# NATIONAL ESTUARINE EUTROPHICATION ASSESSMENT UPDATE:
Workshop Summary and Recommendations for Development of a Long-term Monitoring and Assessment Program



# Proceedings of a workshop September 4-5, 2002 Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge, Laurel, Maryland

U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Ocean Service National Centers for Coastal Ocean ScienceThis report should be cited as: S. Bricker, G. Matlock, J. Snider, A. Mason, M. Alber, W. Boynton, D. Brock, G. Brush, D. Chestnut, U. Claussen, W. Dennison, E. Dettmann, D. Dunn, J. Ferreira, D. Flemer, P. Fong, J. Fourqurean, J. Hameedi, D. Hernandez, D. Hoover, D. Johnston, S. Jones, K. Kamer, R. Kelty, D. Keeley, R. Langan, J. Latimer, D. Lipton, R. Magnien, T. Malone, G. Morrison, J. Newton, J. Pennock, N. Rabalais, D. Scheurer, J. Sharp, D. Smith, S. Smith, P. Tester, R. Thom, D. Trueblood, R. Van Dolah. 2003. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update: Workshop summary and recommendations for development of a long-term monitoring and assessment program. Proceedings of a workshop September 4-5, 2002, Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge, Laurel, Maryland. NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. Silver Spring, MD: 19 pp. 

# The National Ocean Service: Working for America’s Coasts

The National Ocean Service (NOS) approaches the 21st century with a clear vision - that our coasts and oceans enjoy robust health, provide a rich bounty of resources, and are wisely managed to endure competing uses. As the nation’s principal advocate for coastal and ocean stewardship, the National Ocean Service develops the national foundation for coastal and ocean science, management, response, restoration, and navigation. This report, developed by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, strengthens this foundation, helping to bridge the gap between science, management, and public policy.
The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) works to understand the ocean and coastal environment, and the in fl uences of human activities, by conducting research, monitoring, and assessments of these delicate and important areas. NCCOS activities include understanding and predicting impacts of pollution and coastal development on sensitive habitats and resources; helping to protect coastal property and residents from storms and other natural hazards; understanding the causes and consequences of harmful algal blooms, such as red tides and toxic P fi esteria piscidia ; understanding how climate change may affect our lives; and determining the complex factors that affect fi sh populations.

More information or access to data, products, and services can be obtained from our websites:

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science http://www. nccos.noaa.gov

To receive copies of this report, contact: ccma.webmaster@noaa.gov
Inset cover photographs: copyright © Kenneth Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.californiacoastline.org

# National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment Update:
Workshop Summary and Recommendations for Development of a Long-term Monitoring and Assessment Program

Proceedings of a Workshop September 4-5, 2002 Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge, Laurel, Maryland
April 2004

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1305 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910

### PARTICIPANTS

Workshop Sponsors and NOAA Project Team: Suzanne Bricker, Gary Matlock, Jean Snider and Andrew Mason

Workshop Participants

Merryl Alber University of Georgia Walter Boynton University of Maryland David Brock Texas Water Development Board Grace Brush Johns Hopkins University David Chestnut South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Ulrich Claussen German Federal Environmental Agency Bill Dennison University of Maryland Edward Dettman Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett Dean Dunn National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Joao Ferreira Institute of Marine Research, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal David Flemer Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC Peggy Fong University of California, Los Angeles James Fourqurean Florida International University Jawed Hameedi National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Debra Hernandez South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Daniel Hoover University of Hawaii Deborah Johnston California Department of Fish and Game Stephen Jones University of New Hampshire Krista Kamer Southern California Coastal Water Resource Program Ruth Kelty National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration David Keeley Maine State Planning Of fi ce Richard Langan Cooperative Institute for Coastal Estuarine and Environmental Technology Jim Latimer Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett Doug Lipton University of Maryland Robert Magnien Maryland Department of Natural Resources Thomas Malone University of Maryland Gerold Morrison Environmental Protection Agency Hillsborough County Jan Newton Washington State Department of Ecology Jonathan Pennock University of New Hampshire Nancy Rabalais Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium David Scheurer National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Jonathan Sharp University of Delaware Dick Smith US Geological Survey Stephen Smith Centro de Investigacion Cienti fi ca y de Educacion Superior de Ensenada Patricia Tester National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ron Thom Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory Dwight Trueblood Cooperative Institute for Coastal Estuarine and Environmental Technology Robert Van Dolah South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

### TABLE OF CONTENTS 

## Executive Summary: This document describes results and recommendations of the National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEEA) Update Workshop held by NOAA at the Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge in Laurel, Maryland on September 4 –5, 2002.

INTRODUCTION: THE PROBLEM............................................................................4 THE WORKSHOP......................................................................................................6 Objectives............................................................................................................6 Desired Outcomes...............................................................................................6

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................8

TOPICS OF DISCUSSION.......................................................................................10 De fi nition of Eutrophication...............................................................................10 Typology Development......................................................................................10 Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation.......................................................12 Nutrient related eutrophication......................................................................12 Socioeconomic impacts to human uses........................................................14 Modeling and Management of Eutrophication...................................................15

NEXT STEPS...........................................................................................................17

REFERENCES.........................................................................................................18

### 1 During recent decades, human activities have increased nutrient loads to estuaries and coastal waters many times above natural levels. These changes have caused a variety of impacts. Potential consequences of eutrophication range from ecological changes to socioeconomic impairments (e.g. fi sheries) to serious human health threats. There is clearly a need to monitor and assess causes and consequences of nutrient related water quality conditions to provide the basis for effective management of this pervasive problem.


### Workshop Intent and Objectives

The overall intent of the workshop was to discuss the design of a long-term monitoring and assessment program to address nutrient over-enrichment and consequent water quality problems in estuaries and coastal waters (Figures 1 and 2). This follow up program should address the question “To what extent do nutrient inputs to US estuaries and coastal waters impair society’s uses of those water bodies?” by measurement and assessment of:

• Status and trends of water quality related to nutrient enrichment. • Causes of observed problems (e.g. susceptibility, nutrient loadings). • Socioeconomic impacts of nutrient related water quality degradation. • Alternative management responses and the impacts of those alternatives.



