QH 104 .5 . P32 E36 2008 Copy 2 FT MEADE GenCol1 I states inmental Protection ;y MMOSp, Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 EPA 620/R-08/001 | September 2008 | www.epa.gov/ord NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 79 EPA 620/R-08/001/ September 2008/ www.epa.gov Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 September 2008 Prepared By Walter G. Nelson 1 , Jeffrey L. Hyland 2 , Henry Lee II 1 , Cynthia L. Cooksey 2 , Janet O. Lamberson 1 , Faith A. Cole 1 , Patrick J. Clinton 1 Author Affiliations 1 Western Ecology Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Newport OR 97365 2 Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 219 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, South Carolina 29412-9110 Preface This document provides an assessment of the status of ecological condition in coastal-ocean waters along the U.S. continental shelf, from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA to the Mexican border, based on sampling conducted in June 2003. The project was a large collaborative effort by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and West Coast States. It also represents one of a series of assessments conducted under the Western regional component of EPA’s National Coastal Assessment (NCA-West). The NCA is the coastal component of the nationwide Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP). The NCA-West program is administered through the EPA and implemented through partnerships with a variety of federal and state agencies, universities, and the private sector. The 2003 west-coast shelf assessment involved the participation and collaboration of EPA, NOAA, Washington Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), with additional contributions from personnel of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. The appropriate citation for this report is: W.G. Nelson, J.L. Hyland, H. Lee II, C.L. Cooksey, J.O. Lamberson, F.A. Cole, and P.J. Clinton. 2008. Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003. EPA 620/R-08/001, U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Newport OR, 97365; and NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 79, NOAA National Ocean Service, Charleston, SC 29412-9110. 137 p. Disclaimer This document has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory of EPA and the National Ocean Service of NOAA and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the official views of these agencies, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. ^3'7fc^' L Acknowledgments The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by EPA under Cooperative Agreements with the State of Washington Department of Ecology (CR 827869 ), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (CR 87840 ), and SCCWRP (CR 827870 ) and an Inter-Agency Agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service (DW 13938780). Additionally, cooperative efforts with the NOAA National Ocean Service were conducted under a General Collaborative Agreement (NOS #MOA- 2005-003/6764, EPA #PW139221956-01-0). This study involved the participation of numerous representatives from a variety of federal, state, local, academic, and private institutions. Many individuals within EPA made important contributions to the study. Critical guidance and vision in establishing the overall NCA-West program was provided by Kevin Summers of Gulf Ecology Division. Tony Olsen of Western Ecology Division (WED), with technical support from staff of Computer Science Corporation, provided the sampling designs utilized for various aspects of the study. Lorraine Edmond of Region 10 and Terrence Fleming of the Region 9 Offices of EPA ably served as the regional liaisons with the state participants. Robert Ozretich of WED performed a detailed review of the database contents used for this analysis, and we additionally thank him for his extensive quality assurance review of this document. A major portion of the study area was sampled from the NOAA ship McARTHUR II on Cruise AR-03-01-NC, which consisted of three legs encompassing the period from June 1-26, 2003. All members of the three field crews (see list below) are commended for their high level of technical expertise, teamwork and dedication to getting the required sampling completed. In particular, the dedication of the Chief Scientists for each of the three legs is greatly appreciated. These were Sarah Wilson formerly with Washington Department of Ecology (Leg 1), Larry Caton with Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (Leg 2), and Rusty Fairey with Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (Leg 3). Special appreciation also is extended to the officers and crew of the NOAA ship McARTHUR II for the superb job performed. Sarah Wilson also was especially helpful in obtaining published and unpublished data on the location of cable crossings, hard bottom areas, and other hazards to the safe and successful conduct of field sampling. Dr. Chris Goldfinger of Oregon State University and Dr. Gary Greene of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories kindly supplied unpublished bottom type data that was of assistance in preparation of the maps for determining sample locations. Personnel of the Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of NOAA collected fish specimens as part of their western ground-fish surveys at stations that coincided with the NCA-WEST sampling area. These specimens supplemented the pool of samples available for tissue-contaminant analysis performed subsequently by EPA and state partners. Appreciation is extended particularly to the following NWFSC individuals for their assistance: Tonya Ramsey, Dan Kamikawa, Erica Fruh, Eric Eisenhardt, Keith Bosley, Victor Simon, Chad Keith, Chante Davis, Keri York, Josie Thompson, Jennifer Gilden, Jennie Flammang, Stacey Miller, Ian Stewart, Vanessa Tuttle, Jim Benante, Roger Clark, John Harms, Beth Horness, Lisa Lysak, Jennifer Menkel. Data coverage throughout the Southern California Bight portion of the study area (Pt. Conception, CA to the Mexican border) was made possible through coordination with a companion assessment conducted by SCCWRP during the same general time- frame using similar methods and indicators. Dr. Steven Weisberg, Director of SCCWRP, was the principal liaison for coordination with the Bight ’03 study. Additional assistance with coordination of sampling and data submission was provided by Ken Schiff, Larry Cooper, and Shelly Moore of SCCWRP. Editorial assistance with the document was provided by Jimmie Cheney and Karen Ebert. The report cover was produced with the assistance of Brian Garges of the Graphics Department of the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). Technical reviews of this report were provided by Steven Gittings and Len Balthis with NOAA and by Valerie Partridge with Washington Department of Ecology. IV The members of the scientific crews for the EMAP 2003 survey of ecological conditions of the western U.S. continental shelf are listed below and their contributions to this study are gratefully acknowledged. An * indicates the Chief Scientist on the particular cruise leg. Cruise Leg Name Affiliation Leg 1 - Washington June 1 - June 7, 2003 Sarah Wilson* WA Dept, of Ecology Julia Bos WA Dept, of Ecology Ed Bowlby Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Jon Buzitis NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service Larry Caton OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Ken Dzinbal WA Dept, of Ecology Steve Hale Environmental Protection Agency Shera Hickman AK Dept, of Environmental Conservation Jeff Hyland NOAA/National Ocean Service Noel Larson WA Dept, of Ecology Valerie Partridge WA Dept, of Ecology Dave Terpening Environmental Protection Agency Doc Thompson Environmental Protection Agency Leg 2 - Oregon June 8 - June 15, 2003 Larry Caton* OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Aaron Borisenko OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Greg Coffeen OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Cindy Cooksey NOAA/National Ocean Service Rusty Fairey Moss Landing Marine Lab Won Kim OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Peter Leinenbach Environmental Protection Agency Greg McMurray OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Sarah Miller OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Greg Pettit OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Steve Rumrill South Slough Estuarine Reserve Andy Schaedel OR Dept, of Environmental Quality Leg 3 - California June 18 - June 26, 2003 Rusty Fairey* Moss Landing Marine Lab JD Dubick NOAA/National Ocean Service Lorraine Edmond Environmental Protection Agency Laura Gabanski Environmental Protection Agency Matt Huber Moss Landing Marine Lab Tom Kimball Moss Landing Marine Lab Sara Lowe San Francisco Estuary Institute Mark Pranger Moss Landing Marine Lab Bruce Thompson San Francisco Estuary Institute Tamara Vos Moss Landing Marine Lab Susan Wainwright NOAA Teacher at Sea Program (volunteer) v Table of Contents Preface.ii Acknowledgments.iii List of Figures.x List of Tables.xv List of Appendix Tables.xvii List of Acronyms. xviii Executive Summary.xx 1.0 Introduction.1 1.1 Program Background.1 1.2 NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries.3 1.3 Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program.4 2.0 Methods.5 2.1 Sampling Design.5 2.1.1 EMAP.5 2.1.2 Bight ’03. 6 2.1.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey.7 2.2 Water Column Sampling.7 2.3 Biological and Sediment Sampling.9 2.3.1 Sediment Pollutant and Nutrient Analysis.9 2.4 Fish Tissue.11 2.4.1 EMAP.11 2.4.2 Bight ’03.11 VII 2.4.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey.12 2.5 Quality Assurance.12 2.5.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses.12 2.5.2 Metals in Sediments.13 2.5.3 Organics in Sediments.14 2.5.4 Metals in Tissue.15 2.5.5 Organics in Tissue.15 2.6 Statistical Data Analyses.16 2.7 Sampling, Data Integration and Data Quality Issues.17 3.0. Results and Discussion.18 3.1 Sampling Locations.18 3.2 Water Column Characteristics.30 3.2.1 Salinity.30 3.2.2 Water Temperature.30 3.2.3 Water Column Stratification.36 3.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen.36 3.2.5 Total Suspended Solids.42 3.2.6 Transmissivity.42 3.2.7 Nutrients.42 3.2.8 Chlorophyll a. 47 3.3 Sediment Quality. 55 3.3.1 Sediment Composition: Grain Size and TOC. 55 VIII 3.3.2 Sediment Contaminants: Metals and Organics.62 3.4 Fish Tissue Contaminants.72 3.4.1 EMAP/NCA-West Survey.72 Cadmium .72 Other parameters .73 3.4.2 FRAM Groundfish Survey.77 Cadmium .77 Mercury .77 Other parameters .77 3.5 Status of Benthic Communities.79 3.5.1 Taxonomic Composition.80 3.5.2 Diversity.80 3.5.3 Abundance and Dominant Taxa.94 3.5.4 Biogeographical Distributions.99 3.5.5 Nonindigenous Species.106 3.5.6 Potential Linkage to Stressor Impacts.107 4.0 Literature Cited.111 5.0 Appendix Tables.118 ix List of Figures Figure 2.2.1. CTD and Niskin bottle rosette sampler on the deck of the NOAA Ship mcarthur ii.8 Figure 2.3.1. Close up view of double Van Veen grab sampler used for bottom sampling.11 Figure 2.4.1. Hook-and-line fishing for fish tissue sampling aboard the NOAA Ship mcarthur ii. 12 Figure 3.1.1. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment.19 Figure 3.1.2. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of Washington.20 Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of Oregon.21 Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of California north of Pt. Conception.22 Figure 3.1.5. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of California south of Pt. Conception within the Southern California Bight.23 Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA.24 Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of Washington, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA.25 Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of Oregon, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA.26 Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of northern California, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA.27 x Figure 3.1.10. Percent area (and 95% Cl) of West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. depth. 29 Figure 3.2.1. Distribution of surface salinity values for the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003.31 Figure 3.2.2. Mean +1 SD surface salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.32 Figure 3.2.3. Mean +1 SD bottom salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.33 Figure 3.2.4. Mean +1 SD surface temperature compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.34 Figure 3.2.5. Mean +1 SD bottom temperature compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.35 Figure 3.2.6. Mean +1 SD water column stratification index (Ao t ) compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.37 Figure 3.2.7. Bakun upwelling index for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 2003. .38 Figure 3.2.8. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . .39 Figure 3.2.9. Distribution of bottom dissolved oxygen concentration values for the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003.40 Figure 3.2.10. Mean +1 SD bottom dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . . .41 XI Figure 3.2.11. Mean +1 SD surface Total Suspended Solids compared among (A) all, California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non-NMS sample locations.43 Figure 3.2.12. Mean +1 SD surface transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.44 Figure 3.2.13. Mean +1 SD bottom transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.45 Figure 3.2.14. Mean +1 SD surface nitrate + nitrite compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.48 Figure 3.2.15. Mean +1 SD surface ammonium compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.49 Figure 3.2.16. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.50 Figure 3.2.17. Mean +1 SD surface orthophosphate compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . .51 Figure 3.2.18. Mean +1 SD N/P ratio in surface waters compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . .52 Figure 3.2.19. Mean +1 SD surface silicate concentration compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. . .53 Figure 3.2.20. Mean +1 SD surface chlorophyll a concentration compared among (A) all, California, Oregon and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 54 XII Figure 3.3.1. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent fines (silt/clay).58 Figure 3.3.2. Comparison of sediment percent silt/clay (mean + 1 SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations.59 Figure 3.3.4. Comparison of sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC, mean + 1 SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations.61 Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of the spatial extent of sediment contamination by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations.67 Figure 3.3.6. Distribution of Total DDT concentrations in sediments along the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.68 Figure 3.3.7. Distribution of 4,4'-DDE concentrations in sediments along the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.68 Figure 3.3.8. Distribution of mercury concentrations in sediments along the continental shelf of California relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.69 Figure 3.3.9. Distribution of 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations in sediments along the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.70 Figure 3.3.10. Distribution of chromium concentrations in sediments along the western U.S. continental shelf relative to ERL and ERM guidelines.71 Figure 3.4.1. Tissue vs. sediment concentration of cadmium at corresponding stations from the EMAP/NCA-West 2003 shelf survey including samples from Washington, Oregon and California.73 Figure 3.5.1. Comparison of percent faunal composition by abundance among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.87 Figure 3.5.2. Comparison of percent faunal composition by taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.88 XIII Figure 3.5.3. Comparison of benthic species richness (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.90 Figure 3.5.4. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. benthic species richness (# taxa/0.1-m' 2 grab).91 Figure 3.5.5. Map illustrating the distribution of benthic species richness (# taxa per 0.1- m 2 grab) throughout the West Coast region.92 Figure 3.5.6. Comparison of benthic species diversity (H\ mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.93 Figure 3.5.7. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. Shannon-Wiener (H') diversity index.94 Figure 3.5.8. Comparison of benthic density (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.97 Figure 3.5.9. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. benthic abundance (number of individuals/m 2 ).98 Figure 3.5.10. Marine ecoregions bordering the Pacific Coast of the United States from Southern California through the Aleutian Islands.104 Figure 3.5.11. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the polychaete Magelona longicornis. .105 Figure 3.5.12. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the bivalve Axinopsida serricata.. 105 Figure 3.5.13. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica. ..106 Figure 3.5.14. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the decapod Pinnixa occidentalis. . .106 XIV List of Tables Table 2.2.1. Equipment used for hydrographic profile measurements.9 Table 2.3.1. Compounds analyzed in sediments and fish tissues in the West Coast Shelf Assessment...10 Table 3.3.1. Comparison of sediment physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrations for (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) vs. non-NMS.56 Table 3.3.2. ERM and ERL guidance values in sediments (Long et al. 1995).64 Table 3.3.3. Comparison of the % area of sediments with chemical contaminants in excess of corresponding ERL and ERM sediment quality guidelines.65 Table 3.3.4 Comparison of the number of stations with chemical contaminants in excess of corresponding ERL and ERM sediment quality guideline values.66 Table 3.4.1. Risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers.74 Table 3.4.2. Comparison by state of the concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West).75 Table 3.4.3. Comparison by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status of the concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish- tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West survey).76 Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in tissue composites offish collected from 60 stations in the 2003 FRAM survey.78 Table 3.4.5. Ratios of concentrations of measured parameters in fillets vs. remains of fish in flatfish collected in Washington for the FRAM survey.79 Table 3.5.1. Summary of major taxonomic groups for the west-coast shelf region wide. .82 Table 3.5.2. Comparison of the proportion of taxa within major taxonomic groups on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries.83 Table 3.5.3. Comparison of the number of taxa, H' diversity (log 2 ), and densities (nT 2 ) of benthic infaunal assemblages on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries.84 xv Table 3.5.4. Fifty most abundant benthic taxa in the West Coast shelf survey regionwide. 85 Table 3.5.5. Comparison of dominant (10 most abundant) taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non- NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations.98 Table 3.5.6. Nonindigenous species from the shelf survey.108 XVI List of Appendix Tables Appendix Table 1. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. . .118 Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey stations from which fish were analyzed for tissue contaminants by EPA.124 Appendix Table 3a. Summary for Washington data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.126 Appendix Table 3b. Summary for Oregon data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.127 Appendix Table 3c. Summary for California data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV ) of replicates.128 Appendix Table 4. Summary by station of key benthic variables and corresponding sediment and water-quality indicators.129 Appendix Table 5. Biogeographic distributions of the 39 most abundant benthic taxa identified to species in the West Coast shelf survey.135 XVII List of Acronyms CBNMS CDF CINMS CTD CRM CV CWA DO EAM EMAP EPA ERL ERM FRAM GAO GFNMS GIS GPS GRTS IEA LCM MBNMS MDL MOA MOU NCA NCA-West NCCOS NMFS NMS NMAO NOAA NOS N/P NWFSC OCNMS ORD PAH PAR PCB QA/QC RL RPD Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary Cumulative distribution function Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Conductivity-Temperature-Depth Certified Reference Material Coefficient of Variation Clean Water Act Dissolved Oxygen Concentration Ecosystem Approach to Management Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Effects Range Low Effects Range Median Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring U. S. General Accounting Office Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Laboratory Control Material Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Method Detection Limit Memorandum of Agreement Memorandum of Understanding National Coastal Assessment National Coastal Assessment - Western regional component National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science National Marine Fisheries Service National Marine Sanctuary NOAA Marine and Aircraft Operation National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA National Ocean Service Nitrogen to Phosphorus Northwest Fisheries Science Center Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary EPA Office of Research and Development Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons Photosynthetically Active Radiation Polychlorinated Biphenyls Quality Assurance/Quality Control Reporting Limit Relative Percent Difference XVIII SCB Southern California Bight SCCWRP Southern California Water Resources Research Project SRM Standard Reference Material SD Standard Deviation SQG Sediment Duality Guideline TOC Total Organic Carbon TSS Total Suspended Solids WED Western Ecology Division XIX Executive Summary The western National Coastal Assessment (NCA-West) program of EPA, in conjunction with the NOAA National Ocean Service (NOS), conducted an assessment of the status of ecological condition of soft sediment habitats and overlying waters along the western U.S. continental shelf, between the target depths of 30 and 120 m, during June 2003. NCA-West and NOAA/NOS partnered with the West Coast states (Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), and California (CA)), and the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) Bight ’03 program to conduct the survey. A total of 257 stations were sampled from Cape Flattery, WA to the Mexican border using standard methods and indicators applied in previous coastal NCA projects. A key study feature was the incorporation of a stratified-random sampling design with stations stratified by state and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) status. Each of the three states was represented by at least 50 random stations. There also were a total of 84 random stations located within NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast including the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS), Cordell Bank NMS (CBNMS), Gulf of Farallones NMS (GFNMS), Monterey Bay NMS (MBNMS), and Channel Islands NMS (CINMS). Collection of flatfish via hook-and-line for fish-tissue contaminant analysis was successful at 50 EMAP/NCA-West stations. Through a collaboration developed with the FRAM Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, fish from an additional 63 stations in the same region and depth range were also analyzed for fish-tissue contaminants. Bottom depth throughout the region ranged from 28 m to 125 m for most stations. Two slightly deeper stations from the Southern California Bight (SCB) (131, 134 m) were included in the data set. About 44% of the survey area had sediments composed of sands (< 20% silt-clay), about 47% was composed of intermediate muddy sands (20- 80% silt-clay), and about 9% was composed of muds (> 80% silt-clay). The majority of the survey area (97%) had relatively low percent total organic carbon (TOC) levels of < 2%, while a small portion (< 1%) had high TOC levels (> 5%), in a range potentially harmful to benthic fauna. Salinity of surface waters for 92% of the survey area were > 31 psu, with most stations < 31 psu associated with the Columbia River plume. Bottom salinities ranged only between 31.6 and 34.4 psu. There was virtually no difference in mean bottom salinities among states or between NMS and non-NMS stations. Temperatures of surface water (range 8.5 -19.9 °C) and bottom water (range 5.8 -14.7 °C) averaged several degrees higher in CA in comparison to WA and OR. The Ao t index of water- column stratification indicated that about 31% of the survey area had strong vertical stratification of the water column. The index was greatest for waters off WA and lowest for CA waters. Only about 2.6 % of the survey area had surface dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations < 4.8 mg/L, and there were no values below the lower threshold (2.3 mg/L) considered harmful to the survival and growth of marine animals. Surface DO xx concentrations were higher in WA and OR waters than in CA, and higher in the OC NMS than in the CA sanctuaries. An estimated 94.3% of the area had bottom-water DO concentrations < 4.8 mg/L and 6.6% had concentrations < 2.3 mg/L. The high prevalence of DO from 2.3 to 4.8 mg/L (85% of survey area) is believed to be associated with the upwelling of naturally low DO water across the West Coast shelf. Mean TSS and transmissivity in surface waters (excluding OR due to sample problems) were slightly higher and lower, respectively, for stations in WA than for those in CA. There was little difference in mean TSS or transmissivity between NMS and non- NMS locations. Mean transmissivity in bottom waters, though higher in comparison to surface waters, showed little difference among geographic regions or between NMS and non-NMS locations. Concentrations of nitrate + nitrite, ammonium, total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and orthophosphate (P) in surface waters tended to be highest in CA compared to WA and OR, and higher in the CA NMS stations compared to CA non-sanctuary stations. Measurements of silicate in surface waters were limited to WA and CA (exclusive of the SCB) and showed that concentrations were similar between the two states and approximately twice as high in CA sanctuaries compared to OCNMS or non¬ sanctuary locations in either state. The elevated nutrient concentrations observed at CA NMS stations are consistent with the presence of strong upwelling at these sites at the time of sampling. Approximately 93% of the area had DIN/P values < 16, indicative of nitrogen limitation. Mean DIN/P ratios were similar among the three states, although the mean for the OCNMS was less than half that of the CA sanctuaries or non¬ sanctuary locations. Concentrations of chlorophyll a in surface waters ranged from 0 to 28 pg L" 1 , with 50% of the area having values < 3.9 pg L' 1 and 10% having values > 14.5 pg L' 1 . The mean concentration of chlorophyll a for CA was less than half that of WA and OR locations, and concentrations were lowest in non-sanctuary sites in CA and highest at the OCNMS. Shelf sediments throughout the survey area were relatively uncontaminated with the exception of a group of stations within the SCB. Overall, about 99% of the total survey area was rated in good condition (<5 chemicals measured above corresponding effect range low (ERL) concentrations). Only the pesticides 4,4-DDE and total DDT exceeded corresponding effect range-median (ERM) values, all at stations in CA near Los Angeles. Ten other contaminants including seven metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ag, Zn), 2-methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, and total PCBs exceeded corresponding ERLs. The most prevalent in terms of area were chromium (31%), arsenic (8%), 2-methylnaphthalene (6%), cadmium (5%), and mercury (4%). The chromium contamination may be related to natural background sources common to the region. The 2-methylnaphthalene exceedances were conspicuously grouped around the CINMS. The mercury exceedances were all at non-sanctuary sites in CA, particularly in the Los Angeles area. XXI Concentrations of cadmium in fish tissues exceeded the lower end of EPA’s non¬ cancer, human-health-risk range at nine of 50 EMAP/NCA-West and nine of 60 FRAM groundfish-survey stations, including a total of seven NMS stations in CA and two in the OCNMS. The human-health guidelines for all other contaminants were only exceeded for total PCBs at one station located in WA near the mouth of the Columbia River. Benthic species richness was relatively high in these offshore assemblages, ranging from 19 to 190 taxa per 0.1 -m 2 grab and averaging 79 taxa/grab. The high species richness was reflected over large areas of the shelf and was nearly three times greater than levels observed in estuarine samples along the West Coast (e.g NCA-West estuarine mean of 26 taxa/grab). Mean species richness was highest off CA (94 taxa/ grab) and lower in OR and WA (55 and 56 taxa/grab, respectively). Mean species richness was very similar between sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the CA and OR/WA regions. Mean diversity index H' was highest in CA (5.36) and lowest in WA (4.27). There were no major differences in mean H' between sanctuary vs. non¬ sanctuary stations for both the CA and OR/WA regions. A total of 1,482 taxa (1,108 to species) and 99,135 individuals were identified region-wide. Polychaetes, crustaceans and molluscs were the dominant taxa, both by percent abundance (59%, 17%, 12% respectively) and percent species (44%, 25%, 17%, respectively). There were no major differences in the percent composition of benthic communities among states or between NMSs and corresponding non-sanctuary sites. Densities averaged 3,788 m' 2 , about 30% of the average density for West Coast estuaries. Mean density of benthic fauna in the present offshore survey, averaged by state, was highest in CA (4,351 m' 2 ) and lowest in OR (2,310 m' 2 ). Mean densities were slightly higher at NMS stations vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the CA and OR/WA regions. The 10 most abundant taxa were the polychaetes Mediomastus spp., Magelona longicornis, Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Spiophanes bom byx, Spiophanes duplex, and Prionospio jubata\ the bivalve Axinopsida serricata, the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica, the decapod Pinnixa occidentalis, and the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta. Mediomastus spp. and A. serricata were the two most abundant taxa overall. Although many of these taxa have broad geographic distributions throughout the region, the same species were not ranked among the 10 most abundant taxa consistently across states. The closest similarities among states were between OR and WA. At least