Gulf of Maine Projects

Final Report: Evaluation of the Gulfwatch Monitoring Program

1. Summary Table of Recommendations

2. List of Review Panel Members

3. Coastal Monitoring; Background to Gulfwatch Review

4. NOAA. 1993. Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program, National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects. Vols. 1-4. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS ORCA 71, Rockville, MD, USA. (included in Gulfwatch staff copy only)

5. NOAA. 1994. Use of Standards and Reference Materials in the Measurement of Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Residues. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 77, Rockville, MD, USA.  (included in Gulfwatch staff copy only)

6. NOAA. 1995. International Mussel Watch Project: initial implementation phase final report. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 95, Silver Spring, MD, USA.  (included in Gulfwatch staff copy only)

Appendix 1
EVALUATION OF THE GULFWATCH MONITORING PROGRAM — RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for program modifications made by the review panel for consideration by Gulfwatch staff are not listed here in any priority order. Their implementation will depend on future support levels and the monitoring program priorities that evolve from the present reassessment.

• Revise the draft 5-year retrospective report to consider incorporation of comments made in this review. Focus the report specifically on the Gulf of Maine region and the accomplishments of Gulfwatch.

• Prepare an informative summary report based on the 5-year retrospective for a non-scientific audience; incorporate this activity into the program design.

• Incorporate the preparation of interpretive reports into the program as a regular and essential activity, focusing data interpretation on specific pre-stated hypotheses.

• Assess the results of the initial implementation phase in the context of specific management information needs with the intention of modifying the program to meet these needs. Revisit the original monitoring plan when making this assessment to provide a context for this review, at the time reassessing the current validity of the original plan.

• Assess the results of the initial implementation phase in the context of successful monitoring programs conducted elsewhere with the intention of modifying the program as necessary to meet established "community standards" for coastal monitoring. Incorporate specific review suggestions into this assessment.

• Build on the initial phase experience to create partnerships between Gulfwatch and academic research projects to extend the resources of the program and to establish an on-going informal critique mechanism of program activities.

• Review the existing Gulfwatch QA/QC effort to address QA/QC issues raised by this review. Tightly link an expanded QA effort to the monitoring measurements made and to the reported results; regularly participate in interlaboratory comparison exercises.

• Address the issue of long-term security of Gulfwatch data, data storage and sample archiving.

Appendix 2
EVALUATION OF THE GULFWATCH MONITORING PROGRAM — REVIEW PANEL

BRUCE TRIPP,  & JUDY MCDOWELL
Asst. Director, & Sr. Scientist
Rinehart Coastal Research Center Dept. of Biology
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution MS# 2
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1525
tel. 508-289-2900 tel. 508-289-2557
fax. 508-457-2172
email <btripp@whoi.edu> email <jmcdowell@whoi.edu>

JOHN FARRINGTON
Assoc. Director for Education, and Sr. Scientist
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
MS# 31 Woods Hole, MA 02543-1538
tel. 508-289-2200
fax. 508-457-2188
email <jfarrington@whoi.edu>

MIKE BOTHNER
Dean of Graduate Studies
USGS Woods Hole Field Center, Gosnold Lab
Woods Hole, MA 02543-1541
tel. 508-457-2240  fax. 508-457-2309
email <mbothner@usgs.gov>

ANNE GIBLIN
Assoc. Scientist
MBL Ecosystems Center
Water St.
Woods Hole, MA 02543
tel. 207-594-8107  fax. 508-457-1548
email <agiblin@lupine.mbl.edu>

PETER SHELLEY
Sr. Attorney
Conservation Law Foundation
120 Tillson Ave.
Rockland, ME 04841-3416
tel. 508-289-7488  fax. 207-596-7706
email <pshelley@clf.org>

Appendix 3
EVALUATION OF THE GULFWATCH MONITORING PROGRAM — BACKGROUND

Monitoring programs provide a critical link between scientific information and management decisions. Knowledge of the driving biological, chemical and physical processes as well as identification of the sources and quantities of various contaminants is essential to rational resource management decision-making. A continuous, long-term monitoring record is necessary to determine the sources, transport, fate and effects of contaminants and to establish water quality and sediment quality standards and human health standards for the consumption of fish and shellfish.

Monitoring programs for assessing environmental quality should be designed and executed to provide meaningful information on:

1. the spatial distribution of contaminants;

2. temporal variability in contaminant distributions; and

3. the relationship of contaminant inputs to ecological and human health concerns.

