State of the Estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States

The U.S. EPA has prepared a State of the Region Report for Mid-Atlantic Estuaries to increase knowledge of environmental condition for improved environmental management. Sources of information included the National Estuary Programs, the Chesapeake Bay Program, the state monitoring programs in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, Federal programs such as National Status & Trends, National Shellfish Register, National Wetlands Inventory, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, and other primary literature sources. The state of the estuarine environment was summarized using indicators for water and sediment quality, habitat change, condition of living resources, and aesthetic quality. Each indicator was briefly discussed relative to its importance in understanding estuarine condition. Wherever possible, data from multiple programs were used to depict condition. Finally, an overall evaluation of estuarine condition in the region was determined. The usefulness of monitoring programs that collect consistent information with a well-defined sampling design cannot be overemphasized.     

Assessing benthic community condition in Chesapeake Bay: does the use of different benthic indices matter?

Federal and state environmental agencies conduct several programs to characterize the environmental condition of Chesapeake Bay. These programs use different benthic indices and survey designs, and have produced assessments that differ in the estimate of the extent of benthic community degradation in Chesapeake Bay. Provided that the survey designs are unbiased, differences may exist in the ability of these indices to identify environmental degradation. In this study we compared the results of three indices calculated on the same data, and the assessments of two programs: the Chesapeake Bay Program and the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). We examined the level of agreement of index results using site-based measures of agreement, evaluated sampling designs and statistical estimation methods, and tested for significant differences in assessments. Comparison of ratings of individual sites was done within separate categories of water and sediment quality to identify which indices summarize best pollution problems in Chesapeake Bay. The use of different benthic indices by these programs produced assessments that differed significantly in the estimate of degradation. A larger fraction of poor sites was classified as good by the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program’s Virginian Province and MAIA benthic indices compared to the Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity, although overall classification efficiencies were similar for all indices. Differences in survey design also contributed to differences in assessments. The relative difference between the indices remained the same when they were applied to an independent dataset, suggesting that the indices can be calibrated to produce consistent results.     

Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries: Production of a State of the Environment Report

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a report entitled Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries. That report summarizes the findings of several studies conducted by federal and state agencies and academic institutions in Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Estuary, and the coastal bays of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and simultaneously addresses two distinct audiences: environmental managers and the general public. This paper documents the process of preparing the Estuaries Report, emphasizing the lessons learned in merging information from a wide-variety of sources and in reporting the results to multiple audiences. The major difficulties in preparing the report included: 1) choosing a format and topics that adequately addressed both environmental managers and the public, 2) resolving spatial and temporal disparities in the assembled data sets, and 3) establishing threshold values that distinguished between acceptable and unacceptable conditions in indicators. Our solutions to these challenges and alternatives are discussed. We conclude that a small team of knowledgeable scientists can effectively merge the information of diverse sources into a document that is useful to both environmental managers and the interested public. However, considerable interaction between the team and other scientists was necessary to resolve ambiguities and assure relevancy and accuracy. These findings support the proposition that the vast sources of existing environmental information can be easily and effectively used to assess the ecological condition across large regions.     

Application of the benthic index of biotic integrity to environmental monitoring in Chesapeake Bay

The Chesapeake Bay benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) was developed to assess benthic community health and environmental quality in Chesapeake Bay. The B-IBI provides Chesapeake Bay monitoring programs with a uniform tool with which to characterize bay-wide benthic community condition and assess the health of the Bay. A probability-based design permits unbiased annual estimates of areal degradation within the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries with quantifiable precision. However, of greatest interest to managers is the identification of problem areas most in need of restoration. Here we apply the B-IBI to benthic data collected in the Bay since 1994 to assess benthic community degradation by Chesapeake Bay Program segment and water depth. We used a new B-IBI classification system that improves the reliability of the estimates of degradation. Estimates were produced for 67 Chesapeake Bay Program segments. Greatest degradation was found in areas that are known to experience hypoxia or show toxic contamination, such as the mesohaline portion of the Potomac River, the Patapsco River, and the Maryland mainstem. Logistic regression models revealed increased probability of degraded benthos with depth for the lower Potomac River, Patapsco River, Nanticoke River, lower York River, and the Maryland mainstem. Our assessment of degradation by segment and water depth provided greater resolution of relative condition than previously available, and helped define the extent of degradation in Chesapeake Bay.     

