Gulf of Maine Projects

Final Report: Evaluation of the Gulfwatch Monitoring Program

Recommendations

The questions addressed in the Gulfwatch annual reports largely focus on testing hypotheses which relate to the methodology, i.e. seasonal variation in contaminant burdens and tissue concentration similarity between caged and native mussels. These questions were appropriate in the early phases of the program but it is appropriate at this time to reassess the underlying rationale for monitoring in the Gulf of Maine and to move on to broader questions. The review panel expects that some program modification would result from this assessment.

Gulfwatch will probably not ever be supported at a level where currently identified and desired monitoring tasks can be carried out by this program. With this as a given, then efficient use of data from other sources must be incorporated into this effort. One important management issue is how do contaminant burdens in the mussels relate to inputs. Obviously, direct measurement of inputs by any program funded at the level of Gulfwatch is out of the question, but it may be possible to take advantage of programs where inputs are being measured on a regular basis, such as Boston Harbor. By following year to year variations in mussels near a monitored source of inputs, insight in the relationship between loading changes and body burdens might be better understood. Gulfwatch can make use of estimates of inputs derived from other sources and incorporate those estimates into the program. Use of non-program data is a necessary activity when program resources are extremely limited.

Data being generated by Gulfwatch has value and that value can be used to leverage partnerships with regional (state and provincial) resource management agencies and with academic research programs. Data from Gulfwatch need to be interpreted in the context of mussel watch data from other programs and to do this, Gulfwatch QA/QC issues need to be resolved. There is feeling from the printed Gulfwatch reports that the program has leveraged only limited resources from outside the principle EPA grant but Gulfwatch now has the experiential base to be in position to do so. Incorporation of non-Gulfwatch information into Gulfwatch data interpretation should also be pursued.

As a part of this review exercise, the panel has reviewed a preliminary draft of the 5-year Gulfwatch retrospective report (Jones et al, in prep) and makes some general comments on that draft here. When this report is revised, we urge that it be distributed for a critical peer review. This report summarizes the start-up phase of Gulfwatch and deserves scrutiny and comment by a group of experts in the field.

Comments made in the above discussion are relevant to the reworking of this draft report. In addition, the draft reviewed by the panel could benefit from a reorganization that explicitly addresses a series of questions:

What did Gulfwatch intend to accomplish?

What did we find?

What questions can we answer with data collected? (equally, what questions cannot be answered?)

How can we improve the program?

From this reorganization should come a sharper focus on a review of Gulfwatch activities and achievements and a reduction in discussion of more general topics.

In addition to this full report of the initial five years, Gulfwatch should also produce a short summary version written for a general audience that explains program objectives and relevance, thereby justifying the mussel watch approach in this region and demonstrating that program goals are being met. This summary is a critical publication that should highlight the value of the Gulfwatch program to the larger user community and be targeted to managers, legislators, fishermen, the aquaculture industry, educators, and the interested public. The program needs to get the information, in condensed non-scientific terms, into the hands and plans of those who benefit from knowledge of the health of the coastal environment. They will become the critical constituency for justifying and maintaining the program.

The draft 5-year retrospective report is the most important document produced by Gulfwatch and it needs to clearly state, without overstating, the results and conclusions of the program. Several specific points to consider in revision of the draft 5-year report:

• the program has necessarily focused on techniques and methodology in this start-up phase but now it will reassess it's objectives and the means to meet them. It will incorporate an on-going self-evaluation process as an integral program component. Gulfwatch has reasonably evolved to meet the realities of field conditions and now needs to apply that same flexibility to refocus more sharply on management issues. It is time to restate the original premise of Gulfwatch, based on the initial five years experience.

• data reporting, including data interpretation, has occurred in a burst at the end of this 5-year period and needs to be given equal priority with field sampling and sample analysis. Data reporting necessarily includes data synthesis ( and "translation" for non-scientists). These components need to be an integral part of the program; presently there is a serious gap between analytical results and information transfer and to date there has been no process developed to address this problem. The reviewers note that this is a problem inherent in the original Plan that is only reflected in the initial implementation effort.

