. > >>ui lf.trrrt.,1 -i«- /"irrlrtf A«rl j'oAAii lin/il i/rtrf-M.

^AN.Vfirrrwn/ .Vfrjsnwii CONTRA COSTA

/VrV.i'fev t'n'r
f.Wrttftfr" l/pon><

fnrt /tiller F'st-tr
l itft t'.iini I'r. r

i- r^ki-r-»ijirn "¦ ft hart

¦f.milt' r. *4^' *

¦S7 /" „

SAN
FRANCISCO

h ffnrA
. ll,rni. ,J„ ft,,* Lntrtf

•km^. S,m /.i ijin/ni Wontrnr

f ti l i*i r f\itrtf Xfiiriiiit

^ ALAMEDA

SAN MATEO

Sampling Sites Type of Site

San Francisco Bay
Seafood Consumption Study

— Party Bojs S«t (3]

PltWHt* 0O« Sii« f5J
*"« SNorp.Bjswl Site [14)

Depanmeni o( HeaJm Services gWC A ^

Erwironmontal Mcaflh Invasligglions Branch ~ tB Miles

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/sampling_sites_lrg.jpg [6/17/04 1:18:57 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Infer vt at ion jftft1

d iNfrCoastal Waters

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the time of original publication may have become outdated.

Preventing Bioinvasions in Australia
Lessons from Down Under

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/preventing.html (1 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:01 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Bioinvasions in marine and freshwater environments continue to
occur at an unprecedented rate. The latest analysis from Australia
suggests that at least 250 marine species have been introduced into
Australian waters since European colonization. This is undoubtedly
an underestimate since biologists have traditionally overlooked
certain taxonomic groups.

At least 13 man-made mechanisms of transport have been
responsible for spreading marine organisms beyond natural bio-
geographic boundaries (Table 1). The dominant transport
mechanisms vary over time and with geographical region. In
Australia, hull fouling, accidental release associated with
mariculture (predominately oysters) and ballast water are the
dominant means of transport; while in San Francisco Bay, hull
fouling and ballast water are the most important means of transport,
followed by mariculture of the Atlantic oyster Crassostrea virginica
and the Pacific (Japanese) oyster Crassostrea gigas.

The majority of marine organisms, perhaps as many as 90%,
introduced into a new locality will have little, if any, noticeable
effect to the untrained eye. A small minority of exotic organisms,
however, will have large-scale impacts on economic and
environmental values within near shore environments, threatening
aesthetics, tourism and in some cases human health.

The challenge facing coastal managers in an era of increasing globalization is how to eliminate
established populations of marine pests, and to slow the increasing onslaught of new invasions, in
particular targeting potential "high impact" species.

An obvious solution to this problem is to copy the biosecurity strategies developed in terrestrial
environments (for agricultural diseases and pests) into the marine environment. An effective biosecurity
strategy should include the following components:

• pre-border analysis of the vector hazard (who travels where, when and how often) and the species
hazard (which organisms are present/absent and which threaten valued components of the marine
environment);

• border surveillance that maximizes the probability of detecting new organisms and eradicating
them before they establish a foothold; and,

• post-border containment and/or eradication of established pests.

natural habitats, aquaculture, fisheries

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/preventing.html (2 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:01 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

In practice it is much harder to achieve biosecurity in the marine environment than the terrestrial
environment because: a) it is virtually impossible to "quarantine" infected parts of near shore
environments; and, b) a large number of unregulated vectors, such as small pleasure craft, operate within
and between different coastal communities. Despite these difficulties, a number of nations around the
world have embarked on a series of initiatives that represent the first seeds of a marine biosecurity
strategy. Australia, for example, is implementing the following components:

• A ballast water Decision Support System to assess the bio-invasion risk posed by international
vessels that intend to discharge ballast water into Australian ports and near-shore environments;

• Identifying "potential next pest" species that have a demonstrated invasion history and impact
overseas but have yet to arrive in Australia;

• A nationwide Coordinating Committee for Introduced Marine Pest Emergencies to facilitate a
rapid response to marine pest incursions;

• Detection kits that allow local stakeholders to identify and recognize the arrival of a new species
in their communities;

• A centralized database holding information on invasive species, their relevant biological
characteristics and techniques that have been used around the world to successfully eradicate
them; and

• Genetic techniques that allow rapid and accurate identification of marine organisms and may
ultimately provide an environmentally friendly means to eradicate established marine pests.

