|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 38
Strengthening Regional and
National Monitoring
CONTINUUM OF MONITORING SCALES
One of the committee's major findings is that monitoring designed prin-
cipally to meet regulatory compliance needs generally does not adequately
answer questions about the regional and national risks of pollutant inputs
to public health, coastal environmental quality, or living resources. The
reason is that compliance monitoring Epically does not address potential
effects removed from specific discharge points, including overall responses
of the ecosystem to anthropogenic and natural stresses. Such information
may not directly affect day-to-day decision making about a particular dis-
charge, but improved knowledge on broader space and time scales of the
changing environment and the status of its living marine resources is re-
quired to place site-specific regulatory decisions in a relevant context. The
three case studies found that, in general, site-specific monitoring programs
conducted specifically to assess the effects of specific wastewater discharges
or activities were not sufficiently integrated to address questions about
regional-scale problems. (See Box 3.1.)
For this reason, the committee evaluated the benefits of strengthened
monitoring efforts at regional and national scales to improve understand-
ing of broader-scale trends in marine environmental quality. However,
before the findings of this assessment are presented, the scale of various
monitoring activities is briefly described. Marine environmental monitoring
may cover a continuum of scales. Local monitoring around a discharge
site for compliance purposes generally has a characteristic scale of tens of
38
OCR for page 39
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
39
BOX 3.1
COMMITTEE FINDINGS
ON REGIONAL MONITORING
When monitoring programs were designed principally to deter-
mine compliance with permits or were not coordinated with the
organizations conducting the monitoring within a region, they were
not adequate to measure broader-scale regional and national trends.
Southern California Bight
.
The extensive monitoring here mainly involves sampling new
specific permitted activities (e.g., a wastewater outfall, power plant,
drilling rig). Many of the environmental problems, however, are much
larger spatially.
.
The effects of unpermitted activities (e.g., stormwater runoff,
atmospheric fallout) that could have large impacts are not assessed
by existing programs.
· Compliance monitoring programs could be redirected and
integrated for evaluating environmental quality regionally.
Chesapeake Bay
.
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program, begun in 1984,
is a coordinated federalistate effort to assess environmental quality
trends and the effectiveness of pollution abatement efforts throughout
the bay.
The living resource component of this new program was
not integrated and coordinated with the water quality component.
Modifications were made in 1989 for better evaluation of status and
trends in living resources.
Sampling and analysis methods often differ among program
participants, complicating the determination of areawide trends.
Particulate Wastes
· Because particulate wastes may be deposited on the seabed
in coastal and shelf environments, their effects on the benthos and
sediments are generally compounded by the cumulative impacts of
multiple activities that are regional in scope.
· Monitoring particulate waste discharges is often confounded
by natural variation (e.g., seasonal patterns) and external environ-
mental factors (e.g., hypoxia in dredged material disposed of in Long
Island Sound, discharges from offshore oil and gas activities in the
Gulf of Mexico) that can be understood only when data on the major
sources of variation have been quantified.
OCR for page 40
40
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
kilometers, but it often includes "control" stations farther afield. Regional
monitoring can encompass areas exceeding hundreds of kilometers (e.g.,
Chesapeake Bay, Southern California Bight). Existing monitoring programs
on a national scale (e.g., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration [NOAA] National Status and [lends INS& Program) have been
able to collect data at stations spaced about 100 kilometers apart; thus
only a few sampling sites fall within an identifiable region. Monitoring of
global environmental trends, although not within the scope of this study,
is being conducted at an international level to understand the interaction
of physical, chemical, and biological processes that regulate the total earth
system. The International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP) is one of
a number of ongoing global ocean monitoring programs currently planned
or under way.
The effectiveness of trends monitoring, on either a regional or national
scale, in quantizing meaningful changes in the marine environment and
its resources depends on the selection of appropriate parameters to mea-
sure. A framework for monitoring design that encompasses selection of
meaningful and sensitive parameters is provided in Chapter 4; it is beyond
this study to prescribe them. However, it is clear from the committee's
review that even compliance monitoring programs measure chemical and
biological variables primarily because of the feasibility of monitoring them
or because of a convention (e.g., inclusion on a list of priority pollutarlts)
without regard to their relationship to environmental quality goals.