half of the 10 most abundant taxa in NMSs were also dominant in corresponding non¬ sanctuary waters. Many of the abundant benthic species have wide latitudinal distributions along the West Coast shelf, with some species ranging from southern CA into the Gulf of Alaska or even the Aleutians. Of the 39 taxa on the list of 50 most abundant taxa that could be identified to species level, 85% have been reported at least once from estuaries of CA, OR, or WA exclusive of Puget Sound. Such broad latitudinal and estuarine distributions are suggestive of wide habitat tolerances. XXII Thirteen (1.2%) of the 1,108 identified species are nonindigenous, with another 121 species classified as cryptogenic (of uncertain origin), and 208 species unclassified with respect to potential invasiveness. Despite uncertainties of classification, the number and densities of nonindigenous species appear to be much lower on the shelf than in the estuarine ecosystems of the Pacific Coast. Spionid polychaetes and the ampharetid polychaete Anobothrus gracilis were a major component of the nonindigenous species collected on the shelf. NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast of the U.S. appeared to be in good ecological condition, based on the measured indicators, with no evidence of major anthropogenic impacts or unusual environmental qualities compared to nearby non¬ sanctuary waters. Benthic communities in sanctuaries resembled those in corresponding non-sanctuary waters, with similarly high levels of species richness and diversity and low incidence of nonindigenous species. Most oceanographic features were also similar between sanctuary and non-sanctuary locations. Exceptions (e.g., higher concentrations of some nutrients in sanctuaries along the CA coast) appeared to be attributable to natural upwelling events in the area at the time of sampling. In addition, sediments within the sanctuaries were relatively uncontaminated, with none of the samples having any measured chemical in excess of ERM values. The ERL value for chromium was exceeded in sediments at the OCNMS, but at a much lower percentage of stations (four of 30) compared to WA and OR non-sanctuary areas (31 of 70 stations). ERL values were exceeded for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, 2- methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, total DDT, and 4,4-DDE at multiple sites within the CINMS. However, cases where total DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and chromium exceeded the ERL values were notably less prevalent at CINMS than in non-sanctuary waters of CA. In contrast, 2-methylnaphthalene above the ERL was much more prevalent in sediments at the CINMS compared to non-sanctuary waters off the coast of CA. While there are natural background sources of PAHs from oil seeps throughout the SCB, this does not explain the higher incidence of 2-methylnaphthalene contamination around CINMS. Two stations in CINMS also had levels of TOC (> 5%) potentially harmful to benthic fauna, though none of these sites exhibited symptoms of impaired benthic condition. This study showed no major evidence of extensive biological impacts linked to measured stressors. There were only two stations, both in CA, where low numbers of benthic species, diversity, or total faunal abundance co-occurred with high sediment contamination or low DO in bottom water. Such general lack of concordance suggests that these offshore waters are currently in good condition, with the lower-end values of the various biological attributes representing parts of a normal reference range controlled by natural factors. Results of multiple linear regression, performed using full model procedures to test for effects of combined abiotic environmental factors, suggested that latitude and depth had significant influences on benthic variables region¬ wide. Latitude had a significant inverse influence on all three of the above benthic variables, i.e. with values increasing as latitude decreased (p < 0.01), while depth had a XXIII significant direct influence on diversity (p < 0.001) and inverse effect on density (p <0.01). None of these variables varied significantly in relation to sediment % fines (at p< 0.1), although in general there was a tendency for muddier sediments (higher % fines) to have lower species richness and diversity and higher densities than coarser sediments. Alternatively, it is possible that for some of these sites the lower values of benthic variables reflect symptoms of disturbance induced by other unmeasured stressors. The indicators in this study included measures of stressors (e.g., chemical contaminants, eutrophication) that are often associated with adverse biological impacts in shallower estuarine and inland ecosystems. However, there may be other sources of human- induced stress in these offshore systems (e.g., bottom trawling) that pose greater risks to ambient living resources and which have not been captured. Future monitoring efforts in these offshore areas should include indicators of such alternative sources of disturbance. XXIV 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Program Background The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) both perform a broad range of research and monitoring activities to assess the status and potential effects of human activities on the health of coastal ecosystems and to promote the use of this information in protecting and restoring the Nation’s coastal resources. Authority to conduct such work is provided through several legislative mandates including the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.), National Coastal Monitoring Act (Title V of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2801-2805), and the National Marine Sanctuary Act of 2000. Where possible the two agencies have sought to coordinate related activities through partnerships with states and other institutions to prevent duplications of effort and bring together complementary resources to fulfill common research and management goals. Accordingly, in summer 2003, NOAA, EPA, and partnering West Coast states — Washington (WA), Oregon (OR), and California (CA) — combined efforts to conduct a joint survey of ecological condition of aquatic resources in near-coastal waters along the U.S. western continental shelf using multiple indicators of ecological condition. The study is an expansion of EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) and subsequent National Coastal Assessment (NCA), which seek to assess condition of the Nation’s environmental resources within a variety of coastal and terrestrial resource categories. The coastal component of EMAP/NCA on the West Coast of the U.S. began in 1999 with a focus in estuaries (see Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; Hayslip et al. 2006; Wilson and Partridge 2007; U.S. EPA 2001,2004, 2006). The current assessment, based on sampling conducted in summer 2003, extends this work to near-coastal shelf waters (depths of 30-120 m) from the Canadian to Mexican borders (see Figures 3.1.1 -3.1.9 below). A focus of the study was on the collection and analysis of water, sediment, and biological samples using standard methods and indicators applied in previous coastal EMAP/NCA projects (U.S. EPA 2001,2004; Nelson et al. 2004). A key feature was the incorporation of a stratified-random sampling design, with stations (257 total) stratified by State and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) status. Each of the three states (WA, Oregon, California) was represented by at least 50 random stations. There also were a total of 84 random stations included within NOAA’s five NMSs along the West Coast. The probabilistic sampling design provided a basis for making unbiased statistical estimates of the spatial extent of ecological condition relative to various measured indicators and corresponding thresholds of concern. These included standard EMAP/NCA ecological indicators of water quality, sediment quality, and biological condition (benthic fauna and fish). Assessments of status relative to these various indicators are presented in the present report on a region-wide basis, by State, and by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. The state-level information will be of value to EPA and the States in their efforts to meet 1 requirements under the CWA to report on the condition of each state’s aquatic resources. The information on the status of NMS resources, which has been derived from standard monitoring methods and indicators that allow comparisons to the surrounding regional ecosystem and across other sanctuaries as a system, helps to fulfill the needs of system-wide monitoring strategies for the NMS Program (NMSP 2004) as well as related directives under the NMS Reauthorization Act of 2000. Moreover, because the protocols and indicators are consistent with those used in previous EMAP/NCA estuarine surveys, comparisons also can be made between conditions in offshore waters and those observed in neighboring estuarine habitats, thus providing a more holistic account of ecological conditions and processes throughout the inshore and offshore resources of the region. Such information should provide valuable input for future National Coastal Condition Reports, which historically have focused on estuaries (U.S. EPA 2001,2004). Lastly, results of this study should provide support to evolving interests within the U.S. and other parts of the world to move toward an ecosystem approach to management (EAM) of coastal resources (Murawski 2007; Marine Ecosystems and Management 2007). Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (lEAs) have been identified as an important component of an EAM strategy (Murawski and Menashes 2007, Levin et al. 2008). An IEA is a synthesis and quantitative analysis of information on relevant natural and socio-economic factors in relation to specified ecosystem management goals (Levin et al. 2008). Initial steps in the IEA process include the assessment of baseline conditions defining the status of the system as well as the assessment of stressor impacts and their links to source drivers and pressures. Results of the present study will be available to support such initial steps in the development of an IEA for the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. While the focus of the present study is on indicators of ecological condition, limited socio-economic indicators have been included as well (e.g., fish contaminant levels, water clarity, marine debris), which can be used to help address some common human-dimension questions, such as “Are the fish safe to eat?” or “Is the water clean enough to swim in?” This assessment was made possible through the cooperation of numerous organizations. The project was funded principally by EPA (Office of Research and Development, ORD) and co-managed through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) by staff from EPA/ORD and the NOAA National Ocean Service’s (NOS) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS). NOAA’s Office of Marine and Aviation Operations provided three weeks of ship time on the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II, which supported the primary sampling effort conducted in June 2003 from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington south to Pt. Conception, CA. The Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), under NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), provided field support and analysis offish pathologies through a cooperative agreement with EPA. The NWFSC also supplemented the collection of fish samples for contaminant and pathology analysis through coordination of sampling conducted by their Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division at stations falling within the appropriate depth range during their annual west-coast groundfish surveys. State 2 partners included Washington Department of Ecology, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and the Southern California Water Resources Research Project (SCCWRP). Additional field support was provided by scientists from the three State partners, EPA Region 10, EPA ORD, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and South Slough Estuarine Research Reserve. The intent of the study design was to include continental shelf waters all along the West Coast of the U.S., from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington to the Mexican border. The coordination of two separate survey efforts was necessary in order to cover such a large area. The first was the above-mentioned June 2003 cruise conducted from the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II, which covered sampling from the Strait of Juan de Fuca south to Pt. Conception, CA. This effort was coordinated with a companion assessment conducted by SCCWRP during the same general time-frame, in the area between Pt. Conception and the Mexican border, known as the Southern California Bight (SCB). The Bight ’03 assessment was conducted using a similar probabilistic sampling design and most of the same condition indicators (Allen et al. 2007, Bay et al. 2005, Ranasinghe et al. 2007, Schiff et al. 2006), and thus the data could be integrated with data from the more northern stations to provide an overall assessment of condition throughout the western U.S. continental shelf. 1.2 NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries There are currently four NMSs along the coast of California, one off the coast of Washington, and none off the coast of Oregon. All of the West Coast NMSs represent areas particularly rich in a diverse array of marine life, including marine mammals, seabirds, fishes, invertebrates and plants. The Channel Islands NMS off the coast of California is the oldest, established in 1980, and covers an area of 4,294 km 2 surrounding the islands of Anacapa, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, San Miguel and Santa Barbara out to six nautical miles offshore around each of the five islands. The Gulf of the Farallones NMS (3,237 km 2 ) and Cordell Bank NMS (1347 km 2 ) are adjacent to each other and located along the central California coast off San Francisco. The Gulf of the Farallones NMS was established in 1981 and includes the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. Cordell Bank NMS, established in 1989, includes Cordell Bank seamount whose summit lies only 37 meters below the surface. The Monterey Bay NMS is the most recently established NMS in California (1992), and is also the largest on the West Coast. It extends from Rocky Point in Marin County to Cambria in San Luis Obispo County, a shoreline length of 444 km and encompasses 13,784 km 2 of ocean. To the north, the Olympic Coast NMS was established in 1994 and protects about 8,570 km 2 of the Pacific Ocean between Cape Flattery and the mouth of the Copalis River, a distance of about 217 km. Some 105 km of the sanctuary's coastline borders the Olympic National Park, while the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles, and Copalis Rock National Wildlife Refuges are within the sanctuary boundaries. Maps of each of the West Coast NMS may be found at: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/pgallery/atlasmaps/welcome.html. 3 1.3 Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program In response to the need for an integrated assessment of the condition of the southern California coastal ocean, SCCWRP brought together 58 organizations in the summer of 2003 to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the ecological condition of the SCB. This study, known as Bight’03, was the third regional-scale assessment of the SCB by SCCWRP, following earlier related efforts in 1994 and 1998. There also have been older studies of the benthic fauna of shelf, slope, and basin habitats throughout the SCB conducted by other investigators (Jones 1969, Fauchald and Jones 1978). The spatial extent of the SCCWRP-related regional assessments ranged from Pt. Conception in the north to the Mexican border. During the 2003 effort, sampling was extended to include estuaries and continental slope and basin areas down to a depth of 1,000 m. Bight’03 included three components: Coastal Ecology, Shoreline Microbiology and Water Quality. Shoreline microbiology was not a part of the scope of the EMAP study. The Water Quality component of Bight’03 (Nezlin et al. 2007) was focused on examination of the effects of storm water runoff on the SCB. Sampling did not fall within the EMAP index period and was designed to address a different set of research questions, and thus data collected under this component could not be integrated with the EMAP assessment. However, water quality data from some stations within the SCB were collected by SCCWRP under a cooperative agreement with EPA. The Coastal Ecology Component of Bight'03 assessed sediment contaminants and the effect of these contaminants on biota in the SCB, and analyzed a set of contaminants that were virtually the same as those assessed in the EMAP program (Ranasinghe et al. 2007). 4 2.0 Methods Methods for the 2003 survey of condition of the continental shelf of the West Coast were in general the same as those developed for the EPA National Coastal Assessment (Nelson et al. 2004), with modifications to reflect the generally deeper nature of the resource being assessed. Sampling for a major portion of the survey area (Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA, to Point Conception, CA) was conducted on NOAA Ship McARTHUR II Cruise AR-03-01- NC, June 1-26, 2003 (Cooksey 2003). The cruise consisted of three legs: Leg 1 along the Washington coast (Seattle to Astoria, OR, June 1-8); Leg 2 along the Oregon coast (Astoria, OR to Eureka, CA, June 8-16); and Leg 3 along the California coast, from the Oregon border to Pt. Conception (Eureka, CA to Pt. Conception and back to San Francisco, CA, June 18-26). Samples were collected from the deck of the McARTHUR II during around-the-clock operations. At each station, samples were obtained for characterization of: 1) community structure and composition of benthic macroinfauna (fauna retained on a 1.0-mm sieve); 2) concentration of chemical contaminants in sediments (metals, pesticides, PCBs, PAHs); 3) general habitat conditions (water depth, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, temperature, chlorophyll a, light transmittance, water-column nutrients, % silt-clay versus sand content of sediment, organic-carbon content of sediment); and 4) condition of selected demersal fish species caught by hook-and-line (contaminant body burdens and visual evidence of pathological disorders). 2.1 Sampling Design 2.1.1 EMAP A major target to be assessed was the soft-sediment benthic resources and overlying water quality of the continental shelf, in the depth range between 30 and 120 m, from the Strait of Juan de Fuca in Washington to the Mexican border. Given the high cost of research ship time and the desire to insure that attempts at sampling rocky bottoms were minimized, considerable effort was taken to develop a GIS data layer of only soft sediment habitat. No comprehensive bottom type map of the continental shelf of West Coast existed at the time of this study, although data were provided by several individuals at research institutions that were developing such maps under NOAA funding. An attempt was also made to obtain the general locations of commercial submarine cable crossings, and these zones, along with high activity shipping channels and other restricted access regions were omitted from the GIS layer defining the target resource area. The study utilized a stratified random sampling design, known as a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) survey design. The EMAP/NCA sampling effort consisted of a total of 150 stations that were distributed across the sampling area, partitioned in several ways. Each of the three states received 50 stations. In 5 Washington, the 50 stations were partitioned into 30 stations randomly selected within the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS), and 20 stations in the remainder of the shelf waters. Similarly, in California, the 50 stations were partitioned into two groups consisting of 30 stations randomly selected within the combined area of the Cordell Bank, Gulf of Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands NMSs, and 20 stations selected in non¬ sanctuary waters of California north of Pt. Conception. Each sampling region is termed a multi-density category. For each multi-density category (Appendix Table 1), geographic coordinates for the number of primary target stations listed above were determined during the study design process. Additionally, each multi-density category had an equal number of alternate sampling locations selected in case a primary site should have to be rejected due to safety concerns or the presence of rocky bottom. Because of the severe logistic constraint of the number of ship days available, when a primary station was abandoned, the nearest alternate station within the multi-density category was selected and sampling was attempted. After completion of the field survey, additional adjustments to the frame area definitions were made. For the present report, the principal adjustment was to exclude the area of the continental shelf within the Strait of Juan de Fuca from inclusion in the resource definition. This decision was made because all bottom samples attempted at multiple stations found rocky instead of soft bottom, indicating that the region may not fit the target resource definition of soft sediment shelf habitat. Thus, weighting factors used in data analysis reflect the removal of this sample area. 2.1.2 Bight’03 Data coverage throughout the SCB portion of the study area (Pt. Conception, CA to the Mexican border) was made possible through coordination with a companion assessment, the Bight’03 study conducted by SCCWRP. The basic sampling design of the Bight’03 study was the same as that used for the EMAP survey. Sampling sites were selected in a stratified random fashion in 12 multi-density categories that represented distinct regions of interest within the SCB using a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) design (Ranasinghe et al. 2007). There was overlap with the target depth zone sampled by EMAP for two Bight’03 multi-density categories. Given the identical design approaches, data from Bight’03 for these two categories could be merged with EMAP data into a single statistical analysis for the West Coast shelf. Geographic coordinates for the Bight’03 stations which were included with the EMAP stations in the present analysis are provided in Appendix 1. Inspection of depth information was used to confirm that Bight’03 stations actually fell within the target depth range of the EMAP study, and some stations included in a multi-density category in the Bight’03 study were excluded from inclusion with the EMAP data. A total of 30 stations within the Channel Islands NMS and 43 stations along the mainland shelf fell with the EMAP target depth zone of 30-120 m. The list of water column parameters measured varied considerably among these stations and rarely comprised the full list of parameters measured by the EMAP study. 6 2.1.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey Samples from the West Coast Groundfish Surveys conducted by the Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of NOAA were used to supplement the pool of samples available for tissue-contaminant body-burden analysis. FRAM surveys began in 1998 and by 2003 had adopted a probability-based sampling design. However the design could not be readily integrated into that used by EMAP/NCA. The FRAM groundfish-survey area included depths from 30 fathoms (55m) to 700 fathoms (1287m) and was partitioned by International North Pacific Fishing Commission zones. Therefore, a GIS coverage of groundfish-survey sample locations was created, and the EMAP/NCA sample frame defining the region between 30 and 120 m was overlaid on this GIS data layer. A target sample number of 50 groundfish sites per state was established. In Oregon and Washington, only 28 and 21 stations, respectively, met the EMAP/NCA depth criterion, and thus all available sites were selected. In California, a subset of 50 sites was randomly selected from the list of 78 sites within the depth range. Fish from 63 sites were initially selected for contaminant analysis, but data from three of these sites were subsequently excluded from data analysis because the sites were greater than 120 m in depth. Sites from which fish were analyzed for contaminants are shown in Figs. 3.1.6- 3.1.9 and are listed in Appendix Table 2. 2.2 Water Column Sampling Vertical water-column profiles of conductivity, temperature, chlorophyll a concentration, transmissivity, dissolved oxygen, and depth were obtained with a Sea- Bird Electronics Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) data sonde unit with additional sensors (Table 2.2.1). The unit was a SBE 9Plus with an 11 Plus deck unit to provide real-time data supplied by the NOAA Ship McARTHUR II. Supplemental sensors were supplied by Washington DOE. The unit was also equipped with 12 Niskin water sample bottles to acquire discrete water samples at three designated water depths: 0.5 m below sea surface, mid-water column, and near the seabed (Figure 2.2.1). In practice, the near-surface samples were collected from just below the surface to a depth of 5.3 m. Continuous profiles of conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll a (fluorometer), transmissivity, and depth were recorded during the descent and ascent of the unit. Discrete water samples were processed for nutrients, total suspended solids (TSS), and chlorophyll a. For nutrients and chlorophyll a, only surface values are reported since this is the region of the water column most likely to be affected by anthropogenic influences. For temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, transmissivity and TSS, only surface and bottom values are reported, since these values typically provide the maximum range of values within a station. Data for all three depths for all variables are included in the study database and are available on request from the authors. In the assessment of estuarine waters in the NCA program, light availability in the water column was evaluated using either Secchi depth or water column 7 photosynthetically available radiation (PAR) measured with PAR sensors. For the Western NCA, the vertical profile PAR data were used to calculate an estimate of the percent transmittance of incident PAR at a reference depth of 1 m (Nelson et al. 2005) In the present study, a transmissometer attached to the CTD was used to measure in situ light attenuation. The instrument measured the percentage of light that reached a receiver with a narrow field of view at 25 cm from a light source generating a narrow beam. Transmissivity and percent transmittance of PAR are not directly comparable measurements. Figure 2.2.1. CTD and Niskin bottle rosette sampler on the deck of the NOAA Ship mcarthur ii. The CTD was lowered into the water until it was completely submerged and held just below the surface for three minutes, allowing the water pump to purge any air in the system. The unit was then returned to the sea surface to begin the profile, and lowered slowly to the bottom at approximately 0.8 m s' 1 , held near the seabed for one minute, and then recovered at a similar velocity. To prevent the equipment from hitting the seabed due to wave motion, the maximum depth to which the CTD was lowered was generally about 3-8 m above the bottom. 8 Table 2.2.1. Equipment used for hydrographic profile measurements. Parameter CTD or Sensor Salinity Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 9Plus Derived from conductivity (CTD) Temperature Sea-Bird Electronics SBE 9Plus Dissolved oxygen Sea-Bird Electronics SBE-43 sensor Chlorophyll-a fluorescence WET Labs WETStar fluorometer Transmissivity WET Labs C-Star transmissometer 2.3 Biological and Sediment Sampling Sediment sampling was undertaken using a custom-designed Van Veen grab (Figure 2.3.1). The sampling device is composed of two 0.1-m 2 samplers, joined together in a single frame. The unit was 60 inches high, 42 inches in diameter and weighed 450 pounds with its full complement of four, 50-pound, stainless-steel weights. Sample material obtained by the grabs was used for analysis of macroinfaunal communities, concentration of sediment contaminants, % silt-clay, and organic-carbon content. Three grab samples were required at the majority of stations to acquire adequate sediment (approximately 2 L) for both benthic infauna (one grab) and chemistry sample processing. A grab sample was deemed successful when the grab unit was > 75% full (with no major slumping). The benthic samples were sieved onboard through 1.0-mm (WA and OR stations), or through nested 0.5-mm and 1.0-mm screens (CA stations), and preserved in 10% buffered formalin. Fauna from California stations retained in the 0.5-1.0 mm sieve fraction were processed as part of a supplemental study and are not considered in this report. Thus all benthic data reported here pertain to the > 1.0-mm fraction. 2.3.1 Sediment Pollutant and Tissue Analysis Sediments and fish tissues were analyzed for a suite of organic pollutants and metals (Table 2.3.1) using analytical methods from the NOAA NS&T Program (Lauenstein and Cantillo 1993) or described in the EMAP Laboratory Methods Manual (U.S. EPA 1994). For all three states, 15 metals were analyzed in sediments and 13 metals were analyzed in whole-body fish tissues. Antimony and manganese were analyzed in tissue samples from California and Washington. A total of 21 PCB congeners (PCBs), DDT and its primary metabolites, 14 chlorinated pesticides, and 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were analyzed in sediments from all three states (Table 2.3.1). The same suite of chlorinated compounds was analyzed in fish tissue except that hexachlorobenzene was not analyzed in samples from California. PAHs were measured in tissues from California and Washington and are not reported here. Total organic carbon and percent fines of the sediment were analyzed in samples from all sites. 9 Table 2.3.1. Compounds analyzed in sediments and fish tissues in the West Coast Shelf Assessment. All compounds were analyzed in all three states in both sediment and fish with the exceptions that PAHs, antimony and manganese were analyzed in fish tissues only in California and Washington, and hexachlorobenzene was not analyzed in fish tissues in California. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) PCB Congeners (Congener Number and Compound) DDT and Other Chlorinated Pesticides Metals and Misc. Low Molecular Weiaht 8: 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl DDTs Metals PAHs 18 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl 2,4’-DDD Aluminum 1 -methylnaphthalene 28 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl 4,4'-DDD Antimony 1 -methylphenanthrene 44 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 2,4-DDE Arsenic 2-methylnaphthalene 52 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 4,4'-DDE Cadmium 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 66 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 2,4'-DDT Chromium 2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene 77 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 4,4'-DDT Copper Acenaphthene 101 : 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl Iron Acenaphthylene 105 : 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl Cyclopentadienes Lead Anthracene 110 : 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl Aldrin Manganese Biphenyl 118 : 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl Dieldrin Mercury Dibenzothiophene 126 : 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl Endrin Nickel Fluorene 128 : 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl Selenium Naphthalene (CA as 128/266) Chlordanes Silver Phenanthrene 138 : 2,2\3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl Alpha-Chlordane Tin 153 : 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl Heptachlor Zinc Hiqh Molecular Weiaht 170: 2,2 , 1 3,3\4,4’ 1 5-heptachlorobiphenyl Heptachlor Epoxide PAHs 180: 2,2\3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl Trans-Nonachlor Benz(a)anthracene 187: 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl Miscellaneous Benzo(a)pyrene 195: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl Others Total Organic Benzo(b)fluoranthene 206: 2,2' 1 3,3',4,4',5,5' 1 6- Endosulfan 1 Carbon Benzo(k)fluoranthene nonachlorobiphenyl Endosulfan II Percent Fines Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 209 2 1 2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6 Endosulfan Sulfate Chrysene Dibenz(a,h)anthracene Fluoranthene lndeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene Pyrene decachlorobiphenyl Hexachlorobenzene Lindane (gamma-BHC) Mi rex Toxaphene 10 Figure 2.3.1. Close-up view of double Van Veen grab sampler used for bottom sampling. 2.4 Fish Tissue 2.4.1 EMAP The NOAA Ship McARTHUR II had only recently entered service and was not yet fitted out to conduct trawl operations at the time of the EMAP/NCA Assessment. Instead, hook-and-line fishing methods (Figure 2.4.1) were used in an effort to capture bottom fish for inspection of external pathologies and for subsequent analysis of chemical contaminants in tissues of selected species. Any captured fish were identified and inspected for gross external pathologies. Selected species, primarily the Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordid us), also were frozen for subsequent chemical contaminant body-burden analysis. Water depths less than 80 m were generally fished quite easily with hook-and-line. Fishing at night, in high currents and in deeper water depths was difficult and was often unproductive. In particular, during the California leg of the cruise, high winds and seas physically hindered the ability to keep fishing gear on the bottom at many stations. 2.4.2 Bight’03 While a variety offish studies were conducted as part of Bight’03 (Allan et al. 2007), there were no collections of benthic fish species for tissue contaminant analysis. 11 Figure 2.4.1. Hook-and-line fishing for fish tissue sampling aboard the NOAA ship mcarthur ii. 2.4.3 FRAM Groundfish Survey At the FRAM sites, bottom trawl operations were conducted by commercial fishing vessels chartered by NOAA. GPS and net-mounted sensors recorded time series of position, depth, temperature, and net dimension readings during trawling and other environmental observations were collected manually. At the conclusion of each trawl operation, species composition, fish sex, length, weight and other observations were gathered either manually or by various electronic equipment. Fish were frozen on board and transferred to EPA or state partners for analysis offish-tissue contaminants. 2.5 Quality Assurance 2.5.1 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control of Chemical Analyses The quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program for the NCA-West program is defined by the “Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): National Coastal Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan 2001-2004" (U.S. EPA 2001). A performance-based approach is used which, depending upon the compound, includes: 1) continuous laboratory evaluation through the use of Certified Reference Materials (CRMs), Laboratory Control Materials (LCMs), or Standard Reference Material (SRM); 2) laboratory spiked sample matrices; 3) laboratory reagent 12 blanks; 4) calibration standards; 5) analytical surrogates; and 6) laboratory and field replicates. The objective of this performance-based approach is to assist the laboratories in meeting desired Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) as defined in the EMAP Quality Assurance Project Plan (U.S. EPA 2001). A measure of whether the analytical procedure is sufficient to detect the analytes at environmental levels of concern is the Method Detection Limits (MDLs). Approved laboratories were expected to perform in general agreement with the target MDLs presented for NCA analytes (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA 2001). Because of analytical uncertainties close to the MDL, there is greater confidence with concentrations above the Reporting Limit (RL), which is the concentration of a substance in a matrix that can be reliably quantified during routine laboratory operations. Typically, RLs are 3-5 times the MDL. In these analyses, concentrations between the MDL and the RL were included in the calculation of the means or cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), while values below the MDL were set to zero. One measure of accuracy of the analytical procedure is the “relative accuracy,” which is based on computing the percent deviation of the laboratory’s value from the true or “accepted” values in CRMs, LCMs, or SRMs. The requirements for PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides are that the “Lab’s value should be within ± 30% of true value on average for all analytes, not to exceed ± 35% of true value for more than 30% of individual analytes” (U.S. EPA 2001). For metals and other inorganic compounds, the laboratory's value for each analyte should be within ± 20% of the true value of the CRM, LCM, or SRM. Another measure of accuracy is the percent recovery from matrix spikes. High percent recoveries in matrix spikes indicate that the analytical method and instruments can adequately quantify the analyte but do not evaluate the ability of the analytical procedure to extract the compound from natural tissue or sediment matrices. Measures of precision are the “relative percent differences” (RPD) or coefficient of variation (CV) of replicate samples, with the objective that the RPD or CV should be <30%. A post-analysis assessment of the success of the analytical laboratories in meeting NCA QA/QC requirements was conducted by the QA manager of the Western Ecology Division. The percent recovery from certified/standard materials, recovery from matrix spikes, and the average RPD for non-zero sample replicates and matrix spikes are given in Appendix Tables 3a - 3c and summarized here. 2.5.2 Metals in Sediments The recommended MDL (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) varies by metal, ranging from 0.01 pg/g for mercury to 1500 pg/g for aluminum. The MDLs for metals in sediment were met by each state with the following exceptions. Oregon had a MDL for antimony of 0.3 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.2 pg/g. Washington had a MDL for selenium of 0.84 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.1 pg/g. Oregon had a MDL for tin of 0.5 pg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 13 0.1 |jg/g. Washington had a high MDL for tin (20 |jg/g) however due to the method of calculating the MDL for this compound the RL (0.2 pg/g ) was lower than the MDL and close to the recommended detection level of 0.1 pg/g. California and Oregon met all the DQOs for the average deviation for all sediment metals, deviations for the individual metals, and for precision. California had a low accuracy for silver while Oregon had a low accuracy for tin. Washington met the precision and the matrix spike recovery DQOs for all metals. However, the average deviation for the 15 metals in Washington was 29.8%, exceeding the DQO of an average of 20% for metals. Failure to meet this DQO was due to the high deviance (>90%) for arsenic, selenium, and tin, and values for these metals should be interpreted cautiously for samples from Washington. 2.5.3 Organics in Sediments The recommended MDLs (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) are 10 ng/g for PAHs and 1 ng/g for PCBs, DDTs, and chlorinated pesticides. All three states met the MDL requirements for all the organic compounds with the exception of toxaphene in California which had a MDL of 10 ng/g. With the exception of PCBs for one of two standards used by Washington, all three states met the DQOs for recovery from matrix spikes and for precision for all the organic compounds. In terms of accuracy, California met the DQOs that the average deviation for all PCBs was within ±30% of the average value within the standard reference material as well as that 70% of the individual PCB congeners were measured within ±35% of the true values. Washington failed to meet the recommended average deviation from reference materials of <30% for PCBs. The major factor driving this failure was PCB congener 105 which had a percent deviation of 192%. When all the PCB congeners are considered, 83% of the individual congeners were within ±35% of true values. Oregon accuracy for PCBs was not as high as the other two states, with an average difference between the reported PCB values and the certified values of 115% or 71% if PCB 170 is excluded. Only three of the 19 PCB congeners were within ±35% of true value in the standards even though recoveries were high in the matrix spikes. In analyzing the sediment PCB data, the Oregon data should be interpreted cautiously as should the PCB 105 data from Washington. Both California and Oregon met the accuracy DQOs for sediment DDTs, though Oregon had poor accuracy with 2,4'-DDE. In Washington, all three of the DDTs measured in the standard reference material exceeded the value in the standard by >50%. In analyzing the sediment DDT data, the Washington values should be interpreted cautiously The standard reference materials used by the three states did not contain most of the non-DDT pesticides, so that it was necessary to use the recoveries in the matrix spikes as a measure of accuracy. In California, all the recoveries from the spiked matrix 14 was within 2-12% of the true value while in Oregon 10 of the 12 non-DDT pesticides were within ±35% of the value in the spiked matrix. Accuracy was not as good in Washington with 7 of the 12 pesticides within ±35% of the spiked value. Because recoveries from a spiked matrix is not as rigorous an evaluation of accuracy as those derived from natural matrices, small differences in concentrations should not be over interpreted. California met the accuracy DQOs for sediment PAHs. In Oregon, the average percent deviation from the true value for PAHs was 40% compared to the DQO of 30%. Eight of the 20 PAHs measured in the reference material deviated from the true values by > 35%, though only benzo(b)fluoranthene and dibenz(a,h)anthracene showed deviations > 50%. Washington also failed to meet the overall standard, with an average percent deviation for all PAHs of 44%. Nine of the 23 PAHs measured in Washington deviated by > 35% from the true value, with 6 of these compounds deviating by > 50% (2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene, 2,6-dimethylnaphthalene, acenaphthylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene, dibenzothiophene). The PAH data should be interpreted with consideration that Oregon and Washington did not achieve the average overall DQOs for PAHs and, in particular, data for compounds deviating by > 50% should be interpreted cautiously. 2.5.4 Metals in Tissue The recommended MDL (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) in tissue varies by metal, ranging from 0.01 pg/g for mercury to 50 pg/g for iron and zinc. All three states met the MDL recommendations for metals in tissue with the following exceptions: at 0.015 pg/g, Oregon’s MDL for mercury was slightly higher than the recommended detection of 0.01 pg/g. Both Oregon and Washington exceeded the recommended MDL for tin of 0.05 pg/g with detection limits of 0.15 pg/g and 0.2 - 0.22 pg/g respectively. All three states met the requirement for precision. Oregon and Washington met the DQO that recovery of metals from matrix spikes should be in the range of 50%-120% of the spiked concentration. However, California did not conduct any matrix spikes with tissues. In terms of accuracy, all three states met the average and individual DQOs, though the Washington standard reference material contained only 7 of the 13 metals. 2.5.5 Organics in Tissue The recommended MDLs (Table A7-2 in U.S. EPA, 2001) in tissue are 2.0 ng/g for both PCBs and the chlorinated pesticides. All three states met the MDL recommendations for organics in tissues with the following exceptions: Oregon had a MDL of 20 ng/g for endosulfan I, endosulfan II, and endosulfan sulfate. Oregon had a MDL of 200 ng/g for toxaphene while California had a detection limit of 10 ng/g. Oregon had a detection limit of 10 ng/g for endrin. All three states met the requirement for precision that the average RPD or CV for PCBs and pesticides in replicate samples be <30%. Oregon and Washington met the DQO that recovery of PCBs and pesticides from matrix spikes should be in the range of 50%-120% of the spiked concentration. 15 However, California did not conduct any matrix spikes with tissues. In terms of accuracy, California met the DQOs that the average deviation for all PCBs was within ±30% of the average value within the standard material as well as that 70% of the individual PCB congeners were measured within ±35% of true value. Both Washington and Oregon failed the DQO that the average deviation for the PCBs should be within ±30% of the average value in the standard. Additionally, only 3 of the 17 PCB congeners measured in Oregon and none of the 10 congeners measured in Washington were within ±35% of the value in the standard. Because of this low accuracy when assessed with standard reference materials, the tissue PCB data from Oregon and Washington need to be interpreted cautiously. In both California and Oregon, the average percent deviation of the four DDTs measured in the reference material was less than or equal to the DQO of 30%. However, the value for 4,4'-DDE in Oregon differed from the reference material by >50%. In comparison, all four of the DDTs measured in Washington deviated from the standard reference material by >_63%. Because of the low accuracy when assessed with standard reference materials, the tissue DDT data from Washington and the Oregon 4,4'-DDE values should be interpreted cautiously. California analyzed only two of the 14 non-DDT pesticides in the standard reference material and did not conduct matrix spikes with tissues as an alternate demonstration of recovery. Accuracy for the compounds measured in the reference material (dieldrin and trans-nonachlor) was good; however without values for the other pesticides it is not possible to assess the overall accuracy for the non-DDT pesticides in California. Washington and Oregon measured most of the non-DDT pesticides in either their reference material and/or in a spiked matrix. Average deviation for the pesticides in both states failed the DQO and deviations for most individual pesticides were > 35% from the reference material or the spiked matrix. Because of the uncertain accuracy in the California tissue values and the low accuracy in Oregon and Washington, the tissue values for the non-DDT pesticides should be used cautiously. 2.6 Statistical Data Analyses The use of a probability-based sampling design allows the development of estimates of the extent of area, with 95% confidence intervals, of the West Coast Shelf resource (30 - 120 m) corresponding to any specified value of the measured indicator. Analysis of indicator data was conducted by calculation of cumulative distribution functions (CDFs), an analysis approach that has been used extensively in other EMAP/NCA coastal studies (Summers et al. 1993, Strobel et al. 1995, Hyland et al. 1996, U.S. EPA 2004, 2006). A detailed discussion of methods for calculation of the CDFs used in EMAP analyses is provided in Diaz-Ramos et al. (1996). Results of the CDF analysis are presented in the present report primarily as the values of an indicator which correspond to given percentiles of the cumulative distribution. Where known 16 thresholds of concern exist, e.g. dissolved oxygen concentration < 2.3 mg/L, percentiles are reported for such values. Where thresholds of concern have not been developed, e.g., the benthic variables, indicator values that represent common reporting values for frequency distributions (e.g., the median, 90 th percentile, upper and lower quartiles), are presented. Data presented graphically in this report are primarily in the form of CDFs, pie charts, and simple bar graphs representing the mean +1 standard deviation of the indicator values. 2.7 Sampling, Data Integration, and Data Quality Issues The initial effort to develop a sampling frame representing only soft-sediment areas of the West Coast was generally a success, and a limited number of stations within the EMAP cruise effort had to be abandoned as a result of encountering rocky bottom. Primarily this occurred in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Section 2.1 above), and the frame definition was adjusted a posteriori to remove this area. There were two additional stations abandoned on the Washington shelf, no stations were abandoned on the Oregon shelf, and two stations were abandoned on the California shelf as a result of encountering rocky bottom. All abandoned stations were replaced with alternate stations from the initial sampling design. During the Oregon leg of the EMAP cruise, there were malfunctions of the CTD sensors which affected data for temperature, salinity, depth, and dissolved oxygen at numerous stations on the Oregon shelf. Questionable data due to equipment malfunction were flagged in the database and removed from data analyses. All Oregon Total Suspended Solids (TSS) data were flagged as questionable and removed from analyses. Filters for TSS appear to have been inadequately washed to remove salt crystals. While the Bight ’03 and NCA-West/EMAP studies were both designed as probability-based surveys, and the initial presumption was that data could be easily merged, the studies were executed and managed separately, and some data integration and compatibility issues arose as a result. For example, water-column nutrient samples were not collected at all Bight ’03 stations within the target depth range for the NCA- West/EMAP survey. For those samples collected, only nitrate and nitrite were analyzed, whereas the NCA-West/EMAP samples were analyzed for nitrate, nitrite and ammonium, and thus the studies were not directly comparable for total dissolved nitrogen. Tissue contaminant samples of demersal fishes were generally not collected under the Bight ’03 program. In the case of some multi-density categories, the Bight ’03 program was unable to sample the target number of primary stations called for in the sample design, and no alternate stations were occupied. Thus the multi-density category weights for the data analysis were adjusted based on the actual number of stations occupied. 17 3.0. Results and Discussion Presentation of results for individual indicators utilizes cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) representing the percentage area of the sample frame associated with given values of the indicator. In the case of some parameters, estimates of the percentage of shelf area above or below published benchmark values of the indicator are also presented. For example, estimates are made of the percentage of area having sediment contaminants in excess of corresponding Effects Range Median (ERM) or Effects Range Low (ERL) sediment quality guideline values of Long et al. (1995) where such values are available (see Section 3.2.2). In other cases where there are no relevant benchmarks available from the literature, common statistical percentiles (e.g., 50 th , 90 th , upper and lower quartiles) are used to assist in the interpretation of spatial patterns. 3.1 Sampling Locations A total of 146 stations from Cape Flattery, WA, to Pt. Conception, CA were successfully sampled as part of Cruise AR-03-01-NC (Figures 3.1.1- 3.1.5, Appendix Table 1). Data from one additional station off Santa Catalina Island that was a part of the NCA continental shelf assessment design were also provided by SCCWRP. An additional three stations within the NCA that were within the Channel Islands could not be sampled because of rocky bottom and were abandoned. Data from fifty stations were obtained within Washington waters. Data from fifty stations were also obtained within Oregon waters, although a sample for sediment infauna was not obtained at Station OR03-0010. Data from forty-seven stations were obtained in California waters (46 north of Pt. Conception and one off Santa Catalina Island). Although there was some evidence of washing of the sediments from the infaunal sample at Station CA03- 0140, the data were included in the analyses. Of those 147 stations, 57 occurred within National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) boundaries, including 30 in the Olympic Coast NMS, 12 in the Gulf of Farallones NMS, 14 in Monterey Bay NMS, and one in Cordell Bank NMS. A total of 110 additional stations were successfully sampled for some or all of the NCA parameters within the target depth range by participants in the Bight ’03 survey. These stations were located within the Channel Islands NMS (27 stations) and throughout the SCB (83 stations, Figures 3.1.5). The 83 stations were distributed in five multi-density categories that were part of the Bight ’03 survey design, with sample numbers per category ranging from 6 to 29 (Appendix Table 1). Rocky bottom was prevalent in the Channel Islands NMS and many stations in the original sampling design could not be sampled. Fish from a total of 91 stations within Washington, Oregon, and California waters (Fig. 3.1.6- 3.1.9) were collected for EPA for fish tissue contaminants as part of NOAA’s FRAM Groundfish survey. Due to resource limitations, samples from 63 stations were actually analyzed, while three of these stations were excluded when they 18 were found to have been sampled outside the target depth range (Appendix Table 2). WA 0 50100 200 Miles 2003 NCA Shelf Assessment Stations • Outside NMS Boundaries • Gulf of Farallones NMS • Monterey Bay NMS • Cordell Bank NMS • Olympic Coast NMS 2003 Southern CA Bight Assessment Stations • Bight ’03 • Channel Islands NMS Figure 3.1.1. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. Data from stations sampled as part of the Bight ’03 program that were within the target depth range were included in the NCA analyses. All stations within the Channel Islands were sampled by participants in the Bight ’03 program. 19 Figure 3.1.2. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of Washington, showing stations within or outside of the Olympic Coast NMS. Numbers are the last 4 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 20 Figure 3.1.3. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of Oregon. Numbers are the last 4 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 21 Figure 3.1.4. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along the continental shelf of California north of Pt. Conception. The region includes three NMS. Numbers are the last 4 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). 22 CD 0 03 _g I? 0 C O CD ° =6 CD ^ g> 03 _0 0 03 4= 03 C 0 0 0 52 CO Q) 0 .Q 0 C 0 C < = 0 ^ |> to CO O .5 o E to >P 03 > CJ £ c O 1- o 0 CM £ < 13 o ° ^ C 0 0 0 g 3 O C •4= o CD ^ ^ 0 CD O C c — o E ^ CD rC" 0 LL >4— M ~ O O C £ o D ~ O -Q ■C .CD 0 E ° i LO 0 ^ 0 CO o 0 i_ 13 CO EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1). Figure 3.1.6. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA. 24 Figure 3.1.7. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of Washington, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 2). 25 @ (69^ 100 Miles ~ O 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey Stations Figure 3.1.8. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of Oregon, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 2). 26 Figure 3.1.9. Distribution of sampling stations for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey along the continental shelf of northern California, from which fish tissue samples were collected for analysis by NCA. Numbers are the last 3 digits of the EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 2). 27 Bottom depth for the 257 stations sampled in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 28 m to 138 m. Four stations, all from the SCB sampled as part of the Bight ’03 study, exceeded the target frame depth of 120 m but were included in the analyses in order to obtain adequate sample numbers from some multi-density categories. The mean depth of the waters of the West Coast shelf sampled was 72.6 m (Figure 3.1.10). A variety of bottom types was encountered among the various stations. Along the Pacific coastline of Washington, the seabed was mostly fine sand, with ' a higher incidence of silt and clay in water depths greater than 60 m. Five stations in Washington could not be sampled due to the presence of hard bottom and thus were replaced with alternate sites from the sampling design. Three stations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca could not be sampled because they fell in an area of seabed composed of coarse gravel, cobbles and rock fragments. These stations were replaced with reserve sites along the Pacific coastline, outside the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and near the mouth of the Columbia River. Along the Oregon coastline, fine sand was also the most common bottom type encountered. The sediment collected during the California leg of the cruise was highly variable and included both fine sands and silty sediments. The highest percentages of fine sediments were found at California stations. Two stations along the California coastline had to be abandoned due to rocky conditions and were replaced with alternate stations. Further details on sediment composition are presented in Section 3.3.1 below. 28 Depth (m) Depth (m) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 All CA OR WA 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS Figure 3.1.10. Mean +1 SD station depths compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non¬ NMS sample locations. 29 3.2 Water Column Characteristics 3.2.1 Salinity Salinity in the surface waters of the West Coast shelf for the 140 stations for which data were obtained ranged from 21.2 to 34.0 psu. The 50 th percentile of area had a surface salinity of 33.3 psu, while the 90 th percentile had a salinity of 33.9 psu. An estimated 8% of area had a surface salinity of < 31 psu. The majority of stations with surface salinity < 31 psu were located off the mouth of the Columbia River or farther south along the Oregon coast, presumably within the plume from the Columbia River (Figure 3.2.1). Surface salinity was generally less than 33 psu to the north of Cape Blanco, Oregon, and greater than 33 psu to the south of Cape Blanco (Figure 3.2.1). Reflecting this pattern, mean surface salinities were slightly lower in Washington and Oregon than California (Figure 3.2.2 A), and slightly lower in the OCNMS as compared to the CA NMSs (Figure 3.2.2 B). Bottom salinity ranged only between 31.6 and 34.4 psu for the 164 stations for which data were obtained. The 50 th percentile of area had a bottom salinity of 33.9 psu, while the 90 th percentile had a salinity of 34.0 psu. An estimated 3.3% of the area of the shelf surveyed had a bottom salinity of < 33 psu, represented by seven stations all located within the northern region of the Washington shelf. There was virtually no difference in the mean bottom salinity among states or between NMS and non-NMS stations (Figure 3.2.3). 3.2.2 Water Temperature Temperature in the surface water of the West Coast shelf for the 140 stations for which data were obtained ranged from 8.5 °C to 19.9 °C. The 50 th percentile of area had a surface-water temperature of 11.9 °C, while the 90 th percentile had a surface water temperature of 13.5 °C. Mean surface-water temperatures were similar between Washington and Oregon, while the California average was several °C higher (Figure 3.2.4 A). Highest mean surface temperatures were observed in the CA non-NMS stations. The CA NMS stations were similar to the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.4 B), reflecting the fact that most measurements were obtained from the NMS off the central California coast, while temperature data were missing from the Channel Islands NMS. Temperature in the bottom water of the West Coast shelf for the 164 stations for which data were obtained ranged from 5.8 °C to 14.7 °C. The 50 th percentile of area had a bottom-water temperature of 7.8 °C, while the 90 th percentile had a bottom water temperature of 9.7 °C. Bottom-water temperatures for stations on the California coast were generally warmer by several °C than those from Oregon and Washington (Figure 3.2.5 A). The bottom-water temperatures for the CA NMS stations were slightly higher than the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.5 B) and probably would be much higher if temperature data from the 30 Channel Islands NMS were available to include in the CA NMS average. California non-NMS locations had the highest mean bottom-water temperature, resulting from the facts that many of the measurements were obtained within the Southern California Bight and that temperature data for NMSs in California were from more northerly locations exclusive of the Channel Islands NMS. Figure 3.2.1. Distribution of surface salinity values for the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003. 31 Surface Salinity (psu) Surface Salinity (psu) 40 OR WA 30 - 20 - 10 - A M&jlf m imsn*? HBB& •• I All Figure 3.2.2. Mean +1 SD surface salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non- NMS sample locations. 32 Bottom Salinity (psu) Bottom Salinity (psu) 40 B 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS Figure 3.2.3. Mean +1 SD bottom salinity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non¬ NMS sample locations. 