These initiatives are the first steps towards an effective biosecurity strategy for Australia's marine
environment and offer valuable lessons to other countries. These initiatives can be integrated into an
international framework that encourages information sharing between nations and allows "early warning"
of the emergence of new and existing marine pests. The International Maritime Organization has begun
the process of developing a global framework for ballast water risk assessment (GloBallast), with
funding through the Global Environment Facility of the United Nations Development Programme. Much
remains to be done, however, particularly for transportation mechanisms other than ballast water.

Man-made transportation mechanisms

Ships:

accidental with vessel fouling (including boring into wooden hulls)

Ships:

accidental with solid ballast (rocks, sand, etc.)

Ships:

accidental with ballast water

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/preventing.html (3 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:01 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Fisheries:

deliberate translocations of fish and shellfish to establish or support a new fishery

Fisheries:

accidental with deliberate translocations of fish and shellfish (particularly oysters)

Fisheries:

accidental with seaweed packing for bait and fishery products

Plant Introductions:

deliberate translocation of plant species (e.g., for erosion control)

Plant Introductions:

accidental with deliberate plant translocations

Biocontrol:

deliberate translocation as a biocontrol agent

Biocontrol:

accidental translocation with deliberate biocontrol release

Canals:

natural range expansion through man-made canals

Individual Release:

deliberate and accidental release by individuals (e.g., aquarium discards)

Scientific Release:

deliberate and accidental release as a result of research activities

For further information, contact Keith Hayes, Risk Analyst, Centre for Research on Introduced Marine
Pests, CSIRO Marine Division, Australia; E-mail: keith.hayes@marine.csiro.au

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/preventing.html (4 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:01 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Disclaimer: The information in this website is entirely drawn from issues of newsletters published
between 1994 and 2002 and these issues will not been updated since the original publication date. Users
are cautioned that information reported at the tim e of original publication may have becom e outdated.

Balancing Coastal Public Access and Wildlife Habitat Needs

The increase in human demand for water-oriented
experiences and shoreline development, concurrent
with shrinking wildlife habitat area, raises the
potential for interaction between the public and
wildlife along the shoreline. Several issues arise
when balancing these two needs, including:

• Understanding if public access adversely
affects wildlife and, if so, how;

• Determining which types of access affect
which species; and

• Determining if public access can be
provided near habitats of sensitive species
and if so, how the access should be sited,
designed, constructed, and managed to

avoid or minimize habitat degradation and impacts on the species.

SANCTUARY .

jm JOCSJUfl OB DOG* »
' Tfi'CW Dlts POlll

While these issues are often raised to resource managers and coastal regulatory agencies during the
deliberation process, the information may not be readily available. Moreover, as more state and local

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/balancing.html (1 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:03 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

governments and special districts (park, recreation and open space districts) require public access as part
of their shoreline projects and planning permit authority, better information is needed to guide public
policy decisions regarding human interaction with wildlife.

The San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) has a
twofold mission: to protect the
Bay and its wildlife resources,
and to provide maximum feasible
public access to and along the
Bay. Over the last 30 years,

BCDC's policies on public access
have evolved from the
fundamental goal of creating and
expanding public access, to the
development of more complex
policies that attempt to balance
public access needs with wildlife
and habitat protection and enhancement. However, in the many years since BCDC's policies were
created, available information on the effects of public access on wildlife has increased and concern over
this issue has grown. To address these concerns, the BCDC embarked upon an in-depth two-year research
and policy development process, called the Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility Policy
Development Project.

To ensure public participation, a broadly representative Policy Advisory Committee was formed that met
over the course of a year. The Policy Advisory Committee provided a forum for public input and debate
and helped facilitate consensus among regional public agencies and non-profit organizations on policy
recommendations. The Committee comprised individuals representing a wide range of professional fields,
geographic areas and public interests, including biologists (consultant, academic and agency), resource
managers, regional park district employees, environmental planners, landscape architects, and non-
governmental organization activists, including both recreation and wildlife protection advocates.