### Desired Outcomes

The framework developed at the workshop served as the basis for this guidance document which describes the development and implementation of the program including:

• Classi fi cation of types of estuaries and coastal water bodies. • Appropriate variables for characterization of nutrient over-enrichment status. • Assessment methods for determination of nutrient pollution status and trends, human use impairment, economic impacts, and causes of observed problems (e.g. loadings, susceptibility). • Methods for translation and transfer of data/ information from scientists to managers. • Identi fi cation/development of a database or data access framework. • Identi fi cation of long-term data sources. • Identi fi cation of potential partnerships to support this long-term effort.


### Discussion Topics

Workshop discussions, mostly in parallel breakout groups, were designed to address:

• De fi nition of Eutrophication Workshop participants fi ne tuned a de fi nition and proposed an operational de fi nition to be adopted for the program under development (see page 10).

• Typology Development Workshop participants identi fi ed a list of variables (hydromorphological and physico-chemical parameters) for consideration in the development of a type classi fi cation speci fi cally to help in the assessment of eutrophic conditions. The main purpose for determining typology is that the thresholds for eutrophication classes will vary according to type. Figure 1. Conceptual model of eutrophication. 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

### 2 Figure 2. Nutrient sources and effects in estuaries (Bricker et al., 1999).

### 3 • Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation Workshop participants discussed two monitoring assessment and classi fi cation topics:

Nutrient related eutrophication A core set of variables that should be measured in all types of water bodies and an enhanced set of variables, to be used only if applicable, were developed by workshop participants. This includes measurement of loadings so causal linkages can be made between loading and water quality status. Assessment methods should be developed with these variables. Participants agreed to use NEEA methods and recent adaptations as a starting point for development of improved assessment methods.

Socioeconomic impacts to human uses This component of the assessment was not included in the NEEA and requires further development. It was agreed that participation of additional social scientists and economists would be crucial in developing an appropriate approach to socioeconomic analysis.

• Modeling and Management of Eutrophication

Models need to be developed to better understand and predict nutrient input/water body response relationships to guide management of human related eutrophication.

Participants concluded that a proper adaptive management strategy for eutrophication must, besides having effective abatement measures, address two general themes:

1. translation and integration of science into information and tools that are useful to managers, and 2. reporting of results to the public and Congress to leverage action and funding for management and related research. These discussions led to a recommendation that working groups be formed to address three categories of issues more thoroughly (see recommendations chapter for more detail): 1. Typology. 2. Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation including variable selection and development of metrics and indices for nutrient related conditions and associated economic impacts.3. Modeling and Management for better understanding of loading/response relationships, and to address what mangers need to successfully manage nutrient related issues in estuaries and coastal waters.


### Next Steps

The development of a monitoring and assessment program for eutrophication assessment will include further development of typology, de fi nition of relevant indicator variables (including reference conditions and classi fi cation), modeling, and management. The overall guidance for periodic assessments should include a component that assesses the socioeconomic impacts of eutrophication. Further development of these methods and models should be done through an appropriate selection of candidate estuaries for pilot studies.

### 4 

## The Problem

Eutrophication is a natural process in which the addition of nutrients to estuaries and coastal waters from the watershed, atmosphere, and ocean stimulates algal growth. During recent decades, human activities such as fossil fuel burning and agricultural use of fertilizers have increased nutrient loads to many times natural levels. These changes have caused a variety of impacts; high levels of chlorophyll a (Boynton et al., 1982), overgrowth of seaweed and epiphytes, occurrences of anoxia and hypoxia (Gerlach, 1990; CENR, 2000), nuisance and toxic algal blooms (ORCA, 1992, Rabalais et al., 1996), and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV, Twilley et al., 1985, Burkholder et al., 1992b; Figures 1 and 2).

Potential consequences of eutrophication range from mere nuisances to serious human health threats. Anoxia related fi sh kills (Glasgow and Burkholder, 2000) cause noxious odors. Loss of seagrasses (Twilley et al., 1995; Burkholder et al., 1992b, Figure 3) and benthic organisms (Rabalais and Harper, 1992) may lead to long-term reductions in abundance, diversity, and harvest of fi sh in eutrophic systems (Brietburg, 2002). Algal toxins threaten human health if ingested in fi sh or shell fi sh tissue or when inhaled directly (Anderson et al., 2000). These impacts have been observed at varying levels in water bodies of the U.S. and many other countries (Table 1).

Measurable socioeconomic costs include economic losses to fi sheries (Lipton and Hicks, 1999, 2003; Lipton, 2003; Mistaien et al., 2003), seasonal tourism, and the seafood industry (Anderson et al., 2000), while indirect and nonuse values are more dif fi cult to determine (Turner et al., 1999). Of particular concern, and a challenge to future management, are predicted increases in problems as coastal populations and use of fertilizers and fossil fuels continue to increase (Bricker et al., 1999; NRC, 2000; Boesch, 2002). There is clearly a need to monitor and assess causes and consequences of nutrient related eutrophic conditions to provide the basis for effective management of this pervasive problem.

This document describes the results of the National Estuarine Eutrophication Update Workshop held by NOAA at the Patuxent National Wildlife Research Refuge in Laurel, Maryland on September 4 –5, 2002. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss the design of a long-term monitoring and assessment program to address nutrient over-enrichment and consequent water quality problems in estuaries and coastal waters using the National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment and recent methodological Table 1. Example locations of Observed Eutrophic Symptoms. 

# Eutrophication Symptoms System or Country of Observation
Toxic Algal Blooms •Pamlico and Neuse River Estuaries (Burkholder et al., 1992a, 1995, 1999) •NE Coast of UK (Joint et al., 1997 )



## Nuisance Algal Blooms •Lower Laguna Madre ( Whitledge and Pulich, 1991 ) •Southern North Sea ( Gillbricht, 1988 ) •Baltic Sea ( Bonsdorff et al., 1997 ) •Mediterranean Sea ( e.g. Lac de Tunis: Kelly and Naguib, 1984 ), •Northern Adriatic ( Chiaudani et al., 1980 ), •Australia ( Hodgkin and Birch 1982; Hodgkin and Hamilton 1993 ) •Japan ( Okaichi, 1989; Okaichi, 1997) 

## Depleted Dissolved Oxygen •Mississippi River Plume ( Rabalais et al., 1996 ) •Chesapeake Bay ( Cooper and Brush, 1991 )



## Loss of SAV •Chesapeake Bay ( Orth and Moore, 1983, 1984 ) •Tampa Bay ( Greening et al., 1997 ) •Laguna Madre ( Onuf, 1995 )

Figure 3. SAV with colonizing algae (inset) and without. 