Monitoring at different scales from site-specific to national provides
distinctly different strengths and limitations. Some of these are summarized
in Table 3.1. Three points emerge from this comparison: there is no
singularly appropriate scale for all objectives, integration of data from all
scales is necessary for a comprehensive assessment of status and trends,
and regional monitoring is especially important.
THE ROLE OF REGIONAL MONITORING
Rationale for Regional Monitoring
It is clear from Table 3.1 that monitoring programs at the regional scale
have great potential to contribute information pertinent to management
of the coastal marine environment and its resources; yet few regional
monitoring programs exist because of important technical, institutional,
and financial obstacles.
These problems are apparent in the two regional case studies commis-
sioned by the committee. Southern California has extensive local mon-
itoring but no coherent regional monitoring program, although regional
OCR for page 41
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
TABLE 3.1 The Potential of Marine Env~ronn~cntal Monitoring Contributions
to Management Objectives
Scale of Monitoring Program
Objective
Measure effects of specific High
source
Evaluate effects of source High
abatement
Assess risks to living
resources
Determine public health risks
Address public concerns
Assess cumulative effects
Place effects in context of
natural variation
Set national priorities
Low
Low
Moderate
High Moderate
Moderate High
High
High
Low
monitoring has long been proposed.
monitoring program is relatively new.
41
Site-Specific Regional National
Moderate Low
Moderate Low
High Low
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Low
High
Chesapeake Bay's comprehensive
Lessons from the Southern California Bight and Chesapeake Bay
Monitoring in the Southern California Bight has been conducted for
many years and is predominantly organized around discharge permits. A1-
though at least $17 million is spent to support these activities each year,
a regional assessment of status and trends cannot be accomplished by syn-
thesizing and integrating the available data. The case study (NRC in press)
identified several program deficiencies regarding the relevance of moni-
toring activities to public concerns about human health, living resources,
and ecosystem integrity, including: significant diffuse (nonpoint) sources of
chemical and microbial contaminants in riverine and stormwater discharges
to the bight have not been adequately quantified; no formal institutional
mechanisms exist for requiring the findings from the ongoing monitoring
programs to be integrated into a regional assessment of environmental
quality; and no effective system exists for communicating findings of mon-
itoring programs to the public, the scientific community, or policy makers
in terms that the respective audiences can understand. As a result of these
findings, the case study panel recommended development and implemen-
tation of a regional monitoring program for the Southern California Bight.
The regional program should: address specific questions about the environ-
mental condition of the bight as a whole and the resources therein; require
standardized sampling, analysis, and data management methods; establish a
data and information management system for all monitoring and resource
OCR for page 42
42
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
data; coordinate the regulatory, management, and technical needs and re-
sponsibilities of the local, state, and federal agencies to optimize use of
available resources; and involve the public and the scientific community as
participants.
The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program encompasses an exception-
ally wide array of measurements of both riverine and estuarine habitats,
sediment contaminants, biological variables (including submerged aquatic
vegetation, plankton, and benthos), and fisheries parameters. It is an am-
bitious undertaking with broad objectives and mechanisms to encourage
interstate and intergovernmental coordination. The panel evaluated the
program in the context of the conceptual model for marine environmental
monitoring described in Chapter 1 (see Figure 1.1) using the questions re-
produced in Appendix B. Despite the great strides made by the Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program, it has some limitations.
First, the questions addressed and hypotheses tested through specific
monitoring projects were not always clearly and precisely stated at the outset
of their implementation. In most cases, the program implemented was not
designed to establish cause-effect relationships clearly. Movement from
general program goals to specific environmental quality objectives evolved
along with the increased body of scientific information and understanding
of the processes controlling water quality and the abundance of living
resources, including pollution problems.