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/balancing.html (2 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:03 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

A nationwide opinion survey of natural resource
area and park and recreation managers was
conducted concerning the effects of public access
on wildlife and the use of siting, design and
management strategies to avoid or minimize
potential adverse effects on wildlife. The selected
survey participants manage local, state, and federal
reserves, parks, refuges, open spaces, recreation
areas, and wildlife management areas in Great
Lakes and coastal states nationwide.

The combined information gathered from the
survey, extensive literature searches, speaking with
experts and government agency representatives, and attending site visits and conferences allowed the
following conclusions to be drawn from the project:

• Access to the Bay allows the public to discover, experience and appreciate the Bay's natural
resources and can foster public support for Bay resource protection.

• Studies indicate that public access may have immediate effects on wildlife (including flushing,
increased stress, interrupted foraging, or nest abandonment) and may result in adverse long-term
population and species effects.

• Different kinds of disturbances have different effects on different species - effects are context
dependent. Accurate characterization of site, habitat and wildlife conditions, and of likely human
activities, provides information critical to understanding potential effects on wildlife.

• Potential adverse effects from public access may be avoided or minimized through the
employment of siting, design and management strategies, such as education and outreach
programs, activity type and user behavior restrictions, buffers, and periodic public access closures.

• Providing diverse and satisfying public access opportunities can reduce the creation of infonnal
access routes which will decrease interaction between humans and wildlife, habitat fragmentation,
and vegetation trampling and erosion. Formal public access also provides for more predictable
human actions, which may increase the ability of wildlife to adjust to human use.

• There is a need for more scientific studies on the types and severity of effects of specific human
activities 011 wildlife. More studies are also needed 011 the effects of siting, design and
management strategies on the type and severity of impacts of human activities on wildlife.

The BCDC's Public Access and Wildlife Compatibility Project culminated in the revision and adoption of
the BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan public access findings and policies. The revised findings and
policies better reflect current knowledge on the interactions of public access and wildlife and provide
more detailed policy guidance on providing maximum feasible public access while protecting wildlife
from significant adverse effects. As a component of the revised findings and policies, BCDC staff is
currently updating its advisory, Public Access Design Guidelines to include information on specific
siting, design and management strategies to avoid or minimize adverse effects of public access on
wildlife.

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/balancing.html (3 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:03 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

For more information, contact Caitlin Sweeney, Coastal Planner, San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission, 50 California Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111; Phone: (415) 352-
3643; E-mail: caitlins@bcdc.ca.gov.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/balancing.html (4 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:04 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

The Future of the Gaviota Coast
Southern California's Last Coast

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/future.html (1 of 5) [6/17/04 1:19:08 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

West of Santa Barbara lies a 76-mile stretch of
coastline that some call the "Last Coast." While it
includes only 15 percent of the total coastline in
southern California, it contains 50 percent of the
remaining rural coastline and represents the last
significant relatively undeveloped stretch of coast.
But the situation is changing. Large acreages of
privately owned lands along the Gaviota Coast are
on the market and proposed for development.
Decisions and investments in the next five years
will largely determine how much of the remaining
rural coastline of Southern California will be
protected or developed.

For the last decade, conservationists have sought
to elevate the debate over how to protect this
unique coastline. In November, 1999, Congress
directed the National Park Service to conduct a
special resource study of the Gaviota Coast to
evaluate alternatives for protection, including
whether or not portions of it should be included in
the National Park System.

Sr Ltii Q&ipa

Cmjnly

loi. P jarti
F&hi

¦ I

1 D J * Win

aomoARf

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/future.html (2 of 5) [6/17/04 1:19:08 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

The 200,000-acre study area contains 76 miles of
scenic coastline between Coal Oil Point at
University of California-Santa Barbara and Point
Sal, where the Guadalupe Mountains meet the
Pacific Ocean. The study area is a mosaic of
publicly and privately held land, including
Vandenberg Air Force Base (102,000 acres), Los
Padres National Forest (29,400 acres), California
State Parks (3,000 acres), Bixby Ranch (24,500
acres) and Flollister Ranch (14,500 acres).

The National Park Service study concluded that
the Gaviota Coast is nationally significant for its
natural, cultural and recreation values. The natural
resource array is especially rich due to the
convergence of the south coast and the central
coast bioregions along the crest of the east-west
Santa Ynez Range. The south coast bioregion is
one of five places in the world in which the rare
Mediterranean Ecosystem/Floristic Province
occurs.