# INTRODUCTION

### 5 improvements (NEEA; Bricker et al., 1999, Bricker et al., 2003.) as a starting point.

The follow up program should be designed to address the question “To what extent do nutrient inputs to US estuaries and coastal waters impair society’s uses of those water bodies?” It should also address management of human related eutrophication in areas that are impacted. This program should include measurement, assessment, and modeling of water quality related to nutrient enrichment, the impacts of nutrient related water quality degradation on human uses of estuaries, the sources of nutrients to water bodies and factors that in fl uence development of nutrient related problems, and the development of appropriate management responses. There were 40+ participants, resource managers and scientists, from federal and state agencies, and universities who were speci fi cally chosen for their experience, knowledge, and geographic location (see participant list, inside front cover).

### 6 After introductory remarks by Dr. Gary Matlock, Director of the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), three speakers made presentations entitled:

1. “What data and information do managers need inorder to address coastal nutrient pollution and overenrichment?” (David Keeley, Maine State Planning Of fi ce).

2. “Application of the National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment (NEAA) to some European estuaries.” This presentation demonstrated the use of statistically determined quantitative values calculated from data, GIS for calculating area weighted scores rather than expert knowledge, and a simple hydrological and exchange model to determine anthropogenic pressure and assimilation capacity of the systems.” (Joao G. Ferreira, Institute of Marine Research, Portugal; Bricker et al., 2003).

3. “Measuring the economic impacts of eutrophication”. This presentation showed the economic impacts of nutrient-enrichment in Chesapeake Bay using the Striped Bass recreational and Blue Crab commercial fi sheries as examples. (Doug Lipton, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sea Grant Extension, University of Maryland; Lipton and Hicks, 1993, 2003; Lipton, 2003; Mistaien et al., 2003).

The participants worked in breakout groups for the remainder of the two day workshop, discussing the objectives of the program being designed and making recommendations on how to proceed.


### Objectives

The focus of the workshop was to develop a monitoring and assessment program, including plans for periodic assessment updates that would be the basis for evaluation of trends in nutrient related water quality issues, with important implications to the management of estuarine and coastal resources. The update components include: assessment of status and trends in nutrient related water quality, causes of observed problems (i.e., nutrient inputs, physical processing), consequences to water quality and to human uses of estuaries and coastal waters (if nothing is done), and alternative management options and the impacts of those alternatives. Consequently, three breakout groups, working mostly in parallel, addressed the following issues:

• The de fi nition of “cultural eutrophication” or “human-induced nutrient over-enrichment” including what variables “de fi ne” eutrophication and what are the thresholds that characterize an estuary/coastal water as eutrophic.

• Classi fi cation of estuaries/coastal waters by physical/chemical characteristics into groups that behave similarly such that models of nutrient input/water body response might be determined (i.e., development of an appropriate typology).

• The data and information, most useful format, and the temporal and spatial scales of data and information that are needed by managers to do their jobs ef fi ciently and successfully, and how scientists can better provide what managers need.

• Appropriate variables, variable characteristics, and methods to accurately characterize nutrient over-enrichment including core and enhanced sets of variables, and temporal and spatial scales for sampling.

• Assessment methods and models for linking nutrient related water quality degradation with impacts to society’s uses of estuaries/coastal waters including cost bene fi t analyses.



### Desired Outcomes

The principal desired outcome was the development of a framework for a long-term monitoring and assessment program to address the question of whether, and to what extent, nutrient inputs are causing impairments to society’s uses of estuaries. The framework developed at the workshop served as the basis for this guidance document describing the development and implementation of the program including:

• Appropriate variables for characterization of nutrient over-enrichment status. 

# THE WORKSHOP

### 7 • Assessment methods for determination of nutrientpollution status, susceptibility to nutrient overenrichment, human use impairment, trends in nutrient pollution status, and economic impacts of nutrient related water quality problems.

• Models for understanding nutrient input/water body response that can be used in predictive and management capacities.

• Methods for measurement of sources and amounts of nutrient loading to explain nutrient pollution status and trend data.

• Methods for timely delivery and appropriate formatting of data and information from scientists to managers.

• Identi fi cation/development of a database or data access framework.

• Identi fi cation of long-term data sources.

• Identi fi cation of potential partnerships to support this long-term effort.

### 8 Development of regional nitrogen input limits for estuarine and Great Lakes coastal systems).

4. Convene sub-groups to tackle details of :

• Typology classi fi cation that captures system variability in a context that is useful for the assessment and management of eutrophication.

• Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation including selection of variables and assessment methods appropriate for describing: 1) nutrient related eutrophication, and 2) consequences of impacts, such as the relationships between society’s uses and nutrient related impacts on estuarine/coastal waters.

• Modeling and Management of eutrophication for better understanding of nutrient input/water body response and other relationships that elucidate causes of, and management solutions to, eutrophication which should include a clearer de fi nition of manager’s needs (information and tools) and impacts of alternative management actions, including if no action is taken.

5. Develop the impact component (i.e. human use impairment) of the assessment, particularly the link between nutrient related water quality degradation and society’s uses of estuaries and coastal waters. Participants agreed that additional economists and social scientists should be brought into the group to provide the experience and knowledge needed to develop the approach and methods for the envisioned national scale evaluation of the link between nutrient pollution and economic costs.

6. Issues should be addressed on three levels as for the NEEA (Bricker et al., 1999; NOAA 1996, 1997a, b, c, 1998): individual estuary, regional, and national. Program results should maintain local relevance and must provide data and information to resource managers in a timely way and in a useful format.

7. Develop tools for use by resource managers, such as models of the link between nutrient loading and fi sh production, and between nutrient loading and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. While most of these topics were touched on during the two days of discussion, there was inadequate time for full consideration of all program components. What follows are summaries of each of the discussions by topic, and recommendations for how to proceed, based on the group’s discussions.

