EPA 620/R-08/001 

NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 79 

Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters 

along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 

September 2008 

Office of Research and Development U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Oceanic and 

Washington, DC 20460 Atmospheric Administration 

 National Ocean Service 

 Silver Spring, MD 20910 

Ecological Condition of Coastal Ocean Waters 

along the U.S. Western Continental Shelf: 2003 

September 2008 

Prepared By

Walter G. Nelson1

, Jeffrey L. Hyland2, Henry Lee II1, Cynthia L. Cooksey2, 

Janet O. Lamberson1

, Faith A. Cole1, Patrick J. Clinton1

Author Affiliations

1 Western Ecology Division 

 National Health and Environmental Effects 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
ii

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. 
iii

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 #MOA2005-003/6764, 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. 
iv

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 timeframe 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 Laboratory 

(NHEERL), and by Chuck Gaul with SRA International Inc. Technical reviews of this 

report were provided by Steven Gittings and Len Balthis with NOAA and by Valerie 

Partridge with Washington Department of Ecology. 
v

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) 
vi

Table of Contents 

Preface.............................................................................................................................ii 

Acknowledgments ...........................................................................................................iii 

Table of Contents............................................................................................................vi

List of Figures..................................................................................................................ix 

List of Tables.................................................................................................................xiv 

List of AppendixTables..................................................................................................xvi 

List of Acronyms...........................................................................................................xvii

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................xix 

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 
vii

 2.4.2 Bight ’03.......................................................................................... 11 

 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 
viii

 3.3.1 Sediment Composition: Grain Size and TOC.................................. 55 

 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% CI) 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 (Δσt) 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 nonNMS, 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- m2

 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 nonNMS, 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/m2

). ............................... 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 (μg/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 (μg/g wet weight) and organic compounds (ng/g wet weight) measured in fishtissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West survey)................ 76 

Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (μg/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. ............................................................................................................... 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 (log2), and densities 

(m-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 nonNMS, 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 Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary 

CDF Cumulative distribution function 

CINMS Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

CTD Conductivity-Temperature-Depth 

CRM Certified Reference Material 

CV Coefficient of Variation 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DO Dissolved Oxygen Concentration 

EAM Ecosystem Approach to Management 

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERL Effects Range Low 

ERM Effects Range Median 

FRAM Fishery Resource Analysis and Monitoring 

GAO U. S. General Accounting Office 

GFNMS Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GRTS Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified 

IEA Integrated Ecosystem Assessment 

LCM Laboratory Control Material 

MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary 

MDL Method Detection Limit 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NCA National Coastal Assessment 

NCA-West National Coastal Assessment - Western regional component 

NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NMS National Marine Sanctuary 

NMAO NOAA Marine and Aircraft Operation 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOS NOAA National Ocean Service 

N/P Nitrogen to Phosphorus 

NWFSC Northwest Fisheries Science Center 

OCNMS Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary 

ORD EPA Office of Research and Development 

PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 

PAR Photosynthetically Active Radiation 

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

RL Reporting Limit 

RPD Relative Percent Difference 
xviii

SCB Southern California Bight 

SCCWRP Southern California Water Resources Research Project 

SRM Standard Reference Material 

SD Standard Deviation 

SQG Sediment Quality 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 Δσt index of watercolumn 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 nonNMS 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 nonsanctuary 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 nonsanctuary locations. Concentrations of chlorophyll a in surface waters ranged from 0 to 

28 μg L-1, with 50% of the area having values < 3.9 μg L-1 and 10% having values > 

14.5 μg 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. 

Concentrations of cadmium in fish tissues exceeded the lower end of EPA’s non-
xxi

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-m2

 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. nonsanctuary 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 bombyx, 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 nonsanctuary 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 nonsanctuary 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 regionwide. 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 

significant direct influence on diversity (p < 0.001) and inverse effect on density (p 
xxiii

<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 humaninduced 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
1

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 
2

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 (IEAs) 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 of fish 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 
3

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 km2 

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 km2) and Cordell Bank NMS (1347 km2) 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 km2 of ocean. 

 To the north, the Olympic Coast NMS was established in 1994 and protects 

about 8,570 km2 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. 
4

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). 
5

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 
6

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 nonsanctuary 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. 
7

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 SeaBird Electronics Conductivity-Temperature-Depth (CTD) data sonde unit with additional 

sensors (Table 2.2.1). The unit was a SBE 9Plus with an 11Plus 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 
8

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. 
9

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-m2 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. 
10

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 Weight 

PAHs 

1-methylnaphthalene 

1-methylphenanthrene 

2-methylnaphthalene 

2,6-dimethylnaphthalene 

2,3,5-trimethylnaphthalene 

Acenaphthene 

Acenaphthylene 

Anthracene 

Biphenyl 

Dibenzothiophene 

Fluorene 

Naphthalene 

Phenanthrene 

High Molecular Weight 

PAHs 

Benz(a)anthracene 

Benzo(a)pyrene 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 

Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 

Chrysene 

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 

Fluoranthene 

Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene 

Pyrene 

 8: 2,4'-dichlorobiphenyl 

 18: 2,2',5-trichlorobiphenyl 

 28: 2,4,4'-trichlorobiphenyl 

 44: 2,2',3,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

 52: 2,2',5,5'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

 66: 2,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

 77: 3,3',4,4'-tetrachlorobiphenyl 

101: 2,2',4,5,5'-pentachlorobiphenyl 

105: 2,3,3',4,4'-pentachlorobiphenyl 

110: 2,3,3',4',6-pentachlorobiphenyl 

118: 2,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl 

126: 3,3',4,4',5-pentachlorobiphenyl 

128: 2,2',3,3',4,4'-hexachlorobiphenyl 

 (CA as 128/266) 