Other natural resource characteristics that
contribute to the area's uniqueness include the
convergence of two major ocean currents off
Point Conception, and the Santa Ynez and San
Antonio Rivers as well as many coastal canyons,
which support some of the richest riparian habitats
in the Southwest. Fourteen thousand species have
been documented along the Gaviota coast,
including 13 threatened and endangered species
and 54 species of concern. The area's cultural and
historical significance is underscored by the
density and integrity of 9,000 year-old Chumash
archeological sites, historic sites representing
Spanish settlement and Mexican ranches, as well
as historic space launch sites. Many expansive
coastal scenic vistas and outdoor recreation
opportunities add to the area's significance.

While over half the area is protected through
public ownership, there are major concerns over
future uses on many of the private lands.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01 /future.html (3 of

[6/17/04 1:19:08 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Historically, agriculture was the major land use,
but high land values and a strong market for
"trophy estates" and houses are driving land
speculation and converting agricultural operations
to subdivisions, resorts and large home estates.

The median home price on the south coast of
Santa Barbara County reached $629,000 in 2000.

The pressure to develop is more apparent in the
eastern portion of the study area where many land
owners are not renewing their Williamson Act
contracts, which keep the land reserved for
agricultural use. Some land owners sued the
County over lot line adjustments, which limited
the development potential of their properties. And more development proposals are now being brought
before Santa Barbara County officials

Some large parcels of open space have already been permanently lost to the public. Hollister Ranch,
which includes eight miles of the Gaviota Coast, was subdivided into 100-acre lots before the California
Coastal Commission was established and is completely closed to public access. Last year, the historic
Naples subdivision plat was upheld by the California Supreme Court, enabling unprecedented densities
along this stretch of coast. The Bixby Ranch has been proposing subdivisions over the last two decades
and, along with several other large properties, is currently on the market.

But there are some encouraging signs for protecting the Gaviota Coast, including the purchase of the 700-
acre Arroyo Hondo Ranch, for a nature preserve, and two have sold agricultural easements to a local land
trust. A locally-initiated protection strategy, referred to as Common Ground, is beginning to focus its
efforts after a highly contentious first 10 months. And through a Special Resource Study, the National
Park Service is evaluating how exceptional, nationally significant landscapes and resources in the study
area can best be protected, how compatible uses such as agriculture can be sustained, and how public
access and educational opportunities can be assured for future generations.

It is obvious that an adequate degree of long-term protection can only be guaranteed through acquisition
of fee ownership and agricultural and conservation easements. Given the acreage and high market prices
of land along the Gaviota coast, timely protection efforts will require the combined focus of local, state,
federal, and nonprofit agencies.

A draft of the National Park Service's Gaviota Coast Special Resource Study Report will be available in
early 2002. Public review and comment on the draft report will hopefully advance the debate over the
future of the Gaviota Coast.

For further information, contact Ray Murray, National Park Service, Planning and Partnerships Team
Leader; Phone: (510) 817-1439; E-mail: PGSO Gaviota@nps.gov or visit the website

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/future.html (4 of 5) [6/17/04 1:19:08 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

http://www.nps. gov/pwro/gaviota/.

I \ I rdisL lamiL11 >

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/future.html (5 of 5) [6/17/04 1:19:08 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Infer vt at ion jftft1

d iNfrCoastal Waters

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Where Did All The Grass Go?

Sudden Marsh Loss in Jamaica Bay, New York

Jamaica Bay, located at the southwestern end of Long Island, New York, consists of a mosaic of marsh
islands separated by intertidal flats and deeper channels. Recent catastrophic losses of tidal marsh
vegetation within the bay prompted the creation of a Blue Ribbon Panel convened by the Gateway
National Recreational Area. The Panel was charged with developing ideas about the causes of the
problem and suggesting possible remediation measures.

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/grass.html (1 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:10 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

With little site-specific data, the
Panel examined the problems via
a conceptual model of the
natural system. Based 011
historical maps and regional
geology, the Panel assumed that
the marshes originally developed
in the bay when vegetation
colonized sandy overwash and
inlet deposits that resulted from
the east-west movement of
Rockaway Inlet, the entrance to
Jamaica Bay. Once marsh
vegetation was established on
these sandy bars, it maintained
itself by accumulation of fine
sediments and plant matter at a m

A number of man-made alterations have occurred in the Jamaica Bay estuary - many of which alone
might not present a major threat to the system, but cumulatively appear to have stressed the marshes to
their limit. The potentially important changes noted by the Panel included:

• The position of Rockaway Inlet was stabilized, potentially limiting the exchange of sediments
between the bay and ocean below historic levels.