1. Develop a quantitative monitoring and assessment program to provide the basis to address nutrient related eutrophication in US estuaries, embayments, and other coastal waters (including Great Lakes as well as Alaskan and Hawaiian systems). This program should be viewed as interactive with, and a companion program to, the National Research Program for Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters (Howarth et al., 2003).

2. Program development should proceed on two simultaneous and related tracks:

• Typology (classi fi cation) which will lead to variable selection for assessment of nutrient related eutrophication, appropriate spatial and temporal sampling scales, appropriate assessment methods, development of nutrient input/water body response relationships, and predictive models for different input scenarios for the different water body types, and

• Identi fi cation of linkages and relationships between: nutrient-impaired water quality, their impacts on estuarine and coastal resources, and consequent impacts on society’s uses of estuarine and coastal resources.

3. Partnerships should be identi fi ed and developed to assure long-term funding and should use prior experiences of other programs to develop broad scale consistency. For instance, the EPA Of fi ce of Water’s development and implementation of nutrient criteria and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs; http://www. epa.gov/owow/tmdl/) may bene fi t from a program such as this and vice versa. A product of those partnerships could be an overall national approach to assess and manage eutrophication that combines assessment approaches (e.g. NEEA update) and management aspects (e.g. US EPA Atlantic Ecology Division [AED] 

# OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

### 9 8. Conduct a pilot study to further develop and test assessment methods developed by sub-groups in a variety of systems representing the diversity of types of estuaries along the US coast. Candidate estuaries must have an existing robust database.

9. Learn from work done to implement the European Union Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000/60/ EC, e.g. COAST, 2003; Bettencourt et al., in press.; Ferreira et al., 2003) and the Oslo-Paris Conventionfor Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (OSPAR, 2002). In these fora much work has already been done regarding typology, reference conditions and threshold determination, as well as classi fi cation of eutrophication status using statistically determined quantitative values calculated from data, GIS for calculating area weighted scores, and simple hydrological and exchange models to determine anthropogenic pressure and assimilation capacity of the systems.

10. Improve public outreach concerning causes and consequences of nutrient over-enrichment to develop public support for management through: identi fi cation of the problem, development of solutions, implementation of solutions, and outcomes or status of implementation on estuarine and coastal resources.

### 10 De fi nition of Eutrophication

Workshop participants agreed that there were several existing de fi nitions of eutrophication that would be adequate, with some revisions. The de fi nition on page v in the Executive Summary of the NEEA (below, Bricker et al., 1999) was used a starting point and the de fi nition re fi ned based on some additional considerations (see box).

Eutrophication is the accelerated production of organic matter, particularly algae, in a water body. It is usually caused by an increase in the amount of nutrients being discharged to the water body. As a result of accelerated algal production, a variety of impacts may occur, including nuisance and toxic algal blooms, depleted dissolved oxygen, and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation. These impacts are interrelated and usually viewed as having a negative effect on water quality and ecosystem health.
Some additional considerations for enhancing the de fi nition follow:
• Need to focus on the anthropogenic side (i.e. “cultural” eutrophication), • Couple susceptibility/sensitivity with the level of enrichment, • Should call eutrophication “nutrient enrichment”, “nutrient over-enrichment”, or “nutrient pollution”, • Should use climatology in determination of culturaleutrophication in the context of departure from longterm average conditions, • Add Nixon’s de fi nition (i.e., eutrophication is the accumulation of organic matter from anthropogenic inputs, or as an increase in organic matter in the water column), • Include the undesirable effects of nutrient over enrichment and add quantitative measures, • De fi nition should include a section on the meaning of the word for management purposes, • De fi nition should include nutrient forcing and management goals. The following de fi nition incorporates recommended revisions and should be adopted for the program under development:

Eutrophication is a natural process by which productivity of a water body, as measured by organic matter, increases as a result of increasing nutrient inputs. These inputs are a result of natural processes but in recent decades they have been greatly supplemented by various humanrelated activities. Cultural eutrophication, or nutrient overenrichment, is the enhanced accumulation of organic matter, particularly algae, that is caused by human related increases in the amount and composition of nutrients being discharged to the water body. A variety of impacts may result, including nuisance and toxic algal blooms, depleted dissolved oxygen, and loss of submerged aquatic vegetation and benthic fauna. These impacts are interrelated and usually viewed as having a negative effect on water quality, ecosystem health, and human uses. Management concerns should address the human, or cultural, portion of nutrient additions insofar as the additions are detrimental to the environment.
Typology Development

Development of a type-classi fi cation for estuaries and coastal waterbodies is the cornerstone to the development of the assessment and monitoring program because the waterbody type will dictate the appropriate variables to monitor, the sampling time frame and spatial scale, and appropriate management actions. The classi fi cation scheme should capture the system variability in a context that is useful for the assessment of eutrophication and should be quantitative in nature (Figure 4).

A list of hydromorphological and physico-chemical variables (below) was identi fi ed for consideration in the development of types of characteristic estuarine and coastal waters (including the Great Lakes). While the quality of the receiving water body (i.e. unimpacted levels of; nutrients, Chl a, etc) is not included here, it might be considered since these conditions clearly separate systems such as Florida and Hawaii from others with naturally higher level nutrients and Chl a. Additionally, coastal waters should be considered along with estuaries in order to include descriptions of the diversity of water body types that were included in the NEEA as some are not traditional estuaries. 

# TOPICS OF DISCUSSION

### 11 The philosophy for development of the list of variables was to review the obvious types within regions to ensure that all major types would be described, and then look for variables that might be used to develop an objective classi fi cation scheme to capture these types rather than a “one size fi ts all” approach. The resultant list of hydromorphological and physico-chemical variables that should be considered for description of water body types is*:

1. Latitude and longitude 2. Basin shape 3. Depth 4. Volume 5. Water residence time 6. Tidal range 7. Climate and seasonality (temperature, light, photo-period, precipitation) 8. Sediment substratum (type and rate of accumulation) 9. Ratio of catchment size to surface area of estuary 10. Discharge ( fl ow source, magnitude, pattern, quality) to estuary scaled to area or volume of estuary 11. Climatology of salinity immediately outside the system (i.e., offshore adjacent coastal waters) at monthly to quarterly time frames 12. Salinity within the waterbody 13. Wave climate (sheltered or exposed) 14. Potential Habitat (i.e. what habitats would be there in the absence of human intervention) 15. Strati fi cation (seasonal) 16. Sea ice/Ice coverage

*note that the quality of receiving waters is not included but might be an additional variable given that ambient or unimpacted conditions (e.g. nutrients) might be useful for classi fi cation of types of systems with very low natural levels or those with naturally high levels due, for instance, to upwelling.