33 Surface Temperature (°C) Surface Temperature (°C) 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 3.2.4. Mean +1 SD surface temperature compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 34 Bottom Temperature (°C) Bottom Temperature (°C) Figure 3.2.5. Mean +1 SD bottom temperature compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 35 3.2.3 Water-Column Stratification As an indicator of water-column stratification, an index of the variation between surface and bottom water densities was calculated from temperature and salinity data. The index (Ao t ) is the difference between the computed bottom and surface o t values, where o t is the density of a parcel of water with a given salinity and temperature relative to atmospheric pressure. The Ao t index for the 140 stations from waters of the West Coast shelf for which data were available ranged from 0.9 to 10.6. Approximately 30.5% of the area of waters of the West Coast shelf had Ao t index values greater than 2, indicating strong vertical stratification of the water column. The mean stratification index was greatest for waters off Washington and least for California waters (Figure 3.2.6). The mean stratification index was lowest for the CA NMS locations and less than half the mean for the CA non-NMS stations. During the sampling of the central California coast where three of the CA NMS are located, extremely high winds were encountered, and it is likely that wind induced upwelling greatly reduced water-column stratification in this region. The Bakun upwelling index reflects the intensity of large-scale, wind-induced coastal upwelling based on estimates of offshore Ekman transport driven by geostrophic wind stress. Index values for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 2003 (source: http://www.pfeg.noaa.gov/products/PFEL/modeled/indices/upwelling/NA/upwell_ menu_NA.html) showed that the peak upwelling period for the month occurred in the period June 17-24, exactly at the time when the CA NMS stations were being sampled (Figure 3.2.7). 3.2.4 Dissolved Oxygen The range of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in the surface waters of the West Coast shelf (data available for 140 stations) was 4.1 mg/L to 13.3 mg/L. U.S. EPA (2000a) proposed that a DO value below 2.3 mg/L is harmful to the survival and growth of marine animals based on data from the Virginian biogeographic province. A DO value of > 4.8 mg/L is considered the chronic protective value for growth, i.e. the ceiling above which DO conditions should support both survival and growth of most marine species. Values between 2.3 and 4.8 mg/L are potentially harmful to larval recruitment, depending on duration. Only approximately 2.6 % of the area of waters of the West Coast shelf had surface DO concentrations < 4.8 mg/L. The 50 th percentile of area had a surface-water DO concentration of 9.8 mg/L. Surface DO concentrations were higher in Washington and Oregon waters than in California and higher in the OC NMS than in the CA NMSs (Figure 3.2.8). Bottom-water DO concentrations region-wide ranged from 2.1 to 8.3 mg/L across the 140 stations with acceptable DO data. Unfortunately, an instrument 36 Ao, Act 5 A 4 - 3 - 2 - Figure 3.2.6. Mean +1 SD water-column stratification index (Ao t ) compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 37 Day of Month, June 2003 Figure 3.2.7. Bakun upwelling index for 36° N latitude for the West Coast in June 2003. cable problem resulted in a failure to collect DO data from many stations along the north and central Oregon coast. An estimated 94.3% of the shelf area had a bottom-water DO concentration < 4.8 mg/L and 6.6% of the area (6 of the 140 stations where DO data were available) had a bottom-water DO concentration < 2.3 mg/L. There was no geographic concentration of stations with bottom-water DO in this < 2.3 mg/L range (Figure 3.2.9). Stations with bottom-water DO > 4.8 mg/L were concentrated at the extreme southern and northern ends of the survey region. Mean bottom-water DO concentrations were lower at Oregon stations than for Washington and California locations (Figure 3.2.10 A). Mean bottom DO was lower at the CA NMS stations than at the CA non-NMS stations, presumably resulting from the strong upwelling occurring during the sampling period that moved deeper low-DO water into the area (Figure 3.2.10 B). Flypoxia on the continental shelf of the West Coast appears to be associated with upwelling conditions in the region, while severe hypoxic events in inshore shelf areas (< 70 m) may be associated with changes in cross-shelf current patterns (Grantham et al. 2004). It appears that the frequency of shelf hypoxia has increased in recent years, and that shelf anoxia has now been observed at inner-shelf stations within 2 km of the surf zone (Chan et al. 2008). 38 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Figure 3.2.8. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 39 125°0'0"W 120°0'0"W Figure 3.2.9. Distribution of bottom dissolved oxygen concentration values for the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003. 40 N.,0,0oSP NnO.OoOP N..0.0oS£ Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 3.2.10. Mean +1 SD bottom dissolved oxygen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 41 3.2.5 Total Suspended Solids The surface values for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 10 mg/L for the 137 stations with data. Because the TSS samples from Oregon were not properly processed, these data were not included in the present analysis. The 50 th percentile of the survey area had a TSS concentration of 4.0 mg/L, and the 90 th percentile of area corresponded to a TSS concentration of 7.4 mg/L. Mean TSS in surface waters was slightly higher for stations in Washington than for those in California (Figure 3.2.11 A). There was little difference in mean TSS between NMS and non-NMS locations (Figure 3.2.1 IB). 3.2.6 Transmissivity Transmissivity in the surface waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 13.7% to 98.9% across the 140 stations with acceptable data. The 50 th percentile of the survey area had transmissivity of 74.3%, and the 90 th percentile of area had a transmissivity of 86.8%. Mean transmissivity in surface waters was higher for stations in California than for those in Oregon and Washington and showed little difference between stations inside vs. outside NMSs (Figure 3.2.12). Transmissivity in the bottom waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 5.0% to 95.2% across the 175 stations with acceptable data. The 50 th percentile of the survey area had transmissivity of 85.6% and the 90 th percentile of area had a transmissivity of 91.6%. Mean transmissivity in bottom waters showed little difference among geographic regions or between NMS and non-NMS locations Figure 3.2.13). Across the West Coast shelf, bottom waters had relatively higher mean transmissivity than surface waters (Figures 3.2.12; 3.2.13). 3.2.7 Nutrients The surface-water concentration of nitrate + nitrite in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 546.6 pg/L at the 188 stations with data. The 50 th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a nitrate + nitrite concentration of 26.2 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of area characterized by a nitrate + nitrite concentration of 354 pg/L. The mean value of nitrate + nitrite concentration in surface waters was highest in California as compared to Washington and Oregon and three times higher in the CA NMS stations as compared to the CA non-NMS stations (Figure 3.2.14). The elevated nitrate + nitrite observed at the CA NMS stations is consistent with the presence of strong upwelling at these sites at the time of sampling. 42 Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) Total Suspended Solids (mg/L) 8 A 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 3.2.11. Mean +1 SD surface Total Suspended Solids compared among (A) all, California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non- NMS sample locations. Oregon data was not acceptable. 43 Surface Transmissivity (%) Surface Transmissivity (%) 100 B 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS Figure 3.2.12. Mean +1 SD surface transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 44 Bottom Transmissivity (%) Bottom Transmissivity (%) 120 A 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 - All CA OR WA Figure 3.2.13. Mean +1 SD bottom transmissivity compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 45 The surface-water concentration of ammonium in waters of the West Coast shelf, exclusive of the waters of the SCB for which ammonium was not analyzed, ranged from 0 to 50 (jg/L at the 146 stations for which data were available. The 50 th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had an ammonium concentration of 2.2 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of total area characterized by an ammonium concentration of 21.4 pg/L. The mean value of ammonium in surface waters was highest in California and Oregon and lowest in Washington, with the lowest mean concentration of ammonium being found from stations sampled in the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.15). The surface-water concentration of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN: nitrogen as nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) in waters of the West Coast shelf, exclusive of the waters of the SCB for which ammonium was not analyzed, ranged from 0.1 to 596.7 pg/L for the 146 stations with data. The 50 th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a DIN concentration of 47.4 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of total area characterized by a DIN concentration of 367 pg/L. The mean value of DIN concentration in surface waters was highest in California as compared to Washington and Oregon (Figure 3.2.16 A). DIN concentration for the CA NMSs was slightly higher than for the CA non-NMS stations, but the difference was much smaller than was the case for nitrate + nitrite only (Figure 3.2.16 B). The surface-water concentration of orthophosphate in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 80.1 pg/L for the 188 stations with data. The 50 th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had an orthophosphate concentration of 11.4 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of total estuarine area characterized by a concentration of 61 pg/L. The mean value of orthophosphate concentration in surface waters was higher in California than in Washington and Oregon, where values were similar (Figure 3.2.17 A). Mean orthophosphate concentration in surface waters of the CA NMSs was more than three times greater than the mean value for the OCNMS and the non-NMS areas of the shelf (Figure 3.2.17 B). The elevated orthophosphate values are again consistent with the occurrence of upwelling during sampling of the CA NMS stations. The ratio of total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (nitrogen as nitrate + nitrite + ammonium) concentration to total orthophosphate concentration was calculated as an indicator of which nutrient may be controlling primary production. A ratio above 16 is generally considered indicative of phosphorus limitation, and a ratio below 16 is considered indicative of nitrogen limitation (Geider and La Roche 2002). The N/P ratio ranged from 7.9 to 24.0, across the 146 stations in waters of the West Coast shelf where sufficient measurements were collected to compute the ratio. Approximately 93% of area of the West Coast shelf had N/P values <16. The 50 th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a ratio of 12.8, while the 90 th percentile of area had a ratio of 14.6. The mean N/P values were similar for the three states, while that for the OCNMS 46 was less than half that of the CA NMS and non-NMS areas (Figure 3.2.18). Examination of the Bakun upwelling index at 48° N shows that there was downwelling occurring in the region of the OCNMS just prior to the sampling at this location, and only weak upwelling occurring during the sampling period. Silicate concentrations of water samples were analyzed by the states of Washington and California (exclusive of the SCB), but not Oregon. Therefore there were only 97 sample sites with silicate data available. The surface-water concentration of silicate in waters of the West Coast shelf within Washington and California ranged from 0 to 2040.5 pg/L. The 50 th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a silicate concentration of 307 pg/L, with the 90 th percentile of area characterized by a concentration of 973 pg/L. The mean silicate concentration for surface waters was similar between Washington and California locations, while the mean silicate concentration for the CA NMSs was approximately twice that of the OCNMS and the non-NMS locations (Figure 3.2.19) . These results are again consistent with the spatial patterns of upwelling on the shelf during the sampling period. 3.2.8 Chlorophyll a The surface-water concentration of chlorophyll a for the 187 stations sampled in waters of the West Coast shelf ranged from 0 to 28 pg/L (Figure 3.2.20) . The 50 th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a chlorophyll a concentration of 3.9 pg/L, while the 90 th percentile had a chlorophyll a concentration of 14.5 pg/L. The mean chlorophyll a concentration for surface waters in California was less than half that of locations in Washington and Oregon locations (Figure 3.2.20 A). The lowest mean chlorophyll a concentration was for the CA non-NMS locations, while the mean for the CA NMS locations was approximately 60% of that found in the OCNMS (Figure 3.2.20 B). 47 Surface nitrate + nitrite (f.ig/L) Surface nitrate + nitrite (|.ig/L) 400 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 3.2.14. Mean +1 SD surface nitrate + nitrite compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 48 Surface Ammonia (jag/L) Surface Ammonia (jug/L) 30 20 10 0 Figure 3.2.15. Mean +1 SD surface ammonium compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. SCB stations not included due to lack of ammonium data. B CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 49 Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (|.ig/L) Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (ng/L) 400 A 300 - 400 300 200 100 0 CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS Figure 3.2.16. Mean +1 SD surface dissolved inorganic nitrogen compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. California Bight stations not included due to lack of ammonium data. 50 Surface Orthophosphate (pg/L) Surface Orthophosphate (pg/L) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 3.2.17. Mean +1 SD surface orthophosphate compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. B CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS 51 d/N d/N B 30 - 20 - CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS Figure 3.2.18. Mean +1 SD N/P ratio in surface waters compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. California Bight stations not included due to lack of ammonium data. 52 Surface Silicate (fig/L) Surface Silicate (j_ig/L) 800 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Figure 3.2.19. Mean +1 SD surface silicate concentration compared among (A) all, California, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington non-NMS sample locations. Silicate was not measured at stations in Oregon or in the SCB (see text). 53 Surface Chlorophyll a (pg/L) Surface Chlorophyll a (pg/L) 20 A 15 - 10 - 5 - 0 WA 20 15 10 5 0 Figure 3.2.20. Mean +1 SD surface chlorophyll a concentration compared among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 54 3.3 Sediment Quality Table 3.3.1 provides a summary of the means and ranges of sediment physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrations for all West Coast stations combined as well as by individual states (CA, Oregon, Washington) and National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-sanctuary status. The latter comparison includes California sanctuaries (Channel Islands NMS, Monterrey Bay NMS, Gulf of the Farallones NMS, and Cordell Bank NMS) vs. non-sanctuary stations in California and stations in the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS) vs. non-sanctuary stations in Oregon and Washington. Appendix 4 also provides a breakdown of this information by individual station. Sediment- quality data were available at 257 stations throughout the region for chemical contaminant variables, 255 stations for sediment grain size, and 256 stations for TOC. 3.3.1 Sediment Composition: Grain Size and TOC The percentage of silt-clay in sediments ranged from 0.5% to 98.7% region-wide (Table 3.3.1, Fig. 3.3.1). Approximately 44% of the overall survey area had sediments composed of sands (< 20% silt-clay), 47% was composed of intermediate muddy sands (20-80% silt-clay), and 9% was composed of muds (> 80% silt-clay). All mud sediments (> 80% silt-clay) occurred in California. The majority of California sediments consisted of intermediate muddy sands, while Oregon and Washington were dominated by sands (Fig. 3.3.2). Percent total organic carbon (TOC) in sediments exhibited a wide range (0.0% to 7.6%) throughout the region (Table 3.3.1, Fig. 3.3.3). The majority of the survey area (97%) had relatively low TOC levels of < 2%, while a small portion (< 1%), consisting of two sites in California, had high TOC levels (> 5%; Fig. 3.3.4). About 2% of the survey area (represented by 10 sites) had intermediate levels of TOC (2-5%). In comparison, estuarine habitats along the U.S. West Coast have high levels of TOC in similarly limited areas (< 1%) and intermediate levels of TOC over slightly broader areas (11% of the estuarine area) (U.S. EPA 2004). The upper and lower thresholds of 2% and 5% used here for evaluating the biological significance of sediment TOC content are adopted from earlier EPA National Coastal Condition Reports (e.g., U.S. EPA 2004). Hyland et al. (2005) also identified TOC concentrations > 3.6% (36 mg/g) as an upper range associated with a high risk of degraded benthic condition from multiple coastal areas around the world. The portion of the present survey area with TOC in excess of this slightly more conservative cut point also was relatively small (< 1%) and limited to California. The three sites in California with sediment TOC content in excess of either upper threshold (3.6% or 5%) were in the Channel Islands NMS (CINMS) (Fig. 3.3.4, Appendix 4). The cause of the elevated TOC at these sites is unknown at this time. 55 Table 3.3.1. Comparison of sediment physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrations for (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) vs. non-NMS. 0 ra| c 0 C X O I— c/) 0 o> c CD CH Q I— C/5 0 05| c 0 cr < o O I— CO 0 o> c 0 x Q i— 05 0 . 0 < Q CO LO ■'tf CM I s - id d "<— T— CD CO 00 05 CD T— LO i CM T— 00 LO CNI o LO CD T— 1 1 d CD 1 i d CM CM CD 00 T— CM T“ id CM CM I LO CM i id 05 i i 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i o d cd o CM LO CM 0 0 CO o o o o o o o o o o O _ __^ ,—. I s - -—. ^^ ^ 00 ^ r-_ CO CO «s. —V ^^ ^ ^-N /^N. ^-V --- CM CO ■>- 53- CO V —) I s - 05 CM CO I s - 00 CM 00 d T— co S- ^^ o T— CM LO cd CO r— T— id I s - I s - — T— X— T— CM — 1 —' ■ ' 1 1 1 ' '— 1 05 CO T— CM C\i d 2- co d LO co CD CD LO CO -— I s - I s - CO CD d LO o CD i- o d CD d ' r - T_ cd id cd 05 T_ id CD LO 05 CD CD ^ 05 d LO 05 cd CM CO d 00 T— . CO T— T— 1 T— 1 1 T— LO 1 1 d d LO o o O o o o o o o o O 1 05 CM 1 d

i o d d o T- CO 00 o o V- o o o o o o o o o o o °o CO $2 CD ^ CM d CD h- 05 d 05 d oo d •o- i o o- LO CD 00 Tt 0 CD N 05 CM C\l CO I o o o I o CD 05 ^ CM O CM CO Tf t- cd CM CO CO 05 CM CO ^ ^OOIMO r-r-iniOT- o o o o I o o I o -'t d 00 CO CO CM^d ID LO CD 00 CM CD o o oooooooooooooooo : cm co T ~ CD O T_ T ~ T_ o O LO o o o o O co I s - 00 d 00 CO CM CD r- o 00 05 LO 05 •d 05 CM d CM CD 05 Tt o d CM d d 1 T— d i I s - 1 d CM 1 T— CM d CD CM 1 i CM 1 1 i CM 1 1 1 i i r— o o CD o T_ o O I s - 0 0 o o o ocT oT , — . Jm r4 ^ -s. 1 C\ LO ^^ ^^ NJ CM CM CD CO 05 T_ T— ro ^ CO xv ^ I s - CM LO 1 ' CM d s — d d O s -' CM CM d I s - I s - CM ■—' '—^ CD CO -—■ —' I s - -—- -— ^^ -—^ -—■ 05 LO d 00 t-; X 00 05 CM r-; LO CO cd d T_ CD d o d d o CM CM LO co I s - CD 00 d 00 CO 05 CD I s -’ o 00 05 LO 05 d 05 CM d CM CD 05 o d d d 1 T— d 1 I s - i d CM 1 t- CM CO M" CD LO 1 i CM 1 i i CM i i i i d o o CD o o O I s - 0 0 o O o CM CO -—X CM id ^^ ^^ r— _ CO ^^ ^^ ^ ( —'i X-—V ^^ ^—v ^^ ^ v CM LO 1 LO 00 T_ T_ °2 co I s - 05 CM CM 05 1 CM o --- ■- d d o ^ T— T— T— 2 2 I s - s —^ ■—■ CM T — -— ■—■ ^ CD -— 1 -— '-- I s - d CM CO s - . T— CD Tf ’sf CM LO co •d d CD 00 o o uo d d d CM CM ^ s ^ 05 ^ ^ I s - O ^.rfCO^t CO LO CD CO CD h- CO CO CM CM CD cd °9 d cd o lo ^r 00 LO CM 05 JoJd^^ ^ PJo £ ^ ^ cm td 53-" "" 2^"^co oo cm CM 00 ■'t ■M" CM LO O CD I s - CM 05 LO O CO ^ I s - CD^t^J-^t'O' ■M" LO CD CO CD O O O O O - -2 E g, ® g « .2 rn .2 ^ E E E D E o CD 0 O u_ w 0) -o O 0 ro E 0 o I- o' ^ < O UU 0 D 2 ® o CD C o S I = ,E C/5 N c 0 CD Q. 0 C 0 o < 0 c 0 >> 0 ■£ c x: 0 Q- o 0 CD 0 C 0 o 0 0 c 0 o 0 5< cl Q- 0 c 0 c 0 0 c 0 0 05.25 0 a $ £ Q. 0 t= U C < < ^ 0 So' N N C C 0 0 CD CD 0 c o 0 N CD c >> 0 0 0 ® ■C i ■= c 0 0 0 C C 0 0) J= o D ODE x: 5 0 LL CM B 0 ■c c Q. 0 0 XI Z CL 0 o o .2 o _0 o o 0 o E 0 X < CL 0 >, CL & O o Jlh oo d d i i o o CM d t- 2 d o o o i i o o o o o o I s - id o o I s - 05 05 CO CM i i o o ^ ■'t O T- 00 05 CO CM 00 I s - LO 05 I s - LO I s - LO O O I s - 05 05 CO CM ) O o o o o o O o O ^—- -—- oT oT 2 I s - CM I s - d 00 05 rs \T co cb CM 05 CM . CO O) T— ^— 2 2 > T— 00 05 --^ -—' " M - s — '—' 00 o CO CO CD ! d CD CM I s - d CO 00 CD CD ■ 00 d d LO CM I s - CO O Q 0 o LLl Q Q o o o o o i o o o LO CD ^r oo d LO CD LO d r^ CM 0 CD o CL 0 o (y) i & Z 03 § g < ^ ch 3 O c 03 0 0 CJ> c rn 0 ^ x Q I— CO c ro 0 O o CO o^l | 0 4 x c o c -— < O Q 1— CO c 0 0 0 . 0 CD Q h- lo T — i . rx. o ci m- o o 00 LO T - IX- 3 co oo i LO 00 T- 00 3^ o CO CM cd cd LO cd 03 CNJ oo lo i 00 t- h- LO LO 03 M" 1 1 cd 3 CD03 I , 00 CNJ o o m- 3 CO LO 3 CM CO 00 I I I o o o I o oo 00 03 '— CO CM ^ T~ O 03 ^ ^ O O 00 T- '-" T_ LO T- T- T- o O LO 00 LO LO 00 T- O ^T- ^ CM 0 N cd cd cd t- 00 M- CM |x~ LO LO T— T— cd • 00 CD |x- 00 , CM CO rx- CM CD M" T— 1 1 cd oo i ■ cd CM r— LO id 1 LO ™ ■ 3 00 CD 1 1 03 i 1 1 1 o cd 00 O CM cd 0 0 CO O o o o ^^ ^_ CM CO ,-s —- CM CM ^^ ^^ f". ,— ^—, -- O’ ^ ° 0 c 0 o 0 0 SI o "0 o '(f) > JZ 0. vO c/5 CD c Oil O 03 03 o 3 £ V) ® — (!) E o E ■O 0 E o E o < o o o 0 Q--o S- 0 o (D E § o 0 -Z c 3 n ^ 0 0)^3 i err " Q. Q. 0 0 0 o C c 0 0 o c 0 o 0 c 0 o 0 l_ JZ £ 0 c 0 £ >> C Q. 3 o' N N c c 0 0 0 c 0 0 JO 0 c 0 o 0 i. jz c 3 jz o N c 0 o -0 3 c 0 0 c 0 0 Q. 0 _c re -4—» 0 X < £ 03 0 X < X £ 03 ■0 0 c 0 £ G)< < ■4—» jo E =3 o 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 0 Cumulative Percent 95% Confidence Interval 0 20 40 60 80 100 Fines Figure 3.3.1. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent fines (silt/clay). 58 Percent Fines Percent Fines 70 A. 60 - 50 - Percent of Area with Silt/Clay: < 20 % 20 - 80% > 80% Figure 3.3.2. Comparison of sediment percent silt/clay (mean + 1 SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations. 59 2.0 5.0 100 05 (D l— < ■*—> C. 0) o l_ (D CL (D > '-t—i> TO E =3 o 80 60 40 20 Total Organic Carbon (%) Figure 3.3.3. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC). 60 Percent TOC Percent TOC Percent of Area with TOC: 1 1 < 2 % r i 2 - 5% Washington Figure 3.3.4. Comparison of sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC, mean + 1 SD) by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations. 61 3.3.2 Sediment Contaminants: Metals and Organics Effects Range-Low (ERL) and Effects Range-Median (ERM) sediment quality guideline (SQGs) values from Long et al. (1995) were used to help in interpreting the biological significance of observed chemical contaminant levels in sediments. ERL values are lower-threshold bioeffect limits, below which adverse effects of the contaminants on sediment-dwelling organisms are not expected to occur. In contrast, ERM values represent mid-range concentrations of chemicals above which adverse effects are more likely to occur. A list of 28 chemicals, or chemical groups, for which ERL and ERM guidelines have been developed is provided in Table 3.3.2 along with the corresponding SQG values (from Long et al. 1995). Nickel was excluded from the present assessment because the SQG values have a low reliability for West Coast conditions, where naturally high crustal concentrations of the metal exist (Long et al. 1995, Long et al. 2000). Lauenstein et al. (2000) also found historical background concentrations of nickel in sediment cores along the West Coast in a range of 35-70 pg/g, which bracket the nickel ERM value of 51.6 pg/g. Any site with one or more chemicals (other than nickel) that exceeded corresponding ERM values was rated as having poor sediment quality, any site with five or more chemicals between corresponding ERL and ERM values was rated as fair, and any site that had less than five ERLs exceeded and no ERMs exceeded was rated as good (sensu U.S. EPA 2004). Sediments throughout the shelf survey area were relatively uncontaminated except for a group of stations in the SCB. Overall, about 99% of the total survey area (represented by 230 stations) had a rating of good, < 1% (represented by seven stations) had fair conditions with > 5 chemicals in excess of ERL values, and < 1% (represented by 22 stations) had poor conditions with > 1 chemical in excess of the higher-threshold ERM values (Fig. 3.3.5). The pesticides 4,4'-DDE and total DDT were the only two contaminants that exceeded corresponding ERM values (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The ERM for total DDT was exceeded at 17 stations (representing < 1% of the overall survey area) and the ERM for 4,4'-DDE was exceeded at 22 stations (representing < 1% of the overall survey area). All of these sites were in California near Los Angeles. Total DDT and 4,4'-DDE were found in excess of the lower-threshold ERL values at 41 and 31 stations respectively, all of which again were in California, mostly in the Los Angeles area (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4; Figs. 3.3.6, 3.3.7). Ten other contaminants, including seven metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ag, Zn), 2-methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, and total PCBs were found at moderate concentrations in excess of corresponding, lower-threshold ERL values (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The most prevalent in terms of area were chromium (31%), arsenic (8%), 2-methylnaphthalene (6%), cadmium (5%), and mercury (4%). The 2-methylnaphthalene and mercury exceedances were limited entirely to California. The mercury exceedances were all at non-sanctuary sites in California, particularly in the Los Angeles area (Fig. 3.3.8), while the 2- methylnaphthalene exceedances were conspicuously grouped around the 62 CINMS (Fig. 3.3.9). Chromium ERL exceedances were much more widespread, with sediments exceeding the ERL value at sites along all three states (Fig. 3.3.10). Oregon had the highest incidence: 30 of 50 stations, representing 60% of the total survey area (Tables 3.3.3, 3.3.4). The highest concentration (296.5 pg/g) and highest mean concentration (129.5 pg/g) also occurred off Oregon (Table 3.3.1). Chromium is naturally present in soils in the Pacific Northwest Coast range. Chromium was originally mined from black sand deposits along the Oregon coast in Coos County, and a low-grade ore was mined in the 1940’s to 1950’s in Oregon and northern California, and to a lesser extent in Washington, under a federal stockpiling program (Baber et al. 1959). A report by EPA Region X on the ecological condition of the estuaries of Oregon and Washington (Hayslip et al. 2006) actually excluded chromium, as well as nickel and copper, from its aggregate sediment contamination indicator. Chromium was excluded in that report because the natural concentration of this metal in the earth’s crust and marine shales (100 and 90 pg/g, respectively; Krauskopf and Bird 1995) is greater than the ERL (81 pg/g). With a few exceptions, sediments within West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries (NMSs) were relatively uncontaminated (Tables 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.4; Fig. 3.3.5). The OCNMS had no chemicals in excess of ERM values and only two chemicals, chromium and silver, were found in excess of the lower-threshold ERL values (Table 3.3.2). There were only four of 30 stations in the OCNMS with such chromium exceedances, compared to 31 of 70 stations in nearby non¬ sanctuary waters off the coast of Washington and Oregon. Similarly, CINMS had no chemicals in excess of ERM values. Three metals (As, Cd, Cr), 2- methylnaphthalene, low molecular weight PAHs, total DDT, and 4,4'-DDE were found at moderate concentrations, between corresponding ERL and ERM values, at multiple sites within the CINMS. Flowever, total DDT, 4,4'-DDE, and chromium ERL exceedances were notably less prevalent at CINMS than in non-sanctuary waters of California (Figs. 3.3.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.10). DDT and its metabolites are well known legacy pesticides in the SCB, and the distributions seen in this survey reflect patterns seen in previous years (Schiff 2000, Schiff et al. 2006). In contrast, 2-methylnaphthalene contamination, albeit at moderately low levels (between ERL and ERM values), was much more prevalent in sediments at the CINMS compared to non-sanctuary waters off the coast of California. For example, the ERL value was exceeded at 19 of the 27 CINMS stations, compared to only 3 of 103 stations in non-sanctuary waters (Table 3.3.4, Fig. 3.3.9). Schiff et al. (2006) attribute such elevated levels of PAHs in the California region to proximity of oil production platforms and reduced degradation of the compounds under cold water conditions. However, this does not explain the higher incidence of 2-methylnaphthalene contamination specifically around CINMS relative to neighboring non-sanctuary waters in the region. 63 In comparison to the present sediment quality ratings for offshore waters (98% of the total survey area rated as good, < 1% rated as fair, and < 1% rated as poor), estuarine habitats along the West Coast show a relatively higher incidence of sediment contamination, particularly in the moderate concentration ranges. For example, U.S. EPA (2004), based on the same contaminants and methods, found 79% of estuarine sediments along the West Coast of the U.S. in good condition, 18% in fair condition, and 3% in poor condition. While only two contaminants (4,4'-DDE and total DDT) were found in excess of ERM guideline values in the present offshore study, several contaminants were found above ERM levels in adjacent estuaries, including chromium, mercury, copper, DDT, several PAHs, and PCBs. In the present offshore survey, all stations where ERM values were exceeded (22 stations) were in California near Los Angeles. In the estuarine assessment, there were 24 stations where ERMs were exceeded, including 20 in California (majority in the San Francisco estuary and Los Angeles Harbor area) and four in Washington (three in the Puget Sound system and one in the Columbia River). Table 3.3.2. ERM and ERL guidance values in sediments (Long et al. 1995). Metals (pg/g) ERL ERM Arsenic 8.2 70 Cadmium 1.2 9.6 Chromium 81 370 Copper 34 270 Lead 46.7 218 Mercury 0.15 0.71 Nickel 20.9 51.6 Silver 1 3.7 Zinc 150 410 Organics (ng/g) ERL ERM Acenaphthene 16 500 Acenaphthylene 44 640 Anthracene 85.3 1100 Fluorene 19 540 2-Methylnaphthalene 70 670 Naphthalene 160 2100 Phenanthrene 240 1500 Benzo(a)anthracene 261 1600 Benzo(a)pyrene 430 1600 Chrysene 384 2800 Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene 63.4 260 Fluoranthene 600 5100 Pyrene 665 2600 Low molecular weight PAHs 552 3160 High molecular weight PAHS 1700 9600 Total PAHs 4020 44800 4,4-DDE 2.2 27 Total DDT 1.58 46.1 Total PCBs 22.7 180 64 Table 3.3.3. Comparison of the % area of sediments with chemical contaminants in excess of corresponding ERL and ERM sediment quality guidelines. c ^ O QC C C/5 LU £ ^ 9 Z _I < 01 ^ LU c/5 o o c/5 c o c < O C/5 < O 01 o < o 01 LU on UJ a: UJ on UJ on UJ on LU on LU on LU on LU on LU on LU on LU on LU on LU 0 CD C < ooooooo o o ooo CO T- s T- V xfr OOT-O o o ooo ooooooo o o ooo o o £2 o o co o o o ooo ooooooo o o T- O T— to T— T— r— T— V ^ V V V V V CO !