An Overview of Contaminant-Related Issues Identified by Monitoring in San Francisco Bay

The San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances (RMP) began in 1993 and is sponsored by 74 local, state, and federal agencies and companies through their discharge or Bay use permits. The RMP monitors water, sediment, toxicity, and bivalve bioaccumulation at 25 sites in the Bay that are considered to represent "background" conditions. Several major environmental issues have been identified by the RMP. Polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury were often above water quality guidelines, and often occurred in fish tissues above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) screening values. Concentrations do not appear to be decreasing, suggesting continuing inputs. Episodes of aquatic toxicity often occurred following runoff events that transport contaminants into the Bay from urbanized and agricultural portions of the watershed. Sediment toxicity occurred throughout the Bay, and has been correlated with concentrations of specific contaminants (chlordanes, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) at some locations; mixtures of contaminants were probably also important. Since the RMP does not monitor all ecosystem components, assessments of the overall condition of the Bay cannot be made. However, in terms of contamination, the RMP samples suggest that the South Bay, and North Bay sites are moderately contaminated.     

Development of the Coastal Intensive Site Network (CISNET)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have formed a partnership to establish pilot sites for the development of a network known as the Coastal Intensive Site Network (CISNet). CISNet is composed of intensive, long-term monitoring and research sites around the U.S. marine and Great Lakes coasts. In this partnership, EPA and NOAA are funding research and monitoring programs at pilot sites that utilize ecological indicators and investigate the ecological effects of environmental stressors. NASA is funding research aimed at developing a remote sensing capability that will augment or enhance in situresearch and monitoring programs selected by EPA and NOAA. CISNet has three objectives: 1) to develop a sound scientific basis for understanding ecological responses to anthropogenic stresses in coastal environments, including the interaction of exposure, environment/climate, and biological/ecological factors in the response, and the spatial and temporal nature of these interactions, 2) to demonstrate the value of developing data from selected sites intensively monitored to examine the relationships between changes in environmental stressors, including anthropogenic and natural stresses, and ecological response, and 3) to provide intensively monitored sites for development and evaluation of indicators of change in coastal systems.     

Comparing the quality of draft environmental impact statements by agencies in the United States since 1998 to 2004

Since the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the United States has required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to rate draft environmental statements (DEISs) for both information adequacy and the impact of the preferred alternative on the environment. In a previous study by Tzoumis and Finegold (2000), these ratings were found to be declining from 1970 to 1997. This current study investigates if that trend continued from 1998 to 2004. In addition, the top producing agencies (the Forest Service, the Federal Highway Administration, Army Corp of Engineers, and the Bureau of Land Management) are compared for the achievement of DEIS ratings. The results show that when the ratings are disaggregated for these agencies, the results indicate that there continues to be weak performance. The DEISs continue to have insufficient and sometimes inadequate information. Agencies continue to propose projects that have environmental concerns and sometimes objections. The agencies have some similarities in not being able to achieve the highest ratings on a consistent basis over time. However, more disturbing is the profile of agencies that have episodic peaks of achieving the lowest ratings. Conclusions and recommendations are focused on the agencies who submit that DEISs and EPA. One major conclusion is to better track the ratings and make them collectively available for the public. Agencies are encouraged to develop a best management practice in preparing DEISs to promote agency learning.     