Recommendations:

• Convene a sub-group of the Update Workshop participants, plus others who might be appropriate, to proceed with development of a typology classi fi cation metric or formulation. There should be overlap between this group and the Variable sub-group to maximize use of data and to validate typology descriptions.

• Use previous NOAA susceptibility work (eg., Quinn et al., 1989), previous LOICZ (http://www.kgs.ukans. edu/Hexacoral/Envirodata/envirodata.html, http:// Figure 4. Photos of four different types of systems. (Pictures 2,3,4 clockwise from upper left: copyright © 2002 Kenneth Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.californiacoastline.org)

### 12 data.ecology.su.se/MNODE/), and European work (eg; COAST, 2003; OSPAR, 2001) as a starting point. Everything else follows from the typology, including selection of variables for eutrophication assessment, sampling scheme (spatial and temporal), assessment, classi fi cation, models and management implication.

• Use system parameters (residence time, volume, depth, strati fi cation, etc.) that affect the system sensitivity to nutrient loading rather than classical geomorphological classes (coastal plain estuary, lagoon, etc.) for typology classi fi cation. Classes de fi ned by these two approaches overlap to some extent, but they differ in their emphasis. Selected variables should be sub-divided into quantitative ranges (categories) with thresholds for ranges set by common agreement based on expert knowledge or other approaches. The parameter-based approach lends itself better to mathematical expression, and therefore to mathematical model building.

• Typology should not include water quality issues

re fl ecting degradation which can be added as a data layer once the classi fi cation is complete, though ambient or unimpacted levels of nutrients might be useful for separation into types where concentrations are naturally very low, or high due to upwelling.

• Human modi fi cation of systems should be noted (modi fi ed systems may be a “type”). Modi fi ed systems might be identi fi ed by degree of pressure (e.g., number of persons per area or volume) or degree of response (e.g., percent change in primary productivity due to pressure) or degree of structural change (e.g. percentage of shoreline modi fi cation).

• Limit the total set of types to a manageable number (fewer than 10 “common” types).



### Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation

Development of assessment and classi fi cation methods is a fi rst step toward development of a program that integrates the science and management of nutrient related problems through appropriate monitoring, assessment, modeling, and research. Assessment methods will be used to classify the status and to track nutrient-related problems over time, with the intent of guiding development and evaluating the success of management actions and in support of research. Additionally, modeling will be helpful for understanding how human impacts of eutrophication can be more effectively managed (Figure 5).

The type classi fi cation should be a fi rst step since the variables appropriate for accurately characterizing nutrient related water quality conditions are ultimately type related, as are appropriate spatial and temporal considerations for sampling (Figure 6).



### Nutrient Related Eutrophication

Workshop participants developed two lists of variables; a core set of variables that should be measured in all types and an enhanced set of variables that is speci fi c to a type of estuary/coastal water or its speci fi c eutrophication status (see lists following; Figure 7). It should be noted that some core variables may not be applicable to all types Figure 5. Flow diagram for adaptive management framework.



## Airshed

Coastal Watersheds Large Upstream Watersheds

Coastal Water Body



## Wetlands Open Ocean Exchange Smaller Streams

Figure 6. Schematic showing general sources of nutrients and main route of transport to coastal waters.

### 13 of estuaries and coastal waters, for instance, sea grasses are nonexistent in South Carolina estuaries. It should also be noted that variables that would be monitored for management purposes might only partly overlap with the variables that would be monitored in support of research

It is important to de fi ne the variables to be measured in order to answer questions, both conceptual (i.e. what is there) and mathematical (i.e. to predict what might be there). Models might further be used to narrow the fi eld of core variables, in addition to their use to better understand nutrient input / water body response relationships in pursuit of effective management options. The outcome of this monitoring and assessment program should be geared toward giving resource managers what they need, when they need it, to do their jobs effectively. The intent is to provide a constant data stream that can be used for the development of status, trends, and predictions for nutrient related eutrophication (Figure 8). Workshop participants developed the following core and enhanced variables for a long-term monitoring and assessment program:

Possible Core Variables Depending on Estuarine/ Coastal Water Types

1. Salinity 2. Temperature (global/regional, seasonal, climate) 3. Meteorological data 4. Water residence time 5. Turbidity, K D 6. Chl a * 7. Seagrass* 8. Macrophytes* 9. Benthic algae* 10. Phytoplankton* 11. Dissolved Oxygen – relative to diel variability 12. Sediment organic content 13. Dissolved nutrients (NO 3 - , NO 2 - , NH 4 + , PO 4 3- , Si) 14. Total nutrients (TN, TP) 15. N:P:Si ratios 16. Freshwater Flow, nutrient concentration, load 17. Seawater exchange, nutrient concentration, load 18. Anthropogenic and natural nutrient loads 19. Point sources 20. Nonpoint sources (e.g. atmospheric)

*Changes in biomass, percent composition, aereal coverage: i.e. areal coverage for phytoplankton refers to the areal extent of blooms of very high concentration of Chl

a as in the NEEA (Bricker et al., 1999).

Possible Enhanced Variables Depending on Estuarine/Coastal Water Types

1. TSS 2. Depth range of macrophytes 3. HPLC pigments - Taxon speci fi c 4. Benthic community composition. and structure 5. SOD/BOD 6. Stable Isotopes 7. Heavy metals (Ex. Fe) 8. Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Figure 8. CTD deployment. Figure 7. CHL a, DO, DIN, DIP plots for Chesapeake and San Francisco Bays (Cloern, 2001).

### 14 Other Important Variables and Rates

1. Fish stocks 2. Land use 3. Population changes 4. Sediment fl uxes 5. Internal nutrient cycling

It is very important to consider that the minimum temporal and spatial resolution necessary for characterization is dependent on typology. Depending upon the type of system and variables being measured, sampling frequency could vary through the year with highest frequency duringthe growing season and lowest frequency during the lowgrowth season. Quality control in data acquisition and processing should be assured and encouraged.