138: 2,2',3,4,4',5'-hexachlorobiphenyl 

153: 2,2',4,4',5,5'-hexachlorobiphenyl 

170: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5-heptachlorobiphenyl 

180: 2,2',3,4,4',5,5'-heptachlorobiphenyl 

187: 2,2',3,4',5,5',6-heptachlorobiphenyl 

195: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,6-octachlorobiphenyl 

206: 2,2',3,3',4,4',5,5',6-

nonachlorobiphenyl 

209: 2,2'3,3',4,4',5,5',6,6 '-

decachlorobiphenyl 

DDTs

2,4’-DDD 

4,4'-DDD 

2,4'-DDE 

4,4'-DDE 

2,4'-DDT 

4,4'-DDT 

Cyclopentadienes 

Aldrin 

Dieldrin 

Endrin 

Chlordanes

Alpha-Chlordane 

Heptachlor 

Heptachlor Epoxide 

Trans-Nonachlor 

Others

Endosulfan I 

Endosulfan II 

Endosulfan Sulfate 

Hexachlorobenzene 

Lindane (gamma-BHC) 

Mirex 

Toxaphene 

Metals

Aluminum 

Antimony 

Arsenic 

Cadmium 

Chromium 

Copper 

Iron 

Lead 

Manganese 

Mercury 

Nickel 

Selenium 

Silver 

Tin 

Zinc 

Miscellaneous

Total Organic 

 Carbon 

Percent Fines 
11

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 sordidus), 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 of fish studies were conducted as part of Bight’03 (Allan et al. 

2007), there were no collections of benthic fish species for tissue contaminant analysis. 
12

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 of fish-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 
13

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 μg/g for mercury to 1500 μg/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 μg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.2 μg/g. Washington 

had a MDL for selenium of 0.84 μg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 0.1 

μg/g. Oregon had a MDL for tin of 0.5 μg/g versus the recommended detection limit of 
14

0.1 μg/g. Washington had a high MDL for tin (20 μg/g) however due to the method of 

calculating the MDL for this compound the RL (0.2 μg/g ) was lower than the MDL and 

close to the recommended detection level of 0.1 μg/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 
15

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 μg/g for mercury to 50 μg/g for iron and zinc. All three states 

met the MDL recommendations for metals in tissue with the following exceptions: At 

0.015 μg/g, Oregon’s MDL for mercury was slightly higher than the recommended 

detection of 0.01 μg/g. Both Oregon and Washington exceeded the recommended MDL 

for tin of 0.05 μg/g with detection limits of 0.15 μg/g and 0.2 - 0.22 μg/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 be in the range of 50%-120% of the spiked concentration. However, 
16

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 
17

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, 90th 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 NCAWest/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. 
18

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., 

50th, 90th, 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 
19

were found to have been sampled outside the target depth range (Appendix Table 2). 

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. 
20

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). 
21

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). 
22

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).
23

Figure 3.1.5. Distribution of sampling stations for the NCA 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment along t

of California south of Pt. Conception within the Southern California Bight. Numbers are the last EMAP Station ID (Appendix Table 1).
24

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. 
25

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).
26

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). 
27

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).
28

 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. 
29

All CA OR WA

Depth (m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Depth (m)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

B 

A 

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 nonNMS sample locations. 
30

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 50th percentile 

of area had a surface salinity of 33.3 psu, while the 90th 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 50th percentile of area had a bottom 

salinity of 33.9 psu, while the 90th 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 50th

percentile of area had a surface-water temperature of 11.9 °C, while the 90th

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 50th

percentile of area had a bottom-water temperature of 7.8 °C, while the 90th

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 
31

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. 
32

All CA OR WA

Surface Salinity (psu)

0

10

20

30

40

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Salinity (psu)

0

10

20

30

40

A

B 

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 nonNMS sample locations. 
33

All CA OR WA

Bottom Salinity (psu)

0

10

20

30

40

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Bottom Salinity (psu)

0

10

20

30

40

A 

B 

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 nonNMS sample locations. 
34

All CA OR WA

Surface Temperature (oC)

0

5

10

15

20

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Temperature (oC)

0

5

10

15

20

A 

B 

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. 
35

All CA OR WA

Bottom Temperature (oC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Bottom Temperature (oC)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

A 

B 

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. 
36

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 (Δσt) is the difference between the computed bottom 

and surface σt values, where σt is the density of a parcel of water with a given 

salinity and temperature relative to atmospheric pressure. 

 The Δσt 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 Δσt 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 50th 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 
37

All CA OR WA

 Δ σ t

0

1

2

3

4

5

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

 Δ σ t

0

1

2

3

4

5

B 

A 

Figure 3.2.6. Mean +1 SD water-column stratification index (Δσt) 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. 
38

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Day of Month, June 2003

Bakun Index

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). 

 Hypoxia 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).
39

All CA OR WA

Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

B 

A 

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. 
40

Figure 3.2.9. Distribution of bottom dissolved oxygen concentration values for 

the West Coast Shelf sampling area, June 2003. 
41

All CA OR WA

Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

B 

A 

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. 
42

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 50th percentile of the survey area 

had a TSS concentration of 4.0 mg/L, and the 90th 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 

3.2.11A). There was little difference in mean TSS between NMS and non-NMS 

locations (Figure 3.2.11B). 

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 50th

percentile of the survey area had transmissivity of 74.3%, and the 90th 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 50th percentile 

of the survey area had transmissivity of 85.6% and the 90th 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 μg/L at the 188 stations with data. The 50th

percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a 

nitrate + nitrite concentration of 26.2 μg/L, with the 90th percentile of area 

characterized by a nitrate + nitrite concentration of 354 μg/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. 
43

All CA OR WA

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA: nonNMS

Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)

0

2

4

6

8

B 

A 

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 nonNMS sample locations. Oregon data was not acceptable. 
44

All CA OR WA

Surface Transmissivity (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Transmissivity (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

B 

A 

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. 
45

All CA OR WA

Bottom Transmissivity (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Bottom Transmissivity (%)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

B 

A 

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. 
46

 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 μg/L at the 146 stations for which data were 

available. The 50th percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast 

shelf sampled had an ammonium concentration of 2.2 μg/L, with the 90th

percentile of total area characterized by an ammonium concentration of 21.4 

μg/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 μg/L for the 146 stations with data. The 50th percentile 

of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had a DIN 

concentration of 47.4 μg/L, with the 90th percentile of total area characterized by 

a DIN concentration of 367 μg/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 μg/L for the 188 stations with data. The 50th

percentile of area of the surface waters of the West Coast shelf sampled had an 

orthophosphate concentration of 11.4 μg/L, with the 90th percentile of total 

estuarine area characterized by a concentration of 61 μg/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 50th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf 

sampled had a ratio of 12.8, while the 90th 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 
47

