Coastal 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.