Table Of ContentCoastal Monitoring Through Partnerships
COASTAL MONITORING THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Pensacola Beach, FL, U.S.A., April 24-27, 2001
Scientific Editors:
Brian D. Melzian
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narrangansett, Rhode Island, U.S.A.
Virginia Engle
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Gulf Ecology Divison
Gulf Breeze, Florida, U.S.A.
Malissa McAlister
The Council of State Governments
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.
Shabeg Sandhu
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Technical Editor
Lisa Kay Eads
The Council of State Governments
Lexington, Kentucky, U.S.A.
Reprinted from Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 81, Nos. 1-3,2003
SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B.V.
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN 978-90-481-6203-1 ISBN 978-94-017-0299-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-0299-7
Printed on acid-free paper
All rights reserved
© 2003 Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2003
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2003
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without
written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for
the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser
of the work.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COASTAL MONITORING THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS
Proceedings of the Fifth Symposium on
the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Pensacola Beach, FL, U.S.A., April24--27, 2001
A. Preface
MICHAEL E. McDoNALD I Preface 1
B. Regional and National Coastal Monitoring Partnership Programs
BROCK B. BERNS1EIN and STEPHEN B. WEISBERG I Southern California's Marine Monitor-
ing System Ten Years After the National Research Council Evaluation 3-14
RAINER HoENICKE, JAY A. DAVIS, ANDREW GUNTHER, THoMAS E. MUMLEY, KHAuL ABu-
SABA and KAREN TA BERSKI I Effective Application of Monitoring Information: The
Case of San Francisco Bay 15-25
PAUL BERTRAM, NANCY STADLER-SALT, PAUL HoRvATIN and HARVEY SHEAR I Bi-National
Assessment of the Great Lakes: SOIEC Partnerships 27-33
MARK TEDESCO, W. FRANK BoHLEN, MARY M. HowARD-STROBEL, DAVID R. CoHEN and
PErERA. TEBEAu /The MYSound Project: Building an Estuary-Wide Monitoring
Network for Long Island Sound, U.S.A. 35-42
CHRrs1Y V. PXITENGHL-SEMMENs and BRICE X. SEMMENs I Conservation and Manage-
ment Applications of the REEF Volunteer Fish Monitoring Program 43-50
THOMAS C. MALoNE I The Coastal Component of the U.S. Integrated Ocean
Observing System 51--62
C. Monitoring Approaches, Modeling, and Data Management
GLENN J. WARREN and PAUL J. HoRvATIN I Great Lakes Monitoring Results-Compari-
son of Probability Based and Deterministic Sampling Grids 63-71
JoHN W. BRAKEBHL and STEPHEN D. PRESTON I A Hydrologic Network Supporting Spa-
tially Referenced Regression Modeling in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 73-84
RoBERr F. VAN DoLAH, DAVID E. CHES1NUT, JoHN D. JoNES, PAMELA C. JUTIE, GEORGE
RIEKERK, MA!mN LEVISEN and WilLIAM McDERMarr I The Importance of Consid
ering Spatial Attributes in Evaluating Estuarine Habitat Condition: The South Caro-
lina Experience 85-95
vi
PAUL A. CoNRADS, WILLIAM P. MARTELLO and NANCY R. SuLLINS I Living with a
Large Reduction in Permitted Loading by Using a Hydrograph-Controlled
Release Scheme 97-106
GREGORY D. STEYER, CHARLEs E. SASSER, JENNEKE M. VISSER, ERICK M. SWENsoN, JoHN
A NYMAN, and RICHARD C. RAYNIE I A Proposed Coast-Wide Reference Monitor-
ing System for Evaluating Wetland Restoration Trajectories in Louisiana 107-117
KENNErn SCHIFF, STEVEN BAY and DARio DIEHL I Stormwater Toxicity in Chollas Creek
and San Diego Bay, California 119-132
STEPHENS. HALE, ANNE HALE MIGLARESE, M. PATRICIA BRADLEY, THOMAS J. BELTON,
LARRY C. CooPER, MICHAEL T. FRAME, CHRISTOPHER A. FRIEL, LINDA M.
HARWELL, RoBERT E. KING, WILLIAM K. MICHENER, DAVID T. NicoLsoN and
BRUCE G. PETERJOHN I Managing Troubled Data: Coastal Data Partnerships
Smooth Data Integration 133-148
D. Benthic Communities Monitoring and Assessment
JEFFREY L. HYLAND, W. LEoNARD BAL1HIS, VIRGINIA D. ENGLE, EDwARD R. LoNG, JoHN F.