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 μg/L. The 50th percentile of area of the waters 

of the West Coast shelf sampled had a silicate concentration of 307 μg/L, with 

the 90th percentile of area characterized by a concentration of 973 μg/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 μg/L (Figure 

3.2.20). The 50th percentile of area of the waters of the West Coast shelf 

sampled had a chlorophyll a concentration of 3.9 μg/L, while the 90th percentile 

had a chlorophyll a concentration of 14.5 μg/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). 
48

All CA OR WA

Surface nitrate + nitrite (

μg/L)

0

100

200

300

400

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface nitrate + nitrite (

μg/L)

0

100

200

300

400

B 

A 

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. 
49

All CA OR WA

Surface Ammonia (

μg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Ammonia (

μg/L)

0

10

20

30

B 

A 

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. 
50

All CA OR WA

Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (

μg/L)

0

100

200

300

400

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (

μg/L)

0

100

200

300

400

B 

A

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. 
51

All CA OR WA

Surface Orthophosphate (

μg/L)

0

10

20

30

40

50

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Orthophosphate (

μg/L)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

B 

A 

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. 
52

All CA OR WA

N/P

0

10

20

30

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

N/P

0

10

20

30

B 

A

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. 
53

All CA OR WA

Surface Silicate (

μg/L)

0

200

400

600

800

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Silicate (

μg/L)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

B 

A

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). 
54

All CA OR WA

Surface Chlorophyll 

a (

μg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS WA-OR: nonNMS

Surface Chlorophyll 

a (

μg/L)

0

5

10

15

20

B 

A

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.
55

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. Sedimentquality 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. 
56

Table 3.3.1. Comparison of sediment physical characteristics and chemical contaminant concentrationCoast vs. individual states and (B) National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) vs. non-NMS. 

A. All CA OR Data Mean (STD) Range Mean (STD) Range Mean (STD) Range MPhysical Char. 

TOC (%) 0.7 (0.8) 0 - 7.6 0.9 (0.9) 0.1 - 7.6 0.4 (0.3) 0 - 1.4 0% Fines 31.7 (25.2) 0.5 - 98.7 41.2 (24.8) 1.2 - 98.7 14.2 (13.8) 0.9 - 49.9 1

Metals (μg/g) 

Arsenic 4.7 (2.4) 0 - 14.3 3.9 (2.2) 0 - 14.3 6.8 (2.3) 4.2 - 13.6 5Cadmium 0.4 (0.5) 0 - 4.9 0.5 (0.6) 0 - 4.9 0.2 (0.3) 0 - 1.4 0Chromium 65.2 (57.3) 6.2 - 296.5 45.6 (35.9) 6.2 - 224 129.5 (85.4) 19.5 - 296.5 6Copper 12.1 (8.3) 0 - 70.6 11.8 (9.5) 0 - 70.6 13 (7.1) 3.6 - 33.7 1Lead 8.3 (4.1) 1.4 - 27.8 6.8 (4.1) 1.4 - 27.8 11.4 (1.4) 8.7 - 14.5 1Mercury 0.1 (0.1) 0 - 0.6 0.1 (0.1) 0 - 0.6 0 (0) 0 - 0.1 0 Silver 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 2.9 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 2.9 0 (0) 0 - 0.1 0Zinc 51.6 (30.2) 7.2 - 400.3 48.7 (36.2) 7.2 - 400.3 51.7 (19.5) 17.5 - 81.4 6

Organics (ng/g) 

Acenaphtlene 0.6 (1.7) 0 - 10 0.9 (2) 0 - 10 0 (0) 0 - 0 0Acenaphthylene 0.4 (1.9) 0 - 25.8 0.2 (2.1) 0 - 25.8 0 (0) 0 - 0 1Anthracene 0.4 (1.2) 0 - 8 0.1 (0.7) 0 - 6.2 0 (0) 0 - 0 1Benz(a)anthracene 2.2 (6.2) 0 - 40.9 2.5 (7.2) 0 - 40.9 0 (0) 0 - 0 3Benzo(a)pyrene 2.5 (6.9) 0 - 64.5 2.3 (7.5) 0 - 64.5 0 (0) 0 - 0 5Chrysene 2.3 (5.2) 0 - 41.1 2.7 (6.1) 0 - 41.1 0 (0) 0 - 0 3Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.2 (0.7) 0 - 4 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 1.9 0 (0) 0 - 0 1 Fluoranthene 3.6 (7.2) 0 - 40 2.8 (5.3) 0 - 37.2 0 (0) 0 - 0 9Fluorene 1.2 (3.6) 0 - 23.5 1.5 (4.4) 0 - 23.5 0 (0) 0 - 0 12-Methylnaphthalene 14.4 (35.7) 0 - 217 21.9 (44) 0 - 217 0 (0) 0 - 0 5Naphthalene 8.6 (19.4) 0 - 110.4 12 (23.7) 0 - 110.4 0 (0) 0 - 0 6Phenanthrene 5.2 (8.4) 0 - 46 4.8 (7.7) 0 - 32 0 (0) 0 - 0 1Pyrene 4.7 (9.3) 0 - 54.4 4.2 (8.5) 0 - 54.4 0 (0) 0 - 0 1Low molecular weight PAH 55.8 (112.4) 0 - 644.4 75.3 (136.6) 0 - 644.4 0 (0) 0 - 0 5High molecular weight PAH 23.0 (46.7) 0 - 343.7 20.8 (42.8) 0 - 343.7 0 (0) 0 - 0 5Total PAHs 78.8 (124.9) 0 - 644.4 96.2 (140.7) 0 - 644.4 0 (0) 0 - 0 1Total DDT 46.3 (298.9) 0 - 3905.7 75.8 (380) 0 - 3905.7 0 (0) 0 - 0 04,4'-DDE 36.6 (229.8) 0 - 2970 59.7 (291.4) 0 - 2970 0 (0) 0 - 0 0 