• Dredging in the vicinity of the inlet has altered the way in which sediment moves into the system
from the ocean.

• The shorelines around the edge of the bay have been stabilized and the barrier beach developed,
effectively limiting overwash of sands during storms that historically may have contributed
sediment to the marshes.

• The hydrodynamics and circulation of the bay have been severely altered by the construction of a
causeway to support a road, the dredging of navigation channels, the dredgingof deep burrow pits
to provide fill for JFK airport, and the extension of one of the airport runways into the bay.

• Both landfills and wastewater treatment plants have contributed massive amounts of nutrients and
contaminants to the bay.

• Changes in land use and thus runoff within the watershed of the bay have altered the character and
amount of freshwater and sediments delivered to the bay.

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/grass.html (2 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:10 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

In general terms, the Panel identified two types of marsh loss: lateral erosion, which occurs around the
edge of marsh islands, and interior ponding and submergence, which occurs in the central parts of islands
even when the edges are still intact.

The Panel identified the three
factors that most likely caused
the marsh loss:

1. The dredging of
channels and borrow pits
in the bay has resulted in
a sediment sink, thus
removing a source of
sediment that was
historically available to
maintain marsh elevation
against sea level rise. The
lack of sedimentation
increases water depth and
wave activity across the
tidal flats.

2. Dense banks of mussels (Guekensia demissa) along the marsh edge can block small marsh
drainage channels. This causes water to pond on the marsh surface for long periods after high
tides, waterlogging the marsh soil and stressing marsh vegetation.

3. Inlet stabilization and dredging activities near the inlet have reduced the amount of sediment
coming into the bay from the ocean. Reduced sediment supply, combined with sediment sinks in
the dredged areas, limits sedimentation on marshes and tidal flats.

Other potential causes of marsh loss include the effects of vigorous sea lettuce (Ulva sp.) growth,
probably stimulated by high nutrient loading which smothers other marsh vegetation and limits growth;
the effects of increased boat traffic causing wakes that erode marsh edges; and a period of increased sea-
level rise during the 1990s that may have further exacerbated waterlogging of marsh soils. Lastly, the
Panel considered that as erosion proceeds and marsh islands diminish in size, fetch will increase across
the bay, producing more wave action and thus creating more erosion.

The Panel recommended focused studies to assist the Gateway National Recreational Area in its
evaluation of Jamaica Bay. These included experimental studies to determine the role of mussels and sea
lettuce on the marsh surface, sediment cores and surveys to define flooding regimes and sediment sinks,
and a more detailed spatial and temporal analysis of aerial photography.

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/grass.html (3 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:10 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

The Panel also urged that some trial remediation projects begin soon. These might include building
marsh islands in some areas by placing clean dredged material and planting vegetation, or protecting the
remaining marsh islands from wave action by using structures or by altering the slope of the marsh edge.

These investigations and pilot projects will increase understanding of the problem and demonstrate that
continued catastrophic marsh loss is not inevitable in Jamaica Bay. However, even if management and
restoration actions increase future marsh acreage, the ecosystem will still be fundamentally impaired
unless existing and proposed human alterations of the Jamaica Bay estuary are addressed.

Copies of the Blue Ribbon Panel report are available from Dr. John Tanacredi, Chief of the Division of
Natural Resources at Gateway National Recreational Area; Phone: (718) 354-4520. For further
information, contact Denise J. Reed, Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of New
Orleans, New Orleans LA 70148; E-mail: direed@uno.edu

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/grass.html (4 of 4) [6/17/04 1:19:10 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

'laf0Jl und Kf

^ £^» ! ; - ' -H

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

EPA Makes Grants Available to States for Beach Monitoring
Programs

EPA is announcing the availability of approximately $2 million in grants for coastal and Great Lakes
states to protect human health at our nations' beaches. Last year, monitoring data were submitted for
approximately 2,000 beaches nationwide. Of those beaches, one-third were either closed to swimming or
had swimming advisories issued due to poor water quality at least once during the season. With an
estimated 910 million Americans visiting our coasts each year, communities need an effective way to
notify the public of potential threats. The grants, made possible under the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health (BEACH) Act of 2000, will assist states and territories to develop
programs for monitoring and informing the public of bacterial contamination in recreational waters.