Second, the monitoring program design originally consisted of what
is familiar and is easy and inexpensive to measure. Station locations and
sampling strategies were not necessarily appropriate to answer some impor-
tant systemwide questions: for example, what is the relationship between
the status and trends in water quality and the status and trends in living
resources? That is to say, sampling strategies for living resource and water
quality management agencies were not well coordinated, and many of the
data that have been collected by water quality agencies are not easily related
to the available living resource data. Despite coordination efforts, jurisdic-
tional and institutional boundaries often reduce comparability of data and
impede information transfer. The Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program
now faces the common dilemma of choosing between the need for long-
term consistency and the desire for flexibility in incorporating improved
sampling strategies, innovative approaches, and improved coordination.
As a result, the limits to the detection of human-induced effects in
a background of large natural variation were seldom stated and in most
cases are not known. Sometimes sampling frequency and spatial intensity
were not consistent with the scale of temporal and spatial variability of the
parameters measured.
A major deficiency of the Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program identi-
fied by the case study is that too little attention and resources were directed
OCR for page 43
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
43
at the management, analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of data relative
to the investment made to collect the data. In general, available funding
is not adequate for regular interdisciplinary analysis, synthesis, and inter-
pretation of data across disciplinary or jurisdictional boundaries. Because
of the relative simplicity of the interdisciplinary analyses that have been
conducted, there is a heavy dependence on correlation among parameters
for providing the information needed to develop remediation strategies.
As a result, the program is not sufficiently responsive to the information
requirements of decision makers; nor has it provided them with information
tailored to their specific needs.
Inclusion of data from other monitoring programs in the data base
is limited by the capacity of the central data management system, not by
whether the data are required for specific analyses that are needed.
Although the above list of problems identified by the Chesapeake Bay
case study is lengthy, the criticisms are not meant to be damning. Indeed,
they are relative to the ideal monitoring program and the model discussed
previously. Human, technical, institutional, and financial limitations will
always adversely affect any large regional enterprise. For this reason, the
findings of the case study are coupled with positive suggestions for evolu-
tionary improvements. The Chesapeake Bay program is the nation's most
ambitious regional marine environmental effort. The problems encountered
in the case study are an illumination of those that will be encountered in
other regional programs such as that proposed for the Southern California
Bight.
The Federal Role
The federal government can and should be important in the devel-
opment of regional monitoring programs. For example, federal permitting
agencies (e.g., Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] regional offices)
could require dischargers to participate in a regional monitoring program
as a condition of obtaining discharge permits. Permitted dischargers in
Southern California have expressed a willingness to participate in this type
of regional monitoring program because the broader-scale assessment that
would result would provide a context for the localized discharge effects
that are usually found. In addition, over the long term, they feel that a re-
gional program would document the effectiveness of their routine pollution
abatement measures. The major beneficial effect of federal participation in
regional monitoring efforts is to catalyze multijurisdictional efforts through
active coordination and financial support, as EPA does in the Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program.
Technical assistance in monitoring design, development of standardized
sampling and analysis protocols, intercalibration and quality control of
OCR for page 44
44
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
laboratories, and data and information management and interpretation are
also technical areas in which regional monitoring programs would benefit
from federal coordination and direct participation. For example, NOAA's
NS&T Program and EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP) provide a
framework around which a regional multiagency state-federal monitoring
effort could be established.
THE ROLE OF NATIONAL MONITORING
Rationale for National Monitoring
In addition to strengthened regional monitoring and assessment, there
is a need to provide a national overview as a broader context for evaluating
trends in marine pollution and the electiveness of pollution control policies,
for determining whether observed changes are limited to certain regions
or are more widespread, and for generally strengthening the early warning
capability for future environmental problems. As described in Chapter 1,
our nation spends more than $133 million on monitoring each year. Most
is for compliance monitoring, much less for monitoring status and trends at
the regional level, and still less for monitoring national status and trends.
The United States needs an effective comprehensive national program for
measuring and evaluating the status of marine environmental resources
and trends in marine environmental quality. We presently have only the
modest beginnings of such a program. The federal government participates
in various regional monitoring programs through EPA's NEP and conducts
a national program to monitor toxic materials in marine mollusks, bottom-
feeding fish, and sediments (NOAA:s NS&T Program). These projects do
not individually, or in the aggregate, constitute a comprehensive national
status and trends monitoring program. EPA is developing an Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), to include the coastal ocean.
Presently we have no authoritative scientific information to address public
concerns about widespread deterioration of the oceans.
