National Status and Trends: Bioeffects Program - St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER) Database

Metadata also available as - [Outline] - [Parseable text] - [XML]

Frequently anticipated questions:


What does this data set describe?

Title:
National Status and Trends: Bioeffects Program - St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER) Database
Abstract:
The purpose of this effort was to characterize the extent and magnitude of chemical contamination in the St. Thomas East End Reserves or STEER, as part of a larger project to develop an integrated ecosystem assessment for the STEER. The STEER is a collection of marine reserves and wildlife sanctuaries on the southeastern end of the island of St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands. Within the STEER, however, are a variety of land use and maritime activities that are thought to impact the Reserves. As part of a project requested by STEER managers and funded by CRCP, NCCOS/CCMA scientists conducted a field mission in June 2011 to the STEER, and collected sediments that were characterized for chemical contaminants. A broad suite of chemical contaminants were analyzed in sediment, coral (Porites asteroides) and conch (Strombus gigas)samples including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides including DDT and its metabolites, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), major and trace elements, and butyltins. This project provides valuable baseline data on sediment chemical contamination that is georeferenced and posted on the internet through the NOAA's National Status and Trends data portal.
  1. How should this data set be cited?

    Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA)., 20110615, National Status and Trends: Bioeffects Program - St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER) Database: NOAA's Ocean Service, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Silver Spring, MD.

    Online Links:

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Pait, A.S., S.I. Hartwell, A.L., Mason, R.A. Warner, C.F.G. Jeffrey, A.M. Hoffman, D.A. Apeti, F.R. Galdo Jr., and S.J. Pittman. 2013. An assessment of chemical contaminants, toxicity and benthic infauna in sediments from the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER). NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 156. Silver Spring, MD.

    Pait, A.S., S.I. Hartwell, A.L., Mason, R.A. Warner, C.F.G. Jeffrey, A.M. Hoffman, D.A. Apeti, F.R. Galdo Jr., and S.J. Pittman. 2013. An Assessment of chemical contaminants detected in passive water samplers deployed in the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER). NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 157. Silver Spring, MD. 22pp.

    Apeti,D.A., A.L Mason, A.S.Pait, , S.I. Hartwell, A.M. Hoffman, F.R. Galdo Jr., and S.J. Pittman. 2014. An assessment of contaminant body burden in queen conch (Strombus gigas) and coral (Porites astreoides) from the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER). NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS. Silver Spring, MD.

  2. What geographic area does the data set cover?

    West_Bounding_Coordinate: -64.882150
    East_Bounding_Coordinate: -64.822678
    North_Bounding_Coordinate: 18.320947
    South_Bounding_Coordinate: 18.297247

  3. What does it look like?

  4. Does the data set describe conditions during a particular time period?

    Calendar_Date: 2012
    Currentness_Reference: ground condition

  5. What is the general form of this data set?

  6. How does the data set represent geographic features?

    1. How are geographic features stored in the data set?

    2. What coordinate system is used to represent geographic features?

  7. How does the data set describe geographic features?

    Entity_and_Attribute_Overview:
    The data dictionary may be found at: <http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/dictionaries/ba_mw_chemistry_dictionary.aspx>
    Entity_and_Attribute_Detail_Citation:
    National Status and Trends Program - reference data dictionary <http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/dictionaries/ba_mw_chemistry_dictionary.aspx>


Who produced the data set?

  1. Who are the originators of the data set? (may include formal authors, digital compilers, and editors)

  2. Who also contributed to the data set?

    The partners in the STEER project include: Coastal and Oceanographic Assessment, Status and Trends (COAST) Branch Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA) at NOAA/NOS/National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; The University of the Virgin Islands St. Thomas, USVI; The US Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (DPNR);

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS: Tony Pait, NOAA, National Status and Tends Program (NSandT), 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, 301-713-3028 x158, 301-713-4384 (FAX), Tony.Pait@noaa.gov;

    Ian Hartwell, NSandT, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, 301-713-3028 x137, 301-713-4384 (FAX), Ian.Hartwell@noaa.gov;

    Andrew Mason, NSandT, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281 301-713-3020 x172, 301-713-4353 (FAX), Andrew.Mason@noaa.gov;

    Dennis Apeti, NSandT, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, 301-713-3020 x132, 301-713-4353 (FAX), Dennis.Apeti@noaa.gov;

    Laurie Bauer, NOAA, CCMA Biogeography Branch.1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, 301-713-3028 x236, 301-713-4384 (FAX), Laurie.Bauer@noaa.gov;

    Rob Warner, NOAA, NSandT, 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3281, 301-713-3020 x169, 301-713-4353 (FAX), Robert.Warner@noaa.gov

  3. To whom should users address questions about the data?

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA)
    Attn: Tony Pait
    National Status and Trends Program
    1305 East West Highway
    Silver Spring, MD 20910
    USA

    301-713-3028 (voice)
    301-713-4388 (FAX)
    Tony.Pait@noaa.gov


Why was the data set created?