Total PCBs 2.7 (14.5) 0 - 165.1 4.4 (18.4) 0 - 165.1 0 (0) 0 - 0 0 
57

B. CA: NMS CA: non-NMS OCNMS Data Mean (STD) Range Mean (STD) Range Mean (STD) Range MeaPhysical Char. 

TOC (%) 1.2 (1.4) 0.2 - 7.6 0.7 (0.4) 0.1 - 2.4 0.3 (0.4) 0 - 1.3 0.4 % Fines 33.8 (24) 1.2 - 94 44.9 (24.4) 2.4 - 98.7 17.5 (22.2) 0.5 - 65.3 16.7 

Metals (μg/g) 

Arsenic 3.8 (1.9) 2 - 14.3 4 (2.3) 0 - 12.1 4.8 (0.9) 3.2 - 7 6.6 Cadmium 0.7 (0.5) 0 - 2.2 0.4 (0.6) 0 - 4.9 0.1 (0.1) 0 - 0.3 0.2 Chromium 46.1 (34) 6.2 - 224 45.4 (36.9) 6.8 - 221 64.7 (20.3) 27.3 - 124 109

Copper 6.9 (2.7) 0.9 - 12.6 14.4 (10.8) 0 - 70.6 11 (3.6) 6.8 - 21 13.2 Lead 4.6 (1.5) 1.4 - 7.3 7.9 (4.6) 2.2 - 27.8 9.3 (3.1) 4.6 - 16.7 11.4 Mercury 0 (0) 0 - 0.1 0.1 (0.1) 0 - 0.6 0 (0) 0 - 0.1 0 (0Silver 0 (0) 0 - 0.3 0.2 (0.4) 0 - 2.9 0.2 (0.4) 0 - 2 0.1 Zinc 35.5 (12.2) 7.2 - 66.5 55.6 (42.3) 11.5 - 400.3 58.4 (9.7) 39 - 81.5 55 (

Organics (ng/g) 

Acenaphtlene 2 (2.9) 0 - 10 0.3 (1) 0 - 6.6 0.4 (0.5) 0 - 1.7 0.2 Acenaphthylene 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 1.5 0.3 (2.5) 0 - 25.8 0.8 (1.4) 0 - 5.2 0.6 Anthracene 0.3 (1.1) 0 - 6.2 0 (0.3) 0 - 3.3 1.1 (1.6) 0 - 5.6 0.7 Benz(a)anthracene 2 (7.5) 0 - 40.9 2.8 (7) 0 - 33.9 2.7 (4.2) 0 - 14 1.4 Benzo(a)pyrene 1 (3) 0 - 17.1 3 (9) 0 - 64.5 4 (6.1) 0 - 22 2.2 Chrysene 0.8 (1.8) 0 - 10.7 3.7 (7.2) 0 - 41.1 3 (3.3) 0 - 10 1.1 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 1.9 0.1 (0.3) 0 - 1.8 0.8 (1.2) 0 - 3.8 0.4 Fluoranthene 1.9 (4) 0 - 23.5 3.3 (5.8) 0 - 37.2 7.3 (9.1) 0 - 32 3.8 Fluorene 3.1 (6.9) 0 - 23.5 0.6 (1.9) 0 - 11.4 1.7 (1.8) 0 - 5.9 0.5 2-Methylnaphthalene 49.5 (60.2) 0 - 217 7.4 (21.4) 0 - 169 5.9 (5.9) 0 - 25 1.2 Naphthalene 26.8 (31.2) 0 - 104 4.3 (13.2) 0 - 110.4 5 (6.2) 0 - 21 2.6 Phenanthrene 5 (8.5) 0 - 32 4.8 (7.2) 0 - 30.4 11.4 (10.7) 0 - 46 3.2 Pyrene 3.9 (8.8) 0 - 42.6 4.4 (8.3) 0 - 54.4 8.2 (9.8) 0 - 33 4.3 Low molecular weight PAH 158.4 (184.9) 0 - 644.4 31.8 (72.2) 0 - 577.4 51 (48.7) 0.7 - 199.9 14 (High molecular weight PAH 12.4 (24.8) 0 - 133.9 25.2 (49.2) 0 - 343.7 40.7 (52.3) 0 - 178.8 20.3 

Total PAHs 170.8 (183.1) 4.4 - 644.4 57 (91.4) 0 - 577.4 91.7 (91.2) 1.9 - 300.4 34.2 

Total DDT 0.3 (1.5) 0 - 9.6 115.4 (465) 0 - 3905.7 0 (0.1) 0 - 0.3 0 (04,4'-DDE 0.3 (1.5) 0 - 9.6 90.8 (356.4) 0 - 2970 0 (0) 0 - 0.15 0 (0Total PCBs 0.1 (0.9) 0 - 6.7 6.6 (22.4) 0 - 165.1 0 (0) 0 - 0 0 (0
58

Figure 3.3.1. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 

Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent fines (silt/clay). 
59

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. 
60

Figure 3.3.3. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 

Shelf sampling area vs. sediment percent Total Organic Carbon (TOC). 
61

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. 
62

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 μg/g, which bracket 

the nickel ERM value of 51.6 μg/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 
63

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 μg/g) 

and highest mean concentration (129.5 μg/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 μg/g, respectively; Krauskopf and Bird 1995) is 

greater than the ERL (81 μg/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 nonsanctuary 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. However, 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. 

 In comparison to the present sediment quality ratings for offshore waters 
64

(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 (μg/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 
65

Table 3.3.3. Comparison of the % area of sediments with chemical contaminants in excess of correspo

ERM sediment quality guidelines. 

Analyte All CA OR WA CA: NMS CA: non-NMS OC ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL Metals (μg/g) 

Arsenic 8 0 6 0 14 0 4 0 3 0 7 0 0 Cadmium 5 0 8 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 <1 0 0 Chromium 31 0 24 0 60 0 10 0 8 0 40 0 13 Copper <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 Mercury 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 Silver <1 0 <1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 <1 0 3 Zinc <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 

Organics (ng/g) 

2-Methyl naphthalene 

6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 <1 0 0 

Low molecular weight PAH 

<1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 <1 0 0 

Total DDT 4 <1 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 2 0 4,4′-DDE 4 <1 7 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 11 2 0 

Total PCBs <1 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 
66

Table 3.3.4. Comparison of the number of stations with chemical contaminants in excess of corresponsediment quality guideline values. 

