Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 51, Issue 1–2, pp 269–284 | Cite as

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

  • J.F. Paul
  • C.J. Strobel
  • B.D. Melzian
  • J.A. Kiddon
  • J.S. Latimer
  • D.E. Campbell
  • D.J. Cobb

Abstract

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

References

  1. Bohlen, C., and Boynton, W.: 1996, ‘Maryland's Coastal Bays Status and Trends’, Draft report prepared for Maryland Coastal Bays National Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  2. Chaillon, J.C., Weisberg, S.B., Kutz, F.W., DeMoss, T.E., Mangiaracina, L., Magnien, R., Eskin, R., Maxted, J., Price, K., and Summers, J.K.: 1996. Assessment of the Ecological Condition of the Delaware and Maryland Coastal Bays, EPA/620/R-96/004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  3. Chesapeake Bay Program: 1995, Trends in the Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Quality of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesapeake Bay and its Tidal Tributaries: 1971–1991, CBP/TRS 137/95, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  4. Chesapeake Bay Program: 1997, Chesapeake Bay Program Database. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  5. Cochran, J.K.: 1991, ‘Forging a partnership between federal monitoring programs and the academic marine community’, Summary of a workshop hosted by the Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, 29–30 April 1991, Special Report 93 of the Marine Sciences Research Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook.Google Scholar
  6. Culliton, T.J., Warren, M.A., Goodspeed, T.R., Remer, D.G., Blackwell, C.M., and McDonough, III, J.J.: 1990, 50 Years of Population Change along the Nation's Coast. The Second Report of a Coastal Trends Series, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division, Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  7. Dove, L.E., and Nyman, R.M., Eds.: 1995, Living Resources of the Delaware Estuary. The Delaware Estuary Program.Google Scholar
  8. Fegeas, R.C., Claire, R.W., Guptil, S.C., Anderson, K.E., and Hallam, C.A.: 1983, Land use and land cover digital data, Geological Survey Circular 895-E, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  9. Field, D.W., Reyer, A.J., Genovese, P.V., and Shearer, B.D.: 1991, Coastal Wetlands of the United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  10. Greer, J., and Terlizzi, D.: 1997, Chemical Contamination of the Chesapeake Bay. A Synthesis of Research to Date and Future Research Directions. A Workshop Report. Maryland Sea Grant, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Haskin Shellfish Laboratory: 1997, Unpublished data. Haskin Shellfish Laboratory, Rutgers University, Bivalve, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, A.F., Ed.: 1990, Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990: Estuaries, EPA/600/4-90-033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI.Google Scholar
  13. Long, E.R., MacDonald, D.D., Smith, S.L., and Calder, F.D.: 1995, ‘Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentration in marine and estuarine sediments’, Environmental Management 19(1), 81–97.Google Scholar
  14. Long, E.R., and Morgan, L.G.: 1990, ‘The potential for biological effects of sediment-sorbed contaminants tested in the National Status and Trends Program’, NOAA Tech. Mem., NOS OMA 62, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Scattle, WA.Google Scholar
  15. Lyles, C.H.: 1967a, Historical Catch Statistics (Middle Atlantic States). U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Economics, Branch of Fishery Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  16. Lyles, C.H.: 1967b. Historical Catch Statistics (Chesapeake States). U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Economics, Branch of Fishery Statistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  17. Macauley, J.M., Summers, J.K., Heitmuller, P.T., Engle, V.D., and Adams, A.M.: 1996, Statistical Summary — EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province 1993. EPA/620/R-96/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL.Google Scholar
  18. MacDonald, D.D.: 1994. Approach to the assessment of sediment quality in Florida coastal waters: Volume 1 — Development and evaluation of the sediment quality assessment guidelines. Report prepared for Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