An Overview of Data Integration Methods for Regional Assessment

The U.S. Environmental Protections Agency's (U.S. EPA) Regional Vulnerability Assessment(ReVA) program has focused much of its research over the last five years on developing and evaluating integration methods for spatial data. An initial strategic priority was to use existing data from monitoring programs, model results, and other spatial data. Because most of these data were not collected with an intention of integrating into a regional assessment of conditions and vulnerabilities, issues exist that may preclude the use of some methods or require some sort of data preparation. Additionally, to support multi-criteria decision-making, methods need to be able to address a series of assessment questions that provide insights into where environmental risks are a priority. This paper provides an overview of twelve spatial integration methods that can be applied towards regional assessment, along with preliminary results as to how sensitive each method is to data issues that will likely be encountered with the use of existing data.     

Monitoring the condition of natural resources in US national parks

The National Park Service has developed a long-term ecological monitoring program for 32 ecoregional networks containing more than 270 parks with significant natural resources. The monitoring program assists park managers in developing a broad-based understanding of the status and trends of park resources as a basis for making decisions and working with other agencies and the public for the long-term protection of park ecosystems. We found that the basic steps involved in planning and designing a long-term ecological monitoring program were the same for a range of ecological systems including coral reefs, deserts, arctic tundra, prairie grasslands, caves, and tropical rainforests. These steps involve (1) clearly defining goals and objectives, (2) compiling and summarizing existing information, (3) developing conceptual models, (4) prioritizing and selecting indicators, (5) developing an overall sampling design, (6) developing monitoring protocols, and (7) establishing data management, analysis, and reporting procedures. The broad-based, scientifically sound information obtained through this systems-based monitoring program will have multiple applications for management decision-making, research, education, and promoting public understanding of park resources. When combined with an effective education program, monitoring results can contribute not only to park issues, but also to larger quality-of-life issues that affect surrounding communities and can contribute significantly to the environmental health of the nation.     

Finding Common Ground in Managing Data Used for Regional Environmental Assessments

Evaluating the overall environmental health of a region invariably involves using databases from multiple organizations. Several approaches to deal with the related technological and sociological issues have been used by various programs. Flexible data systems are required to deal with rapid changes in technology, the social and political climate for sharing and integrating data, and expectations of diverse users. Here we describe how the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program and the Chesapeake Bay Program manage their data for regional studies. These programs, which encompass areas of different geographic scales but face similar issues, have adopted some solutions in common, but also have tried some unique solutions suited to their needs. Understanding the tribulations and successes of these programs may help others attempting similar assessments. Both these programs have embraced distributed data systems that are managed by the organizations owning them. Both use common guidelines and policies that assure consistency and quality of data and information. These principles and tools comprise a flexible, sustainable approach that meets modern challenges of data management.     

Status of Aquatic Bioassessment in U.S. EPA Region IX

U.S. EPA Region IX is supporting bioassessment programs in Arizona, California, Hawaii and Nevada using biocriteria program and Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) resources. These programs are designed to improve the state, tribal and regional ability to determine the status of water quality. Biocriteria program funds were used to coordinate with Arizona, California and Hawaii which resulted in these states establishing reference conditions and in developing biological indices. U.S. EPA Region IX has initiated R-EMAP projects in California and Nevada. These U.S. EPA Region IX sponsored programs have provided an opportunity to interact with the States and provide them with technical and management support. In Arizona, several projects are being conducted to develop the State's bioassessment program. These include the development of a rotational random monitoring program; a regional reference approach for macroinvertebrate bioassessments; ecoregion approach to testing and adoption of an alternate regional classification system; and development of warm-water and cold-water indices of biological integrity. The indices are projected to be used in the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) 2000 water quality assessment report. In California, an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) has been developed for the Russian River Watershed using resources from U.S. EPA's Non-point Source (NPS) Program grants. A regional IBI is under development for certain water bodies in the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Resources from the U.S. EPA Biocriteria program are being used to support the California Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup (CABW) in conjunction with the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and to support the Hawaii Department of Health (DoH) Bioassessment Program to refine biological metrics. In Nevada, R-EMAP resources are being used to create a baseline of aquatic information for the Humboldt River watershed. U.S. EPA Region IX is presently working with the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) to establish a Nevada Aquatic Bioassessment Workgroup. Future R-EMAP studies will occur in the Calleguas Creek watershed in Southern California, and in the Muddy and Virgin River watersheds in southern Nevada, and the Walker River watershed in eastern California and west-central Nevada.     