£? 00 o o o o ^ ^ co v ^ v v JO cn 3 y % <15 © CO 05 If CD -C o o 00 CO CO 7 CO v v ooooooo o o y o CO o CO CD c © CD CN CM O CO V ooooooo o o ooo CO CM CM O ooooooo o o ooo 'T o r o o o o o ooo ooooooo o o ooo ? CM § o o o o o o ooo ooooooo o o 00 I s - V V V 0-00., C^-CD_C CD o. Jr > ¥ CD 0)5 Q-$o o O — C Q) “=7 CD O O ^ (/) N q c ^ <= -J X © Q_ o *- o _c © O) O - 0) E $ Lf5 CD cr LU ~o c TO _l DC LU CD c ~o c o Q_ C/5 0 i_ i_ O o CO CO 0 o X 0 CO -4—< c CD c E TO c o o TO o E 0 _c o JZ 0 c o -4—» TO -4—> 0 0 JD E I CO 0) J 5 TO > ° 0 c c O — 0 0 •C "O TO '5 g- CD o CD * & 00 -£ CO 0 0 E m ^ TO 0 I- 0 c 2 O CT c - LU cr o i < CO o o co c o c < O CO < o CO cr O < o CD > CD C < cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU cr LU o o o o o o o O j ' O O ' O o o o o o o o O O ^ O O T- o o o o o o o o ID CD CO ^ "3- o o o o o o o CM 05 CO O O O O o o o o o o o OJOIOOOCNO o o o o o o o CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o CD CD 'si- CCD rsi CD UO UJ CM D> D) 3 2 CO c CD CD CO o > CO CD CM CM CM CM CO O O O O O O o o o o o o CM t— CM CO 00 CO CM CO o o o CO CO o o o o o o o o o o o o o r-- cm T- CM M- CO 00 CM -r- CM M- CO CO II CD _ c X co CD *— 5 ERL concentrations exceeded ■ > 1 ERM concentration exceeded California Oregon Washington Figure 3.3.5. Comparison of the spatial extent of sediment contamination by (A) West Coast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuary (NMS) vs. non-NMS stations. 67 Figure 3.3.9. Distribution of 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations in sediments along the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 70 Chromium (jjg/g) O <81 O 81 - 370 • >370 Figure 3.3.10. Distribution of chromium concentrations in sediments along the western U.S. continental shelf relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 71 3.4 Fish Tissue Contaminants Concentrations of a suite of metals, PCBs, and pesticides (Table 2.3.1) were measured in whole fish collected from both the EMAP/NCA-West and FRAM groundfish surveys. All fish selected for analysis were flatfish (Pleuronectiformes) because of their commercial value and because of their potential contact with sediment-associated contaminants due to their affinity to bottom habitats. Because fish were collected from only about a third of all sites in the probabilistic EMAP/NCA- West survey, and because FRAM survey sites were not probability-based, CDFs and spatial estimates of condition could not be computed for fish-tissue contaminants. Patterns of contaminant concentrations throughout the region and the incidence of contaminant levels in excess of human-health guidelines are presented however. Concentrations of selected contaminants in whole fish were compared with risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers, using non-cancer (systemic) health endpoints associated with the consumption of four 8-oz meals per month (Table 3.4.1), which is the comparison basis used in National Coastal Condition Reports (U.S. EPA 2000b, 2001,2004, 2006). It is important to keep in mind that the guidelines used are for fish fillets, while the concentrations measured in the EMAP/NCA-West and FRAM surveys are for whole fish. Data presented here are for the parameters of interest in NCCR, including several metals, total PAH, total DDT and several other pesticides, including chlordane, dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, lindane, mirex, and toxaphene (Table 3.4.1). 3.4.1 EMAP Collection of targeted flatfish, based on hook-and-line methods, was successful at only 50 of the 147 EMAP/NCA-West stations sampled. Fish were collected from 21 stations in Washington, 20 in Oregon and nine in California. No benthic fish were collected from the SCB as part of the EMAP/NCA-West survey. Eight of the nine California samples, 13 of the 21 Washington samples, and none of the Oregon samples were collected in National Marine Sanctuaries. Species selected for analysis included Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordid us), speckled sanddab ( Citharichthys stigmaeus), butter sole (Isopsetta isolepis), and Dover sole (■Microstomus pacificus). No fish that were collected exhibited evidence of obvious pathological disorders based on visual inspections in the field. Contaminants were measured in 55 composites, including some laboratory duplicates for QA, of flatfish tissue from the 50 stations. Results are summarized in Tables 3.4.2 and 3.4.3. Cadmium - The lower cadmium non-cancer health-risk guideline value was exceeded in at least one composite at nine stations, including six of the 20 stations where fish were collected in Oregon (OR03-0006, 0009, 0010, 0017, 0039 and 0040; Fig. 3.1.3) and three of the nine stations in California (CA03-0052, 0060 and 0064; Fig. 3.1.4). While the stations from Oregon were not in a NMS, the three stations in California were within the Monterey Bay and Gulf of Farallones NMSs. 72 Tissue cadmium levels were not strongly correlated with sediment cadmium levels at corresponding stations (Fig. 3.4.1, r 2 = 0.049). Tissue vs Sediment Cadmium 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 Sediment concentration - ug/g 1.4 1.6 Figure 3.4.1. Tissue vs. sediment concentration of cadmium at corresponding stations from the EMAP/NCA-West 2003 shelf survey including samples from Washington, Oregon and California. Other parameters - The lower value in the range of non-cancer health-risk guideline values for total PCB was exceeded at one of 21 stations in Washington (WA03-0086), just north of the mouth of the Columbia River (Fig. 3.1.2). This observation may have resulted from the bioaccumulation of PCB in fish from within the Columbia River, and subsequent migration out of the estuary. The health-risk guideline values for all metals other than cadmium and all pesticides measured were not exceeded in fish collected in the EMAP/NCA-West survey. Data for all stations and parameters are summarized in Table 3.4.2 by state and in Table 3.4.3 by NMS vs. non-NMS status. 73 Table 3.4.1. Risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishers 3 Metals pg/g Concentration Range 0 Health Endpoint Arsenic (inorganic) 0 3.5-7.0 Non-cancer Cadmium 0.35-0.70 Non-cancer Mercury (methyl) d 0.12-0.23 Non-cancer Selenium 5.9-12.0 Non-cancer Organics ng/g Chlordane 590-1200 Non-cancer DDT (total) 59-120 Non-cancer Dieldrin 59-120 Non-cancer Endosulfan 7000-14000 Non-cancer Endrin 350-700 Non-cancer Heptachlor Epoxide 15-31 Non-cancer Hexachlorobenzene 940-1900 Non-cancer Lindane 350-700 Non-cancer Mi rex 230-470 Non-cancer Toxaphene 290-590 Non-cancer PCB (total) a 1-.. 1 1 l-n A AAAAI 23-47 Non-cancer 3 From U.S. EPA 2000b L Range of concentrations associated with non-cancer health endpoint risk for consumption of four 8-oz meals per month c Inorganic arsenic estimated as 2% of total arsenic d U.S. EPA 2000b recommends analyzing for total mercury with the use of a conservative assumption that all mercury is present as methylmercury, and thus comparison is made to the methylmercury risk based guideline. 74 Table 3.4.2. Comparison by state of the concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West. An asterisk indicates that the lower level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for this contaminant in at least one fish composite sample. CD OD| C CD od c CD CD —* v —■" 00 v " v —•" ^^ —- o T— LO O) T~ T- LO o c\i CM CM o o d d d T ” d d d d T_ T— d CM * CD CM CO CM T— CO ■*— d OD OD o o d d d d d d d T— CM CM d d o o o o o o CO o O' O O o o d d d o d d d d d d d d d ^—V ^—v ^—, --- ^ s ^^ —v ocT ^ ^—v ^—v o CM CO o o o OD OD o o d d d d d d d d — d d d d ' s — ■" ■—■ --" ">—•" '•— n —' "■—^ T — "—' —' ^^ N —** o CM T— T- o o M" o CM LO LO o o d d d d d d d d d d d d * O CO 00 o ID o OD o o LO o CO CO o o d d d d d o d d r — d o o T— o o o M" o T- M; O; o o d d d d d d d d 1^ cd cd d o o T— o cT o cT o o' cT o o' o d d d d d d d t— d d ''— ■—■ >s — v — <■" ■—•" v —^ ■—' '—^ ^— '-' o CO o LO o o o OD LO LO o o d d d d d d d d 00 CO 00 d d * CO CO 00 * CM •»- LO o LO CO CO 00 00 o d d d oo d d d d d T_ T y d CO 1 1 o o O o o o CO o T- o o o o d d d d d d d d 1^ d d d o ^ s v ^^ x ^ ^—v. ^ T— y—«V X-—s o T— CM CM T o T— o c\i LO LO o OD d d o d d d cd cd d M- ^—** > —*' ^—' v —■" 00 ^—' '—^ ■—^ o CM CM o o o o CM CM o OD o d d d d d d d c\i CM d O LO 0 CD Q o "c CD OD OD = 2 . _0 CD -♦—* CD o c * E E 3 E OD \— Q LU o D o OD Q Q d 0 0 i_ E ■0 0 E o i— sz 0 Q. Cl O ■o 0 0 o o 0 "c 0 0 0 > o c C 0 o l J 0 o O i M" < o o O _i in in N c 0 1- CD C/D CD "O o 0 0 Q_ 0 xz O Table 3.4.3. Comparison by NMS vs. non-sanctuary concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fish-tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West survey. An asterisk indicates that the low level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for this contaminant in at least one fish composite sample. x _ * LO 00 O; in V- CD CD CO CO o * CM CO d d d co d d d d CD CO CO d CD CO CD i t i ■ 1 i 1 i i 1 1 i z O) r~ o o o o o o CO o O' o o o o c CD d d d d d d d d N-" d d d d o CT c < > _ „_ v „_ s „_„ „_„ „_„ ^_„ „—„ fv ,—_ ,—„ ,—„ —_ > o T— CM o T— o T“ o o o o in cr o d_ d T— d^ o d d T— T” o CD O o C\J CM CD o o O o T- CO 00 o CO ©H d d d d d d d d CM d d d ct> ^— CM 00 o CM T— CD o in O' O' o in d d d d d d d d CM Csi d CM CD i i i i i i i i i 1 i i 1 CD o o CO 00 o o O' o O) o o o o CO CD d o d d d d d d d d d d d cr T_ z o o „—_ „__ ,__ ,_„ „_„ ,__ ,__ « ♦ „__ „__ ^. o o CM CO T— o o o N 00 00 o C3 d d d r—’ d d d d d d d d ^-V. n — ^— '—* s —' ■— v —* ■—' ■—^ ■—^ ''— o T— ID T— o T— in o T_ T— T— o CD ©£ d d d CM d d d d CO d d < o CD C o C/5 CD — 0 ) 0 - Z TO c cr o c E CD CD CD c o c CD o c CD O 05 CO N c CD CD 3 o O Q CD 0. o CL CD o^ o- O CD h- 3.4.2 FRAM Groundfish Survey Fish were analyzed for contaminants in 99 tissue composites from 60 stations sampled in 2003 by the Fisheries Resource Analysis and Monitoring (FRAM) Division of the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of NOAA as part of their western groundfish survey program (Figs. 3.1.6-3.1.9; Appendix Table 2). Fish collected from FRAM stations that were within the EMAP/NCA- West sampling frame were transferred to EPA for subsequent analysis. Species selected for analysis included Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani), rex sole ( Glyptoephalus zachirus), Dover sole (Microstomus pacificus) and English sole (Parophrys vetulus). Data for all stations and parameters are summarized in Table 3.4.4. Cadmium - The lower end of the range of cadmium values associated with non-cancer risks was exceeded in at least one composite at nine stations coastwide, including five sites in California, mostly near San Francisco Bay (CEW03419-016, 054, and 058 in the Monterey Bay NMS; 026 in Cordell Bank NMS; and 022 not in a NMS; Fig. 3.1.9); two in Oregon (CEW03419-082 and 087 not in a NMS; Fig. 3.1.8); and two in Washington (CEW03419-112 and 116 both in the Olympic Coast NMS; Fig. 3.1.7). Fish from Station CEW03419-058, south of San Francisco Bay (Fig.3.1.9), had cadmium in excess of the upper end of the non-cancer health-risk range. Mercury - Fish consumption has been reported to be a major source of mercury in humans. The human-health risk guideline level for mercury was not exceeded in this study, though concentrations approached that level in some composites. The mercury concentrations reported in this study are total mercury, whereas the form of mercury that may cause human-health effects is methyl mercury. However, the U.S. EPA recommends an approach where total mercury concentration is measured, and with the use of a conservative assumption that all mercury is present as methylmercury, a comparison is made to the methylmercury risk based guideline (U.S. EPA 2000b). This conservative approach is viewed as being both protective of human health and most cost effective. The presence of selenium in these fish tissue samples may reduce the health impacts of methyl mercury, as selenium sequesters mercury, making it metabolically unavailable (for a review, see Raymond and Ralston 2004). Other parameters - The health-risk guideline values for metals (other than cadmium), PCBs, and pesticides were not exceeded in fish collected from the FRAM survey (Table 3.4.4). The maximum concentration of total DDT measured was 30.4 ng/g, which is below the risk guideline. One composite sample from Washington (CEW03419-122) had an aldrin concentration of 0.64 ng/g, but the other composite from the same station had no aldrin, and aldrin was undetected in all other samples. Levels of all other pesticides were undetectable. 77 Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (pg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in tissue composites of fish collected from 60 stations in the 2003 FRAM survey. Frequency of detection is the number of stations (among 60) where the parameter was detected at a level above the minimum detection limit (MDL) in flatfish. An asterisk indicates that the low level of the health risk guidelines range was exceeded in at least one fish composite sample. Contaminant Mean Maximum Minimum Frequency of Detection Health Risk Guideline Range Metals (pig/g): Inorganic Arsenic 0.1 0.2 0.0 60/60 3.5-7.0 Cadmium* 0.2 1.5* 0.0 45/60 0.35-0.70 Chromium 0.2 1.0 0.0 34/60 - Copper 0.5 2.6 0.0 47/60 - Lead 0.0 0.1 0.0 4/60 - Mercury 0.0 0.1 0.0 52/60 0.12-0.23 Selenium 0.4 1.8 0.0 44/60 5.9-12.0 Silver 0.0 0.0 0.0 1/60 - Zinc 10.0 13.8 6.5 60/60 - Organics (ng/g): Total PCB 0.3 3.8 0.0 11/60 23-47 Total DDT 5.0 30.4 0.0 41/60 59-120 4,4"-DDE 5.0 30.4 0.0 41/60 - Other Pesticides* 0.0 0.3 0.0 1/60 _ The State of Washington measured metals and organics in fillets offish separately from the remains (whole fish minus fillets). This procedure provides some data for estimating filet levels of contaminants from measurements of contaminant levels in whole fish from California and Oregon. Cadmium levels were undetectable in all fish fillets, suggesting that the levels reported for whole fish might not be accurate for fillets, and levels of cadmium in fish fillets from fish sampled in this study might be below EPA health-risk guidance values. For other metals, the ratio of mean values in fillets to mean values in remains was variable, ranging from 0.30 to 1.35 (Table 3.4.5). Total PCBs at one station were undetectable in remains, but measured 2.8 ng/g in fillets. At other stations, the ratio of levels in fillets vs. remains averaged 0.24. For total DDT, the ratio of levels in fillets vs. remains averaged 0.98. 78 Table 3.4.5. Ratios of concentrations of measured chemical parameters in fillets vs. remains of fish in flatfish collected in Washington for the 2003 FRAM groundfish survey. Contaminant Mean in Fillets Mean in Remains Mean of Ratios Metals (pg/g) Inorganic Arsenic 0.06 0.07 0.98 Cadmium 0.00 0.08 _ Chromium 0.33 0.48 0.68 Copper 0.27 0.82 0.30 Lead 0.00 0.00 - Mercury 0.06 0.04 1.35 Nickel 0.00 0.00 - Selenium 0.29 0.29 0.94 Silver 0.00 0.00 - Organics (ng/g) Total PCB 0.30 1.21 0.24 Total DDT 0.06 0.07 0.98 Other Pesticides 0.0 0.0 - 3.5 Status of Benthic Communities Macrobenthic infauna (> 1 mm) were sampled at a total of 256 stations throughout the study region. A single grab (0.1 m 2 ) was collected at all stations except three, at which duplicates were taken, thus resulting in a total of 259 benthic grabs. The duplicate samples were averaged for the calculation of CDFs and other analysis purposes. The resulting data are used here to assess the status of benthic community characteristics (taxonomic composition, diversity, abundance and dominant species), biogeographic patterns, the incidence of nonindigenous species, and potential linkages to ecosystem stressors throughout the western U.S. continental shelf from the Strait of Juan de Fuca, WA to the Mexican border. Assessments are presented on a region-wide basis, by state (WA, Oregon, California), and by NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. The latter comparison includes California sanctuaries (Channel Islands NMS, Monterrey Bay NMS, Gulf of the Farallones NMS, and Cordell Bank NMS) vs. non¬ sanctuary stations in California and stations in the Olympic Coast NMS (OCNMS) vs. non-sanctuary stations in Oregon and Washington. Characteristics of the shelf benthos are also compared to those of neighbouring estuaries along the West Coast, using 1999-2000 data on estuaries from the NCA-West database (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004, Hayslip et al. 2006). 79 3.5.1 Taxonomic Composition A total of 1,482 taxa were identified region-wide, of which 1,108 were identified to the species level. Polychaetes were the dominant taxa, both by percent abundance (59% region-wide, Fig. 3.5.1) and percent taxa (44% region¬ wide, Fig. 3.5.2, Table 3.5.1). Crustaceans and molluscs were the second and third most dominant taxa respectively, both by percent abundance (17% crustaceans, 12% molluscs) and percent taxa (25% crustaceans, 17% molluscs). Collectively, these three groups represented 88% of the total faunal abundance and 86% of the taxa throughout the region. Crustaceans were represented mostly by amphipods (202 identifiable taxa, 14% of the total number of taxa) followed by decapods (49 taxa, 3.3% of total taxa) and cumaceans (39 taxa, 2.6% of total taxa) (Table 3.5.1). Molluscs were composed mostly of bivalves (116 taxa, 7.8% of total taxa) and gastropods (112 taxa, 7.5% of total taxa). High proportions of polychaete and amphipod species are also characteristic of estuaries along the West Coast, though there are notable differences in the relative proportions of other taxonomic groups (Table 3.5.2). For example, species of larval insects represented 2.9% of total taxa in the NCA-West estuarine data set, but were absent in the present shelf samples. In contrast, ophiuroids and holothurians are more specious on the shelf than in estuaries. Also, while oligochaetes as a group represent only 0.2% of the total faunal abundance on the shelf, Nelson et al. (2005) reported them as being dominant (among the 10 most abundant) members of the estuarine benthos along the West Coast. Polychaetes, crustaceans, and molluscs dominated the benthic fauna consistently across the three states and NMS vs. non-sanctuary categories (Fig. 3.5.1, 3.5.2). Similar to the region-wide pattern, polychaetes were the most dominant, by both percent abundance and species richness, consistently across all strata. However, while crustaceans were the second-most abundant group in California (similar to the region-wide pattern), molluscs were proportionally more abundant than crustaceans in Oregon and Washington. There were no major differences in the percent composition of benthic communities between NMSs and corresponding non-sanctuary sites. However, molluscs were proportionally more abundant and specious than crustaceans at non-sanctuary sites in Oregon and Washington than at the OCNMS. 3.5.2 Diversity Species richness, expressed as the number of taxa present in a 0.1 -m 2 grab, was relatively high in these offshore shelf assemblages. A total of 1,482 taxa were identified region-wide from the 259 benthic grabs. Species richness ranged from 19 to 190 taxa/grab and averaged 79 taxa/grab (Table 3.5.3, Fig. 3.5.3). In comparison, the NCA-West estuarine data (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004, Hayslip et al. 2006) show an average of 26 taxa/grab in estuaries along the West Coast (Table 3.5.3). Only five of the 256 shelf stations, 80 representing about 2% of the shelf area, had < 26 taxa/grab (Fig. 3.5.4). This greater species richness was reflected over large areas of the shelf. For example, approximately 50% of the area of the shelf had species richness > 67 taxa/grab and 10% of the shelf had >110 taxa/grab (Fig. 3.5.4, Table 3.5.3). In comparison, the corresponding CDF 50 th percentile value for estuaries was 49 taxa/grab and the 10 th percentile value was 90 taxa/grab (Table 3.5.3). Species richness along the shelf was highest off California (mean of 94 taxa/grab) and nearly equally lower in Oregon and Washington (means of 55 and 56 taxa/grab, respectively). Estuarine means by state were much lower for California (24 taxa/grab) and Oregon (11 taxa/grab) though similar for Washington (48 taxa/grab) (Table 3.5.3). Average species richness was very similar between sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California and Oregon/Washington regions (Fig. 3.5.3). A more detailed examination of species richness, using quartile ranges, further confirmed a pattern of increasing species richness along the shelf with decreasing latitude (Figs. 3.5.3, 3.5.5). There were 61 stations with values in the upper quartile of all stations (i.e., values > 100 taxa/grab). All but one of these sites (WA03-0015) were in California, most were in the SCB. A correlation analysis (SAS 2003) revealed a highly significant negative association between numbers of species and latitude (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r = -0.61, p <0.0001). This is different from the pattern observed in estuaries. For example, the NCA-West 1999-2000 database for estuaries shows that the highest species richness among the three states was in Washington, especially in Puget Sound (Table 3.5.3; also see Partridge 2007). In fact, all estuarine stations with > 100 taxa/grab were in Washington. The high species richness reported here for shelf waters, particularly those off the California coast, is consistent with an earlier study by Hyland et al. (1991) for offshore waters of the Santa Maria Basin, which showed numbers of species (> 0.5-mm size) averaging about 100 to 150/grab (0.1 m 2 ) at comparable outer shelf/upper slope depths under 200 m. The high species richness, as well as a relatively even distribution of species abundances within samples, also resulted in fairly high values of the diversity index H' (log base 2) for many stations across the region. Values ranged from 2.04 to 6.63/grab and averaged 5.01/grab region-wide (Table 3.5.3, Fig. 3.5.6). Approximately 50% of the shelf area had H' values > 4.82, and 10% of the area had H' values > 5.80 (Fig. 3.5.7). In comparison, mean diversity and the CDF 50 th percentile point for estuarine habitat along the West Coast correspond to lower H' values of 2.41 and 3.84, respectively (Table 3.5.3). Mean H' in the present shelf survey was highest in California (5.36) and lowest in Washington (4.27) (Fig. 3.5.7, Table 3.5.3). There were no major differences in mean H' between sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California and Oregon/Washington regions. 81 Table 3.5.1. Summary of major taxonomic groups for the west-coast shelf region wide. Taxonomic Group Number identifiable taxa % Total identifiable taxa Phylum Protozoa 1 0.1 Phylum Porifera 1 0.1 Phylum Cnidaria Class Hydrozoa 10 0.7 Class Anthozoa 52 3.5 Phylum Platyhelminthes 9 0.6 Phylum Nemertea 32 2.2 Phylum Nemata 1 0.1 Phylum Sipuncula 10 0.7 Phylum Mollusca Class Gastropoda 112 7.5 Class Aplacophora 10 0.7 Class Bivalvia 116 7.8 Class Polyplacophora 6 0.4 Class Scaphopoda 9 0.6 Phylum Echiura 6 0.4 Phylum Annelida Class Polychaeta 648 43.7 Class Clitellata Subclass Hirudinea 1 0.1 Subclass Oligochaeta 1 0.1 Phylum Arthropoda Subphylum Crustacea Class Malacostraca Order Leptostraca 3 0.2 Order Decapoda 49 3.3 Order Mysida 6 0.4 Order Cumacea 39 2.6 Order Tanaidacea 16 1.1 Order Isopoda 43 2.9 Order Amphipoda 202 13.6 Class Maxillopoda 5 0.3 Class Ostracoda 14 0.9 Subphylum Chelicerata 7 0.4 Phylum Phoronida 2 0.1 Phylum Ectoprocta 1 0.1 Phylum Brachiopoda 2 0.1 Phylum Echinodermata Class Asteroidea 4 0.3 Class Ophiuroidea 25 1.7 Class Echinoidea 8 0.5 Class Holothuroidea 19 1.3 Phylum Hemichordata 5 0.3 Phylum Chordata 7 0.5 Total 1482 100 82 Table 3.5.2. Comparison of the proportion of taxa within major taxonomic groups on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries. Each value is the number of species within the corresponding taxonomic group divided by the total number of species. Taxonomic Group Shelf Estuaries* Polychaetes 44% 36% Amphipods 14% 14% Decapods 3.3% 3.4% Cumaceans 2.6% 2.6% Bivalves 7.8% 8.3% Gastropods 7.5% 7.8% Ophiuroids 1.7% 1.2% Holothurians 1.3% 0.7% Insect larvae 0 2.9% Total species 1482 1303 # Grabs (0.1 m 2 each) 259 345 * Based on 1999-2000 data from the EPA National Coastal Assessment- Western Regional Component (NCA-West) database for estuaries (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004; Hayslip et al. 2006). 83 Table 3.5.3. Comparison of the number of taxa, H' diversity (log 2 ), and densities (rrf 2 ) of benthic infaunal assemblages on the shelf vs. West Coast estuaries. s 0 o ~ CD C — 0 TO o 0 ^ 0 < Q_ 0 O = LO c 0 O 0 t- < CL X 0 c 0 0 0 Jc 0 o CD CD m- S § lo lo CD CD O O O O LO CO (/) 0 o ~ CD C m 0 0 o 0 «- < CL 5 0 O = lo ■£ 0 o 0 >- < Q_ X 0 CO CO C\l M" CM i— CO CM CD £ £ C 0 0 C/5 %= c 0 c/) E o 0 i_ CO o _0 o -£ c $ 0 CQ > O CO LO CO 00 co co o CO CO T- co LO CD CO M" LO o o o o T- CO CM CM Tj- LO LO CM CO T- CM LO ►. CO CM 05 CM CM CO U3 T- T- h- co O CM O O CD O O CD CD CO CD LO r- CM r- CM CD CO LO M" I— LO LO CD 0 -JD I < X < .2^00 CD 0 cc 0 "7 * -O 0 TO % 05 o CO LO CM CO CO T- CO CO CD M" CD CO cb lo lo cb M - M" O' O O CD O CM CM CM CO T- N LO 0 o cm cq co LO M" LO CO LO CM O CD LO M" LO o o LO* o o CM o o CO CO CD CO T— £ r-' - i: lo co CM CO LO o o o o CM h- 0 ;g I < cr < .2^00 CO 0 cr - o X TO CD CO CM h~ LO CO ^ LO CO LO g 00 o' lo' t-t cd' T- CO T- LO CO C "fr CM c CO T- T- o LO CM h- o CO o CO o c> o 00 CO 52 CO CD O 0 O) cm' co' cm' CM T- CM o o o o I— M" CD LO I"- LO CO CO N O CO CO LO N- O- CO CO CO CO CM M- CO LO CM O CD LO M- LO 0 ;g I < (X < . 2^00 CD 0 X C/5 ^ Q C/5 0 < o c 0 c o CL E o o TO c o CD 0 ^ QlI CD c O E o 0 CM to — 0 TO > 0 I Q. CO >» TO c 0 E 0 0 . 0 ^ 0 O 0 O < CM TO to TO o o TO c o -♦—» TO < CL LU cd z> LO o o CM SI LU CM 0 —: -C -*—* E ® o c 4= 9 _ 0 ^ 0 -§* 0 0 o o O ‘C CM TO 05 3 CD co 05 <1) T— i— - o C M— ° 0 "O ^ 0 TO 0 -Q TO TO CO to * -D CO Table 3.5.4. Fifty most abundant benthic taxa in the West Coast shelf survey region wide. Average density per m 2 , and percent frequency of occurrence based on 256 grabs. Classification: Native = native species; Crypto = cryptogenic species (of uncertain origin); Indeter = indeterminate taxa (not identified to a level that would allow determination of origin). Taxa Name Taxon Classification Average #/m 2 % Frequency Mediomastus spp. Polychaete Indeter 141.9 62.9 Axinopsida serricata Bivalve Native 124.8 67.2 Magelona longicornis Polychaete Native 105.3 23.0 Amphiodia urtica Ophiuroid Native 87.5 43.4 Spiophanes berkeleyorum Polychaete Native 86.8 77.0 Pinnixa occidentalis Decapoda Native 82.0 27.3 Spiophanes bombyx Polychaete Native 81.2 41.8 Euphilomedes Ostracod Native 73.6 46.1 carcharodonta Spiophanes duplex Polychaete Native 73.2 44.9 Prionospio jubata Polychaete Native 67.2 71.9 Chloeia pinnata Polychaete Native 55.0 40.2 Owenia fusiformis Polychaete Crypto 48.2 10.9 Myriochele striolata Polychaete Native 47.7 10.5 Galathowenia oculata Polychaete Crypto 45.1 33.2 Ampelisca agassizi Amphipod Native 43.4 30.5 Decamastus gracilis Polychaete Native 42.0 46.1 Paraprionospio pinnata Polychaete Native 39.3 70.7 Scoletoma luti Polychaete Native 38.6 31.3 Euclymeninae sp. A Polychaete Native 37.2 58.6 Amphiodia spp. Ophiuroid Indeter 34.7 48.0 Sternaspis fossor Polychaete Crypto 34.7 46.9 Rochefortia tumida Bivalve Native 33.4 41.0 Euclymeninae Polychaete Indeter 29.7 49.6 Lumbrineris cruzensis Polychaete Native 28.6 45.7 Levinsenia gracilis Polychaete Crypto 28.5 38.3 Ampelisca careyi Amphipod Native 28.0 62.5 Pholoe glabra Polychaete Native 26.7 44.9 Phoronida Phoronid Indeter 26.7 28.1 Aphelochaeta glandaria Polychaete Native 25.8 33.2 Paradiopatra parva Polychaete Native 25.6 37.1 Prionospio lighti Polychaete Native 25.5 34.4 Monticellina cryptica Polychaete Native 23.8 29.3 Edwardsiidae Actiniarian Indeter 23.6 10.9 Aricidea catherinae Polychaete Crypto 23.4 36.3 Pseudofabriciola Polychaete Native 23.2 2.3 californica _ Photis spp. Amphipod Indeter 21.1 32.8 85 Taxa Name Taxon Classification Average #/m 2 % Frequency Maldane sarsi Polychaete Crypto 20.8 40.2 Amphiuridae Ophiuroid Indeter 20.6 49.2 Leptochelia dubia Tanaidacea Crypto 19.7 32.4 Glycera nana Polychaete Native 18.7 53.5 Nemertea Nemertean Indeter 18.5 27.3 Rhepoxynius Amphipod Native 17.5 19.1 boreovariatus Polygordius spp. Polychaete Indeter 17.4 1.2 Leitoscoloplos Polychaete Native 17.0 32.0 pugettensis Acila castrensis Bivalve Native 16.6 24.2 Aphelochaeta monilaris Polychaete Native 16.3 31.3 Scalibregma californicum Polychaete Native 15.9 35.9 Fabriciinae Polychaete Indeter 15.7 2.0 Ampelisca brevisimulata Amphipod Native 15.4 34.8 Macoma carlottensis Bivalve Native 14.8 21.1 86 Percent of Abundance CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS ■H Polychaeta HI Crustacea i . l Mollusca l l Miscellaneous Figure 3.5.1. Comparison of percent faunal composition by abundance among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 87 Percent of Taxa Percent of Taxa CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS ■■■ Polychaeta ■■■ Crustacea k.&Sl Mollusca i i Miscellaneous Figure 3.5.2. Comparison of percent faunal composition by taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 88 Species Richness (#/grab) Species Richness (#/grab) Percent of Area with Benthic Species Richness (# species/0.1 m )grab): l I < 54 (firstquartile) feas 54 - 76 (second quartile) I _ .1 77- 100 (third quartile) > 100 (fourth quartile) b c Q © All California Oregon Washington 140 B. CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS 1 © Q CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS Figure 3.5.3. Comparison of benthic species richness (mean no. taxa/grab + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile ranges of values. 89 Figure 3.5.4. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf vs. benthic species richness (# taxa/0.1-m 2 grab). 90 Species Richness D < 54 (lower 25th quartile) O 54 - 76 (25-50th quartile) G 77 - 100 (50-75th quartile) • > 100 (upper 25th quartile) Figure 3.5.5. Map illustrating the distribution of benthic species richness (# taxa per 0.1-m 2 grab) throughout the West Coast region. 91 Diversity (H') Diversity (H 1 ) Percent of Area with Benthic Diversity(H'): i I < 4.545 (first quartile) 4.545 - 5.480 ( second quartile) I-1 5.481 - 5.712 (third quartile) > 5.712 (fourth quartile) £ £ Q All California Oregon Washington Figure 3.5.6. Comparison of benthic species diversity (FT, mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile ranges of values. 92 100 - co 0 ) c ( 1 ) o l_ CD Q_ 0) > -q 40 _co =3 E D o 80 - 60 - 20 - Cumulative Percent Area 95% Confidence Interval 4 H' Figure 3.5.7. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf vs. Shannon-Wiener H' (log 2 ) diversity index. 