Participants agreed that it was likely that thresholds for measured variables, marking the levels above which water quality is considered undesirable, will be different for different types of estuaries and coastal systems, and the scales (i.e. high, medium, low) will require normalization for synthesis of the regional and national pictures, e.g. through the use of rating curves. Determination of thresholds for different types of systems requires considerable caution in application. As an example: dissolved oxygen in the water dictates the ecology, but thresholds set in absolute concentration may differ widely between regions depending on local (particularly temperature) conditions. For example, two widely differing values between the northern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico may actually correspond to an identical value in percentage saturation.

It is also important to note that some parameters, such as harmful algal blooms, are not always amenable to management. While some blooms within estuarine systems are triggered by nutrients, others are not. This occurs, for instance, in parts of the U.S. Paci fi c, Gulf of Mexico, and North Atlantic coasts with the formation of toxic algal blooms in offshore frontal systems, which are then advected into estuarine areas. In addition, the link between toxic algal forms and nutrients is not always well established.


### Socioeconomic Impacts to Human Uses

This component of the assessment is intended to evaluate the impact of nutrient related water quality problems on various human uses of the water bodies. This was not explored thoroughly in the NEEA and is the least developed of all the assessment components. Workshop participants agreed that the design of an economic analysis of the linkage between nutrient pollution effects and uses of estuaries and coastal waters was beyond the scope of their expertise. It was recognized that development of socioeconomic models of the impacts of human related eutrophication would be a signi fi cant addition to the assessment update. A recommendation was made that additional social scientists and economists with experience in economic impact analysis linking water quality and human use impairments be invited to participate in development of this component.

Recommendations

• Convene a sub-group of the workshop participants, some from the “Typology” sub-group, to proceed with selection of core and enhanced variables for the different types. This group should also address spatial and temporal sampling considerations, such as segmentation of estuarine/coastal water types by salinity or some other basis, and how to combine data for different segments. Determination of reference values, as well as thresholds for category ranges, methods for combining variable data into an overall score, and other methods, should also be developed by this sub-group. The assessment results should be comparable on a national basis.

• Convene a sub-group from members of the “Typology” and “Monitoring, Assessment and Classi fi cation” sub-groups to develop nutrient input/water body response (and other) models that address and inform management options. Model development will draw from results of the “Typology” and “Monitoring, Assessment, and Classi fi cation” subgroups.

• Use 3-4 core variables that are measured in all types, and additional (enhanced) variables that are tailored to speci fi c types of systems to get an accurate characterization of conditions. The core parameter set will be identical for all types when dealing with a particular issue, although there may be additional enhanced parameters for systems within a speci fi c type to more accurately characterize conditions for systems within that type.

• Support research for variables that show promise as indicators but need more research to link pressure to response and use new probes (e.g., new nitrate sensors, optical sensors, chlorophyll probes, etc.). Use new technologies (e.g., meters and probes) as

### 15 they become available to obtain data of concern. Incorporation of new technologies should begin at the auxiliary level and not as primary methods. Work with EPA on changing methods of data collection to gain acceptance/approval for regulatory purposes.

• Use a suite of variables that is manageable. These should be used to develop indicators for characterization of status and for “early warning” of impending problems.

• Convene a sub-group composed of workshop participants, social scientists, and economists who have experience in economic impact analysis to develop an approach for determining what society’s uses of systems are and methods for linking nutrient related water quality impacts to changes in those uses and their socioeconomic costs.

• Use sediment cores to determine past trends in order to fi nd variables that have in fl uenced conditions in the past and to provide an historical framework for interpretation of present and possible future conditions.

• Assure quality control in data acquisition and processing, both within a system and between systems, types, and regions. Pooling data is a huge asset to this kind of project and should be encouraged.


### Modeling and Management of Eutrophication

The results of the “Typology” and “Monitoring, assessment and classi fi cation” groups should be used to develop models to better understand the response of different types of water bodies to varying nutrient input levels. These models can then instruct and guide development of appropriate management alternatives for different systems dependent upon type and level of impairment. In addition, model scenarios should be used to predict what might occur with changes in loadings (Figure 9). These models and results should be provided to managers for optimization of adaptive management success.

Proper adaptive management of eutrophication has to implement effective abatement measures, and also to ful fi ll the following two general objectives:

1) Translation and integration of science into information and tools that are useful to managers. 2) Reporting of results to the public and to Congress to leverage action (i.e. changes in legislative mandates) and funding for management and related research.

Communication between managers and researchers about research and monitoring results is critical to appropriate and successful management, however, it is not suf fi ciently developed at present. Managers need data and information on speci fi c time and spatial scales in order to manage resources appropriately. For example, states typically get blocks of data for a 5 year time period, which matches the life span of permits but is not useful for analyzing episodic and/or brief events such as algal blooms. Sometimes, long-term data are necessary for understanding short-term events and natural variability within a system.

Managers must articulate to the scientists what they need and when they need it. Scientists, in turn, must provide data and results in forms that are useful to managers. This might take the form of an “Operational Oceanography” interface between scientists and managers but the interface needs to be developed. This interface represents a continuous collection of data that can be used at any time to assess the status and trends in nutrient related problems, and uses historical and current data to make predictions, similar to the methods the weather service uses for forecasts.

Scientists should help managers by outlining what monitoring and research is being done and how that can help them to manage. Screening models and other analytical tools should be developed for identifying Figure 9. Comparative evaluation of fi shery response to nutrient loads in the Gulf of Mexico (CENR, 2000).

### 16 susceptibility to nutrients, including what variables must be monitored (and on what time scales) to detect changes in the system and when the system is above the threshold of desirable conditions. For example, a simple web-based screening template or tool could allow resource managers to easily determine the approximate status of an estuary or coastal water. Once the types of estuaries are described and referenced as well as threshold values of concern identi fi ed for each type, an on-line program could be set up so that a manager could:

1. Enter the estuary/coastal water body type (e.g., shallow, river dominated, coastal etc.), which would then bring up the appropriate variables associated with monitoring in that type of system. The manager could then enter measured values for those variables.

2. Threshold levels for that type of system would then be compared to the measured values. Variables above the threshold would be fl agged.

3. Depending on the combination of variables found to be above threshold levels, the web-based tool would be able to provide the overall status of the water body and recommend appropriate levels of action. In cases where there are a limited number of systems within a type, the program could be preloaded with typological data (retention time, fresh water in fl ow, etc) for individual systems making the characterizations more accurate.