Specific objectives of the study were to: 1) Characterize organic chemical contamination in sediments and biota; 2) Characterize inorganic chemical contamination in sediments and biota;

Partners in the project: "Characterization of Land-Based Sources of Pollution and Effects in the St. Thomas East End Reserves (STEER)" included the Coastal Oceanographic Assessment, Status and Trends (COAST) Branch, and the Biogeography Branch of NOAA's National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA) in Silver Spring, MD, the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources, the University of the Virgin Islands, and The Nature Conservancy. NOAA/CCMA was responsible for reviewing all data generated from this project.


How was the data set created?

  1. From what previous works were the data drawn?

    Apeti et al., 2012 (source 1 of 4)
    NOS ORCA, Silver Spring, MD, 1998, Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program Mussel Watch Project: 1993-1996 Update.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Lauenstein, G.G., and Cantillo, A.Y. 1998. U.S. DOC, NOAA Technical Memorandum 130
    Type_of_Source_Media: paper
    Source_Contribution:
    Reference for standard operation procedure for sample collection

    Kimbrough and Lauenstein 2006 (source 2 of 4)
    NOS NCCOS, Silver Spring, MD, 2007, Organic Contaminant Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Kimbrough K.L. and Lauenstein, G.G. 2007. U.S. DOC, NOAA Technical Memorandum 30
    Type_of_Source_Media: online
    Source_Contribution:
    Reference for standard operation procedure for inorganic contaminants (heavy metals) analysis

    Kimbrough et al., 2006 (source 3 of 4)
    NOS NCCOS, Silver Spring, MD, 2006, Trace Metal Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program: 2000-2006.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Kimbrough, K.L., and Lauenstein, G.G. 2006. U.S. DOC, NOAA Technical Memorandum 29
    Type_of_Source_Media: online
    Source_Contribution:
    Reference for standard operation procedure for organic contaminant analysis

    Lauenstein and Cantillo 1998 (source 4 of 4)
    NOS ORCA, Silver Spring, MD, 1998, Sampling and Analytical Methods of the National Status and Trends Program Mussel Watch Project: 1993-1996 Update.

    Other_Citation_Details:
    Lauenstein, G.G., and Cantillo, A.Y. 1998. U.S. DOC, NOAA Technical Memorandum 130
    Type_of_Source_Media: paper
    Source_Contribution: Reference for sampling standard operation procedure

  2. How were the data generated, processed, and modified?

    Date: 2012 (process 1 of 2)
    Data Acquisition: The sediments and tissue samples for chemical contaminant analysis were collected using standard NOAA National Status and Trends (NSandT) Program protocols (Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1998; Apeti et al., 2012 Update). The NSandT Program is housed within NCCOS' Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA). The NSandT Program monitors the Nation's estuarine and coastal waters for contaminants in bivalve mollusk tissues and sediments, and toxicity or bioeffects of sediments.

    A PONAR grab was deployed to collect the sediment samples using a pulley and davit, and retrieved by hand. Rocks and bits of seagrass were removed. If a particular grab did not result in 200-300 g of sediment, a second grab was made and composited with material from the first. If enough sediment had not been collected after three deployments of the grab, the site was abandoned and the boat moved on to an alternate site. Using this strategy, a total of 24 sediment samples were collected.

    A series of protocols were used to avoid contamination of the sediment samples by equipment and cross contamination between samples and sites. All equipment was rinsed with acetone and then distilled water just prior to use at a site. Personnel handling the samples also wore disposable nitrile gloves. The top 3 cm of sediment were collected from the grab using a stainless steel sediment scoop. This top layer of sediment is referred to as surficial sediment, and is typically indicative of recent deposition.

    Sediments were placed into two certified clean (I-Chem) 250 ml labeled jars, one for organic chemical analysis, the other for metal analysis, capped and then placed on ice in a cooler. Sediments for grain size analysis were placed in a WhirlPack bag, sealed and placed on ice in a cooler. At the end of each day, sediment samples for contaminant analysis were placed in a freezer; the WhirlPack bags for the grain size analysis were placed in a refrigerator rather than frozen, to avoid altering the grain size structure of the sediment.