93 3.5.3 Abundance and Dominant Taxa A total of 99,135 individual specimens were collected across the 256 stations (259 0.1-m 2 grab samples) throughout the region. Densities ranged from 540 to 22,980 rrf 2 and averaged 3,788 rrf 2 (Fig. 3.5.8, Table 3.5.3, Appendix Table 4). On a spatial basis, about 50% of the shelf area had densities > 3,080 rrf 2 and about 10% of the area had densities > 7,250 rrf 2 (Fig. 3.5.9). In comparison, the NCA-West estuarine data (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004; Hayslip et al. 2006) show much higher densities of benthic infauna in estuaries along the West Coast (e.g., mean of 10,653 rrf 2 and range of 0 to 415,820 rrf 2 ) (Table 3.5.3). Flowever, the higher mean and maximum densities in the latter case are due to a greater frequency of high-density patches in these shallower estuarine systems. Spatially, while 10% of the estuarine area along the West Coast had high densities >15,100 rrf 2 , 50% of the area had lower densities < 4,100 rrf 2 , which is only moderately higher than that estimated for the corresponding percentage of shelf area (3,080 rrf 2 ). Densities on the shelf in excess of 10,653 rrf 2 , the estuarine mean density, were limited to about 2% of the shelf area. Densities of benthic fauna in the present offshore survey, averaged by state, were highest in California (mean of 4,351 m' 2 ) and lowest in Oregon (mean of 2,310 rrf 2 ) (Fig. 3.5.8, Table 3.5.3). Mean densities were slightly higher at NMS stations vs. non-sanctuary stations for both the California and Oregon/Washington regions. The 50 most abundant taxa found in shelf waters throughout the region are listed in Table 3.5.4. The 10 most abundant members on this list include the polychaetes Mediomastus spp., Magelona longicornis, Spiophanes berkeleyorum, Spiophanes bombyx, Spiophanes duplex, and Prionospio jubata ; the bivalve Axinopsida serricata ; the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica ; the decapod Pinnixa occidentalism and the ostracod Euphilomedes carcharodonta. Mediomastus spp. and A. serricata were the two most abundant taxa overall. There are clear differences between these dominant shelf fauna and those found in estuarine habitats along the West Coast. As an example, with the exception of Mediomastus spp., none of these 50 shelf species also appear on the list of dominant (10 most abundant) estuarine fauna reported by Nelson et al. (2005). The latter estuarine list (based only on 1999 data from the NCA-West database, thus excluding Puget Sound, the San Francisco estuary, and the main stem of the Columbia River) included the amphipods Americorophium spinicorne, A. salmonis, and Eogammarus confervicolus complex; oligochaetes; and the polychaetes Streblospio benedicti, Mediomastus sp, Mediomastus californiensis, Pygospio elegans , Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata, and Neanthes limnicola (Nelson et al. 2005). Thus, while estuaries have been found to be dominated by polychaetes, amphipods, and oligochaetes, the shelf environment was characterized by a broader range of taxonomic groups, including the occurrence of bivalves, ophiuroids, decapods, and ostracods as dominant members in addition to polychaetes. Another notable characteristic of these dominant shelf fauna is their relatively low densities. Average densities of the 10 most abundant 94 shelf taxa ranged from 67 to 142 m' 2 (Table 3.5.4). In comparison, average densities of the 10 most abundant taxa in estuaries were much higher, ranging from 197 to 5,242 m' 2 (Nelson et al. 2005). In addition to inshore-offshore differences, there were notable regional variations in the dominant offshore fauna. Though many of these fauna have broad geographic distributions throughout the region (see next section), except for the polychaete Spiophanes bombyx, the same taxa did not appear as members of the 10 most abundant taxa consistently across all three states (Table 3.5.5A). The closest similarities were between Oregon and Washington. For example, the polychaete Mediomastus spp. and ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica were the two most abundant taxa in California, while in Oregon and Washington the same two species, the polychaete Magelona longicornis and bivalve Axinopsida serricata, were the two most abundant taxa. There also was less variation between NMS vs. non-sanctuary status. For example, at least half of the 10 most abundant taxa in NMSs were also dominant in corresponding non¬ sanctuary waters (Table 3.5.5B). 95 (3-U1/#) X)!SU8Q ^m) <,!suea 8000 6000 4000 2000 - Percent of Area with Benthic Density: I I < 2,140 (first quartile) sggsaq 2,140 - 3,270 (second quartile) 3,280 - 4,750 (third quartile) > 4,750 (fourth quartile) All California Oregon Washington 1000 800 600 400 - 200 - CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WA: nonNMS Figure 3.5.8. Comparison of benthic density (mean + 1 SD) among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. Pie charts show quartile ranges of values. 96 Figure 3.5.9. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast Shelf vs. benthic abundance (number of individuals/m 2 ). 97 Table 3 5 5 Comparison of dominant (10 most abundant) taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and Washington sample locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon non-NMS sample locations. 0 o- sS 5 CD S ^ o o A CO 03 03 CD £ ° CD CO A Q_ 03 • 2 E" Q E co CD H-w E o A 8 CD A o 00 CM CD CD CM « Sj CD is CD "3 o o CD E 03 CD a 9- CD O O UJ c 03 CD CT o CD X CD O CD CO ID in (D s s cd in b- 03 r- 0 CM O 03 CD CD E p CO s o o 03 e o CD e o "5 03 CD CT CD CD CD O E 03 CO CD TO <0 a o e X CD > X CD < h~ CM ID ID T CM O iS 9- TO CL -t co TO CO TO co a o e X •53 E ■Is CO N CM CD CD 00 E S o 3b TO co TO •E TO JO co TO E TO A a o A TO c TO TO 03 to 2 E 2 o .2 03 A 03 A TO £ § <55 CO CL E o TO O £ -52 o TO o CD CO 03 b- CM id CM CO ID M" 3b JO 0 2 A £ to o to A £ TO £ S o2 AO CO b~ co r— CO CO b- b- b- TO TO TO O TO 2 -Q co .2. TO TO A O O CM CD t- O’ 00 b- CM CD CM b- O b- 3b co to 1 03 b CO o TO X o TO O TO C3 A A CL 03 CO O M- O TO TO A TO £ TO A £ TO A O A 8 TO CL O’ ID O’ b- 03 CO .TO TO E TO T3 TO o o TO e TO TO TO 03 ID O A TO o ^.2 5 a A iS o ^0 p- O) 0 ) S ^ A -2 cp - 9 TO 2 £ CD 2 A A TO A b O 1 TO — TO E o A §■ UJ ID CO b- <5d CM t^ b- CD A E TO 9 TO C TO O TO A A TO TO O TO 2 TO x- O A P-A 2 •2 A P A A o co uj X TO A o A TO TO C TO A A .O CO" TO TO A 0 ! & o c .0 Ql CT ^ 75%) of the species were found in Puget Sound and along the coasts of Oregon and Washington, with a reduction northward up into the Gulf of Alaska and then a further reduction in the Aleutian ecoregion. Another source of uncertainty in defining biogeographic ranges is the different levels of sampling along the coast. The SCB ecoregion has been intensively sampled (see SCAMIT 2001), as has Puget Sound. Northern California, Oregon, and Washington shelves have not been sampled as intensively, although the fauna of this section of the coast is reasonably well known (e.g., Carlton 2007). The data for northern Canada (N. American Pacific Fijordland ecoregion) were derived primarily from the dataset for the Haida Gwaii archipelago (http://gcmd.nasa. gov/KeywordSearch/Metadata.do?Portal=caobis&MetadataTyp e=0&KeywordPath=&MetadataView=Full&Entryld=OBIS.GwaiiJnv). While limited in spatial extent, this dataset includes information on more than 2,500 taxa. The Gulf of Alaska distributions were derived primarily from the EMAP 2002 survey in South-central Alaska (Saupe et al. 2005), unpublished data from the 2004 Southeast Alaska EMAP survey, and pre- and post-Exxon Valdez oil spill surveys of Prince William Sound (Hines and Ruiz 2000, Hoberg and Feder 2002). These various sources should be adequate to detect the occurrence of abundant species in most cases. In comparison, the sources for the Aleutians were more sparse and included unpublished data from the 2006-7 EMAP surveys in the Aleutians, reports on Alaskan and Canadian bivalves (Bernard 1967, Macpherson 1971, Baxter 1987), and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF; http://data.qbif.org/ ). It is possible that the absence of some species from Aleutian ecoregion is result of the more limited sampling in this region. Even with these sources of uncertainty, it can be concluded that the majority of the abundant benthic species on the California-Oregon-Washington shelf have wide latitudinal distributions along the Pacific Coast of the United States. All three of the abundant bivalves, the pinnixid crab Pinnixa occidentalis, six polychaetes, and possibly the amphipod A. careyi extend from Southern California into the Aleutians. Another eight species have been reported from Southern California to the Gulf of Alaska. Conversely, only the sabellid polychaete Pseudofabriciola californica was limited to a single ecoregion, while the amphipod Rhepoxynius boreovariatus and the polychaetes Myriochele striolata and possibly Monticellina cryptica have been reported from only two of the ecoregions. 100 While the majority of species have wide latitudinal ranges, most species show differences in abundance among the three ecoregions within the 2003 EMAP sampling frame. The polychaete Magelona longicornis and bivalve Axinopsida serricata are examples of species with maximum densities in the northern portion of the sampling frame, the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast ecoregion (Figs. 3.5.11, 3.5.12). The ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica is an example of a species with maximum densities in the SCB ecoregion (Fig. 3.5.13), while Pinnixa occidentalis has its maximum densities in the middle of the coast, in the Northern California ecoregion (Fig. 3.5.14). The second question that we address is whether there is a unique shelf fauna different from that found in Puget Sound or the coastal estuaries. The Puget Sound ecoregion has a high species overlap with the shelf fauna, with 87% of the abundant species on the shelf also reported from Puget Sound (Appendix Table 5). While portions of Puget Sound are estuarine, much of Puget Sound resembles the shelf with its greater depth and high salinity, which presumably explains much of the species’ overlap. Three of the five species not found in Puget Sound were not found along the Oregon-Washington coast, suggesting that they are limited to more southern latitudes in general, rather than from Puget Sound specifically. The other two abundant species ( Chloeia pinnata and Paradiopatra parva) not found in Puget Sound are found in the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast ecoregion. However, Chloeia pinnata was not found north of 44 degrees in the present survey and may not be well adapted to the most northern latitudes within the ecoregion. In contrast, Paradiopatra parva was found in the present survey up to 48 degrees latitude, suggesting that there are specific conditions within Puget Sound that limit its distribution or abundance. Less expected was the extent of faunal overlap with the coastal estuaries. Almost 85% (33) of the most abundant shelf species have been reported at least once from the coastal estuaries of California, Oregon, or Washington exclusive of Puget Sound. Thus, it appears that the habitat requirements for many of the shelf species are sufficiently broad to allow at least colonization in estuarine ecosystems, though it is not clear whether they establish self-maintaining populations in all cases. Of the habitat requirements likely to limit shelf species from estuaries, the lower and variable salinities in estuaries are likely to be critical, if not the most critical, factors. Among the species reported from estuaries, one possibility is that they are able to colonize only the high-salinity Southern California estuaries, such as San Diego, which are euhaline (> 30 psu) over most of their area. Of the 33 species found in estuaries, eight ( Prionospio jubata, Paradiopatra parva, Monticellina cryptica, Aricidea catherinae, Pseudofabriciola californica, Maldane sarsi, Scalibregma californicum, and Ampelisca brevisimulata) have been reported only from Southern California estuaries. In comparison to the Southern California estuaries, small estuaries in the Pacific Northwest undergo large salinity shifts both seasonally and tidally, so that species found in small estuaries are likely to have relatively broad salinity 101 tolerances. Based on the 1999, 2001 and 2002 EMAP surveys (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005, 2007), as well as an EPA survey of the benthos in small estuaries (Lee et al. 2003, unpublished data), a species list of 137 species has been developed for the small estuaries of the Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion. Of the 33 abundant shelf species found in estuaries, eight (Spiophanes bombyx, Owenia fusiform is, Paraprionospio pinnata, Rochefortia tumida, Prionospio lighti, Leptochelia dubia, and Leitoscoloplos pugettensis) were found in these small estuaries. These biogeographic patterns suggest that the abundant shelf species can be broken into three broad salinity-tolerance groups. The 14 species not found within estuaries or only within Southern California estuaries can be classified as putative stenohaline species. The eight species found within the small estuaries would have the largest relative salinity tolerances, while the remaining 11 species found in moderate and large estuaries outside of Southern California presumably would have intermediate salinity tolerances. While factors other than salinity limit species’ distributions, biogeographical patterns offer an approach to generating preliminary relative salinity tolerances for a large number of species. The present analysis draws information from both the quantitative EMAP/NCA survey and from qualitative reports of species’ distributions, with each approach providing a different insight into a species’ habitat requirements. Biogeographic distributions (Appendix Table 5) can be considered an indicator of species’ broad tolerances while the distributional shifts in abundance (Figs. 3.5.11 - 3.5.14) can be considered an indicator of species’ habitat preferences. Thus, the wide latitudinal and estuarine distributions of most species are suggestive of wide habitat tolerances among these abundant shelf species. However, the pattern of high abundance occurring in only one or two ecoregions as observed for several species (e.g., P. californica, M. longicornis, C. pinnata and P. occidentalis) suggests a substantially reduced preferred habitat range for this set of abundant species. Presumably, species with a more limited preferred habitat range would be relatively more susceptible to climate change than those with wide ranges. However, species’ responses to sea-surface temperature increases are complex and may vary among cold-water and warm-water species (e.g., Lima et al. 2007). Nonetheless, future work on comparing species’ biogeographic and preferred habitat ranges with sea-surface temperature patterns (e.g., MODIS) by ecoregion is one potential avenue to evaluating relative risk to climate change for coastal species. It is worth noting that such analyses are greatly facilitated by the continuing evolution of biological information systems at global (e.g., GBIF) and regional (e.g., PCEIS) scales. v. 102 Bering Sea NE Pacific Marine Ecoregions Aleutian Islands Gulf of Alaska : 5 North American Pacific Fijordland Northern California Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf Puget Trough/Georgia Basin Southern California Bight I Nautical Miles 0 125 250 500 170°0'0"W 160°0'0"W 150°0'0"W 140°0'0"W 130°0'0"W 120°0'0"W Figure 3.5.10. Marine ecoregions bordering the Pacific Coast of the United States from Southern California through the Aleutian Islands based on the MEOW biogeographic schema (Spalding et al. 2007). The ecoregions constituting the Cold Temperate Northeast Pacific Realm are the Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, North American Pacific Fijordland, Puget Trough/ Georgia Basin, Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf, and Northern California. The Southern California Bight ecoregion falls in the Warm Temperate Northeast Pacific Realm. 103 Magelona longicornis 250 200 CN4 E - 150 a> o c ■»* ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ % —i-«- ♦«**-1-♦ t 1 ♦ i-i ♦ i-1*--,-*—•-,— Latitude Figure 3.5.14. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the decapod Pinnixa occidentalis. The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern California Bight ecoregion and Northern California ecoregion. The dashed line is the boundary between the Northern California ecoregion and Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion. 105 3.5.5 Nonindigenous Species Taxa were classified as native, nonindigenous, cryptogenic, indeterminate, or unclassified. Cryptogenic species are species of uncertain origin (Carlton, 1996) and may include potential introductions, sibling species, or species that have yet to be sufficiently well resolved taxonomically over their global range. Indeterminate taxa are those not identified with sufficient taxonomic resolution to classify as native, nonindigenous, or cryptogenic (Lee et al. 2003). Unclassified species are those that have yet to be analyzed sufficiently to render a final classification. The classifications used here follow the Pacific Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS), a geo-referenced database of native and nonindigenous species of the Northeast Pacific being developed by the EPA and USGS (Lee and Reusser 2008). Of the 1,108 taxa identified to species, 13 species are currently classified as nonindigenous (Table 3.5.6), though there are uncertainties about the taxonomic resolution of several of these species. In addition, another 121 species are classified as cryptogenic and 208 species are unclassified. The taxonomic uncertainties with the putative nonindigenous species and the large number of cryptogenic and unclassified species reflect both the lack of detailed analysis of the invasion status of shelf species as well as the difficulties inherent in harmonizing taxonomy on a global scale. Thus the present analysis should be considered preliminary until additional information becomes available on the taxonomy and classification of these uncertain species. The 13 nonindigenous species constitute only 1.2% of the taxa that were identified to species or, excluding the cryptogenic and unclassified species, 1.7% of the native species. Even with the uncertainty over the classification of some species, the number of nonindigenous species appears to be much lower on the shelf than in the estuarine ecosystems of the Pacific Coast. For example, 42 nonindigenous species were found in the probabilistic survey of tidal wetlands of the Pacific Coast (Nelson et al. 2007a), while over 200 nonindigenous species have been found in the San Francisco Estuary (Cohen and Carlton 1995). Additionally, the nonindigenous species were in low abundance. None of the nonindigenous species were included in the 50 most abundant taxa (Table 3.5.4), and combined they constituted only 0.4% of the total individuals or 0.7% of the abundance of the natives. This is in contrast to many Pacific Coast estuaries, where nonindigenous species constitute a substantial if not major portion of the total abundance (Nelson et al. 2005), and from the San Francisco Estuary in particular, where nonindigenous species are the numerical dominants in most of the benthic assemblages (Lee et al. 2003). The most abundant nonindigenous species were the spionid polychaete Laonice cirrata and the ampharetid polychaete Anobothrus gracilis, which had average abundances of 0.40 and 0.29 individuals per grab, respectively (Table 3.5.6). While neither of these species was abundant, both were moderately frequent, occurring in 23% 106 and 15% of the samples. However, none of the other nonindigenous species occurred in more than 7% of the samples. One similarity between the shelf nonindigenous species and those in coastal estuaries and Puget Sound is the predominance of non-native spionid polychaetes. Five of the 13 nonindigenous species on the shelf are spionids (L cirrata, D. bidentata, D. caulleryi, D. quadrilobata, and P. paucibranchiata), while 14 nonindigenous spionids have been reported from coastal waters (Lee and Reusser 2008). However, the shelf and estuarine assemblages differ in the identity of the dominant spionid invaders. In comparison to Laonice and the Dipolydora species on the shelf, the most frequently occurring nonindigenous spionids in estuaries are Polydora cornuta, Pseudopolydora kempi, Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata and Streblospio benedicti. Although P. paucibranchiata was found on the shelf, it was reported from only two of the 256 samples. Another notable difference between shelf and estuarine invaders is the absence of the three most widespread estuarine invaders, the amphipods Grandidierella japonica and Monocorophium insidiosum and the bivalve Mya arenaria. Monocorophium acherusicum is also one of the most frequently occurring invaders in coastal estuaries, and though it was found on the shelf, it apparently has a very low abundance, since only a single individual was reported. Future resolution of the taxonomy and native ranges of the shelf fauna will reduce the uncertainty in evaluating the extent of invasion along the coast. Nonetheless, this preliminary analysis indicates that the shelf benthos is substantially less invaded than estuaries along the Pacific Coast when measured either by the number of nonindigenous species or by their abundance. Additionally, the common and widespread invaders in estuaries are either absent or in very low abundance on the shelf. The absence or low abundance of these estuarine invaders indicates that, at least to date, the offshore discharge of ballast water has not resulted in widespread invasion of the offshore benthic assemblages. 3.5.6 Potential Linkage to Stressor Impacts Multi-metric benthic indices are often used as indicators of pollution- induced degradation of the benthos (see review by Diaz et al. 2004) and have been developed for a variety of estuarine applications (Engle et al. 1994, Weisberg et al. 1997, Van Dolah et al. 1999, Llannso et al. 2002a, 2002b). A desired feature of these indices is the ability to differentiate impaired vs. unimpaired benthic condition, based on a number of key biological attributes (e.g., numbers of species, diversity, abundance, relative proportions of sensitive vs. dominant species, biomass), while attempting to take into account variations associated with natural controlling factors. While a related index has been developed for the Southern California mainland shelf (Smith et al. 2001), there is 107 Table 3.5.6. Nonindigenous species from the shelf survey. “Comments and Qualifiers” documents some of the taxonomic uncertainties for the shelf nonindigenous species. Taxa Codes: AM = amphipod; B = bivalve; G = Gastropod; P = polychaete. if) CD "to Z3 o o3 _c/o c CD E E o O CD 3 0 co >% co "D 0 C/0 3 ■o 0 O 3 TO O C 0 i_ 3 O co i— 0 O O CM TO 0 i_ 0 ■g CO c o o 0 JZ> TO 3 O £ CO c 0 E o 0 Q. CO GI¬ LD O = co 0 co © o ^ ^ 0 . TO CO 0 © 0) O jQ © i: Cl O CO £ ©> ^ .E 0 S E CO 0 0 O 5 o 0 g c 0 DO O O c /3 Q. .0 O 3 DO 0 * O 0 CL CO 0 0 0 0 ■b 0 O CO 0) 1- c 0 O 5 0 0 _Q >“ £.8 x 2 © o i_ CL C _CO 0 0 "co E l o o CM < Z I- E o c 0 CL LU Z TO i_ CD 0 -Q <— 'i_ O CO 0 TO o °S CO c 0 E CNJ h- OO 8lE CL 0 CO JZ 0 © £ 0 o ll ^ co 0 5 O 0 c a 0 0 i-i o -Q 0 > 0 c co 0 TO 0 •0 0 0) 0 0 DO 0 2 0 0 £Z TO 3 O •0 c 0 .CO o 2 CO m v_ 0 0 $ 0 ■4—' 0 0 Q. E 0 0 0 ■0 ■0 0 tr o CL 0 X _0 CL E o CO fl 0 o O o 0 CNJ CL c © 0 b E 0 Cl 0 — jz < O 0 4=: 0 0 § S .8 ^ Q -2 C/D ^ 0* § CD C 8 k; co jz '81 o o CM 0 ■0 0 N 0 E if) >z .E o a. >, LU w Z 0 E § £ I •0 ~ 0 5 ■c 3 o c CL 0 0 o CO £ 8 LI 2 CO CD 00 0 c o JD 0 Q. 0 0 0 E 0 CL 0^ m 0 JZ o 3 JO _Q 0 0 ,-t; -Q _Q O ^ o. 0 -0 CL 0 8 B •2 E 0 3 CL O CL — C CO 0 o o c 0 CL o -0 0 > o in 0 — o 0 o ^ c in 0 .11 0 0 8.9. O - CL CO 0 o o 4=1 0 0 Q. m O O CL E o c o X 0 ■0 c c 0 ”1 .x ■6 -D 0 8-8 ^ 8 b ci. £ 2 c o o 0 -a oQ o to X CL 0 O X 0 JO 0 -0 a 0 O -0 o ■o 2 o "0 o .a Q o 0 in 0 ■0 0 J4— in m _cp o in ■0 c 0 hi o o CM 4= 3 OH ■0 c -'t o o 0 CM 0 "I 0 © CD 0 . 0 © E 0 in £ ^ 0 if) m b 0 > m — in 0 o 0 CL m co 'sz o jQ £ 8 o O) i- CL ° ^ E o c 0 0 JZ E E o -o 0 tr o CL 0 i_ CO 0 "o 0 CL m c 0 0 CL O 13 LU c 0 d: -c o c 0 c 0 0 c o o •0 0 ■0 0 0 c 0 0 1 — 0 0 0 o CL o CM ° ^ CL < 2 ^ o ^ ^ co 9; c o E i'8 CO 8" 0 Q. CL LU E Z O M- o o w 0 0 i— 0 0 b JZ m 4= O 00 g co 0 CL in if) Z 0 'c I— £ 0 o 00 c o E 0 ■co 3 m 3 v- c o 3 O 3 CM E ° 2^ _co 0 E I- C - . 0 >> o | 8? 2 S Q. ^ O © . 0 i: . 0 H— < ■0 O ( JZ 0 < 00 -0 3 CO ■ O CL • £ c' 0 0 m © 0 CL C c CO o ^ ij 8 £ 8 -8 © ^ o 0 c 0 o , DO a 'c 0 00 o -4—' CL o 0 0 ■0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o O g D- O 0 Q. if) =j C o l— 0 ■0 0 > c 0 C 0 3 -*—> in 0 c o E E o O 0 0 o O g o 0 Ol if) Z) c o i _ 0 ■0 0 > c 0 c l— 0 3 0 0 C o E E o O c o ’*—• o 0 s— 03 d o 0 X >% o c 0 3 CT 0 CM CO CM LO h- CM CD CD ao o LD O LO CO CM CO CM CO O CO c 0 0 0 O c 0 ■D C 0 _Q < LO o X)- CO o ao CM CM CM CO CD CD 00 LO "M" CM 00 O CO o h-. CM O CO CM T— o o o o o CO CO CO 0 0 X ~o 0 O I- O o If) 0 o 0 Q. if) is I o 0 ,o c o 0 -J .0 o 5 Oo CO $ £ o -Q o c m 0 0 m c o m $ 0 O O ■0 O CL i2 0 0 m © s "8 © o-^ o 1 £ s .CO CO c: .0 co 5 -Q m .0 £ o § UJ b -2 "S 0 o ■0 b b o o cl .a Q 0 m 0 C 0 0 m m 0 C 0 m 1 e 0 0 0 0 .0 -0 CL m 1 ,o 5 chemicals in excess of ERLs (from Long et al. 1995), > 1 chemical in excess of ERMs (from Long et al. 1995), TOC > 5%, and DO in near-bottom water < 2.3 mg/L. Appendix Table 4 provides a summary by station of each of these variables and flags those falling within the defined levels of concern. This analysis revealed no major evidence of impaired benthic condition linked to measured stressors. There were only two stations, both in California, where low values of any of the three benthic attributes co-occurred with high sediment contamination or low DO in bottom water. One station (CA03-4039 off Los Angeles) had low benthic species richness and abundance accompanied by high sediment contamination, with eight chemicals in excess of corresponding ERL values and two in excess of ERM values. The other station (CA03-0059 north of San Francisco Bay) had low species richness and diversity accompanied by low DO. There were five other stations with DO in bottom water < 2.3 mg/L; however, none of these had low values of the three benthic variables. There were two stations (CA03-4030, CA03-4417) that had TOC levels in a range (> 5%) potentially harmful to benthic fauna. A third station (CA03-4430) showed a potential concern level if the more conservative threshold of 3.6% TOC is used (Hyland et al. 2005), but low values of benthic community attributes were not observed at any of these sites. High sediment contamination was a more prevalent stressor, occurring at 23 stations (all in California), but not at any of the sites where low values of benthic attributes were observed. In fact, most of these latter stations with high sediment contamination had more than 100 species grab' 1 . Such lack of concordance suggests that these offshore waters are currently in good condition, with the lower-end values of the various biological attributes representing parts of a normal reference range controlled by natural factors. Multiple linear regression was performed using full model procedures to test for the significance and direction of relationships between each of the benthic variables and various abiotic environmental factors (latitude, depth, percent fines). Data transformations were made where needed (i.e., square root for richness, logio for abundance) to meet analysis assumptions including normality and homoscedasticity of residuals. Results (graphics not shown) suggested that latitude and depth had significant influences on benthic variables region-wide. All three benthic variables showed significant inverse 109 relationships with latitude, i.e. with values increasing as latitude decreased (p < 0.01). Depth had a significant direct influence on diversity (p < 0.001) and a significant inverse effect on density (p < 0.01). None of the three benthic variables varied significantly in relation to % fines (at p < 0.1), though in general there was a tendency for muddier sediments (higher percent fines) to have lower species richness and diversity and higher densities than coarser sediments. Alternatively, it is possible that for some of these sites the lower values of benthic variables reflect symptoms of disturbance induced by other unmeasured stressors. In efforts to be consistent with the underlying concepts and protocols of earlier EMAP and NCA programs, the indicators in this study included measures of stressors, such as chemical contaminants and symptoms of eutrophication, which are often associated with adverse biological impacts in shallower estuarine and inland ecosystems. However, there may be other sources of human-induced stress in these offshore systems that pose greater risks to living resources and which have not been adequately captured. One such activity is commercial trawling, which is a major industry in shelf waters, including NMSs, and which could have significant adverse effects on bottom habitats and benthic organisms (Jones 1992, Jennings and Kaiser 1998, Dayton et al. 1995, National Research Council 2002, Watling and Norse 1998). Future monitoring efforts in these offshore areas should include indicators of such alternative sources of disturbance. 110 4.0 Literature Cited Allen, M.J., T. Mikel, D. Cadien, J.E. Kalman, E.T. Jarvis, K.C. Schiff, D.W. Diehl, S.L. Moore, S. Walther, G. Deets, C. Cash, S. Watts, D.J. Pondella II, V. Raco- Rands, C. Thomas, R. Gartman, L. Sabin, W. Power, A.K. Groce, and J.L. Armstrong. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: IV. Demersal Fishes and Megabenthic Invertebrates. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Costa Mesa, CA. Baber, K.D., F.B. Fulkerson and N.S. Peterson. 1959. pp. 765-778. Oregon. In: Bureau of Mines/Minerals Yearbook Area Reports, 1958. Baxter, R. 1987. Mollusks of Alaska: A listing of all mollusks, freshwater, terrestrial, and marine reported for the state of Alaska, with locations of the species types, maximum sizes, and marine depths inhabited. Shells and Sea Life. Bayside, California. 163 p. Bay, S.M., T. Mikel, K. Schiff, S. Mathison, B. Hester, D. Young, and D. Greenstein. 2005. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: I. Sediment Toxicity. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. Bernard, F. 1967. Prodrome fora distributional check-list and bibliography of the recent marine mollusca of the west coast of Canada. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Technical Report No. 2. 261 p. Blake, J.A. and R.E. Ruff. 2007. Polychaeta. pp. 309-410, In: Carlton, J.T. (ed.) In: The Light and Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to Oregon, Fourth Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Carlton, J.T. 1996. Biological invasions and cryptogenic species. Ecology 77:1653- 1655. Carlton, J.T. 2007. (ed.) The Light and Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to Oregon, Fourth Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Chan, F. , J. A. Barth, J. Lubchenco, A. Kirincich, H. Weeks, W. T. Peterson, B. A. Menge. 2008. Emergence of anoxia in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. Science 319:920. Chapman, J.W. 2007. Gammaridea. pp. 545-618, In: Carlton, J.T. (ed.), The Light and Smith Manual: Intertidal Invertebrates from Central California to Oregon, Fourth Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Cohen, A. and J.T. Carlton. 