Analyte All CA OR WA CA: NMS CA: non-NMS OC ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL ERM ERL Metals (μg/g) 

Arsenic 16 0 7 0 7 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 Cadmium 16 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 9 0 6 0 0 Chromium 54 0 19 0 30 0 5 0 3 0 16 0 4 Copper 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Mercury 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 Silver 6 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 1 Zinc 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Organics (ng/g) 

2-Methyl naphthalene 

22 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 3 0 0 

Low molecular weight PAH 

4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 

Total DDT 41 17 41 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 38 17 0 4,4′-DDE 31 22 31 22 0 0 0 0 3 0 28 22 0 

Total PCBs 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 
67

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. 
68

Figure 3.3.6. Distribution of Total DDT concentrations in sediments along the SCB 

relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 

Figure 3.3.7. Distribution of 4,4′-DDE concentrations in sediments along the SCB 

relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 
69

Figure 3.3.8. Distribution of mercury concentrations in sediments along the 

continental shelf of California relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 
70

Figure 3.3.9. Distribution of 2-methylnaphthalene concentrations in sediments along 

the SCB relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 
71

Figure 3.3.10. Distribution of chromium concentrations in sediments along the 

western U.S. continental shelf relative to ERL and ERM guidelines. 
72

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/NCAWest 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 sordidus), 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. 
73

Tissue cadmium levels were not strongly correlated with sediment cadmium levels at 

corresponding stations (Fig. 3.4.1, r2 = 0.049). 

Tissue vs Sediment Cadmium

West Coast Shelf 2003

Sediment concentration - ug/g

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6

Tissue concentration - ug/g wet weight 0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

r

2

 = 0.049

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. 
74

Table 3.4.1. Risk-based EPA advisory guidelines for recreational fishersa

Metals μg/g Concentration Rangeb Health Endpoint 

 Arsenic (inorganic)c 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 

 Mirex 230-470 Non-cancer 

 Toxaphene 290-590 Non-cancer 

 PCB (total) 23-47 Non-cancer 

a

 From U.S. EPA 2000b 

b

 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. 
75

Table 3.4.2. Comparison by state of the concentrations of metals (μg/g wet weight) and organic compo

weight) measured in fish tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West. An aste

the lower level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for this contaminant in at 

composite sample. 

 All CA OR Data 

Mean 

(STD) Range 

Mean 

(STD) Range 

Mean 

(STD) Range 

Me

(ST

Metals μg/g 

 Arsenic (inorganic) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0 Cadmium* 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 - 0.5* 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 - 0.5* 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 - 0.5* 0.1 (0

 Chromium 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 - .8 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 - 0.2 0.5 (0

 Copper 1.0 (1.2) 0.0 - 5.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.4 - 0.9 0.1 (0.3) 0.0 - 1.3 1.9 (1

 Lead 0..0 (0.1) 0.0 - 0.5 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.2 0.1 (0 Mercury (total) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 (0 Selenium 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 - 0.6 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 - 0.5 0.4 (0.1) 0.3 - 0.6 0.5 (0

 Silver 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0

 Zinc 11.8 (2.1) 7.1 - 16.6 8.9 (1.3) 7.1 - 11.0 12.1 (1.8) 9.4 - 16.6 12.8 (Organics ng/g  Total DDT 2.2 (3.5) 0.0 - 18.8 8.5 (4.7) 3.4 - 18.8 0.5 (0.9) 0.0 - 2.9 1.2 (0

 4,4'-DDE 2.2 (3.5) 0.0 - 18.8 8.5 (4.7) 3.4 - 18.8 0.5 (0.9) 0.0 - 2.9 1.2 (0

 Other Pesticides 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0 Total PCBs* 0.9 (4.9) 0.0 - 36.2* 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 2.0 (7
76

Table 3.4.3. Comparison by NMS vs. non-sanctuary concentrations of metals (μg/g wet weight) and or

(ng/g wet weight) measured in fish-tissue composites from fish collected in the 2003 EMAP/NCA-West 

asterisk indicates that the low level of the health risk guideline range (Table 3.4.1) was exceeded for thleast one fish composite sample. 

 CA: NMS CA: non-NMS OCNMS OR-WData 

Mean (STD) Range Mean (one sample) Range (one sample) Mean (STD) Range Mean (STD) 

Metals μg/g 

 Arsenic (inorganic) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0.0

 Cadmium* 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 - 0.5* 0.2 0.2 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 (0.1

 Chromium 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 - 0.8 0.2 (0.2

 Copper 0.6 (0.2) 0.4 - 0.9 0.4 0.4 2.1 (1.3) 0.8 - 5.0 0.6 (1.0

 Lead 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.1) 0.0 - 0.2 0.0 (0.1

 Mercury (total) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.1 0.0 (0.0

 Selenium 0.4 (0.0) 0.4 -0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 (0.0) 0.4 - 0.6 0.4 (0.1

 Silver 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0

 Zinc 9.1 (1.2) 7.5 - 11.0 7.1 7.1 13.1 (1.4) 10.9 - 15.9 12.1 (1.

Organics ng/g  Total DDT 7.3 (2.9) 3.4 - 12.6 18.8 18.8 1.1 (0.8) 0.0 - 2.4 0.8 (1.0

 4,4'-DDE 7.3 (2.9) 3.4 - 12.6 18.8 18.8 1.1 (0.8) 0.0 - 2.4 0.8 (1.0

 Other Pesticides 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 (0.0

 Total PCBs* 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 (0.9) 0.0 - 2.5 1.3 (6.5
77

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/NCAWest 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. 

 
78

Table 3.4.4. Concentrations of metals (μg/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 (μg/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 of fish 

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. 
79

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. 

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 m2

) 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. nonsanctuary 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). 