PAUL, J.KEVIN SUMMERs and RoBER!' F. VAN DoLAH I Incidence of Stress in Benthic
Communities Along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Coasts Within Different
Ranges of Sediment Contamination From Chemical Mixtures 149-161
RoBERToJ. LLANS6, DANIELM. DAUER, JoN H. V0LSTAD, and Lis AC . ScOTT I Appli-
cation of the Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity to Environmental Monitoring
in Chesapeake Bay 163-174
DANIEL M. DAUER and ROBERTO J. LLANS6 I Spatial Scales and Probability Based
Sampling in Determining Levels of Benthic Community Degradation in the
Chesapeake Bay 175-186
CoRY S. CHRisTMAN and DANIEL M. DAUER I An Approach for Identifying the Causes of
Benthic Degradation in Chesapeake Bay 187-197
J. ANANDA RANASINGHE, DAVID E. MoNTAGNE, STEPHEN B. WEISBERG, MARY BERGEN and
RoNALD G. VELARDE /Variability in the Identification and Enumeration of Marine
Benthic Invertebrate Samples and its Effect on Benthic Assessment Measures 199-206
E. Biological Indicators & Interlaboratory Sediment Comparisons
JANE M. CAFFREY I Production, Respiration and Net Ecosystem Metabolism in
U.S. Estuaries 207-219
PAMELA HALLOCK, BARBARA H. Lmz, ELIZABETH M. CocKEY-BURKHARD and KELLY
B. DoNNELLY I Foraminifera as Bioindicators in Coral Reef Assessment
and Monitoring: The FORAM Index 221-238
vii
KENNETH B. RAPosA, CHARLEs T. RoMAN and JAMES F. liELTSHE I Monitoring Nekton as
a Bioindicator in Shallow Estuarine Habitats 239-255
STEVEN M. BAY,ANDREW JIRIK and STANFORDAsxm /Interlaboratory Variability ofAm-
phipod Sediment Toxicity Tests in a Cooperative Regional Monitoring Program 257-268
RICHARD GossETT, RoDGER BAIRD, KIMBERLY CHRISTENSEN, and STEPHEN B.
WEISBERG I Making Performance-Based Chemistry Work: How We Cre
ated Comparable Data Among Laboratories as Part of a Southern Califor-
nia Marine Regional Assessment 269-287
F. Microbiological Modeling, Indicators, and Monitoring
GREG A. OLYPHANT, JUDITH THoMAs, RicHARD L. WHITMAN, and DENvER HARPER I Char
acterization and Statistical Modeling of Bacterial (Escherichia col!) Outflows From
Watersheds That Discharge Into Southern Lake Michigan 289-300
RAcHEL T. NoBLE, STEPHEN B. WEISBERG, MoLLY K. LEECASTER, CHARLES D. McGEE,
KERRY RITTER, KmN 0. WALKER and PA1RICIA M. VA INIK I Comparison of Beach
Bacterial Water Quality Indicator Measurement Methods 301-312
~G. FIELD,ANNEE. BERNARD, and TIMOTHY J. BRODEUR/Molecular Approaches
to Microbiological Monitoring: Fecal Source Detection 313--326
O.CoUNSTINE,AMYCARNAHAN,RUBYSINGH,JANPoWELL,JoNP.FURUNO,AuCIADoRSEY,
ELLEN SILBERGELD, HENRY N. WILLIAMs and J. GLENN MoRRis I Characterization of
Microbial Communities from Coastal Waters Using Microarrays 327-336
R. HEArn KELsEY, GEOFFREY I. Scorr, DwAYNE E. PoRTER, BRIAN THOMPSON and LAURA
WEBsTER I Using Multiple Antibiotic Resistance and Land Use Characteristics to
Determine Sources of Fecal Coliform Bacterial Pollution 337-348
G. Monitoring and Assessment of Phytoplankton and Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Communities
HARoLD G. MARsHALL, MICHAEL F. LANE and KNEELAND K. NESrus I Long-Term Phy
toplankton Trends and Related Water Quality Trends in the Lower Chesapeake
Bay, Virginia, U.S.A. 349-360
ALAN J. LEwrrus and A. FRED HoLLAND I Initial Results From a Multi-Institutional Col-
laboration to Monitor Harmful Algal Blooms in South Carolina 361-371
WILLIAMS.FISHER,THoMASC.MALoNEandJAMESD.GWTINA/APilotProjecttoDetect
and Forecast Harmful Algal Blooms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico 3 73-3 81
DAVIDJ. WILLIAMs, NANCY B. RYBICKI, ALFoNso V. LoMBANA, TIMM. O'BRIEN andRirn
ARD B. GoMEZ I Preliminary Investigation of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Map-
ping Using Hyperspectral Remote Sensing 383-392
Vlll
PAUL R. CARLSON, JR., LAURA A. YARBRO, KEVIN MAoLEY, HERMAN ARNow, MANuEL
MERELw, LrsA V ANDERBLOEMEN, GILL McRAE and MICHAEL J. DuRAKo I Effect of
El Nifio on Demographic, Morphological, and Chemical Parameters in Turtle-
Grass, Thalassia testudinum: an Unexpected Test of Indicators 393-408
X
This document has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Publication Policy and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
U.S. EPA funds placed into the "Promoting a Science-Based
Framework for Ecosystem Protection Program's" Cooperative
Agreement (CR -82658401) with The Council of State Governments
were used to support the EMAP 2001 "Coastal Monitoring Through
Partnerships" Symposium; and the production of these Proceedings.