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic species in a United States estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Report for the National Sea Grant College Program, DT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Report No. PB 96-166525. Cooksey, C. L. 2003. Cruise Report, NOAA Ship McARTHUR II Cruise AR-03-01-NC (June 1 - 26, 2003). EMAP Summer 03 Survey of Ecological Conditions of the Western U.S. Continental Shelf. Internal Report. NOAA, NOS, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research, 219 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, South Carolina, 29412. Ill Dayton, P.K., S.F. Thrush, M.T. Agardy, and R.J. Hofman. 1995. Environmental effects of marine fishing. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 5: 205-232. Diaz, R.J., M. Solan, and R.M. Valente. 2004. A review of approaches for classifying benthic habitats and evaluating habitat quality. Journal of Environmental Management 73:165-181. Diaz-Ramos, S., D.L. Stevens, Jr., and A.R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistics Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-96/002. Corvallis, OR: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. Engle, V. D., J. K. Summers, and G.R. Gaston. 1994. A benthic index of environmental condition of Gulf of Mexico estuaries. Estuaries 17: 372-384. Fauchald, K. and G.F. Jones. 1978. Variation in community structure of shelf, slope and basin macrofaunal communities of the Southern California Bight. Chapter 19, Year II benthic study. Report submitted by Science Applications, Inc. to Bureau of Land Management, Pacific OCS Office, Los Angeles, CA under Contract No. AA551-CT6-40. Geider, R. J. and J. La Roche. 2002. Redfield revisited: variability of C:N:P in marine microalgae and its biochemical basis. European Journal of Phycology 37:1-17. Grantham, B.A., F. Chan, K.J. Nielsen, D.S. Fox, J.A. Barth, A. Huyer, J. Lubchenco, and B. A. Menge. 2004. Upwelling-driven nearshore hypoxia signals ecosystem and oceanographic changes in the northeast Pacific. Nature 429:749-754. Hayslip, G., L. Edmond, V. Partridge, W. Nelson, H. Lee, F. Cole, J. Lamberson , and L. Caton. 2006. Ecological Condition of the Estuaries of Oregon and Washington. EPA 910-R-06-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Assessment, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. Hines, A.H., and G.M. Ruiz. 2000. Biological invasions of cold-water coastal ecosystems: Ballast-mediated introductions in Port Valdez/Prince William Sound, Alaska. Prince William Sound Regional Advisory Board, Valdez, AK. Available online at http://www.pwsrcac.org/docs/d0018502.pdf. Hoberg, M. and H. Feder. 2002. The macrobenthos of sites within Prince William Sound, Alaska, prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. International Review of Hydrobiology 87:25-45. Hyland, J. L., T.J. Herrlinger, T.R. Snoots, A.H. Ringwood, R.F. Van Dolah, C.T. Hackney, G.A. Nelson, J.S. Rosen, and S.A. Kokkinakis. 1996. Environmental Quality of Estuaries of the Carolinian Province: 1994. Annual Statistical Summary for the 1994 EMAP- Estuaries Demonstration Project in the Carolinian Province. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 97. NOAA/NOS, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, Silver Spring, MD. 102 p. Hyland, J., E. Baptiste, J. Campbell, J. Kennedy, R. Kropp, and S. Williams. 1991. Macroinfaunal communities of the Santa Maria Basin on the California outer continental shelf and slope. Marine Ecology Progress Series 78:147-161. Hyland, J., L. Balthis, I. Karakassis, P. Magni, A. Petrov, J. Shine, O. Vestergaard, and R. Warwick. 2005. Organic carbon content of sediments as an indicator of stress in the marine benthos. Marine Ecology Progress Series 295:91-103. 112 Jennings, S. and M.J. Kaiser. 1998. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems. Advances in Marine Biology 34:201-352. Jones, G.F. 1969. The benthic macrofauna of the mainland shelf of southern California. Allan Hancock Monographs in Marine Biology 4: 1-219. Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26:59-67. Krauskopf, K.B. and D.K. Bird. 1995. Introduction to Geochemistry. 3 rd edition. Appendix IV, Average Abundance of Elements in the Earth’s Crust, Continental Crust, in Three Common Rocks, and in Seawater. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lauenstein, G.G. and A.Y. Cantillo (eds.). 1993. Sampling and analytical methods of the National Status and Trends Program National Benthic Surveillance and Mussel Watch Projects 1984-1992: Comprehensive descriptions of trace organic analytical methods, Volume IV NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 71, Silver Spring, MD. 182 pp. Lauenstein, G.G., E.A. Crecelius, and A.Y. Cantillo. 2000. Baseline metal concentrations of the U.S. West Coast and their use in evaluating sediment contamination. Presented at 21st Ann. Soc. Environ. Toxicology and Chemistry meeting, November 12 - 15, 2000, Nashville Tennessee. Lee II, H. and D.A. Reusser. with contributions from M.Ranelletti, R. Nehmer, K. Welch, and L. Hillmann. 2008. Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS) V. 2.0. U.S. EPA and USGS (Microsoft Access 2003 database). Lee II, H., B. Thompson, and S. Lowe. 2003. Estuarine and scalar patterns of invasion in the soft-bottom benthic communities of the San Francisco Estuary. Biological Invasions 5:85-102. Lee II, H., W.G. Nelson, J.O. Lamberson, and D.A. Reusser. 2003. Regional assessment of the invasive macrobenthos in the small West Coast estuaries, p. 81 In: Third International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions, Abstract Book. La Jolla, California, March 16-19. 134 p. Levin, P.S., M.J. Fogarty, G.C. Matlock, and M. Ernst. 2008. Integrated ecosystem assessments. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-92, 20 pp. Lima, F.P., P.A. Ribeiro, N. Queiroz, S.J. Hawkins, and A.M. Santos. 2007. Do distributional shifts of northern and southern species of algae match the warming pattern? Global Change Biology 13:2592-2604. Llanso, R.J., L.C. Scott, D.M. Dauer, J.L. Hyland, and D.E. Russell. 2002a. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity for the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. I. Classification of assemblages and habitat definition. Estuaries 25:1219-1230. Llanso, R.J., L.C. Scott, J.L. Hyland, D.M. Dauer, D.E. Russell, and F.W. Kutz. 2002. An estuarine benthic index of biological integrity for the Mid Atlantic region of the United States. II. Index development. Estuaries 25:1231-1242. Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Callander. 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management 19:81-97. Long, E.R., J. Hameedi, A. Robertson, M. Dutch, S. Aasen, K. Welch, S. Magoon, R. Carr, T. Johnson, J. Biedenbach, K. Scott, C. Mueller, and J. Anderson. 2000. 113 Sediment Quality in Puget Sound. Year 2 - Central Puget Sound. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, MD. NOS NCCOS COMA Technical Memo No. 147. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA, Publication No. 00-03-055. 353 p. Macpherson, E. 1971. The Marine Molluscs of Arctic Canada. National Museum of Natural Sciences. Publications in Biological Oceanography No. 3. 149 p. Marine Ecosystems and Management. 2007. Experts describe challenges facing marine EBM (multiple related short papers included). Marine Ecosystems Management 1 : 1 - 8 . Murawski, S.A. 2007. Ten myths concerning ecosystem approaches to marine resource management. Marine Pollution 31:681-690. Murawski, S. and E. Menashes. 2007. What is an integrated ecosystem assessment? Presentation at March 27-28, 2007 meeting on “An Integrated, Ecosystem-based Approach to Regional Ocean Management: Creating a Policy-Relevant Science Vision for Ecosystem-based Management in the Gulf of Maine,” University of New Hampshire. http://www.gulfofmaine.org/ebm/meeting2007/presentations/noaa_murawski_file s/noaa_murawski.ppt. National Research Council. 2002. Effects of trawling and dredging on seafloor habitat. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 126 p. Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, V. Engle, L. Harwell and L.M. Smith. 2004. Condition of Estuaries of Western United States for 1999: A Statistical Summary. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/620/R-04/200. 132 p. Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, and J.O. Lamberson. 2005. Ecological Condition of the Estuaries of California for 1999: A Statistical Summary. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. EPA/620/R-05/004. 128 p. Nelson, W.G., H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson, F.A. Cole, C. Weilhoefer, and P.J. Clinton. 2007a. The Condition of Tidal Wetlands of Washington, Oregon, and California - 2002. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory. 84 p. Nelson, W.G., R. Brock, H. Lee II, J.O. Lamberson and F. Cole. 2007b. Condition of Estuaries and Bays of Hawaii for 2002: A Statistical Summary. Technical Report. Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, EPA/620-R-07/001. 134 p. Nezlin, N.P., P.M. DiGiacomo, S.B. Weisberg, D.W. Diehl, J.A. Warrick, J. Mengel, B.H. Jones, K.M. Reifel, S.C. Johnson, J.C. Ohlmann, L. Washburn, and E.J. Terrill. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Monitoring Program: V. Water Quality. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, Costa Mesa, CA. NMSP (National Marine Sanctuaries Program). 2004. A monitoring framework for the National Marine Sanctuary System. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Silver Spring, MD. 22p. 114 NOAA 2007. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. White paper, November 2007. NOAA IEA Priority Area Task Team. http://www- ocean.tamu.edu/GCOOS/Office/documents/Nov2007/04b.pdf. 7 p. Partridge, V. 2007. Condition of coastal waters of Washington State, 2000-2003. A statistical summary. Publication No. 07-03-051. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 251 p. Ranasinghe, J.A., A.M. Barnett, K. Schiff, D.E. Montagne, C. Brantley, C. Beegan, D.B. Cadien, C. Cash, G.B. Deets, D.R. Diener, T.K. Mikel, R.W. Smith, R.G. Velarde, S.D. Watts, and S.B. Weisberg. 2007. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: III. Benthic Macrofauna. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Costa Mesa, CA. Raymond, L.J. and N.V.C. Ralston. 2004. Mercury: selenium interactions and health implications. Seychelles Medical and Dental Journal, Special Issue, 7:72-77. Available at: http://www.seychelles.net/smdj/SECIIIC.pdf SAS Institute Inc. 2004. SAS OnlineDoc® 9.1.3. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc. Saupe, S.M., J. Gendron, and D. Dasher. 2005. The Condition of Southcentral Alaska Coastal Bays and Estuaries. A Statistical Summary for the National Coastal Assessment Program. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. SCAMIT, 2001. A taxonomic listing of soft bottom macro- and megainvertebrates from infaunal & epibenthic monitoring programs in the Southern California Bight. Edition 4. Prepared by Southern California Association of Marine Invertebrate Taxonomists, San Pedro, California. Available at http://www.scamit.org/edition_four_information.htm. Schiff, K. 2000. Sediment chemistry on the mainland shelf of the Southern California Bight. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:267-276. Schiff, K., K. Maruya and K. Christensen. 2006. Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program: II. Sediment Chemistry. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. Smith, R.W., M. Bergen, S.B. Weisberg, D. Cadien, A. Dalkey, D. Montagne, J.K. Stull, and R.G. Velarde. 2001. Benthic response index for assessing infaunal communities on the southern California mainland shelf. Ecological Applications 11:1073-1087. Spalding, M.D. H.E. Fox, G.R. Allen, N. Davidson, Z. A. Ferdana, M. Finlayson, B.S. Flalpern, M. A. Jorge, A. Lombana, S.A. Lourie, K.D. Martin, E. Mcmanus, J. Molnar, C.A. Recchia, and J. Robertson. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: A bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57:573-583. Strobel, C. J., H. W. Buffum, S.J. Benyi, E.A. Petrocelli, D.R. Reifsteck, and D.J. Keith. 1995. Statistical summary: EMAP - Estuaries Virginian Province - 1990 to 1993. U.S. EPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, R.l. EPA/620/R-94/026. 72 p. plus Appendices A-C. Summers, J.K., J.M. Macauley, P.T. Heitmuller, V.D. Engle, A.M. Adams, and G.T. Brooks. 1993. Annual Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province -1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and 115 Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R- 93/001. 101 p. plus Appendices A-C. Sytsma M., J. Cordell, J. Chapman, R.C. Draheim. 2004. Lower Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Survey 2001-2004 Final Technical Report: (Appendices). Prepared for the United States Coast Guard and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 164 p. T N & Associates, Inc. 2001. Compiling Lists of Nonindigenous Species (NIS) from the West Coast of the Unites States, Excluding San Francisco Bay. Report on EMAP 1999 species submitted to National Center for Environmental Assessment/ORD/EPA, Washington, D.C. 81 pages and spreadsheet, (available from PCEB/EPA). U.S. EPA. 1994. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP): Laboratory Methods Manual - Estuaries, Volume 1: Biological and Physical Analyses. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Systems Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH. EPA/600/4-91/024. 321-324. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Saltwater): Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras. EPA-822-R-00-012. Office of Water and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. 49p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/standards/dissolved/docriteria.pdf U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. EPA-823-B-00-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 383 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/region6/6pd/qa/qadevtools/mod4references/supplemental/vol ume2.pdf U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620/R-01/005. Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, DC. 204 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/downloads.html U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. National Coastal Condition Report II. EPA-620/R-03/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 286 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/nccr/2005/downloads.html U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report. EPA-842/B-06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 445 p. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/index.html U.S. EPA/WED Unpublished Data. EPA National Coastal Assessment Western Regional Component (NCA-West) 1999-2000 database for estuaries. EPA Western Ecology Division (EPA/WED), National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR 32561. 116 Van Dolah, R. F., J. L. Hyland, A. F. Holland, J. S. Rosen, and T. R. Snoots. 1999. A benthic index of biological integrity for assessing habitat quality in estuaries of the southeastern USA. Marine Environmental Research 48: 269-283. Weisberg, S.B., J.A. Ranasinghe, D.M. Dauer, L.C. Schaffner, R.J. Diaz, and J.B. Frithsen. 1997. An estuarine benthic index of biotic integrity (B-IBI) for Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 20:149-158. Watling, L. and E.A. Norse. 1998. Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison with forest clear-cutting. Conservation Biolology 12: 1180-1197. Wilson, S. and V. Partridge. 2007. Condition of Outer Coastal Estuaries of Washington State, 1999. A Statistical Summary. Publication No. 07-03-012. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 249 p. 117 5.0 Appendix Tables Appendix Table 1. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. The “Frame km 2 ” represents the total area within a multi-density category. The weighting factor for computing CDFs is obtained by dividing the multi-density category area by the number of samples for a given parameter obtained in that category (see section 2.6). EMAP Station ID Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude Multi-density Category Frame km 2 CA03-0001 106 10/16/2003 33.362 -118.307 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0007 70 6/25/2003 38.158 -123.056 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0008 64.3 6/24/2003 37.248 -122.495 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0012 40 6/26/2003 37.651 -122.711 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0019 110 6/18/2003 39.990 -124.158 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0024 68 6/25/2003 37.598 -122.827 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0027 84 6/19/2003 38.444 -123.258 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0028 94 6/25/2003 37.946 -123.145 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0032 56 6/22/2003 34.908 -120.737 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0035 81 6/18/2003 39.510 -123.840 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0039 90 6/19/2003 38.311 -123.206 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0040 93 6/20/2003 37.373 -122.753 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0043 78 6/14/2003 40.728 -124.445 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0044 61 6/25/2003 37.943 -123.028 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0048 62 6/22/2003 34.590 -120.719 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0051 63 6/14/2003 41.636 -124.319 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0052 104 6/25/2003 37.908 -123.310 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0056 95 6/21/2003 37.524 -122.874 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0059 103 6/19/2003 38.465 -123.350 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0060 80 6/24/2003 36.823 -121.903 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0064 50 6/22/2003 35.783 -121.375 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0071 75 6/25/2003 38.303 -123.124 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0072 89 6/20/2003 37.317 -122.628 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0075 69 6/15/2003 40.515 -124.521 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0076 54 6/25/2003 37.749 -122.877 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0083 32.7 6/14/2003 41.442 -124.149 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0088 46 6/24/2003 37.611 -122.714 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0091 115 6/19/2003 38.765 -123.702 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0092 89 6/20/2003 36.924 -122.236 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0096 55 6/22/2003 35.042 -120.740 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0099 65 6/18/2003 39.621 -123.828 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0104 61.5 6/24/2003 37.444 -122.598 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0112 61 6/22/2003 34.725 -120.730 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0116 89 6/21/2003 37.623 -122.933 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0123 40.4 6/25/2003 37.927 -122.836 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0124 104 6/20/2003 37.128 -122.577 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0128 85 6/22/2003 35.933 -121.516 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0135 94 6/25/2003 38.128 -123.180 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0136 112 6/20/2003 36.980 -122.347 CA-NMS 5863.69 118 EMAP Sample Multi-density Frame Station ID Depth Date Latitude Longitude Category km 2 CA03-0139 75 6/14/2003 41.974 -124.405 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0140 49.6 6/25/2003 37.853 -122.825 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0147 123 6/14/2003 41.184 -124.319 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-0157 85 6/25/2003 37.980 -123.133 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0158 53 6/24/2003 37.194 -122.457 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0194 69 6/21/2003 37.777 -123.010 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0210 102 6/24/2003 36.748 -121.939 CA-NMS 5863.69 CA03-0289 102 6/14/2003 41.058 -124.301 CA-Other 6311.78 CA03-4001 34 7/21/2003 32.550 -117.200 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4007 60 7/21/2003 33.860 -118.448 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4013 73 7/22/2003 32.695 -117.302 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4016 87 7/24/2003 34.334 -119.742 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4020 83 8/18/2003 34.231 -119.512 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4022 ' 35 7/21/2003 33.928 -118.483 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4027 43 8/19/2003 33.621 -118.195 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4028 101 8/15/2003 34.116 -119.936 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4030 75 7/21/2003 34.034 -119.351 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4031 42 7/24/2003 33.512 -117.771 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4036 71 8/18/2003 34.284 -119.507 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4037 48 7/23/2003 32.796 -117.305 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4038 59 7/23/2003 33.998 -118.709 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4039 131 8/20/2003 33.767 -118.460 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4041 56 8/6/2003 33.153 -117.387 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4042 70 7/29/2003 33.568 -117.990 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4043 28 8/19/2003 33.695 -118.296 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4046 57 7/22/2003 33.935 -118.539 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4049 72 8/5/2003 33.088 -117.351 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4052 92 7/21/2003 34.076 -119.748 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4071 72 8/20/2003 33.759 -118.446 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4074 38 7/29/2003 33.598 -118.046 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4078 57 7/22/2003 33.922 -118.519 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4080 36.5 7/25/2003 34.384 -119.596 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4081 63 8/7/2003 33.266 -117.534 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4087 93 7/21/2003 33.835 -118.470 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4090 80 7/21/2003 33.848 -118.568 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4096 79 8/7/2003 33.270 -117.565 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4099 72 8/18/2003 34.307 -119.558 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4101 38 7/23/2003 33.998 -118.559 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4102 42 8/20/2003 33.721 -118.365 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4109 42 7/22/2003 33.959 -118.520 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4113 41 7/29/2003 33.590 -117.971 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4115 92 7/21/2003 34.078 -119.701 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4120 86 7/22/2003 32.658 -117.309 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4122 48 8/19/2003 33.604 -118.140 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4123 56.5 7/30/2003 34.454 -120.198 SPME-N 949.7 CA03-4126 50 9/3/2003 33.354 -117.619 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4134 78 8/21/2003 33.820 -118.427 SPME-C 385.46 119 EMAP Station ID Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude Multi-density Category Frame km 2 CA03-4137 57 7/29/2003 33.577 -118.012 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4150 60 7/21/2003 33.877 -118.470 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4152 98 8/5/2003 33.115 -117.357 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4154 34 7/23/2003 33.625 -118.075 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4155 101 8/15/2003 34.102 -120.142 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4159 71 8/21/2003 33.994 -120.337 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4163 134 7/21/2003 34.078 -119.510 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4164 100 7/25/2003 32.730 -117.345 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4165 34 7/23/2003 34.014 -118.592 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4166 67 8/20/20,03 33.708 -118.357 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4171 78 7/22/2003 33.856 -120.002 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4172 45 7/21/2003 32.595 -117.245 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4173 121 7/22/2003 33.908 -118.567 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4183 35.1 7/29/2003 34.400 -119.830 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4184 92 7/25/2003 32.688 -117.324 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4185 48 7/31/2003 33.992 -118.798 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4186 111 8/19/2003 33.567 -118.191 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4197 65 8/21/2003 33.790 -118.456 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4199 56 8/6/2003 33.159 -117.398 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4204 65 7/22/2003 33.928 -118.543 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4215 50 8/19/2003 33.607 -118.125 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4219 41.5 9/3/2003 33.428 -117.690 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4226 56 7/21/2003 33.898 -118.501 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4227 74 8/5/2003 33.107 -117.357 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4229 34 8/18/2003 33.672 -118.265 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4230 56 7/22/2003 33.887 -120.010 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4236 32 7/29/2003 33.603 -118.036 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4238 82 7/22/2003 33.966 -119.605 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4239 57 7/22/2003 32.682 -117.282 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4243 58 7/22/2003 32.679 -117.282 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4245 84 8/19/2003 33.577 -118.210 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4251 40 7/21/2003 32.590 -117.228 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4255 125 7/22/2003 32.659 -117.336 SPME-S 488.75 CA03-4260 40 7/29/2003 33.592 -118.027 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4270 52 7/21/2003 33.910 -118.499 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4271 64 7/22/2003 33.878 -118.545 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4273 40 8/5/2003 33.115 -117.348 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4274 33 8/20/2003 33.636 -118.198 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4278 41 7/24/2003 33.503 -117.765 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4288 48 8/6/2003 33.152 -117.383 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4291 82 7/22/2003 33.874 -119.948 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4293 62 7/22/2003 33.897 -118.540 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4302 119 7/25/2003 32.691 -117.336 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4303 46 8/20/2003 33.606 -118.190 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4313 41 8/20/2003 33.743 -118.424 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4315 28 8/6/2003 33.162 -117.386 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4317 63 8/18/2003 33.617 -118.260 SPME-C 385.46 120 EMAP Sample Multi-density Frame Station ID Depth Date Latitude Longitude Category km 2 CA03-4324 64 7/22/2003 33.953 -119.687 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4329 64 8/19/2003 33.602 -118.117 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4330 110 8/15/2003 34.113 -120.025 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4333 37.6 9/3/2003 33.428 -117.686 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4334 51 8/21/2003 34.071 -120.328 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4339 51 7/22/2003 33.881 -118.535 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4343 51 8/20/2003 33.637 -118.248 SPME-C 385.46 CA03-4346 48 7/23/2003 33.960 -118.529 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4350 56 7/29/2003 33.575 -117.985 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4352 78 7/21/2003 34.054 -119.528 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4357 92 7/22/2003 32.680 -117.324 Large POTW Outfalls 163.22 CA03-4365 41.5 8/4/2003 32.999 -117.301 Small POTW Outfalls 25.81 CA03-4377 46 7/22/2003 33.890 -120.082 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4380 95 8/21/2003 33.988 -120.380 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4389 100 8/19/2003 33.450 -119.053 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4390 52 8/21/2003 33.950 -120.237 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4396 99 8/18/2003 34.097 -120.123 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4411 84 8/22/2003 34.046 -119.439 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4417 119 8/19/2003 33.827 -120.076 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4425 100 8/22/2003 34.108 -120.205 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4427 85 8/23/2003 34.047 -119.655 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4430 83 8/28/2003 34.057 -119.475 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4435 63 8/27/2003 33.976 -119.881 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 CA03-4444 100 8/28/2003 33.963 -119.586 Channel Islands NMS 2160.8 OR03-0001 50 6/13/2003 42.503 -124.539 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0002 108 6/6/2003 45.959 -124.244 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0003 102 6/11/2003 44.193 -124.485 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0004 101 6/10/2003 44.819 -124.237 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0005 47 6/14/2003 42.010 -124.354 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0006 54 6/12/2003 44.014 -124.212 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0007 119 6/11/2003 43.787 -124.437 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0008 82 6/6/2003 45.658 -124.112 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0009 70 6/10/2003 44.590 -124.253 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0010 91 6/11/2003 44.034 -124.812 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0011 64 6/13/2003 42.119 -124.400 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0012 100 6/12/2003 43.525 -124.364 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0013 84 6/6/2003 46.123 -124.214 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0014 64 6/10/2003 44.460 -124.351 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0015 77 6/9/2003 45.044 -124.104 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0016 112 6/8/2003 45.421 -124.154 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0017 