• focus on the regional questions and the regional scale of the dataset without over-justifying the program or over-interpreting the data. Over-interpretation could ultimately put the entire program in jeopardy. At all costs, avoid using the retrospective report as a data dump which attempts to summarize all knowledge; maintain a sharp focus on this region and these data. After five years, Gulfwatch has produced a reasonable baseline of contaminant concentrations. This baseline is an acceptable result of the effort made; it should be highlighted as the product of this program and does not need to be oversold. Gulfwatch data does need to be compared to data from other sources (e.g., FDA market basket data) to get a better idea of how it can be used and to see if Gulfwatch really is addressing the overall management issues. For example, what are the levels of contaminants in other harvestable species from the Gulf?

• review and critique the original Plan objectives, placing the Gulfwatch effort in the perspective of the full Plan. Plan objectives are overstated and omit critical integration steps that are criticized by this review panel; the 5-year report should address these plan deficiencies and highlight accomplishments that have been achieved.

• discuss how to improve QA/QC efforts, including reporting of QA/QC results. Issues such as limit of detection of organics and analytical methods used for Hg and Pb require investigation and should incorporate collaboration with analytical chemists who are at the forefront of these analyses.

• Two issues are highlighted here as examples of how all monitoring issues are linked and how Gulfwatch (including program reporting) could be more sharply focused on the region. The question of mercury (Hg) is one example. The review panel concludes that comments on Hg in the draft 5-year report are suspect until QA/QC issues are addressed. Hg is a difficult analysis and the reported standard error makes the Gulfwatch dataset questionable. What analytical method was used? Were "standard sediments" analyzed? Was Hg included in the inter laboratory comparison exercises? Until such questions are answered, caution should be used in reaching conclusions concerning trends in this metal. Additionally, how does this data fit into the national discussions related to possibly lowering the current public health standard for Hg? If there is no particular management issue at stake, does the trend of Hg matter?

In a similar vein, we have argued in this review that a regional monitoring program is in a unique position to address regional issues and suggest that this role be given greater emphasis in any future reassessment of Gulfwatch. Reviewers have applauded the links Gulfwatch has made to an existing national monitoring program where such links provide appropriate structure and oversight but Gulfwatch should not lose sight of the fact that requirements of a national program may give less than adequate weight to regional issues. For example, it may be appropriate from a national perspective to place little emphasis on specific contaminants that could be of importance in the Gulf region. NOAA S&T has opted not to measure some of the less common high molecular alkyl PAHs that are found in quantity in some crude oils. If these particular oils are imported into the Gulf region for transmission via the Portland pipeline, then the measurement of such chemicals would be appropriate in this regional program.

Any program reassessment that results from this review should look beyond the immediate questions of mussel watch implementation to broader issues such as those provided here.

Conclusions

The "mussel watch" approach to coastal monitoring is valid in the Gulf of Maine region and in general it is being competently and responsibly applied by Gulfwatch. The start-up phase of Gulfwatch has focused heavily on the mechanical details of implementing a field program at the expense of management questions and the program is at an appropriate juncture to reestablish underlying program objectives. To accomplish this, program staff should broaden their network of active advisors to include research scientists and practicing resource managers.

In general, Gulfwatch objectives match those of the 1991 Plan, but the Plan is very generic and contains overstated goals that should be reexamined. The funded Gulfwatch program is a remnant of the monitoring program recommended in the Plan and some of the deficiencies identified by this review relate directly to the original plan and to a lack of sufficient funding to implement a full monitoring program.

The present Gulfwatch Program is but a part of a necessary coastal monitoring effort in the Gulf of Maine region. The current program activities and the present mix of funding support is a legitimate initial effort but should not define coastal monitoring in the Gulf of Maine. Program staff should not focus exclusively on present "mussel watch" activities or on existing identified support resources but should reach out to the wider scientific and management communities to develop a monitoring program that meets the needs of those communities and is supported at a level consistent with the value of the natural resources being protected. Gulfwatch should consider the incorporation of other tools as needed, perhaps in concert with academic research projects.

It is essential that a regional monitoring effort be continued over the long term and that this activity be reviewed regularly by outside experts to assist program staff with their mission.

Acknowledgments

This review has been supported by a grant from the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with supplemental support from the WHOI Rinehart Coastal Research Center.

Back to Data Interpretation | On to References

To obtain a printed version of this report, please download this document. You will need Adobe Acrobat 3.0. It's easy to use and available free.