Water quality assessment programs in Australia deciding what to measure,and how and where to use bioindicators

Effective water quality assessment programs require the formulation of common objectives between managers who are making decisions and scientists who are obtaining the information on which those decisions are to be made. The data collected must be apropriate for use in the decision making process. After the objectives have been formulated a number of testable hypotheses can be proposed and evaluated in terms of what information is required for decision making.From a management perspective it is important to know if an impact occurs and what management strategy to adopt to reduce or eliminate the impact. When bioaccumulators are used to indicate environmental quality the organisms proposed need to be fully evaluated before being used. Communities, which are often used to assess levels of impact, have the capacity to assimilate pollutants and they will function under pollutant stress. Thus managers need to make value judgements about when a community structure or function has shifted from acceptable to adverse. Bioassays in which the effects of pollutants on growth, biochemistry and behaviour are measured, give an indication of the sub-lethal effects of a pollutant, but it is difficult to set meaningful levels that are not to be exceeded for use by managers.Difficulties in using chemical and biological data mainly arise from a lack of appreciation of environmental heterogeneity. The data obtained must meet the needs for statistically testing hypotheses. Before programs can be designed to meet statistical needs the potential sources of variability must be considered. Once the minimum differences that are seen as important have been determined, the number of replicates needed can be calculated. Data verification is also needed, as if the validity of data is questioned, so will any decisions that have been made based on those data. Finally programs should be designed to minimize the sampling effort/cost to meet the objectives.     

The Role of Biological Indicators in a State Water Quality Management Process

State water quality agencies are custodians of water quality management programs under the Clean Water Act of which the protection and restoration of biological integrity in surface waters is an integral goal. However, an inappropriate reliance on chemical/physical stressor and exposure data or administrative indicators in place of the direct measurement of ecological response has led to an incomplete foundation for water resource management. As point sources have declined in significance, the consequences of this flawed foundation for dealing with the major limitations to biological integrity (nonpoint sources, habitat degradation) have become more apparent. The use of biocriteria in Ohio, for example, resulted in the identification of 50% more impairment than a water chemistry approach alone and other inconsistencies of a flawed monitoring foundation are illustrated in the national 305(b) report statistics on waters monitored, aquatic life use attainment, and habitat degradation. Biological criteria (biocriteria) incorporates the broader concept of water resource integrity to supplement the roles of chemical and toxicological approaches and reduces the likelihood of making overly optimistic estimates of aquatic life condition. A carefully conceived ambient monitoring approach comprised of biological, chemical, and physical measures ensures all relevant stressors to water resource integrity are identified and that the efficacy of administrative actions can be directly measured with environmental results. New multimetric indices, such as the IBI, ICI, and BIBI represent a significant advancement in aquatic resource characterization that have allowed the inclusion of biological information into many States water quality management programs. Ohio adopted numerical biocriteria in the Ohio water quality standards regulations in May 1990 and, through multiple aquatic life uses that reflect a continuum of biological condition, represents a tiered approach to water resource management. Biocriteria provide the impetus and opportunity to recognize and account for natural, ecological variability in the environment, something which previously was been lacking in state water quality management programs. The upper Great Miami River in Ohio illustrates a case study where bioassessment data documented the efficacy of efforts to permit, fund, and construct municipal treatment systems in restoring aquatic life. In contrast, in the Mahoning River similar administrative actions were inadequate to restore aquatic life in an environment with severe sediment contamination and impacts from combined sewer overflows. A biocriteria-based goal of restoring 75% of aquatic life uses by the year 2000 in Ohio has led to the use of biological data to identify trends and forecast the status and the causes and sources of impairment to Ohio streams, an effort that should affect the strategic focus of our water resource management efforts. A biocriteria-based approach has profoundly influenced strategic planning and priority setting, water quality based permitting, water quality standards, basic monitoring and reporting, nonpoint source assessment, and problem discovery within Ohio EPA.     