  19. Malek, J.: 1992, ‘Apparent Effects Threshold Approach’, in: Sediment Classification Methods Compendium, EPA 823-R-92-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Sediment Oversight Technical Committee, pp. II-1–II-20.Google Scholar
  20. Maxted, J.R., Weisberg, S.B., Chaillou, J.C., Eskin, R.A., and Kutz, F.W.: 1997, ‘The ecological condition of dead-end canals of the Delaware and Maryland coastal bays’, Estuaries 20(2), 319–327.Google Scholar
  21. NOAA: 1991, The 1990 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Ocean Assessments Division, Strategic Assessment Branch, Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  22. NOAA: 1994, Assessment of Chemical Contaminants in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, National Status and Trends Program, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  23. NOAA: 1997a, ‘The 1995 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters’, (prepublication data), Strategic Assessment Branch, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  24. NOAA: 1997b, NMFS Database, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Statistics Division, Silver Spring, MD.Google Scholar
  25. O'Connor, T.P., and Beliaeff, B.: 1995, Recent trends in coastal environmental quality: results from the Mussel Watch Project 1986 to 1993. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Status and Trends Program, Silver Spring, Maryland.Google Scholar
  26. Paul, J.F., Gentile, J.H., Scott, K.J., Schimmel, S.C., Campbell, D.E., and Latimer, R.W.: 1997, EMAP-Virginian Province Four-Year Assessment (1990–93), Report in review, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Narragansett, RI.Google Scholar
  27. Phillips, K., Jamison, P., Malek, J., Ross, B., Krueger, C., Thornton, J., and Krull, J.: 1988, Evaluation procedures technical appendix — Phase I (Central Puget Sound), prepared for Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis by the Evaluation Procedures Work Group, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  28. Queen, W.H., Copeland, B.J., and Schubel, J.R.: 1992, Forging a partnership between federal monitoring programs and the academic marine community, A report of the Board on Oceans and Atmosphere, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Sauer, J.R., Schwartz, S., and Hoover, B.: 1996, ‘The Christmas Bird Count Home Page, Version 95.1’, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr.nbs.govbbs/cbc.html.Google Scholar
  30. Sharp, J.H., Ed.: 1984, The Delaware Estuary: Background for Estuarine Management and Development University of Delaware, Lewes, DE.Google Scholar
  31. Strobel, C.J., Buffum, H.W., Benyi, S.J., Petrocelli, E.A., Reifsteck, D.R., and Keith, D.J., 1995, Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries Virginian Province — 1990–1993, EPA/620/R-94/026. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.Google Scholar
  32. USEPA: 1991, Summary, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program — Near Coastal, Virginian Province User Network Exchange, A workshop held on 3–5 April 1991, Ocean City, Maryland.Google Scholar
  33. USEPA: 1994, Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report, CBP/TRS 117/9, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  34. USEPA: 1995, The State of the Chesapeake Bay, 1995, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  35. USEPA: 1997a, Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA. In review.Google Scholar
  36. USEPA: 1997b, Environmental Indicators: Measuring Our Progress, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. http://ww.epa.gov/r3chespk.Google Scholar
  37. USFWS: 1997, Mid-Winter Migratory Bird Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD.Google Scholar
  38. Weisberg, S.B., Frithsen, J.B., Holland, A.F., Paul, J.F., Scott, K.J., Summers, J.K., Wilson, H.T., Heimbuch, D.G., Gerritsen, J., Schimmel, S.C., and Latimer, R.W.: 1993, Virginian Province Demonstration Project Report, EMAP-Estuaries: 1990, EPA/620/R-93/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. Weston, R.: 1993, Characterization of the Inland Bays Estuary, Report to the Delaware Inland Bays National Estuary Program, Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control., Dover, DE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.F. Paul
    • 1
  • C.J. Strobel
    • 1
  • B.D. Melzian
    • 1
  • J.A. Kiddon
    • 1
  • J.S. Latimer
    • 1
  • D.E. Campbell
    • 1
  • D.J. Cobb
    • 1
  1. 1.Atlantic Ecology DivisionNational Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNarragansett

Personalised recommendations