Contaminant Mean in Fillets Mean in Remains Mean of Ratios

Metals (μg/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 - 
80

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% regionwide, 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-m2

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, 
81

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 50th percentile value for estuaries was 49 

taxa/grab and the 10th 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 m2

) 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 50th 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. 
82

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 
83

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 m2

 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). 
84

Table 3.5.3. Comparison of the number of taxa, H′ diversity (log2), and densities (m-2) of benthic infaunthe shelf vs. West Coast estuaries. 

Benthic Shelf Estuaries* 

Variable 

Stratum 

# 

Stations 

(n) 

Mean Min Max Areal 50th

percentile

Areal 90th

Percentile

 # 

Stations 

(n) 

Mean Min Max A

pe

# taxa Regionwide 256 79 19 190 67 110 345 26 0 198 

(grab-1) WA 50 56 23 102 97 48 0 198 

 OR 49 55 19 100 126 11 10 65  CA 157 94 25 190 122 24 10 95 

H′ Regionwide 256 5.01 2.04 6.63 4.82 5.80 345 2.41 0 6.36 

(grab-1) WA 50 4.27 2.04 5.41 97 3.43 0 6.36 

 OR 49 4.65 2.97 5.93 126 1.52 0 4.10  CA 157 5.36 3.04 6.63 122 2.52 0 5.56 

Density Regionwide 256 3788 540 22,980 3080 7250 345 10,653 0 415,820 

(m-2) WA 50 3467 770 16,060 97 65,562 0 57,830 

 OR 49 2310 540 7260 126 4896 20 81,190  CA 157 4351 690 22,980 122 19,857 70 415,820 

* Based on 1999-2000 data from the EPA National Coastal Assessment – Western Regional Componedatabase for estuaries (Nelson et al. 2004, 2005; U.S. EPA 2004, Hayslip et al. 2006). 
85

Table 3.5.4. Fifty most abundant benthic taxa in the West Coast shelf survey 

region wide. Average density per m2, 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 

#/m2

% 

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 

 carcharodonta 

Ostracod Native 73.6 46.1 

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 

 californica 

Polychaete Native 23.2 2.3 

Photis spp. Amphipod Indeter 21.1 32.8 
86

Taxa Name Taxon Classification Average 

#/m2

% 

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 

 boreovariatus 

Amphipod Native 17.5 19.1 

Polygordius spp. Polychaete Indeter 17.4 1.2 

Leitoscoloplos 

 pugettensis 

Polychaete Native 17.0 32.0 

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 
87

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. 
88

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. 
89

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. 
90

Figure 3.5.4. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 

Shelf vs. benthic species richness (# taxa/0.1-m2 grab). 
91

Figure 3.5.5. Map illustrating the distribution of benthic species richness (# taxa 

per 0.1-m2

 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. Pie charts show quartile 

ranges of values. 
93

Figure 3.5.7. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 

Shelf vs. Shannon-Wiener H′ (log2) diversity index. 
94

3.5.3 Abundance and Dominant Taxa 

 A total of 99,135 individual specimens were collected across the 256 

stations (259 0.1-m2 grab samples) throughout the region. Densities ranged from 

540 to 22,980 m-2 and averaged 3,788 m-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 

m-2 and about 10% of the area had densities > 7,250 m-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 m-2 and range of 0 to 

415,820 m-2) (Table 3.5.3). However, 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 m-2, 50% of the area had lower 

densities < 4,100 m-2, which is only moderately higher than that estimated for the 

corresponding percentage of shelf area (3,080 m-2). Densities on the shelf in 

excess of 10,653 m-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 m-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 occidentalis; 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 
95

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 nonsanctuary waters (Table 3.5.5B). 
96

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. 
97

Figure 3.5.9. Percent area (and 95% confidence interval) of overall West Coast 

Shelf vs. benthic abundance (number of individuals/m2

). 
98

Table 3.5.5. Comparison of dominant (10 most abundant) taxa among (A) all, California, Oregon, and W

locations, and (B) California NMS, California non-NMS, Olympic Coast NMS, and Washington-Oregon locations. 

A. West Coast CA OR WA Taxa Mea

n 

% 

Freq. Taxa Mean % Freq. Taxa Mean % Freq. Taxa 

Mediomastus spp. 142 63 Mediomastus spp. 217 78 Magelona longicornis 167 51 AxinopsAxinopsida serricata 125 67 Amphiodia urtica 143 71 Axinopsida serricata 129 80 Magelon

Magelona longicornis 105 23 Pinnixa occidentalis 133 41 Galathowenia oculata 101 78 Owenia 

Amphiodia urtica 88 43 Spiophanes duplex 119 73 Spiophanes berkeleyorum 91 73 Spiopha

Spiophanes berkeleyorum 87 77 Spiophanes berkeleyorum 105 80 Prionospio jubata 61 61 Ampelis

Pinnixa occidentalis 82 27 Chloeia pinnata 89 64 Scoletoma luti 61 55 Euphilo

 carcha

Spiophanes bombyx 81 42 Myriochele striolata 78 17 Spiophanes bombyx 52 29 GalathoEuphilomedes  carcharodonta 

74 46 Prionospio jubata 77 83 Acila castrensis 43 57 Scoleto

Spiophanes duplex 73 45 Euphilomedes 

 carcharodonta 

74 54 Paradiopatra parva 40 39 Rhepox

 boreo

Prionospio jubata 67 72 Spiophanes bombyx 59 41 Amaeana occidentalis 39 10 Ampelis

B. CA: NMS CA: nonNMS OCNMS OR-WATaxa Mea

n 

% 

Freq. Taxa Mean % Freq. Taxa Mean % Freq. Taxa 

Mediomastus spp. 427 18 Amphiodia urtica 187 34 Owenia fusiformis 384 3 MagelonPinnixa occidentalis 231 10 Spiophanes duplex 159 32 Axinopsida serricata 347 11 Axinops

Edwardsiidae 108 9 Mediomastus spp. 107 30 Spiophanes bombyx 259 9 Galatho

Spiophanes berkeleyorum 108 17 Spiophanes berkeleyorum 104 32 Ampelisca agassizi 255 5 Scoleto