For further information on the BEACH Act grants, contact your EPA Regional beach program
representative or Charles Kovatch; Phone: (202) 260-3754; E-mail: kovatch.charles@epa.gov or visit the
EPA website at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/grants/.

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/grants.html [6/17/04 1:19:10 PM]

-------
http: //www.epa. gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octO 1 /guiding .html

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands

The EPA's Wetlands Division has released a report, entitled "Guiding Principles for Constructed
Treatment Wetlands: Providing for Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat" (EPA843-B-00-003). This report
is the result of the collective efforts of the Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands to promote
the development of environmentally beneficial constructed wetlands for water treatment systems. The
report provides concise information on the legal, policy, and technical issues associated with these
systems, as well as guidelines for those developing and managing constructed treatment wetlands. It also
features guiding principles for planning, siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and
monitoring of constructed treatment wetlands.

Copies of the report are available from the EPA's Wetlands Help line; Phone: (800) 832-7828, or via
FAX: (703) 748-1308. The publication is also available on line at:

http: //www.epa. gov/ o wow/wetlands/ constructed/ guide .html.

For further information, contact Judy Long, US EPA, Washington, DC; Phone: (202) 260-7594

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/guiding.html [6/17/04 1:19:11 PM]

-------
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastliiies/oct01/iiiteragency.html

'laf0Jl und Kf

^ £^» ! ; - ' -H

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Interagency Campaign to Celebrate National Estuaries Day over the
Internet

On Saturday, September 29 the 13th Annual
National Estuaries Day commenced and
communities across the country learned about the
importance of estuaries. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Estuarine
Research Reserve System hosted a live field trip
over the Internet on, called "Estuary Live." The
Environmental Protection Agency, the Ocean
Conservancy and Coastal America worked with
NOAA's estuarine reserve system to participate in
and promote the program.

During Estuary Live, participants were able to E-mail questions to a naturalist and hear the response
during the Internet broadcast. The program highlighted estuaries as nursery areas for fish and shellfish,
buffers that protect coastal areas from flooding and important habitat for birds and other wildlife. A
portion of the Estuary Live program was in Spanish, highlighting the Jobos Bay National Estuarine
Research Reserve, in Puerto Rico. Another segment featured NOAA's National Ocean Service, National

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/interagency. html (1 of 2) [6/17/04 1:19:13 PM]

-------
http: //www.epa. go v/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octO 1 /interagency .html

Weather Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the connection between these agencies and
estuaries.

The North Carolina National Estuarine Research Reserve has been conducting Estuary Live programs for
four years. This is the first time the broadcast included multiple live sites. The Jacques Cousteau National
Estuarine Research Reserve, in New Jersey, and the North Inlet-Winyah Bay Reserve, in South Carolina,
provided educational programs live over the Internet during the Estuaries Day session. In addition, pre-
recorded material on estuaries in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Ohio, Maryland,
Washington, Oregon and other areas were showcased.

"The Estuary Live program was a great success. We had entire classrooms log on to watch," stated Amy
Saul, coastal education specialist at the North Carolina Reserve. "We had a positive response from
students and teachers from all over the country. It was a great way to connect the nation and share
information about an important coastal area that is under great stress."

More information about National Estuaries Day, Estuary Live and the partners who participated can be
found at http://www.estuaries.gov/. |T\T

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/interagency.html (2 of2) [6/17/04 1:19:13 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Using Remote Sensing to Address Coastal Management Issues: The
Maine Project

Recent improvements in computer software and hardware have allowed remote sensing and geographic
information systems to play an increasing role in the management of the nation's coastal resources. This
CD-ROM provides examples of the ways in which many organizations in Maine are using this
infonnation and technology.

Copies of this CD-ROM may be requested by contacting the NOAA Coastal Services Center
Clearinghouse, 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina, 29405-2413, Phone: (843)-740-
1210; FAX: (843) 740-1315; or E-mail: clearinghouse@csc.noaa.gov

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/remotesense.html [6/17/04 1:19:13 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

'laf0Jl und Kf

^ £^» ! ; - ' -H

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Fisheries in Hot Water!