Alternate Approaches
Leo fundamentally different approaches can be taken to constructing
a comprehensive national marine environmental monitoring program: a
fixed station national sampling design and a national program consisting of
integrated regional monitoring programs.
An Independent National FL,ced-Stanon Monitoring Program
Maintenance of a national network of fixed-point sampling stations
spaced around the coasts to measure key indicators of pollution impacts
OCR for page 45
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL ANI) NATIONAL MONITORING
45
using standard sampling and analysis protocols and careful quality control
to ensure comparability among stations and over time is the basic concept
of NOAA's NS&T Program. Its goal is "to create, maintain, and assess a
long-term record of contaminant concentrations and biological responses
to contamination in the coastal and estuarine waters of the United States"
(NOAA 1988~.
The basic NS&T station network consists of 200 sites, with an average
spacing of 20 kilometers within bays and estuaries and 80 kilometers along
open stretches of coastline. Samples are collected annually. There are
two types of measurements. Benthic surveillance involves the collection of
bottom-feeding fish and sediments at 50 sites; mussel watch involves the
collection of mussels or oysters and bottom sediments at 150 sites. Both
monitor trace elements, chlorinated pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls,
and polyaromatic hydrocarbons. In sediments, two measures of sewage-
related contamination are included the steroid coprostanol and spores of
an indicator bacterium, Clostridium perfiingens.
NOAA's NS&T Program is the closest current approach to a stan-
dardized national assessment of marine pollution. It illustrates both the
strengths and weaknesses of the fixed-station network approach to a na-
tional monitoring and assessment framework On the positive side, it pro-
vides for carefully controlled collection and analysis of samples and display
of summary information in a way that facilitates comparisons of contami-
nation conditions over space and time. (See Figure 3.1.) To some degree,
these comparisons may be illusory, particularly the ones that suggest dif-
ferences among regions. The sampling grid, however, is not dense enough
to permit accurate spatial comparisons of the extent of contamination of
coastal environments.
Samping sites for the NOAA program are selected to be representative
of regional conditions, rather than hot spots near known sources of con-
tamination or pristine, unpolluted sites. There is some question about how
representative any isolated site can be of wider regional conditions when it
is located in an area where there may be a range of pollution conditions
or considerable local variability in the processes controlling the transport
and distribution of contaminants. These limitations lead to the conclusion
that the NS&T Program may be more useful in measuring temporal trends
at individual stations than in assessing the national status of the marine
environment or in comparing the extent and severity of pollution among
regions in any precise way. This limitation, in turn, can lead to misin-
terpretation of the significance of the program's findings. For example,
most of the NS&T data suggest that the coastal environment is relatively
uncontaminated with pollutants. (See, e.g., Figure 3.1.) However, until the
representativeness of the NOAA sampling sites is known, it is inappropriate
to draw this conclusion.
OCR for page 46
46
Southampton Shoal CA
Nisqually Reach WA
Hunters Point CA
Dana Point CA
Columbia River OR
S.D. Bay South Bay CA
Seal Beach CA
Lutak Inlet AK
Bodega Bay CA
Santa Monica Bay CA
Eastern L.l. Sound NY
Western L.l. Sound CT
Heron Bay MS
Elliott Bay WA
Oakland Estuary CA
Commencement Bay WA
Nahku Bay AK
Casco Bay ME
Coos Bay OR
San Pedro Canyon CA
Mississippi Delta LA
Merrimack R. Mouth MA
San Pablo Bay CA
S.D. Bay outside CA
Narragansett Bay Rl
Charlotte Harbor FL
Chesapeake Bay Lower VA
Apalachicola Bay FL
Buzzards Bay MA
Round Island MS
Lower Laguna Madre TX
Pamlico Sound NC
Corpus Christi Bay T)(
San Antonio Bay TX
St. Johns River estuary FL
Mobile Bay AL
Delaware Bay DE
Boston Harbor MA
Baritaria Bay LA
Sapelo Island GA
Galveston Bay TX
Salem Harbor MA
Charleston Harbor SC
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
SHS
NIS
HUN
DAN
COL
SDA
SEA
LUT
BOD
SMB
ELI 1 . . 12.03
WLI ~ 1,.92
HER t... ... :. ~ 1.83
ELL I:::..::: i,.52
OAK [. :::..:.] ,.5
COM ~ . 1~39
NAH ~ ,.26
CSC ~ ~ 14
COO 0.96
SPC ~ ° B]
MRD ~ 0-7
MER ~ 0.69
PAB ~ 0.56
SDF ~1 0.56
NAR ~ 0.54
CHR ~ 3 0.54
LCB ~ 0.5
APA ~ 0.49
BUZ ~ 0.39
ROU ~ 0.32
LLM [] 0 3
PAM ~ 0.28
CCB m 0.23
SAB ~ 0.24
SJR ~ 0.~6
MOB ~ 0.45
DEL ~ 0.45
BOS ~ 0.14
BAR a 014
SAP ~ 0.12
GAL ~o.,
SAL ~o.oe
CHS 10.07
~ Fish Liver
OverallCoefficientofVariation: 58%
FIGURE 3.1 Cadmium in fish liver tissue, 1984 samples. SOURCE: NOAA 1987, p. C-6.