### 17 The web-tool output could also provide information on how the system was coded by the original NEEA and provide a summary of the data (i.e. number of records, range, median, mean, etc). The output should also be put into a comparative regional and national perspective which can be used to set priorities for funding.

Improved public outreach is necessary to convey information on nutrient related eutrophication impacts and success of management efforts in such a way that they are meaningful to the public. These efforts should include development of the linkage between the impacts of nutrients in an estuary/coastal water and society’s uses of these waters. Impact valuations are key and necessary to convince the public and legislature to support research and management efforts. As an example, in Sarasota Bay, the mayor and city council were much more enthusiastic about creating habitat that might support 300 million additional fi sh, though small, than they were about secchi disk depths increasing by 25 % and seagrass meadows increasing by 700 acres. This demonstrates how this approach will serve to develop public support for management.

Recommendations

• Develop an organizing framework for states’ managers, that includes a translation mechanism from the science to the managers that should include: descriptions of the susceptibility of systems to nutrients, the indicators that should be monitored to understand the direction and magnitude of change in water quality, and the thresholds that prompt policy and management changes.

• Develop an operational observation system that routinely provides data and information to managers on appropriate time frames and in the most useful format. Use the idea of “Operational Oceanography” interface between scientists and managers.

• Develop models and analytical tools for management purposes.
• Identify a Steering Group to guide further development of the monitoring and assessment program.

• Determine sub-group membership for “Typology” and “Monitoring, assessment and classi fi cation” (including reference conditions and classi fi cation issues, such 

# NEXT STEPS

as variable thresholds), “Modeling and Management” (for development of an operational framework and analytical tools) and write the scope-of-work for the groups. Overlap among groups is key.

• Identify and contact appropriate economists and social scientists for participation and guidance on development of the economic impacts/society’s uses component.

• Compile a summary of data in preparation for selection of candidate estuaries for a pilot study (include search for models of susceptibility and input/response, such as that for Tampa Bay).

• Begin designing pilot studies.

### 18 Anderson, D.M., Kaoru, Y., and White, A.W. 2000. Estimated annual economic impacts from harmful algal blooms (HABs) in United States. Woods HoleOceanographic Institute Technical Report., WHOI2000-11. Bettencourt, A. S.B. Bricker, J.G. Ferreira, A. Franco, J.C. Marques, J.J. Melo, A. Nobre, L. Ramos, C.S. Reis, F.Salas, M.C. Silva, T.Simas, W. Wolff, 2003. Typology and Reference Conditions for Portuguese Transitional and Coastal Waters Development of guidelines for the application of the European Union Water Framework Directive. Ed. INAG-IMAR, Lisbon, Portugal, In Press. Boesch, D., 2002. Challenges and Opportunities for Science in Reducing Nutrient Over-enrichment of Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries 25, 744-758. Bonsdorff, E., Blomqvist, E.M., Mattila, J., & Norkko, A., 1997. Coastal eutrophication: causes, consequences and perspectives in the Archipelago areas of the northern Baltic Sea. Estuar. Coast. Shelf. Sci. 44, 63-72. Boynton, W.R., Kemp, W.M., and Keefe, C.W. 1982. A comparative analysis of nutrients and other factors in fl

uencing estuarine phytoplankton production. In: V.S. Kennedy (ed.), Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York. pp. 69-90. Bricker, S.B., J.G. Ferreira, T. Simas. 2003. An Integrated Methodology for Assessment of Estuarine Trophic Status. Ecological Modelling. 169:39-60. Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G. Farrow. 1999. National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment; Effects of Nutrient Enrichment in the Nation’s Estuaries. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Special Projects Of fi ce and the National Centers fro Coastal Ocean Science. Silver Spring, MS: 71 pp. Breitburg, D., 2002. Effects of hypoxia, and the balance between hypoxia and enrichment, on coastal fi shes and fi sheries. Estuaries 25 46:767-781. Burkholder, J.M., Noga, E.J., Hobbs, C.H., Glasgow, H.B. Jr., 1992a. New ‘phantom’ dino fl agellate is the causative agent of major estuarine fi sh kills. Nature 358, 407-410. Burkholder, J.M., Mason, K.M. and Glasgow, H.B. Jr. 1992b. Water-column nitrate enrichment promotes decline of eelgrass Zostera marina: evidence from seasonal mesocosm experiments. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 81, 163-178. Burkholder, J.M., Glasgow, H.B. Jr, Hobbs, C.W., 1995. Fish kills linked to a toxic ambush predator dino fl agellate: distribution and environmental conditions. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 124, 43-61. Burkholder, J.M., Mallin, M.A. and Glasgow, H.B. Jr., 1999. Fish kills, bottom water hypoxia and the toxic P fi

esteria complex in the Nuese River and Estuary. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 179, 301-310. Chiaudani, G., Marchetti, R. & Vighi, M. 1980. Eutrophication in Emilia-Romagna coastal waters (North Adriatic sea, Italy): a case history. - Prog. Wat. Tech. 12, 185-192.
Committee on Environmental and Natural Resources (CENR), 2000. Integrated assessment of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico. National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Washington, DC. 58 pp. Cooper, S.R. and G.S. Brush. 1991. Long-term history of Chesapeake Bay anoxia. Science 254:992-996. Dettmann, E. H. 2001. Effect of water residence time on annual export and denitri fi cation of nitrogen in estuaries: a model analysis. Estuaries 24, 481-490. European Union Common Implementation Strategy Working Group 2.4 (COAST). 2003. Final Draft Guidance on Coastal and Transitional Waters. 119 pp. Ferreira, J.G., T. Simas, A. Nobre, M.C. Silva, K. Shifferegger, J. Lencart-Silva. 2003. Identi fi cation of Sensitive Areas and Vulnerable Zones in Transitional and Coastal Portugese Systems: Application of the United States National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment to the Minho, Lima, Douro, Ria de Aveiro, Mondego Tagus, Sado, Mira, Ria Formosa and Guadiana Systems. eds: INAG. Instituto de Agua and IMAR. Institute of Marine Research. Lisbon, Portugal. 151 pp. Gerlach, S.A., 1990. Nitrogen, phosphorus, plankton and oxygen de fi ciency in the German Bight and in Kiel Bay. Kieler Meeresforschungen, Sonderheft 7, 1-341. 