The adequacy of training for EIA in the United States of America

The well-established environmental impact assessment requirements in the United States have given rise to a number of training needs within federal and state agencies. Requirements for training vary for EIA project managers, technical specialists, senior managers and others involved in EIA. Information needs about EIA vary also, but include general awareness, procedural knowledge, substantive methodological knowledge and technical knowledge. While EIA training is provided in short courses, on the job, and in universities there remain deficiencies in the training of specialists, senior managers, and others. Proposals are made here to help overcome these. This paper examines the needs and provisions for training in environmental impact assessment (EIA) in the USA federal system and in the system created by the California Environmental Quality Act. The investigation is based on the very limited literature on training, on responses to letters, on the printed material requested from agencies and, most importantly, on the results of a series of interviews of personnel in various federal agencies at central and regional levels, in California, and elsewhere. A recent report by the Environmental Law Institute (1981) furnished invaluable background information on EIA training in the federal agencies. The list of liaison officers printed by the Council on Environmental Quality (1982a) was used to request interviews and information.     

Contemplating the Assessment of Great River Ecosystems

The science and practice of assessing the status and trends of ecological conditions in great rivers have not kept pace with perturbation wrought on these systems. Participants at a symposium sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Council of State Governments concluded that useful and efficient assessments of great river ecosystems require thoughtful alignment of sampling designs, spatial and temporal scales, indicators, management needs, and ecosystem characteristics. Site-specific physical, chemical, and biological data long accumulated by monitoring programs have value but fail to provide the integrated system-wide perspective required for adaptive management and the Clean Water Act. Use of existing data may be limited by methodological incompatibilities, access difficulties, and the exclusive applicability of data to specific habitats or sites. The transition from site-specific to system-wide assessments benefits from research being done by USEPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and other programs that use probability surveys and biological indicators. Indicators of various taxa (in particular fish, algae, and benthic invertebrates) have been successfully developed for great rivers. However, optimizing the information these ecological indicators convey to managers and the public is the subject of ongoing research.     

Using Science to Assess Environmental Vulnerabilities

Beginning in 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Research and Development has focused much of its ecological research in the Mid-Atlantic as part of the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). The goal of MAIA is to improve the assessability of scientific information in environmental decision-making. Following the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) whose goal is to guide monitoring that effectively reflects current ecosystem condition and trends, MAIA's second, current, phase of research under the Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program is designed to target risk management activities using available data and models. The papers presented here are from a conference held in May 2003 that presented results of research in this second phase of MAIA. The conference was organized into the following topics: 1. Assessing Current Impacts and Vulnerabilities 2. Forecasting Environmental Condition and Vulnerabilities 3. Developing Management Strategies to Optimize the Future, and 4. Assessing and Responding to Environmental Vulnerability.     

Rapid survey protocol that provides dynamic information on reef condition to managers of the Great Barrier Reef

Managing to support coral reef resilience as the climate changes requires strategic and responsive actions that reduce anthropogenic stress. Managers can only target and tailor these actions if they regularly receive information on system condition and impact severity. In large coral reef areas like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP), acquiring condition and impact data with good spatial and temporal coverage requires using a large network of observers. Here, we describe the result of ~10 years of evolving and refining participatory monitoring programs used in the GBR that have rangers, tourism operators and members of the public as observers. Participants complete Reef Health and Impact Surveys (RHIS) using a protocol that meets coral reef managers’ needs for up-to-date information on the following: benthic community composition, reef condition and impacts including coral diseases, damage, predation and the presence of rubbish. Training programs ensure that the information gathered is sufficiently precise to inform management decisions. Participants regularly report because the demands of the survey methodology have been matched to their time availability. Undertaking the RHIS protocol we describe involves three ~20 min surveys at each site. Participants enter data into an online data management system that can create reports for managers and participants within minutes of data being submitted. Since 2009, 211 participants have completed a total of more than 10,415 surveys at more than 625 different reefs. The two-way exchange of information between managers and participants increases the capacity to manage reefs adaptively, meets education and outreach objectives and can increase stewardship. The general approach used and the survey methodology are both sufficiently adaptable to be used in all reef regions.     