Decamastus gracilis 105 14 Chloeia pinnata 83 28 Magelona longicornis 191 5 Spiopha

 berkel

Chloeia pinnata 101 12 Pinnixa occidentalis 82 15 Galathowenia oculata 111 7 Euphilo

 carch

Rochefortia tumida 99 12 Euphilomedes 

carcharodonta 

78 21 Euphilomedes 

carcharodonta 

104 5 Prionos

Myriochele striolata 99 4 Prionospio jubata 72 34 Ampelisca careyi 93 9 Spiopha

Prionospio jubata 85 18 Spiophanes bombyx 68 14 Polygordius spp. 87 0 Acila ca

Pseudofabriciola  californica 

83 0 Myriochele striolata 67 7 Rhepoxynius boreovariatus 69 8 Amphio
99

3.5.4 Biogeographical Distributions 

 The 2003 probabilistic survey is one of the few regional-scale studies of 

the benthos on the continental shelf of the U.S. Pacific Coast. As such, the data 

are well suited to addressing a number of biogeographic questions. The first 

question addressed is whether the shelf fauna have restricted along-coast 

distributions or whether they have wide latitudinal distributions. To address this 

question, we utilized the Marine Ecosystems of the World (MEOW) 

biogeographic schema recently proposed by The Nature Conservancy (Spalding 

et al. 2007). The MEOW scheme is hierarchical, with 12 Realms composed of 

62 provinces, which in turn are composed of 232 ecoregions. Based on this 

scheme, we therefore evaluated the presence of species across the seven 

ecoregions of the Temperate Northern Pacific Realm that border the U.S. Pacific 

Coast (Fig. 3.5.10). These seven ecoregions include all the ecoregions of the 

Cold Temperate Northwest Pacific Province and the northernmost ecoregion in 

the Warm Temperate Northeast Pacific Province, and span from the upper half of 

the Baja Peninsula in Mexico to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Ecoregions within 

the Arctic Realm bordering northern Alaska are not considered, nor are the two 

other ecoregions of the Baja Peninsula that do not border the United States. 

 Appendix Table 5 summarizes the biogeographic distributions, by 

ecoregion, of the 39 most abundant taxa that were identified to species (from 

Table 3.5.4). Distributional data were derived from the present study, previous 

EMAP surveys including unpublished data from Alaskan surveys (Max Hober and 

Douglas Dasher), and the Pacific Coast Ecosystem Information System (PCEIS). 

PCEIS is a database synthesizing the distributions of native and nonindigenous 

marine/estuarine species of the Pacific Coast being developed by EPA and the 

USGS (Lee and Reusser 2008). Of the 39 abundant species collected along the 

California-Oregon-Washington shelf, almost 95% of them were found in both the 

SCB and Northern California ecoregions, while 87% were found in both the 

Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregion and in the Puget 

Trough/ Georgia Basin ecoregion. The percentage of species occurring off the 

coast of Canada (North American Pacific Fijordland ecoregion) and the Gulf of 

Alaska drops to about 72% and 59%, respectively. With 14 of the 39 species 

reported from the Aleutians, the percentage of the species reported declines to 

36% in the most northern ecoregion of the Temperate Northern Pacific Realm. 

 These distributional patterns potentially could be confounded by 

taxonomic uncertainties. For example, seven of the species in Table 3.5.4 are 

classified as cryptogenic species, which are species of uncertain origin (Carlton 

1996). All of these cryptogenic species occur in more than one of the MEOW 

provinces and at least one possible explanation for their wide distributions is that 

they actually represent a suite of sibling species that can not be readily 

distinguished morphologically. Even for natives there can be confusion about the 

specific identity of a species. For example, the native amphipod Ampelisca 

careyi may be a variant of A. unsocalae (Chapman 2007). To reduce this source 
100

of uncertainty, the analysis was repeated excluding 14 problematic species 

(Appendix Table 5). Removal of these problematic species reduces the 

percentage species overlap in all the ecoregions but did not substantially alter 

the general biogeographic pattern. Southern and Northern California ecoregions 

still had the highest percentage of species, with 92% and 88% of the species, 

respectively. As with the full set of species, a high percentage (> 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&EntryId=OBIS.Gwaii_Inv). 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.gbif.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. 
101

 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 
102

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 fusiformis, 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. 
103

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. 
104

Magelona longicornis

0

50

100

150

200

250

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Latitude

Abundance (0.1 m2)

Figure 3.5.11. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the polychaete Magelona 

longicornis. 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. 

Axinopsida serricata

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Latitude

Abundance (0.1 m2)

Figure 3.5.12. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the bivalve Axinopsida 

serricata. The solid vertical line is the boundary between the Southern 

California Bight and Northern California ecoregions. The dashed line is the 

boundary between the Northern California and Oregon, Washington, 

Vancouver Coast and Shelf ecoregions. 
105

Amphiodia urtica

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Latitude

Abundance (0.1 m2)

Figure 3.5.13. Latitudinal pattern of abundance of the ophiuroid Amphiodia urtica. 

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. 

Pinnixa occidentalis

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Latitude

Abundance (0.1 m2)

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. 
106

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% 
107

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 pollutioninduced 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 
108

Table 3.5.6. Nonindigenous species from the shelf survey. “Comments and Qualifiers” documents somuncertainties for the shelf nonindigenous species. Taxa Codes: AM = amphipod; B = bivalve; G = Gaspolychaete. 

Species Taxa Code Mean Abundance % Frequency Comments & Qualifiers 

Laonice cirrata P 0.405 23.2 “The NEP specimens would be considered introduc

cirrata, but cryptogenic if a sibling species. Charac

separate species of Laonice may not be adequate” 

Anobothrus gracilis P 0.290 15.1 “Southern California specimens & other NEP anima

A. bimaculatus Fauchald 1972, described from westhan A. gracilis, and would therefore be regarded a

Podocerus cristatus AM 0.212 2.7 “A likely species complex reported widely from war

(Chapman 2007). 

Trochochaeta  multisetosa 

P 0.166 6.6 “First reported from the NEP in San Francisco Bay 

franciscanum, which was synonymized with T. mult

examination of type material (Pettibone 1963).” (TN

Ericthonius brasiliensis AM 0.158 1.9 “Taxonomy poorly resolved: open coast populations 

Phyllospadix) and harbor populations (likely introdurepresent different species” (Chapman 2007). 