PREFACE
Coastal areas in the United States are growing rapidly, and currently about 45% of the
nation's human population lives in these areas. As the coastal population increases, there will
likely be increasing environmental and socioeconomic pressures on our estuaries and coastal
environments. Establishing the condition of the nation's estuarine and coastal environments is
one key to protecting and restoring our estuaries and coastal environments. Monitoring the
condition of all our nation's estuarine and coastal ecosystems over the long term is more than
any one program can accomplish. Therefore, it is crucial that monitoring programs at all levels
(local, state, and federal) cooperate in the collection and sharing of environmental data. To this
end, EPA's Office of Research and Development's Environmental Monitoring and Assess
ment Program's (EMAP) 2001 Symposium entitled "Coastal Monitoring Through Part
nerships" provided a forum to present and discuss the results of successful partnerships among
federal, state, tribal, and academic scientists and managers to advance the science of monitor
ing and assessment of estuarine and coastal ecosystems.
The National Coastal Assessment (NCA) is one model for a successful federal, state, tribal,
and academic partnership program. The NCA is a national demonstration of EMAP's inte
grated probabilistic monitoring approach to produce comprehensive assessments of the con
dition of all the nation's estuarine and coastal environments in partnership with the coastal
states, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS). In the NCA, we have successfully partnered with all 24 marine
coastal states (including Alaska and Hawaii) and Puerto Rico in the use of a compatible,
probabilistic monitoring design. With a minimum of 50 sampling locations and a common set
of core indicators, each state will be able to independently assess conditions of their estuarine
and coastal environments. Subsequently, these estimates will be aggregated to assess condi
tions at the EPA Regional, biogeographical, and national levels.
Rather than assess estuarine conditions on a chemical by chemical basis, the NCA uses
biological indicators to integrate the various stressors acting on the community, and to charac
terize the condition of the estuarine and coastal environments. However, chemical and physi
cal parameters are also collected to interpret and rank the likely stressors associated with
impaired estuarine and coastal conditions in each state. The initial outcome of the NCA will
be to provide the public and decision-makers with a reliable baseline for the current condition
of the nation's estuaries and coastal environments. As the states adopt the approach used in the
NCA, and as they continue to assess estuarine and coastal ecological conditions through time,
the trends established will provide unbiased, quantitative evidence for the effectiveness of our
national, regional and state environmental protection and restoration policies and programs.
There are many components involved in determining the overall impacts of anthropogenic
stressors on estuarine and coastal waters. It will take strong "partnerships" like those de
scribed during the EMAP 2001 Symposium, to ensure that we have healthy, sustainable estu
aries and coastal environments, now and in the future.
Michael E. McDonald
Director, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81: I, 2003.
@2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA'S MARINE MONITORING SYSTEM
TEN YEARS AFTER THE
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL EVALUATION
BROCK B. BERNSTEIN1 and STEPHEN B. WEISBERG''
1lndependent Consultant, Ojai, CA, U.S.A.;
2
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA, U.S.A.
'(author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected])
Abstract. In 1990, the National Research Council (NRC) published two in-depth assessments of
marine environmental monitoring effectiveness. The first of these, Managing Troubled Waters: The
Role of Marine Environmental Monitoring, provided a national perspective and the second, Moni
toring Southern California's Coastal Waters, examined the specifics of monitoring design and imple
mentation in a densely populated, highly urbanized coastal region. The reports include explicit
recommendations about the need for greater regionalization of monitoring efforts, supported by
greater standardization of field, laboratory, and data analysis methods. They also identified the need
for centralized data management and for greater flexibility in the language of standard discharge
permits, flexibility that would permit discharge agencies to more readily participate in regional
monitoring and research programs. Other recommendations identified a need for EPA and NOAA to
focus on creating a national monitoring program structured as a network of coordinated local and
regional efforts. Finally, the NRC emphasized the need for better reporting and for periodic review
of monitoring's relevance to management concerns. In this paper, we use southern California as a
test case to assess progress made in implementing the NRC's recommendations. We review progress
made on each recommendation and discuss the features of the regulatory and management climate
that contributed to or impeded this progress. We also consider whether, and to what extent, the
NRC's recommendations remain relevant in the present context.
Keywords: regional monitoring, southern California, monitoring design, coastal zone management
1. Introduction
Ten years ago, the National Research Council (NRC) prepared two documents
reviewing the effectiveness of marine monitoring programs, a national assessment
(NRC, 1990a) and a more detailed look at programs in southern California (NRC,
1990b). Both documents found numerous deficiencies in overall monitoring sys
tems, as well as in the design and implementation of individual programs, and both
documents made recommendations for improvement. In particular, the southern
California assessment found that there was a minimum of $17 million per year of
ongoing effort in the late 1980s, a number which was refined and updated by Schiff
et al. (2002a) to $31 million per year in 1997. The bulk of monitoring is carried out
by dischargers, most notably municipal wastewater dischargers. The NRC review
found that despite the large expenditure, marine monitoring was spatially restricted,
with 70% allocated to localized discharge permit monitoring and much of the re
mainder to selected historic trend sites. As a result, less than 5% of the area of the
Southern California Bight (the coastal region between Point Conception in the
north and the U.S.-Mexico border in the south) was monitored. Effort was incon-
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 81: 3-14, 2003.
@2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