Using available but incomplete historic information for the Gulf of Maine, a comprehensive monitoring plan was designed in 1991 that attempted to couple management needs with contemporary understanding of bay-wide processes at time and space scales relevant to the protection of coastal resources. Before agency scientists and managers can begin to monitor the health of coastal waters, the major management issues must first be clearly stated and then testable questions formulated to define the information required to address the management issue of interest. A technically and fiscally sound monitoring program can then be developed. Such a monitoring program must be designed to generate high quality data in a environmentally relevant context to answer precisely stated management questions. An integrated monitoring program, coordinated among the various resource management agencies, that will enhance our understanding of coastal processes, and improve each agency's ability to make sound resource management decisions is needed. A comprehensive monitoring program that documents changes in the marine system over time will assist in evaluating the success of efforts to abate pollution. Such a program will, of necessity, cut across scientific disciplines as well as political and institutional boundaries.

Resource management problems that face Gulf of Maine agencies are similar to those already identified in other coastal waters (e.g., Capuzzo et al., 1987). Only the mixture and intensity of specific issues change as we move from estuary to estuary. Using available historic information from a variety of previous efforts, major management issues generally include the following:

1. Eutrophication. Excessive enrichment by nutrients from multiple sources, leading to increased plant growth results in declining oxygen levels, changes in benthic community assemblages, and other negative impacts. Eutrophication may have detrimental effects on aesthetics and recreational and fishing activities in coastal waters.

2. Toxics. Poor husbandry of a myriad of synthetic organic, fossil fuel and heavy metal compounds has resulted in widespread contamination of sediment, biota and the water column with implication for living resources and public health.

3. Pathogens. Input of disease causing organisms (bacteria and viruses) to coastal waters is a potential threat to public health and limits access to valuable food resources. A key component of this issue is the need for innovative techniques for assaying pathogens.

The above resource management issues are widely agreed upon (OTA, 1987), but specific testable questions based on these issues must be asked before we begin data gathering. In order to demonstrate that a proposed remedial action is appropriate or that an implemented remedial action is effective, we must be able to detect changes in contaminant concentration and distribution through space and time and distinguish changes resulting form a management action from those that result from natural variation in coastal processes. Examples of management questions are the following:

• What are the spatial and temporal scales and periodicity of anoxia, hypoxia?

• What are the concentrations of specific toxics?

• Are toxics accumulating in commercially import species?

• Is the enumeration of pathogen indicator organisms in ambient waters sufficient to protect public health?

The detection of trends in coastal contamination through space and time is the guiding principle on which a coastal monitoring program is based. In order to detect such trends, sampling must be undertaken with an understanding of natural processes and environmental scales (Farrington et al., 1987). For instance, coastal water masses are driven by storm and tidal energy and are changing on a minute-to-hour time scale. To provide information of cycling in the water column, water samples must be integrated over a tidal cycle and surface water; spring-fall sampling cannot not represent a water mass. Any monitoring plan must account for the fact that different classes of contaminants (nutrients, toxics, pathogens) each have their own temporal and spatial scales of influence. For example, toxics may affect animal populations through sub lethal effects over long periods of time, whereas long-term reduction of benthic communities due to nutrient loading may be due to short-term anoxic events occurring only every few years. Therefore, any sampling scheme requires scales of measurements appropriate to the scales of variability of the parameter of interest.

In monitoring ecological and human health impacts as a result of contamination of coastal areas, it is important that the environmental objectives of monitoring efforts be defined before sampling is initiated. To understand long-term impacts of chemical contamination in coastal areas, it is important to understand the conditions under which contaminants persist in benthic environments (Farrington and Westall, 1986), the bioavailability of contaminants to commercial resources and the sub lethal effects of contaminants that lead to reduced growth, delayed development, and reduced reproductive effort, with resulting impacts on population stability (Capuzzo and Kester, 1986; Capuzzo et al., 1988). The synergistic effects of complex chemical mixtures must eventually be understood if realistic predictions of contaminant impacts are to be made. Issues such as the potential for deleterious impacts of chemical mixtures on marine species due to increased environmental stress from eutrophication need to be considered as a research topic adjunct to the routine monitoring effort. Ideally, monitoring will be conducted simultaneously with monitoring-related research to ensure that simple monitoring measurements will be interpreted within the context of ecosystem complexities. Our understanding of those ecosystem complexities is at present quite primitive but is continually improving, therefore the links between "monitoring" and "research" must be made and nurtured.

The use of sentinel organisms (i.e., mussel watch) is one valid approach to coastal monitoring (Farrington et al, 1983; NOAA, 1984, 87, 89, 91, 91a). It is not the only approach and it is not the best approach for some management questions. The use of bivalves is a tried and true method for coastal monitoring but it is only one tool in a toolbox filled with alternative monitoring techniques. By analogy, a medical doctor will measure body temperature as an indicator of general health, but will use many other tests as he/she attempts to diagnose a specific disease. Any good monitoring program will keep this point in mind as conditions change and as reassessments are made.

To obtain a printed version of this report, please download this document. You will need Adobe Acrobat 3.0. It's easy to use and available free.