With sampling only annually, the NS&T Program is designed to em-
phasize measurements that minimize problems associated with short-term
temporal variability. Thus integrative measures such as the accumulation
of contaminants in sediments and biological tissues are emphasized, rather
than highly variable measurements such as water column chemistry or
OCR for page 47
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
47
plankton populations. On the one hand, this emphasis is a strength of the
sampling design. On the other, it reflects some inherent limitations in ad-
dressing the program's goal of providing a record of "biological responses
to contamination." For example, eutrophication has been identified as
a problem of growing concern in estuarine and coastal waters. Yet the
annual sampling frequency of the program cannot accommodate sampling
for nutrients, algal biomass, or oxygen concentrations, all of which exhibit
large short-term temporal (as well as spatial) variability. Thus the program
does not include a key pollution issue in its assessment of contaminant
conditions. Other major pollution issues not addressed by the NOAA
NS&T Program are habitat modifications, including loss of wetlands and
submerged aquatic vegetation and the construction of dams, and the effects
of global climate change on ecological resources.
These shortcomings reflect constraints imposed by the scope, spacing,
and frequency of the sampling program that result from budgetary limita-
tions. Of necessity, the program was designed to fit within the constraints
of available funds, about $4 million annually. However, expansion of the
national marine monitoring program may now be possible under the fis-
cal year (FY) 1990 budget proposed by the administration. This proposal
provides additional resources for NOAA's NS&T Program and for EPAs
EMAP. Nonetheless, even this expansion of effort is unlikely to encompass
the array of sampling points and measurements needed to estimate the
extent of pollution impacts given the vast extent of coastal environments.
Evaluation of the findings of water quality records from two nationwide
monitoring networks designed to measure riverine water quality illustrates
some of the limitations of the fixed station network approach (Smith,
Alexander, and Wolman 1987~. Although the data from these systems did
reveal some significant trends in water quality, they were only indicative.
The data collected from fixed sampling stations around the county proved
inadequate to explain or validate some of these apparent trends. It was
necessary to make extensive interpretations based upon other sources of
information to make meaningful inferences concerning the significance of
the findings.
An Integrated Network of Regional Monitoring Programs
The second broad approach to providing a national assessment of
marine environmental quality is for a federal agency, NOAA or EPA, for
example, to pull together, synthesize, and interpret available data from an
integrated series of regional monitoring programs that have been designed
to meet regional and local needs. Well-conceived regional monitoring activ-
ities would contribute meaningful information on environmental conditions
in individual estuaries and coastal areas. Collectively, these initiatives
OCR for page 48
48
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
could provide the basis for a national assessment of status and trends. The
national contributions to such a program would consist of identification,
development, and standardization of measurements; establishment of the
appropriate baseline and sampling design; and compilation and integra-
tion of the findings from regional programs in a national assessment. The
benefit of this approach is that it uses intensive and extensive monitoring
data for individual areas. These data are more likely to be representa-
tive of environmental conditions in the regions under study and to explain
cause-effect relationships with respect to observed changes.