Remote Sensing and Thermal Impacts in Mt. Hope Bay

Fisheries Decline in Mt. Hope Bay

Mt. Hope Bay is a 14 square mile estuary shared by Rhode
Island and Massachusetts, part of the larger Narragansett
Bay ecosystem. In 1986, fisheries biologists from the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM) were startled at the results of monthly fish
surveys taken in Mt. Hope Bay. Eighteen of twenty-one
key species showed dramatic reductions and several
species, including winter flounder with an 87% decline,
had virtually disappeared. Subsequent years' data showed
similar trends, adding to the concern over the declines. In
Mt. Hope Bay, the Providence Journal reported, there
existed a "unique, across-the-board loss in aquatic life."

In the mid-1990s, state and federal officials formed an
advisoiy committee to investigate the Mt. Hope Bay

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/fisheries.html (1 of 3) [6/17/04 1:19:15 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

Narragansett Bay Waterstied

rtIM—^tTh

*J\r

•K

issues. Pursuant to the advisory committee discussions,

RIDEM fisheries scientists issued a report in 1996
documenting the declines in fish populations. The report
identified the Brayton Point power generating plant,
situated at the head of the bay in Massachusetts, as the
"most likely" cause of the reductions. The plant is allowed
to discharge cooling waters (thermal effluent) that are up
to 23 degrees higher than the bay's ambient temperature,
with a maximum cap at 95 degrees Farenheit. The report
pointed to changes in the plant's operating permit in 1985
that allowed a 30% increase in the amount of water drawn
by the plant for cooling purposes. The plant currently
cycles through up to 1.4 billion gallons a day, exchanging
approximately the entire volume of Mt. Hope Bay in one
month.

Although a direct causal relationship had not been
established, RIDEM scientists suspected that the plant's
thermal effluent was having negative impacts on the bay
ecosystem. Changes in temperature can affect the
metaboli sm, reproduction and recruitment success of fish
and other organisms; beyond a certain tolerable range,
prolonged exposure can be lethal. RIDEM also presented
data indicating that the heated plume of water from the (Click on image for larger version)

plant exceeded Rhode Island's standards for thermal change. In 2000, the State of Rhode Island
requested that power plant officials consider voluntary reductions in the amount of water used for
cooling; state officials also alluded to a possible nuisance suit to remedy a lack of action by the plant.
Plant officials demurred, stating that they would not make any changes until required by the
Environmental Protection Agency's pennit conditions. The power plant, owned by an affiliate of Pacific
Gas & Electric, is one of an older generation of fossil-fueled power plants holding "grandfathered"
permit conditions less stringent than newer plants.

jLut v

"•fr

¥* 11 L

•'

' ^ ShS,

T-i

V -- * < ' vl f
(V t

sir

y
t-

Application of Remote Sensing Technology to the Problem

In 1995, R. I. Congressman Patrick Kennedy asked the National Aeronautic and Space Administration
(NASA) to apply its expertise in remote sensing technologies to an applied management problem in
Narragansett Bay. The Mt. Hope Bay thermal effluent issue provided an excellent opportunity to apply
these technologies in the context of a private/public partnership.

Scientists at the Brown University Department of Geological Sciences, led by Dr. John Mustard and in
partnership with NASA, the RIDEM Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, Save The Bay, Inc., Applied
Science Associates, Inc. and the Environmental Protection Agency. The project used digital images from
satellites and thermal sensing and optical data gathered via aircraft-based sensors to show the timing and

http://vww.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/octQ1/fisheries.html (2 of 3) [6/17/04 1:19:15 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

extent of heating in Mt. Hope Bay. The project consisted of three elements:

1) a time-series analysis of the surface temperature of Narragansett Bay from Landsat data
covering the time period 1984 to the present;

2) a study of the dynamics of water temperatures over the tidal cycle, with extensive field work to
verify and validate the remotely acquired data; and

3) detailed 3-D hydrodynamic modeling of water movements in Narragansett Bay.