Dipolydora bidentata P 0.124 3.9 “History & direction of introductions unknown.” (TNADipolydora caulleryi P 0.124 5.0 “This species is very similar to Dipolydora brachyce

morphology of larvae” (Blake and Ruff 2007) and is cryptogenic by Sytsma et al. (2004). 

Lanassa venusta P 0.081 5.0 “Like many other northern European species report

comparison to type or topotype material is needed of NEP specimens.” (TNA, 2001). 

Philine auriformis G 0.031 2.3 “Unusual among California NIS for dispersing to off

2001). 

Heteromastus filiformis P 0.027 2.3 “Considered cosmopolitan although descriptions of 

historical accounts in different parts of the world vaClassified as cryptogenic by TNA (2001). 

Pseudopolydora  paucibranchiata 

P 0.012 0.8 Common estuarine invader on U.S. Pacific Coast. 

Monocorophium  acherusicum 

AM 0.004 0.4 Common estuarine invader on U.S. Pacific Coast. 

Dipolydora quadrilobata P 0.004 0.4 “History & direction of introductions unknown.” (TNA 
109

currently no such index that has been developed for application in shelf waters 

throughout the entire West Coast. 

 In the absence of a benthic index, we have attempted to assess potential 

stressor impacts in the present study by looking for obvious linkages between reduced 

values of key biological attributes (numbers of taxa, diversity, and abundance) and 

synoptically measured indicators of poor sediment or water quality. Benthic attributes in 

these offshore shelf waters showed significant variations among the three states. Thus, 

low values of species richness, H′, and density were defined for the purpose of the 

present analysis as the lower 10th percentile of values within each individual state. 

Thresholds for assessing poor sediment or water quality were defined as follows (sensu

EPA 2000a for dissolved oxygen, EPA 2004 for other indicators): ≥ 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, log10 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 
110

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. 
111

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. RacoRands, 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 for a 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. 
112

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. 
113

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. 3rd 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. NMFSNWFSC-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. 

Llansó, 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. 
114

Sediment Quality in Puget Sound. Year 2 - Central Puget Sound. National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, 

MD. NOS NCCOS CCMA 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. 
115

NOAA 2007. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment. White paper, November 2007. NOAA 

IEA Priority Area Task Team. http://wwwocean.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. Ferdaña, M. Finlayson, B.S. 

Halpern, 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.I. 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 
116

Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL. EPA/600/R93/001. 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. 
117

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. 
118

5.0 Appendix Tables

Appendix Table 1. Sampling coordinates for the 2003 West Coast Shelf Assessment. 

The “Frame km2” represents the 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 

km2 

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
119

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

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
120

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 8/20/2003 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

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
121

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

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
122

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

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
123

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
124

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 
125

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 
126

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. 
127

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 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. 
128

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. 
129

Appendix Table 4. Summary by station of key benthic variables and corresponding 

sediment and water-quality indicators. Bolded values indicate: Low species 

richness (lower 10th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low densities 

(lower 10th percentile of values for corresponding state), Low H′ (lower 10th

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. 

Station 

Mean No. 

Taxa per 

Grab 

(0.1m2) 

Mean 

Density 

(all 

fauna/m2) 

Mean H′

per 

Grab 

(0.1m2) 

No. 

Chemicals 

> ERL 

No. 

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 
130

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 

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 
131

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 

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 
132

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 

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 
133

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

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
134

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

 
135

Appendix Table 5. Biogeographic distributions of the 39 most abundant benthic taxa identified to spec

Coast shelf survey. Distributions are summarized by ecoregions based on the Marine Ecosystescheme (MEOW, Spalding et al. 2007). Only non-Arctic ecoregions bordering the United States 

included. “Coastal Estuaries” indicates whether the species has been reported from coastal estCoast, excluding Puget Sound. Species marked with * are those with taxonomic issues that mabiogeographic distributions. Distributional data are from the present study, previous EMAP survunpublished data from Alaska surveys (personal communication, Douglas Dasher and Max Hobsynthesized in PCEIS (Lee and Reusser 2008). Taxa Codes: AM = amphipod; B = bivalve; DEC ophiuroid; OS = ostracod; P = polychaete. 

Species Taxa Code Aleutians Gulf of Alaska N. American Pacific Fijordland Puget Trough / Georgia Basin Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Shelf & Coast Northern California 

Axinopsida  serricata B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Magelona  longicornis P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Amphiodia urtica OP No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spiophanes  berkeleyorum P No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pinnixa  occidentalis* DEC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Spiophanes  bombyx* P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Euphilomedes  carcharodonta OS No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Spiophanes  duplex P No Yes Yes Yes No? Yes Prionospio  jubata P No No No Yes Yes Yes Chloeia pinnata P No No No No Yes Yes Owenia  fusiformis* P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
136

Myriochele  striolata P No No No No No Yes Galathowenia  oculata P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ampelisca  agassizi* A No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Decamastus  gracilis P Yes No? Yes Yes Yes Yes Paraprionospio  pinnata* P No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Scoletoma luti P No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Euclymeninae sp. A* P No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Sternaspis  fossor* P No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rochefortia  tumida B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lumbrineris  cruzensis P No No No Yes Yes Yes Levinsenia  gracilis* P No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ampelisca  careyi* AM Yes? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Pholoe glabra* P No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Aphelochaeta  glandaria P No No No Yes Yes Yes Paradiopatra  parva 

P No No No No Yes Yes 

Prionospio lighti P No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Monticellina  cryptica P No Yes? No No No Yes Aricidea  catherinae* P No No No Yes No Yes Pseudofabriciola  californica P No No No No No No 
137

Maldane sarsi* P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Leptochelia  dubia* TA No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Glycera nana* P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhepoxynius  boreovariatus AM No No No Yes Yes No Leitoscoloplos  pugettensis* P Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Acila castrensis B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Aphelochaeta  monilaris* P No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Scalibregma  californicum P Yes Yes No? Yes Yes Yes Ampelisca  brevisimulata AM No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes TOTAL 39 14 23 28 34 34 37 TOTAL w/o problematic species 

24 7 12 13 18 19 21