Relying on a network approach has several shortcomings: some major
estuaries or important coastal stretches may not be covered by suitably
intensive studies; intensive studies may focus on short-term information
needs the `'contaminant of the month" syndrome and fail to provide the
consistency in long-term sampling needed for a national assessment; and it
is difficult to compare data collected by different organizations for different
purposes. This element is in contrast to an independent national program
such as NOAA's, In which consistency and comparability are relatively easy
to ensure. EPAs proposed ELLAP has many characteristics of an integrated
network of regional programs.
BOX 3.2
EPA'S NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
· Established by Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 to
protect and improve water quality and enhance living resources.
· Creates a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan, with participation by representatives of federal, state, regional,
and local agencies; affected industries; academia; and the public.
· Calls for assessing water quality and natural resources trends
in the planning phase and monitoring effectiveness in the implemen-
tation phase.
· Estuary programs under development:
-Albermarle/Pamlico Sound
-Buzzards Bay
-Delaware Bay
-Delaware inland bays
-Galveston Bay
-Long Island Sound
-Narragansett Sound
-New YorklNew Jersey
Harbor
-Puget Sound
-Sarasota Bay
Wan Francisco Bay
-Santa Monica Bay
OCR for page 49
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
A Network of Regional Programs Coupled with a National Program
49
A national program that couples an independent national program with
a network of regional programs and includes areas of special attention, such
as the Southern California Bight, Chesapeake Bay, and other estuaries
included in EPA's NEP (see Box 3.2), would overcome almost all the
obstacles identified above. The sparse national array of stations in regions
not the subject of intensive monitoring would be increased, and within the
intensively monitored regions, sites would be selected for long-term trend
assessment of common parameters. Sites within these regions would include
hot spots as well as areas of intermediate and minimal contamination. The
use of common protocols and intercalibration would ensure comparability
of results. Cooperation between EPAs NEP and NOAA's NS&T Program
would combine regional programs with a sparser national network of long-
term stations and studies. These existing programs could be coordinated
and enhanced to improve coverage of unmonitored areas. Another benefit
of cooperation between these programs would be better data management
and interpretation.
~ accomplish such a union of national and regional programs, a
national policy would have to provide both directives and incentives. In
any case, effecting the required coordination among federal agencies, state
and local agencies, and permittees is a challenge. The needs, barriers, and
some opportunities for interagency and intergovernmental coordination are
discussed in the following section.
COORDINATION
The Need for Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination
Whether there is an expanded independent national status and trends
monitoring program, a national monitoring program built largely from a
network of regional monitoring programs, or a combination of the two,
greater coordination among the various federal, state, and local agencies
involved in marine environmental monitoring to adopt consistent, or at
least compatible, monitoring methods and designs would clearly benefit
all levels. Efforts to improve interagency coordination face formidable
obstacles at both regional and national levels. Although there have been
many federal efforts at coordination, the results have usually been disap-
pointing, and many examples of overlapping, fragmentary, and unrelated
monitoring efforts remain. At best, coordination task forces are able to
serve as forums for information exchange and are not vehicles for modify-
ing agency attitudes, behavior, and programs because of basic institutional
and bureaucratic behavior. Monitoring to determine the conditions of
OCR for page 50
50
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
well-defined coastal areas, for example, Chesapeake Bay and the Southern
California Bight, may offer greater opportunities for coordination both
among agency programs and between compliance monitoring and trend
monitoring initiatives. In regional studies, interests shared in a geographic
area may overcome the more autonomous agency interests at the national
level and provide a more fertile atmosphere for coordinated efforts. In
addition, technical problems that hinder coordination on national levels
(e.g., what to measure) actually facilitate coordination at regional levels
because it is usually easier to make decisions for specific regions.
As described earlier, NOAA is mandated under the National Ocean
Pollution Research, Development, and Monitoring Act of 1978 to develop
a coordinated federal program for ocean pollution research, development,
and monitoring. However, this effort has largely involved information
exchange and documentation of individual agency programs rather than
adjustments and modifications to existing programs to achieve a truly co-
ordinated national effort. Despite repeated recommendations calling for a
more coordinated national effort (see Box 3.3~, no such effort has emerged.