80 6/9/2003 45.270 -124.088 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0018 123 6/10/2003 44.639 -124.513 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0019 93 6/10/2003 44.294 -124.517 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0020 76 6/13/2003 42.302 -124.477 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0021 120 6/6/2003 46.003 -124.304 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0022 76 6/12/2003 43.164 -124.540 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0023 92 6/13/2003 42.496 -124.620 OR-ALL 7994.69 121 EMAP Station ID Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude Multi-density Category Frame km 2 OR03-0024 110 6/6/2003 46.118 -124.351 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0025 57 6/10/2003 44.471 -124.212 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0026 93 6/9/2003 44.922 -124.165 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0027 102 6/12/2003 43.935 -124.310 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0028 79 6/12/2003 43.754 -124.252 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0029 52 6/6/2003 45.622 -124.011 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0030 64 6/10/2003 44.686 -124.185 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0031 74.7 6/11/2003 44.296 -124.307 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0032 54 6/13/2003 42.078 -124.376 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0033 107 6/12/2003 43.598 -124.381 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0034 116 6/6/2003 46.190 -124.389 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0035 118 6/10/2003 44.402 -124.449 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0036 115 6/11/2003 44.189 -124.676 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0037 106 6/6/2003 45.591 -124.161 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0038 76 6/9/2003 45.138 -124.090 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0039 73 6/11/2003 44.080 -124.257 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0040 112 6/11/2003 44.095 -124.426 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0041 92 6/13/2003 42.622 -124.567 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0042 88 6/6/2003 46.030 -124.192 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0043 106 6/12/2003 43.436 -124.466 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0044 100 6/13/2003 42.489 -124.652 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0045 81 6/6/2003 46.164 -124.228 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0046 57 6/11/2003 44.224 -124.215 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0047 64 6/10/2003 44.782 -124.191 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0048 95 6/12/2003 43.885 -124.279 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0049 69 6/12/2003 43.624 -124.266 OR-ALL 7994.69 OR03-0050 54 6/6/2003 45.655 -124.024 OR-ALL 7994.69 WA03-0001 28 6/2/2003 47.823 -124.645 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0002 75 6/4/2003 46.977 -124.509 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0003 60 6/3/2003 47.554 -124.642 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0004 88 6/5/2003 46.665 -124.428 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0005 46 6/3/2003 47.313 -124.494 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0006 60 6/2/2003 48.039 -124.883 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0007 54 6/4/2003 47.128 -124.441 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0008 116 6/3/2003 47.325 -124.717 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0009 104 6/4/2003 47.086 -124.702 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0010 61 6/5/2003 46.285 -124.244 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0011 30.6 6/2/2003 48.073 -124.797 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0012 91 6/2/2003 47.909 -124.908 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0013 55 6/3/2003 47.246 -124.505 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0014 32 6/2/2003 48.297 -124.766 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0015 64 6/5/2003 46.426 -124.293 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0017 30 6/3/2003 47.623 -124.543 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0018 57 6/5/2003 46.549 -124.267 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0019 52 6/3/2003 47.354 -124.533 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0020 60 6/4/2003 46.782 -124.344 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0021 91 6/3/2003 47.737 -124.828 Olympic Coast 3097.99 122 EMAP Station ID Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude Multi-density Category Frame km 2 WA03-0022 65 6/2/2003 47.780 -124.753 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0023 100 6/5/2003 46.814 -124.551 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0024 31 6/2/2003 48.253 -124.815 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0025 39 6/4/2003 46.844 -124.242 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0026 110 6/3/2003 47.458 -124.754 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0027 54 6/2/2003 47.717 -124.685 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0029 44 6/3/2003 47.457 -124.558 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0030 107 6/4/2003 46.948 -124.641 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0031 54 6/5/2003 46.528 -124.263 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0032 118 6/3/2003 47.665 -124.907 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0033 106 6/2/2003 47.899 -124.965 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0034 89 6/4/2003 47.127 -124.645 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0035 103 6/4/2003 47.161 -124.693 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0037 98 6/5/2003 46.418 -124.409 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0038 47.3 6/2/2003 48.030 -124.843 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0039 82 6/3/2003 47.623 -124.754 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0041 81 6/3/2003 47.331 -124.617 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0042 48 6/4/2003 46.934 -124.359 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0043 102 6/2/2003 47.795 -124.896 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0044 67 6/2/2003 47.827 -124.788 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0046 53 6/2/2003 48.177 -124.878 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0047 61 6/4/2003 46.769 -124.345 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0048 113 6/3/2003 47.504 -124.795 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0051 94 6/2/2003 47.773 -124.841 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0053 45 6/3/2003 47.565 -124.598 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0060 29 6/5/2003 46.447 -124.177 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0068 28 6/4/2003 47.152 -124.289 Olympic Coast 3097.99 WA03-0070 50 6/4/2003 46.989 -124.488 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0081 108 6/5/2003 46.339 -124.395 WA-Other 2551.6 WA03-0086 71 6/5/2003 46.532 -124.331 WA-Other 2551.6 123 Appendix Table 2. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 FRAM Groundfish Survey stations from which fish were analyzed for tissue contaminants by EPA. EMAP Station ID State Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude National Marine Sanctuary CEW03419-001 CA 96 10/7/2003 39.248020 -123.835800 no CEW03419-003 CA 36 7/31/2003 36.808020 -121.820760 Monterey Bay CEW03419-004 CA 59 7/29/2003 37.795140 -122.882400 Gulf of the Farallones CEW03419-006 CA 62 7/19/2003 41.604140 -124.294740 no CEW03419-008 CA 102 7/27/2003 39.548520 -123.856450 no CEW03419-016 CA 91 10/9/2003 37.211350 -122.560360 Monterey Bay CEW03419-017 CA 116 10/8/2003 38.767360 -123.705910 no CEW03419-018 CA 93 8/2/2003 35.507480 -121.133150 no CEW03419-019 CA 83 7/19/2003 41.470380 -124.316410 no CEW03419-022 CA 97 10/16/2003 34.668990 -120.791560 no CEW03419-023 CA 68 8/7/2003 34.526280 -120.644900 no CEW03419-026 CA 106 7/29/2003 38.007320 -123.195850 Cordell Bank CEW03419-030 CA 61 7/31/2003 37.161140 -122.437850 Monterey Bay CEW03419-031 CA 51 8/7/2003 34.757170 -120.692350 no CEW03419-032 CA 94 7/21/2003 41.323850 -124.295010 no CEW03419-036 CA 84 8/6/2003 34.965570 -120.773340 no CEW03419-043 CA 73 7/28/2003 39.170940 -123.791370 no CEW03419-044 CA 47 8/6/2003 34.733340 -120.681540 no CEW03419-045 CA 80 9/29/2003 41.364890 -124.265620 no CEW03419-047 CA 56 10/16/2003 35.089980 -120.752310 no CEW03419-048 CA 72 9/28/2003 41.569970 -124.313020 no CEW03419-054 CA 117 10/10/2003 37.064480 -122.512150 Monterey Bay CEW03419-058 CA 100 7/31/2003 37.152230 -122.563930 Monterey Bay CEW03419-059 CA 83 8/2/2003 35.501100 -121.111680 no CEW03419-060 CA 64 7/30/2003 37.377030 -122.551340 Monterey Bay CEW03419-071 CA 69 10/11/2003 35.728440 -121.376240 Monterey Bay CEW03419-079 OR 110 9/24/2003 42.991690 -124.628400 no CEW03419-082 OR 82 9/16/2003 44.335710 -124.390000 no CEW03419-084 OR 103 9/16/2003 44.697040 -124.420680 no CEW03419-085 OR 70 7/9/2003 44.925250 -124.126530 no CEW03419-087 OR 95 9/17/2003 44.107350 -124.360670 no CEW03419-089 OR 97 7/9/2003 44.881670 -124.185170 no CEW03419-091 OR 99 9/16/2003 43.937380 -124.288410 no CEW03419-092 OR 60 7/9/2003 44.208650 -124.210820 no CEW03419-096 OR 64 9/24/2003 42.801400 -124.644780 no CEW03419-097 OR 115 7/11/2003 43.546480 -124.408680 no CEW03419-098 OR 92 7/6/2003 45.922470 -124.159120 no CEW03419-099 OR 81 7/10/2003 44.187780 -124.303200 no CEW03419-100 WA 115 6/29/2003 48.126430 -124.957210 Olympic Coast CEW03419-103 WA 65 6/29/2003 47.995030 -124.879080 Olympic Coast CEW03419-104 WA 99 9/3/2003 47.728780 -124.853600 Olympic Coast CEW03419-105 WA 65 9/6/2003 48.160750 -124.895050 Olympic Coast CEW03419-108 WA 115 7/1/2003 47.256030 -124.712740 Olympic Coast 124 EMAP Station ID State Sample Depth Date Latitude Longitude National Marine Sanctuary CEW03419-109 WA 80 7/1/2003 46.394080 -124.324500 no CEW03419-110 WA 69 6/30/2003 47.719490 -124.736600 Olympic Coast CEW03419-112 WA 89 7/1/2003 47.225690 -124.629530 Olympic Coast CEW03419-113 WA 97 6/29/2003 47.906270 -124.914910 Olympic Coast CEW03419-114 WA 108 6/30/2003 47.775640 -124.910230 Olympic Coast CEW03419-115 WA 99 9/7/2003 47.751500 -124.861750 Olympic Coast CEW03419-116 WA 65 9/6/2003 48.016830 -124.890230 Olympic Coast CEW03419-118 WA 88 9/8/2003 46.583160 -124.400940 no CEW03419-119 WA 84 6/29/2003 48.186830 -124.918710 Olympic Coast CEW03419-120 WA 99 9/6/2003 47.997830 -124.957630 Olympic Coast CEW03419-121 WA 106 6/25/2003 47.602070 -124.815620 Olympic Coast CEW03419-122 WA 57 7/1/2003 47.023160 -124.432590 no CEW03419-125 WA 107 9/7/2003 47.653430 -124.854420 Olympic Coast CEW03419-126 WA 111 9/6/2003 47.862850 -124.959860 Olympic Coast CEW03419-127 WA 88 9/6/2003 48.145470 -124.921600 Olympic Coast CEW03419-904 OR 87 7/9/2003 44.642220 -124.429540 no CEW03419-931 OR 96 7/10/2003 44.350900 -124.600980 no 125 Appendix Table 3a. Summary for Washington data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this QC material was not analyzed or QC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing DQO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes were reported. Washington 2003 Analytes (#) Matrix Reference Materials average recovery within: ±30% organics and ±20% metals of true value*; 70% of individuals within ±35% of true value** Matrix spikes RPDs and CVs of Matrix spikes and Reference Materials DQO met? If no, average % different from true value (# analytes reported) recovery DQO of 50%- 120% met? met DQO of average <30%? PAHs (22) Sediment no* no** NIST 1941 44%* 59%** (22) yes (22) yes Tissue NA NA NA NA Metals (tissues by GPL lab) Sediment (15) yes* yes** NIST 2711 29.8%* 80%** (15) yes (15) yes Tissue (13) yes soiked cod (7) yes 03) yes PCBs (21) (tissues by GPL lab) Sediment no* yes** NIST 1941b 35%* 83%** (18) yes (21) yes Tissue no* no** LCM 61%* 48%** cod & MS/MSD (10 & 11) yes (21) yes Pesticides (20) (tissues by GPL lab) Sediment no* no** NIST 1941 43%* 58%** 1941 & MS/MSD (5 & 14) yes (18) yes Tissue no* no** LCM 57%* 30%** cod & MS/MSD (12 & 8) yes (19) yes 126 Appendix Table 3b. Summary for Oregon data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this GC material was not analyzed or OC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing DOO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes were reported. Oregon 2003 Analytes (#) Matrix Reference Materials average recovery within: ±30% organics and ±20% metals of true value*; 70% of individuals within ±35% of true value** Matrix spikes RPDs and CVs of Matrix spikes and Reference Materials DQO met? If no, average % different from true value (# analytes reported) recovery DQO of 50%- 120% met? met DQO of average <30%? PAHs (22) Metals Sediment no* no** NIST 1944 40% 42% (19) yes (22) yes Tissue NA NA NA NA Sediment (15) yes MESS-2 (11) yes (15) yes Tissue (13) yes NIST 2976 (10) none yes PCBs (21) Sediment no* no** NIST 1944 115% 16% (19) yes (18) yes* *1944 = 37% Tissue no* no** CARP-2 58% 18% (17) yes yes Pesticides (20) Sediment no* no** NIST 1944 90% 47% 1944 & MS/MSD (8,H) yes (19) yes Tissue no* no** CARP-2 36% 40% CARP & MS/MSD (6, 12) yes yes 127 Appendix Table 3c. Summary for California data of performance with regard to QC criteria for analysis of reference materials, matrix spike recoveries, and relative percent difference or coefficient of variation (RPD, CV) of replicates. SRM = Standard Reference Material, CRM = Certified Reference Material, LCM = Laboratory Control Material, NA = not applicable, none = this QC material was not analyzed or QC activity not done. Those values in red are averages failing DQO, borderline average values, or a significantly reduced number of analytes were reported. California 2003 Analytes (#) Matrix Referen average re ±30% ( ±20 of true ve individual of tru DQO met? ce Materials acovery within: irganics and % metals alue*; 70% of s within ±35% e value** If no, average % different from true value (# analytes reported) Matrix spikes recovery DQO of 50%- 120% met? RPDs and CVs of Matrix spikes and Reference Materials met DQO of average <30%? PAHs (22) Sediment yes NIST 1944 (18) yes (22) yes Tissue NA NA NA NA Metals Sediment (15) yes 016-050 (11) yes (15) yes Tissue (13) yes DORM-? (10) none yes PCBs (21) Pesticides (20) Sediment yes NIST 1944 (19) yes (18) yes Tissue yes CARP-2 (17) none yes Sediment yes NIST 1944 (6) yes (19) yes Tissue yes CARP-2 (6) none yes 128 Appendix Table 4. Summary by station of key benthic variables and corresponding sediment and water-quality indicators. Bolded values indicate: Low species richness (lower 10 th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low densities (lower 10 th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low H' (lower 10 th percentile of values for corresponding state), > 5 chemicals in excess of ERLs, > 1 chemical in excess of ERMs, TOC > 5%, DO in near-bottom water < 2.3 mg/L. Mean No. Mean Mean H' Taxa per Density per No. No. Station Grab (0.1m 2 ) (all fauna/m 2 ) Grab (0.1m 2 ) Chemicals > ERL Chemicals > ERM TOC (%) DO (mg/L) Silt+Clay (%) CA03-0001 51 1160 5.146 1 0 1.501 4.27 22.819 CA03-0007 77 6930 4.744 0 0 0.75 3.62 90.1 CA03-0008 77 10340 4.59 0 0 0.61 2.84 81.58 CA03-0012 56 3240 4.544 0 0 0.24 2.95 24.95 CA03-0019 96 4350 5.555 0 0 0.64 2.45 37.78 CA03-0024 75 4600 5.177 1 0 0.45 2.31 46.48 CA03-0027 67 4810 4.238 2 0 1.58 89.18 CA03-0028 72 4780 4.652 1 0 1.11 2.16 73.06 CA03-0032 78 3030 5.417 0 0 0.23 6.1 6.24 CA03-0035 116 7330 5.77 0 0 1.25 3.06 60.42 CA03-0039 58 2380 4.304 1 0 0.96 70.8 CA03-0040 68 3790 5.074 0 0 0.32 2.49 7.39 CA03-0043 110.5 6845 5.317 1 0 0.69 4.61 74.82 CA03-0044 90 6610 5.155 0 0 0.49 3.54 27.895 CA03-0048 118 8880 5.643 0 0 0.68 3.77 57.48 CA03-0051 77 3080 5.236 1 0 0.29 2.08 51.45 CA03-0052 77 2510 5.545 0 0 0.36 2.64 5.34 CA03-0056 97 5690 5.202 0 0 0.37 2.24 9.42 CA03-0059 48 2610 3.651 2 0 1.16 2.24 64.59 CA03-0060 113 6010 5.776 0 0 0.36 2.45 30.15 CA03-0064 82 5350 5.271 1 0 0.53 4.23 6.32 CA03-0071 62 5960 3.538 1 0 1.22 2.87 88.16 CA03-0072 100 9390 4.822 1 0 0.59 2.71 39.15 CA03-0075 40 1320 4.63 0 0 0.35 4.8 6.03 CA03-0076 25 690 3.788 0 0 0.26 3.4 1.24 CA03-0083 34 1720 3.877 1 0 0.23 2.81 3.07 CA03-0088 52 1800 4.751 0 0 0.26 2.79 30.27 CA03-0091 64 3060 4.654 1 0 1.08 61.53 CA03-0092 113.5 8140 5.188 1 0 0.82 3.03 53.145 CA03-0096 105 4740 6.006 0 0 0.5 4.51 39.46 CA03-0099 36 1150 4.551 0 0 0.32 3.11 4.26 CA03-0104 78 6110 4.645 0 0 0.28 2.38 9.75 CA03-0112 92 4130 5.409 0 0 0.46 2.68 47.39 CA03-0116 85 7010 4.335 1 0 0.66 2.34 46.12 CA03-0123 60 4000 4.593 0 0 0.52 4.41 33.52 CA03-0124 90 4330 5.169 0 0 0.43 2.61 24.44 CA03-0128 71 3070 5.107 1 0 0.46 2.86 5.42 CA03-0135 66 4080 4.409 0 0 1.02 3.68 93.98 129 Station Mean No. Taxa per Grab (0.1m 2 ) Mean Density (all ‘ fauna/m 2 ) Mean H' per Grab (0.1m 2 ) No. Chemicals > ERL No. Chemicals > ERM TOC (%) DO (mg/L) Silt+Clay (%) CA03-0136 119 9560 5.347 2 0 0.61 22.82 CA03-0139 92 8160 5.045 1 0 0.66 3.62 56.73 CA03-0140 78 3920 5.43 0 0 0.41 2.46 17.16 CA03-0147 90 2580 5.809 1 0 1.24 98.71 CA03-0157 76 5420 4.731 0 0 1.14 2.77 87.13 CA03-0158 103 7250 5.315 0 0 0.48 3.12 35.38 CA03-0194 32 1130 4.468 0 0 0.19 2.55 2.29 CA03-0210 106 11230 4.233 0 0 0.75 2.45 43.94 CA03-0289 63 2300 5.047 1 0 1.11 3.62 98.16 CA03-4001 79 2500 5.341 0 0 0.107 22.4505 CA03-4007 99 3640 5.711 3 2 0.55 6.3 35.45 CA03-4013 73 5010 3.378 0 0 0.735 60.046 CA03-4016 88 2470 5.895 2 0 0.512 48.08 CA03-4020 49 1890 4.646 3 0 1.366 80.31 CA03-4022 114 4170 5.989 3 1 0.477 6.44 40.92 CA03-4027 68 1960 5.398 2 0 0.234 6.31 13.7 CA03-4028 147 5160 6.187 2 0 0.814 41.606 CA03-4030 148 11520 5.929 0 0 7.645 CA03-4031 106 4870 5.469 2 0 0.676 72.83 CA03-4036 37 1290 4.168 3 0 1.429 95.85 CA03-4037 119 3480 5.911 0 0 0.458 6.74 36.532 CA03-4038 81 3190 4.941 2 1 1.031 5.96 75.44 CA03-4039 56 1530 5.194 8 2 1.248 63.52 CA03-4041 87 2960 5.308 0 0 0.983 67.402 CA03-4042 93 2340 5.598 1 0 0.24 13.659 CA03-4043 124 6000 6.04 2 2 0.525 33.31 CA03-4046 92 2700 5.943 2 0 0.396 19.66 CA03-4049 87 3670 5.069 0 0 0.677 6.42 64.102 CA03-4052 122 4700 6.052 3 0 1.553 62.77 CA03-4071 92 3260 5.752 7 2 1.042 60.34 CA03-4074 128 5000 5.942 2 0 0.25 22.345 CA03-4078 127 4650 5.898 3 1 0.789 48.7 CA03-4080 50 1270 4.967 2 0 1.211 91.64 CA03-4081 81 2950 5.137 2 0 0.694 66.235 CA03-4087 122 5310 5.686 2 2 0.754 5.68 28.83 CA03-4090 102 2490 6.155 5 2 0.842 5.75 24.52 CA03-4096 100 2780 6.065 0 0 0.395 37.483 CA03-4099 33 830 4.545 2 0 1.485 95.26 CA03-4101 123 5430 5.784 2 0 0.739 6.36 53 CA03-4102 67 2990 5.063 7 2 1.288 75.16 CA03-4109 102 4610 5.48 3 1 0.566 47.37 CA03-4113 92 3810 5.23 2 0 0.444 44.132 CA03-4115 117 5280 5.881 1 0 2.33 48.064 CA03-4120 59 1460 4.651 0 0 0.583 56.207 CA03-4122 93 4860 5.249 3 0 0.244 19.88 CA03-4123 98 3660 5.855 0 0 0.747 48.87 130 Mean No. Mean Mean H' Taxa per Density per No. No. Grab (all Grab Chemicals Chemicals TOC DO Silt+Clay Station (0.1m 2 ) fauna/m 2 ) (0.1m 2 ) > ERL > ERM (%) (mg/L) (%) CA03-4126 72 2490 5.207 2 0 0.631 61.187 CA03-4134 100 3830 5.813 4 2 0.957 6.1 59.31 CA03-4137 83 4000 4.915 2 0 0.361 17.2325 CA03-4150 141 5220 6.152 3 2 0.674 44.54 CA03-4152 75 2300 5.499 0 0 0.955 65.227 CA03-4154 55 2560 4.369 0 0 0.056 2.38 CA03-4155 86 2020 5.888 1 0 2.148 67.266 CA03-4159 167 5190 6.633 1 0 1.231 47.279 CA03-4163 160 9380 5.905 2 0 2.424 26.774 CA03-4164 86 3650 5.043 0 0 0.57 50.64 CA03-4165 123 4830 5.964 2 0 0.58 6.11 52.58 CA03-4166 75 3240 5.087 9 2 1.769 70.51 CA03-4171 119 4460 5.957 1 0 2.009 14.222 CA03-4172 83 1900 5.746 0 0 0.275 22.048 CA03-4173 121 3580 6.154 2 0 1.748 5.81 15.669 CA03-4183 126 6370 5.776 0 0 0.828 35.63 CA03-4184 91 3130 5.307 0 0 0.55 51.884 CA03-4185 137 6260 5.774 2 0 0.461 6.71 32.14 CA03-4186 83 2630 5.514 2 0 0.253 14.07 CA03-4197 111 3920 5.738 4 2 0.844 6.51 59.33 CA03-4199 67 1810 5.203 0 0 1.082 66.9835 CA03-4204 113 4430 5.636 6 2 1.075 33.35 CA03-4215 102 3970 5.619 2 0 0.28 22.18 CA03-4219 86 2420 5.671 2 0 0.674 75.375 CA03-4226 110 4150 5.711 3 2 0.695 53.42 CA03-4227 118 5430 5.644 0 0 0.675 66.426 CA03-4229 105 6190 4.415 2 0 0.129 3.429 CA03-4230 183 22980 5.137 2 0 1.348 20.574 CA03-4236 121 4440 6.148 1 0 0.195 14.713 CA03-4238 128 5140 5.989 5 0 2.911 21.9545 CA03-4239 94 3800 5.062 1 0 0.551 50.313 CA03-4243 101 5670 4.235 0 0 0.646 50.126 CA03-4245 97 3030 5.781 2 0 0.459 21.85 CA03-4251 58 1300 4.926 2 0 0.185 9.026 CA03-4255 97 2240 6.195 0 0 0.554 44.777 CA03-4260 98 2750 5.903 1 0 0.315 26.375 CA03-4270 135 5740 5.963 3 2 0.782 56.62 CA03-4271 85 2440 5.434 2 2 0.68 21.421 CA03-4273 157 6730 6.279 0 0 0.483 41.356 CA03-4274 157 9180 6.016 2 0 0.308 11.738 CA03-4278 150 7590 6.025 2 0 0.857 57.061 CA03-4288 75 1830 5.519 0 0 0.991 65.298 CA03-4291 142 6640 6.07 1 0 0.487 21.254 CA03-4293 91 2430 5.918 2 0 0.256 8.181 CA03-4302 85 2190 5.933 0 0 0.497 39.883 CA03-4303 87 3390 5.321 2 0 0.206 12.89 131 Station Mean No. Taxa per Grab (0.1m 2 ) Mean Density (all ’ fauna/m 2 ) Mean H' per Grab (0.1m 2 ) No. Chemicals > ERL No. Chemicals > ERM TOC (%) DO (mg/L) Silt+Clay (%) CA03-4313 128 6420 5.837 4 2 0.756 43.87 CA03-4315 156 6290 6.406 0 0 1.769 49.581 CA03-4317 66 1660 5.418 2 0 0.33 20.93 CA03-4324 119 4150 5.837 2 0 0.796 24.258 CA03-4329 76 3070 4.955 2 0 0.449 32.15 CA03-4330 95 2210 6.096 1 0 1.297 33.141 CA03-4333 116 4070 5.755 2 0 0.51 63.165 CA03-4334 94 2900 5.941 1 0 CA03-4339 86 9520 3.915 2 0 2.394 8.316 CA03-4343 99 3760 5.761 2 2 0.44 29.41 CA03-4346 117 5030 5.696 3 1 0.649 50.48 CA03-4350 126 4620 5.798 1 0 0.363 21.786 CA03-4352 132 5370 6.057 2 0 0.454 17.034 CA03-4357 93 3440 5.579 0 0 0.457 46.811 CA03-4365 133 5670 5.856 0 0 0.467 44.477 CA03-4377 190 14820 6.328 0 0 0.564 16.386 CA03-4380 119 3180 6.249 1 0 0.84 46.422 CA03-4389 69 1560 5.26 0 0 2.771 12.8425 CA03-4390 52 3160 3.039 2 0 0.283 11.899 CA03-4396 113 3200 6.166 0 0 1.696 59.782 CA03-4411 56 1530 5.087 2 0 0.552 21.035 CA03-4417 105 2720 5.949 1 0 6.036 7.198 CA03-4425 61 1300 5.502 0 0 2.248 62.78 CA03-4427 64 1840 5.152 1 0 0.891 44.4 CA03-4430 108 3970 5.594 0 0 4.176 14.4555 CA03-4435 95 2940 5.888 1 0 0.455 47.115 CA03-4444 115 3640 5.856 4 0 2.193 20.98 OR03-0001 32 640 4.646 1 0 0.15 3.58 3.4 OR03-0002 83 2960 5.231 1 0 0.49 17.4 OR03-0003 63 3030 4.436 1 0 0.38 2.27 18.1 OR03-0004 33 1490 3.38 0 0 0.16 2.41 2.9 OR03-0005 31 1060 4.296 1 0 0.15 3.98 4.633333 OR03-0006 30 1090 3.607 0 0 0.055 2.81 1.1 OR03-0007 60 2100 5.195 1 0 0.7 2.71 33.6 OR03-0008 53 1140 5.155 1 0 0.18 3 OR03-0009 26 1160 3.924 0 0 0.085 2.56 1.1 OR03-0011 63 2030 5.01 1 0 0.35 3.78 14.2 OR03-0012 51 2300 4.242 1 0 0.76 2.57 39 OR03-0013 69 4170 4.81 0 0 0.39 10.1 OR03-0014 38 950 4.556 1 0 0.1 2.78 1.5 OR03-0015 64 4080 4.626 1 0 0.12 2.6 2.5 OR03-0016 47 1590 4.38 1 0 0.34 6.3 OR03-0017 37 540 5.023 0 0 0.15 2.4 OR03-0018 100 7260 4.492 2 0 1.1 26.8 OR03-0019 33 1250 4.222 0 0 0.15 2.7 OR03-0020 71 3310 4.897 1 0 0.615 3.44 22.9 132 Mean No. Mean Mean H' Taxa per Density per No. No. Grab (all Grab Chemicals Chemicals TOC DO Silt+Clay Station (0.1m 2 ) fauna/m 2 ) (0.1m 2 ) > ERL > ERM (%) (mg/L) (%) OR03-0021 62 2050 4.847 1 0 0.95 33.2 OR03-0022 98 4270 5.88 2 0 0.6 2.76 26.8 OR03-0023 92 3320 5.93 1 0 0.55 2.82 29.3 OR03-0024 69 2780 4.973 0 0 0.345 12.55 OR03-0025 35 2510 3.405 0 0 0.082 2.59 0.9 OR03-0026 45 1180 4.957 . 0 0 0.15 2.6 OR03-0027 57 1980 4.931 1 0 1.1 2.62 37.5 OR03-0028 76 5320 4.651 0 0 0.57 14.2 OR03-0029 45 1620 4.6 1 0 0.084 2 OR03-0030 36 1960 3.839 0 0 0.089 1.55 OR03-0031 39 760 4.696 0 0 0.053 2.65 1.1 OR03-0032 56 3390 3.592 1 0 0.34 4.37 12.2 OR03-0033 38 1000 4.685 1 0 1.4 2.63 49.9 OR03-0034 67 2010 5.302 0 0 0.31 10.3 OR03-0035 92 3090 5.451 2 0 0.76 12.4 OR03-0036 90 2770 5.731 2 0 0.81 20.9 OR03-0037 62 2750 4.845 1 0 0.34 7.7 OR03-0038 43 900 5.027 0 0 0.13 2.36 2.4 OR03-0039 36 920 4.584 0 0 0.088 2.69 2 OR03-0040 56 1700 5.203 2 0 0.54 2.55 27.1 OR03-0041 43 1760 4.647 1 0 0.83 3.55 49.8 OR03-0042 63 1580 5.356 1 0 0.18 5.2 OR03-0043 73 1930 5.462 1 0 0.5 2.58 19.3 OR03-0044 83 2380 5.712 1 0 0.45 2.47 20.6 OR03-0045 72 4770 4.324 0 0 0.29 9.1 OR03-0046 28 2970 3.28 1 0 0.038 2.43 1.2 OR03-0047 19 750 2.967 1 0 0.039 1.1 OR03-0048 59 3130 4.889 1 0 1.1 2.72 41.3 OR03-0049 54 2220 4.675 0 0 0.43 3.28 13.2 OR03-0050 27 3290 3.433 1 0 0.087 2.3 WA03-0001 47 3550 4.132 0 0 0.1 4.99 3.600487 WA03-0002 84 4850 4.987 1 0 0.335 3.47 17.02132 WA03-0003 55 3830 3.942 0 0 0.16 4.52 4.34159 WA03-0004 67 2570 5.016 0 0 1.17 2.28 42.75506 WA03-0005 35 1410 4.032 0 0 0 3.28 0.751084 WA03-0006 53 2440 4.592 0 0 0.11 2.447882 WA03-0007 44 3610 3.266 1 0 0 3.18 1.873989 WA03-0008 40 1710 4.057 1 0 1.3 2.78 65.2519 WA03-0009 61 2250 4.707 0 0 1.3 3.1 55.69044 WA03-0010 72 3710 4.933 0 0 0.7 3.13 19.71789 WA03-0011 38 3970 3.194 0 0 0.12 5.68 5.568328 WA03-0012 71 3400 4.276 0 0 0.21 6.72 8.584751 WA03-0013 26 3850 2.037 0 0 0 3.27 2.59643 WA03-0014 30 1110 4.207 0 0 0.16 5.13 2.053567 WA03-0015 102 8620 4.723 0 0 0.9 2.98 25.03443 WA03-0017 70 9440 3.895 1 0 0 4.67 1.869526 133 Station Mean No. Taxa per Grab (0.1m 2 ) Mean Density (all ^ fauna/m 2 ) Mean H' per Grab (0.1m 2 ) No. Chemicals > ERL No. Chemicals > ERM TOC (%) DO (mg/L) Silt+Clay (%) WA03-0018 52 4000 4.49 0 0 0.33 2.58 25.94177 WA03-0019 46 1930 4.543 0 0 0 3.19 1.618769 WA03-0020 41 3070 3.969 0 0 0.24 2.9 17.6921 WA03-0021 75 2520 5.093 0 0 0.27 3.79 17.65717 WA03-0022 37 1780 3.966 1 0 0.14 4.46 4.703177 WA03-0023 27 1270 3.387 0 0 1.4 2.45 57.00271 WA03-0024 30 860 3.929 0 0 0.13 6.45 6.431472 WA03-0025 43 2580 4.085 0 0 0.16 3.11 7.842778 WA03-0026 38 1430 4.347 0 0 1.032 2.56 58.13735 WA03-0027 37 2480 3.723 1 0 0.14 4.28 5.368892 WA03-0029 44 3350 4.39 0 0 0 5.08 0.513504 WA03-0030 36 1110 4.19 0 0 1.32 2.97 55.00728 WA03-0031 72 4040 4.598 0 0 0.29 2.49 20.57284 WA03-0032 48 1510 4.854 0 0 1.05 3.67 60.30199 WA03-0033 70 3870 4.836 0 0 0.52 7.28 39.08816 WA03-0034 90 4650 4.569 0 0 0.39 3.14 20.18086 WA03-0035 59 2400 4.563 0 0 1.17 2.99 53.20249 WA03-0037 72 2680 5.191 0 0 0.54 2.31 16.90976 WA03-0038 52 3300 3.929 0 0 0.11 6.65 4.727134 WA03-0039 85 3500 4.757 0 0 0.19 8.28 7.7529 WA03-0041 87 3560 5.412 0 0 0.27 2.89 11.44192 WA03-0042 23 770 3.712 1 0 0 3.86 1.199462 WA03-0043 63 3320 4.707 0 0 0.61 48.8409 WA03-0044 83 3480 5.202 0 0 0.19 3.96 6.183616 WA03-0046 51 1830 4.507 0 0 0.13 6.91 4.115209 WA03-0047 56 3780 4.43 0 0 0.25 3.02 19.79299 WA03-0048 41 1390 4.164 0 0 1.01 2.62 61.43117 WA03-0051 99 4970 4.961 0 0 0.38 3.63 28.98603 WA03-0053 63 5700 3.931 1 0 0.1 4.67 2.172309 WA03-0060 49 3470 4.297 1 0 0 4.45 6.915079 WA03-0068 41 16060 2.25 0 0 0.13 3.53 4.089049 WA03-0070 42 2850 3.44 0 0 0 3.66 0.650744 WA03-0081 74 3340 4.649 0 0 0.74 2.56 21.87764 WA03-0086 95 6200 4.545 0 0 0.73 2.58 25.80202 134 o Cl) 5t= T2 CD CD 0 O 0 CL -E > CD CD ^ > O -C 0 O £ £ O O ±i 0 O 0 0 '0 CL 0 c o c n 0 .2 E O 0 §.£ 0 0 O o -*-> o *o LU .cd 0 c O) "O — C -D 0 =5 O Q c .E o 0 CL o 0 -a ■a o 0 0 a 0 0 O 0 0 c 0 ;g 0 cd >< £ 0 _ -*- 1 c o o JZ "O 0 ° ^ CD Q 0 co "O 0 'E Z> 0 0 0 0 0 O E o >. 0 11 0 Q. < 0 ^ § uj 0 0 0 -C "D C 0 Ed s_ 0 -Q O I X 0 CL 0 O 0 ■Q 0 Cj •— 0 QO CD "§ .E -C S- O 0 - ■D CL 0 E C 0 o C o X 0 0 o > 0 i_ CL TJ 0 0 ■D C 0 O LU Q 0 _> 0 > JC 0 0 c 0 ■O c 0 _Q 0 -t—• 0 O 0 c o 'cd 0 i_ o o 0 s>| o C/) s-§ O 0 CL 0 O 5 s 0 0 0 0 5 &. 0 _C E o 0 0 Q 0 0 CD 0 O Q T3 O CL 0 0 s_ 0 E -Q < 0 > ■D 0 N *L_ CD E 0 0 ^ CD 1 - s £ 0 O II CD CO 0 O 0 C O C ±3 o «_ c 0 C CD O £ P "D CX3 7 = 0 0 0 0 ^ 0 •— Ll Q CD ° ^ CD O O > 0 h- 0 2 *0 O Q "=6 0 ■— ® 8 CD -c E 0 "O 75 _ -t—• 0 w CL LU CO — 0 m 3 0 -C 5 ^ < w O O LU Q 0 0 I” 0 X O TJ CJ c 0 CL CL < 0 0 JZ o 0 -o 0 T3 _0 o c 0 o O 73 0 0 CL -Q CO £ 0 1° o c/i 2 § §>E =6 -S2 0 .c o x 2 CD CD „_T o 0 0 0 CD o g (J JC l< 0 g a 5 = o 1 ° E 5 O 0 O |- 0 ■ o 00 CD O E o 0 CN CL 0 0 0 ^ 0 0 0 > 0 O' "O c 0 0 0 0 0 0 -X 0 _0 < E O rE L_ >4— 0 0 u ~o 0 7= 0 CO LU O Q_ ■D 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 71 O > o CL ■0 O O 0 i_ 0 o II co O ■g o _Q 0 ±= •=: CL C -C C >, Q. 0 0 O Coastal Estuaries Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Southern California Bight Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Northern California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No? Yes Yes Yes Puget Trough / Georgia Basin Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes N. American Pacific Fijordland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Gulf of Alaska Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Aleutians Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No Yes Taxa Code CD CL OP CL DEC 0. SO CL CL CL CL Species Axinopsida serricata Magelona longicornis Amphiodia urtica Spiophanes berkeleyorum Pinnixa occidentalis* Spiophanes bombyx* Euphilomedes carcharodonta Spiophanes duplex Prionospio jubata Chloeia pinnata Owenia fusiformis* 135 Coastal Estuaries No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Southern California Bight Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Northern California Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Puget Trough / Georgia Basin No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No N. American Pacific Fijordland No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Gulf of Alaska No Yes Yes No? No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes? Aleutians No Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes? No No No No No Taxa Code CL CL < CL CL CL CL CL CO CL CL AM Ol CL CL CL CL Species Myriochele striolata Galathowenia oculata Ampelisca agassizi* Decamastus gracilis Paraprionospio pinnata* Scoletoma luti Euciymeninae A * sp. A Sternaspis fossor * Rochefortia tumida Lumbrineris cruzensis Levin sen ia gracilis * Ampelisca careyi* Pholoe glabra * Aphelochaeta glandaria Paradiopatra parva Prionospio lighti Monticellina cryptica 136 Coastal Estuaries Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes 33 00 Southern California Bight Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 37 22 Northern California Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 37 CM Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast No No Yes Yes CO CD >- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 34 O) Puget Trough / Georgia Basin Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 34 CO N. American Pacific Fijordland No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No? Yes 28 CO Gulf of Alaska No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes 23 CNJ Aleutians No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No T— 1 — Taxa Code Q_ CL Q_ VI Q_ AM CL CO CL CL AM 39 24 Species Aricidea catherinae* Pseudofabriciola californica Maldane sarsi* Leptochelia dubia * Glycera nana* Rhepoxynius boreovariatus Leitoscoloplos pugettensis* Acila castrensis Aphelochaeta monilaris* Scalibregma californicum Ampelisea brevisimulata _j < I— O h- TOTAL w/o problematic species 137 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FT MEADE GenCol1 vvEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency PRESORTED STANDARD POSTAGE & FEES PAID EPA PERMIT NO. G-35 Office of Research and Development (8101R) Washington, DC 20460 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Recycled/Recyclable Printed on paper that contains a minimum of 50% postconsumer fiber content processed chlorine free