# REFERENCES

### 19 Gillbricht, M., 1988. Phytoplankton and nutrients in the Helgoland region. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 42, 435-467. Glasgow, H. B., Burkholder, J. M. 2000. Water quality trends and management implications from a fi ve-year study of a eutrophic estuary. Ecol. Appl. 10(4), 1024- 1046. Greening et al., 1997 or 1999? (get from Holly and also one for Sarasota Bay). Hodgkin, E.P. and Hamilton, B.H. 1993. Fertilizers and eutrophication in southwestern Australia: Setting the scene. Fertilizer Research 36, 95-103. Howarth, R., R. Marino, and D. Scavia. 2003. Nutrient Pollution in Coastal Waters - Priority Topics for an Integrated National Research Program for the United States. (in press). Joint, I., Lewis, J., Aiken, J., Proctor, R., Moore, G., Higman, W. & Donald, M. (1997). Interannual variability of PSP (Paralytic Shell fi sh Poisoning) outbreaks on the north east UK coast. Journal of Plankton Research 19, 937- 956. Kelly, M. & Naguib, M., 1984. Eutrophication in coastal marine areas and lagoons: a case study of “Lac of Tunis”. UNESCO reports in marine science. 29. 54 pp. Lipton, D.W. and R. Hicks. Linking water quality improvements to recreational fi shing values: The case of Chesapeake Bay striped bass. In: Evaluating the Bene fi ts of Recreational Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 7(2). University of British Columbia. 1999. Lipton, D.W. and R. Hicks. The cost of stress: Low dissolved oxygen and recreational striped bass (Morone saxatilis) fi shing in the Patuxent River. Estuaries (forthcoming) 2003. Lipton, D.W. The Value of Improved Water Quality to Chesapeake Bay Boaters. Working Paper, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. 2003. Mistaien, J.A., I.E. Strand and D.W. Lipton. Effects of environmental stress on blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) havest in Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Estuaries (forthcoming). 2003. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1988. Strategic Assessment of Near Coastal Waters: Northeast Case Study. Susceptibility and status of northeast estuaries to nutrient discharges. Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division. 50 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1999. Coastal Assessment and data Synthesis System. Silver Spring, MD: Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. http: //cads.nos.noaa.gov. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1985. National estuarine inventory: Data atlas, volume 1: Physical and hydrologic characteristics. Rockville, MD:Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division. 103 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1996. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 1: South Atlantic Region. Silver Spring, MD. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 50 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 2: Mid-Atlantic Region. Silver Spring, MD. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 51 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 3: North Atlantic Region. Silver Spring, MD. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 46 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1997. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 4: Gulf of Mexico Region. Silver Spring, MD. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 77 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 1998. NOAA’s Estuarine Eutrophication Survey. Volume 5: Paci fi c Coast Region. Silver Spring, MD. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation Assessment. 75 pp.
National Research Council. 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 405 pp. Okaichi, JM. 1997. Red tides in the Seto inland Sea. In: T Okaichi, T Tanagi, eds. Sustainable development in the Seto Sea Inland Japan: from the Viewpoint of

### 20 Fisheries. Tokyo, Japan: Terra Scienti fi c Publishing Company, pp 251-304. Okaichi, T. 1989. Red tide problems in the Seto Inland Sea, Japan. In: Okaichi, T., D.M. Anderson, and T. Nemato (eds.), Red tides: Biology, environmental science, and toxicology, proceedings of the fi rst international symposium on red tides. New York: Elsevier Press. pp. 137-144. Onuf, C.P. 1995. Seagrass meadows of the Laguna Madre of Texas. In: Coastal and Marine Ecosystems. In: Our Living Resources – A report to the nation on distribution, abundance and health of US Plants, Animals and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, National Biological Service. ORCA, 1992. Red Tides: A summary of issues and activities in the United States. Of fi ce of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring MD. 23pp. Orth, R.J. and K.A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An Unprecedented Decline in Submerged Aquatic Vegetation. Science 222: 51-53. Orth, R.J. and Moore, K.A., 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An historical perspective. Estuaries 7, 531-540. OSPAR, 2002. Common Assessment Criteria, their Assessment Levels and Area Classi fi cation within the Comprehensive Procedure of the Common Procedure. OSPAR Comission for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. 24pp. Quinn, H., J.P. Tolson, C.J. Klein, S.P. Orlando, C. Alexander. 1989. Susceptibility of East Coast Estuaries to Nutrient Discharges: Passamaquoddy Bay to Chesapeake Bay. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Of fi ce of Oceanography and Marine Assessment. Rockville, MD. 37 pp. Rabalais, N.N. and Harper, D.E., Jr. 1992. Studies of benthic biota in area affected by moderate and severe hypoxia. In: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Ocean Program Of fi ce, Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity: Proceedings of a Workshop. Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, October 1991. Sea Grant Program, Texas A & M University, P.O. Box 1675, Galveston, Texas. TAMU-SG-92-109. pp. 150-153. Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., Justic, D., Dortch, Q., Wiseman, W.J., Jr., and Sen Gupta, B.K., 1996. Nutrient changes in the Mississippi Rover and system responses on the adjacent continental shelf. Estuaries, 19 (2B), 386-407. Turner, R.K., Georgiou, S., Gren, I., Wulff, F., Barrett, S., Söderqvist, T., Bateman, I.J., Folke, C., Langaas, S., zylicz, T., Karl-Goran Mäler, K. & Markowska, A., 1999. Managing nutrient fl uxes and pollution in the Baltic: an interdisciplinary simulation study. Ecol. Economics 30, 333-352. Twilley, R.R., Kemp, W.M., Staver, K.W., Stevenson, J.C., and Boynton, W.R., 1985. Nutrient enrichment of estuarine submersed vascular plant communities. I. Algal growth and effects on production of plants and associated communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 23, 179-191. Whitledge, T.E. and Pulich, W.M., Jr., 1991. Report of The Brown Tide Symposium and Workshop, 15-16 July, 1991. Marine Science Institute, The University of Texas, P.O. Box 1267, Port Aransas, TX. September, 1991. 44 pp.

### 21

### April 2004