In an attempt to remedy this deficiency, the National Ocean Pollution Pro-
gram office has established the Working Group on Monitoring, cochaired
by NOAA and EPA, to define the federal role in coastal ocean pollu-
tion monitoring. It may encounter similar problems unless participating
agencies make a more serious commitment.
Other federal coordination arrangements are found in existing legisla-
tion (the Water Quality Act of 1987 and the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, Title II, 1972) but they have not been implemented
effectively. Both require critical review and possible revision if they are to
improve interagency coordination.
Opportunities to Develop a Coordinated Program
There are increased potential opportunities for a coordinated national
effort, provided effective federal leadership can be brought to bear. With
mounting public concern about the condition of marine resources, the
number of regional monitoring efforts is likely to grow. For example, EPAs
NEP, authorized by the 1987 Water Quality Act, has stimulated the planning
of several intensive regional monitoring programs that could contribute to
a national assessment while serving more specific localized management
needs. As an initial step, consideration should be given to requiring that
management conferences for estuaries included in NEP make a multiyear
commitment to participate in a national estuarine monitoring network.
They would be requested to monitor prescribed parameters using standard-
ized protocols and to provide data and information in standardized formats
and on a prescribed schedule to a national coordinator. In turn, they would
OCR for page 51
STRENGTHENING REGIONAL AND NATIONAL MONITORING
51
BOX 3.3
PRO GRAM CO O RDINATIO N: 10 YEARS OF EFFO RT
The first Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Develop-
ment, and Monitoring (Interagency Committee/Federal Coordinating
Council 1979) recommended that a national ocean pollution moni-
toring plan be developed for inclusion in the second federal plan. It
was to be based upon integration of existing monitoring programs.
The second National Marine Pollution Program Plan (Inter-
agency CommitteeJFederal Coordinating Council 1981) stated: "The
need for development of a national monitoring program has been
recast in modified form.... lilt is now believed that the real need is
for organizing and structuring existing programs into regional moni-
toring networks rather than establishing a new national program for
monitoring." The plan proposed "a national marine pollution mon-
itoring network, composed of well-defined regional monitoring net-
works...."
The fourth National Marine Pollution Program Plan (NOAA
1988) adopted as one of its SEX goals the documentation of trends
in the status of marine ecosystems. The program recommended:
"The Federal Government should promote coordination of state and
regional programs, develop guidelines for use in standardizing mon-
itoring techniques, and support useful analysis of historical and en-
countered data."
An Ad Hoc Working Group on Monitoring Environmental Qual-
ity of Marine Ecosystems was recently constituted to:
· establish the objectives of the federal program in this area
and determine appropriate roles at the federal and state levels.
· propose a systematic strategy for developing a national mon-
itoring capability to meet these objectives. The strategy will incorpo-
rate existing national and regional programs and will use encountered
data, peer review, and information synthesis and dissemination.
· promote the development of improved indicators of ecosys-
tem status (NOAA 1988~.
have free access to similar data contributed from other participating estuary
groups. They should receive supplemental funding for the additional work
required. The committee stresses, however, that any such requirements
should be limited to consistency in analytical protocols, intercalibration,
and formating and reporting certain information to a central point. Any
centralization requirement that impinges upon the flexibility needed to
tailor regional programs to regional needs would be self-defeating.
OCR for page 52
52
MANAGING TROUBLED WATERS
In summary, the desired diagnostic national assessment of status and
trends in marine environmental quality is most likely to come about through
the orchestration, coordination, and synthesis of the results of well-designed
local and regional studies. The inherent difficulties involved in comparing
and accumulating the results of studies designed and conducted by different
organizations and for different purposes are likely to be outweighed by
the fact that studies tailored to specific environmental conditions and
problems of an area have the best chance of yielding meaningful results.
At the same time, although the committee can offer no panaceas or magic
formulas, we urge continued efforts to achieve regional coordination of
study protocols and parameters. Through development and demonstration
of standardized approaches, such as those used in NOA~s NS&T Program,
the federal government can encourage wider adoption of methods that will
enhance the opportunities for development of information useful in national
assessments.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
monitoring programs