Optimization and Decision Heuristics for Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Reduction Strategies

Regional policies to achieve water quality goals assign a unique pollution control technology to every pollution source in a watershed, thereby defining a watershed strategy. For watersheds with even a modest number of pollution sources and control alternatives, the decision problem has combinatorial complexity. The perception of complexity—manifested in innumerable feasible watershed strategies—commonly induces the use of simplifying decision heuristics and ad hoc decision rules that reduce decision complexity by limiting the choice set to a “manageable” number of alternatives. In problems with large complex choice sets, these decision heuristics simplify decision making by excluding the vast majority of feasible alternatives a priori. In contrast, watershed-scale optimization enables decision makers to consider all feasible alternatives implicitly, exploiting rather than restricting the complexity of the feasible choice set. This contrast is illustrated using mixed-integer linear programming to identify interstate watershed strategies that achieve Chesapeake Bay nutrient reduction goals for the Potomac River Basin. The use of optimization in collaborative decision making helped refine and capture decision makers’ underlying values and preferences in policy-relevant constraints reflecting equity and political feasibility. Optimization formulations incorporating these constraints identified more effective and desirable management alternatives that would not otherwise have been considered using familiar decision heuristics and traditional comparisons among a limited number of ad hoc scenarios. Incorporating optimization in collaborative decision making generated superior watershed strategies and eased the cognitive limitations on decision making by substituting the computational burden of solving mixed-integer linear programs for decision makers’ cognitive burden of enumerating alternatives and scenarios for environmental systems with combinatorial complexity.     

The Development of Biological Objectives for Streams in a Single Catchment: A Case Study on the Catchment of Western Port Bay, Victoria, Australia

Government environment protection policies for waterways have traditionally relied on water quality indicators and their objectives. In this paper we describe the development of biological objectives based on invertebrate indicators for inclusion in a government policy for the catchment of Western Port Bay, Victoria. The first step of defining segments (areas with streams in which the same objectives are applied) was problematic, requiring two different approaches, as follows. Site groups initially based on invertebrate community composition derived using multivariate techniques (ordination and classification) proved to be unsuitable for policy segments. Segment boundaries were subsequently defined using topographical (e.g. boundary of foothills and lowland plains), climate (e.g. rainfall) and land-use (e.g. urban) features. We used information and data from reference sites inside as well outside the catchment to derive specific biological objectives based on aquatic invertebrates for these segments. Objectives were specified for the following four indicators--number of invertebrate families, the SIGNAL index, the AUSRIVAS predictive model and the number of key families.     

Performance of EIA authority and effectiveness of EIA system in Pakistan

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) agencies worldwide face multiple challenges that compromise their performance and in turn EIA procedural effectiveness. The current study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of Punjab, Pakistan and the problems it faces whilst implementing EIA and ensuring EIA effectiveness. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data for the study. EPA performance and procedural effectiveness were evaluated using the formal and informal roles of EPA and EIA good practices respectively. They were also linked to regulatory framework, capacities of actors and contextual factors. Study found that EPA and EIA system performance is weak. Consequently, procedural effectiveness is compromised. The main causes include limited capacities of EPA, consultants and proponents; lack of political will; political interference and outdated regulations. A strong political will of the government is required to enhance the capacity of EPA and other actors in terms of motivation or “the will to” and means or “the ability to”. Measures taken by international EIA agencies to improve performance and effectiveness have also been discussed. Based on this study, lessons can be learnt by not only EPA Punjab but also other agencies in Pakistan and international agencies facing similar challenges.