With funding from NASA and the Rhode Island Aquafund, the project spanned from 1996-2000. A
project report released in June, 2001, confirmed what R.I. DEM had suspected: the plant had raised the
average summer and fall bay temperature by as much as 2 degrees Farenheit, and the effects of the
heating covered a larger area than previously thought. The report concluded, "The simplest and most
likely explanation for the relatively warm year-round temperatures in Mt. Hope Bay is the constant
discharge of thermal effluent into the bay by the Brayton Point Power Station." Dr. Mustard stated that
the plant indisputably alters the bay habitat and that "..it is clear in most people's minds that the decline
in the fish population in the 1980s corresponds with the opening of another generator in 1985." The
project results strengthen the argument that the plant's thermal discharges are related to the fisheries
declines. Referring to the position of the plant's owners, Congressman Kennedy said, "They won't be
able to ignore this.. .they are looking at a liability." Though plant's operating permit expired in 1998 it is
still operating under the old permit conditions while its parent company and regulators negotiate a new
permit.

This collaborative project, entitled "Narragansett Bay from Space: A Perspective for the 21st Century"
was designed to help state and local agencies apply NASA's technology to environmental problems,
integrating the resulting data in planning and decision-making while providing opportunities for small
businesses who would benefit by incorporating remotely sensed data into their operations. One promising
result of the project is potential use of remote sensing technology to monitor bay conditions, particularly
in assessing phytoplankton activity and concentrations. Further information on the project is available at
http://www.planetary.brown.edu/~mustard/apurva/index.html. |i:\i i
-------
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/wshed_lrg.jpg

BLACK STONE
RIVER
BASIN

TEN
MILE
RIVER
BASIN

lONASQU
TUCKET .
sRIVffi

OSHAS^p

S mvtrn

PAWfUXET
RIVER
BASIN

HUNT
ft EVER
¦BASlrtf

0qE ISLAND

CONNECTICUT

Narragansett Bay Watershed

fcMssAtwsfns

RHODf ISLAND

Legend

itatff boundary

Walanhcd bcuidiry

ftmtri boundarj

I I

WMtrihtd

I i

L»od

I I

Witir

At a Glance

SOUND

HmljlMII D*r « l*T mtrv at k»

NinanB^all I*fy - ilr
-------
http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/wshed_lrg.jpg

Ivr

[fl MM ,

; ma <

j €1 >4

llbni

t-A w bu -/tumma m m umusiumiii «-i". ¦ • te-s

mmittr t tt c*^v It .m»m *«- nwi is*,-. -nrruni m i» i

nww tM ma<« ma ],5W Km wwnMi W1 wtniivn cn HuftjwM

«•»* vwi 4« ten** of nd iftcEHn khh.i m it )l»rt«wn t*«

>*o« 1'Ki frfd ipcoft r »»jii hM WW p#. t*r (hh .* w«

*rr«( ftn* njt of rLiir rnnrirr»M»

http://ww.A/v.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/wshed_lrg.jpg (2 of 2) [6/17/04 1:19:18 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

'laf0Jl und Kf

^ £^» ! ; - ' -H

Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.

Rhode island Coastal Eelgrass Habitat Maps Now Available Through
Interactive Website

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) and the Uni versity of Rhode Island
Environmental Data Center have collaborated to produce a collection of coastal Rhode Island eelgrass
(Zostera marina) data sets in a geographic information system, which are available over the Internet. The
purpose is to provide a single, comprehensive repository for geographic eelgrass data in Rhode Island,
and to provide resource managers and the public with an interactive way to access the data.

Areas of eelgrass were mapped in the early 1800s. Since then, numerous groups have contributed maps
of eelgrass habitats. The most notable and recent data are the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program's
Marine and Estuarine Habitat Maps, which show eelgrass bed habitats larger than an acre in Narragansett
Bay. Other initiatives include studies of historic eelgrass presence by Rhode Island Sea Grant and the
Narragansett Bay Project, maps completed as part of research projects at the University of Rhode Island,
and 1999-2000 state surveys.

With this information, resource managers and biologists can better determine what areas are in need of
protection, further mapping or research, and the public can learn more about the status of eelgrass
resources in Rhode Island.

http://wvw.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/ricoastal.html (1 of 2) [6/17/04 1:19:18 PM]

-------
Coastlines October 2001

For further information, visit the Coastal Resource Management Council, Natural Resource and
Environmental Management website at http://www.edc.uri.edu/eelgrass/.

I! \ I J'-

http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/coastlines/oct01/ricoastal.html (2 of 2) [6/17/04 1:19:18 PM]

-------