    Sample Collection Investigators: Tony Pait, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; Ian Hartwell, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; Andrew Mason National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; Rob Warner, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science; Laurie Bauer, National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Biogeography Program Coral and conch tissue samples were collected based on the standard operation procedure described in Apeti et al, 2012. For conch sampling, two methods of collection were used. 1) Boat based onboard a Nature Conservancy vessel sampling via SCUBA or snorkeling, and 2) Kayak based sampling via snorkeling only. A total of 10 conch specimens were collected from 5 separate locations, one within each strata. At each location two organism were collected by hand and placed in labeled 2 gallon Ziplock bags. The bags containing the specimens were placed in a cooler of ice. At the end of the field mission, conch specimens were partially thawed and their soft tissues were removed from their shells, weighed, and then placed into labeled 1 liter Teflon jars and refrozen. Once completely frozen, the samples were shipped with dry-ice to the analytical laboratory. At the lab. the two soft tissues were composited into a single tissue sample for each location before contaminant analysis. The coral that was collected for this study was Porites astreoides (Lamarck 1816) common name mustard hill coral. This species was chosen because it is abundant and not endangered. The coral samples were collected by SCUBA diving using hammer and titanium or stainless steel coring punch. A sample location was defined as a single dive area with about 50 meter radius where enough Porites astreoides colonies (heads) were available for multiple sampling. Samples of P. astreoides were collected from five sites. Unlike the conch tissues, which only one set per location was collected for contaminant analyses, the coral tissues were collected in two sets, one for contaminant analyses and the other for histopathology measurements. - Sampling for contaminants analysis: At each location coral cores were collected from 5 different coral colonies (heads) to constitute a site-composite. Using hammer the titanium coring punch was driven into the coral colonies to extract coral cores of approximately 1.5 cm in diameter and 1-1.5 cm. Pieces of fractured coral cores were dislodged with Teflon stir stick and used as sample taking care to avoiding removal of large amounts of skeletal material. The cores of coral tissue were placed inside pre-labeled 250 ml IChem jars and then capped underwater. The jars were brought to the surface, drained of water and placed on ice. The samples were then preserved by freezing at -15 degree C until they were shipped overnight on dry-ice to the analytical laboratory.

    Data sources used in this process:

    • Lauenstein and Cantillo 1998

    Data sources produced in this process:

    • Lauenstein and Cantillo 1998

    Date: 2012 (process 2 of 2)
    Sample Processing and Analysis: Sediment and tissue samples were analyzed for trace elements and organic contaminants. Methods Summary:All samples were analyzed by TDI-Brooks in College Station, TX following proven methods. TDI-Brooks International, Inc who has been performing the analyses since 2000 uses a modified version of EPA methods. Samples were prepared for inductively coupled plasma/mass spectrometry analysis (ICP-MS) for major metals (copper, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, nickel, antimony, and zinc) while atomic fluorescence spectrometry was utilized to measure arsenic and selenium and atomic absorption spectrometry was used for mercury analysis. For all metals, but Hg, sediment and tissue samples were digested by sequentially adding nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide to Teflon bombs to achieve sample dissolution in oven. For analysis of Hg, samples were digested based on a modified version of EPA method 245.5, using a concentrated H2SO4 and HNO3 digestion, followed by addition of KMnO4, and K2S2O8, and the samples were again digested. For organic contaminants including butyltins, PAHs, PCBs, PBDEs and organochlorine-pesticides, sediment and tisse samples were first extracted. Homogenized samples were chemically dried with Hydromatix(TM). Tissue/Hydromatix(TM) mixtures were then extracted with 100% dichloromethane using accelerated solvent extraction (ASE) method. The extracts were then concentrated to 3 ml by evaporative solvent reduction. Silica gel/alumina column chromatography was utilized to concentrate and purify the samples before analysis. Quantitation of PAHs and their alkylated homologues was performed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode. Chlorinated hydrocarbons (chlorinated pesticides and PCBs) were quantitatively determined by capillary gas chromatography with an electron capture detector (ECD). Detailed extraction and analytical methods used by the MWP are available in Kimbrough and Lauenstein (2006). Quality control samples were processed with each batch of samples in a manner identical to the samples, including matrix spikes, method blank, duplicates and standard reference materials (SRMs). In total, approximately 5% of all analyses were QC analyses. Processing quality was considered acceptable if the following criteria were met: blanks were less than three times the minimum detection limit; accuracy, as determined by analysis of certified reference materials, was within 30% and precision, as determined by replicate analyses, was within 30% for organic analytes.

    Data sources used in this process:

    • Lauenstein and Cantillo 1998

    Data sources produced in this process:

    • Lauenstein and Cantillo 1998

  3. What similar or related data should the user be aware of?


How reliable are the data; what problems remain in the data set?

  1. How well have the observations been checked?

    MEASUREMENT QUALITY OBJECTIVES: Sample collection followed established protocols for the National Status and Trends Lauenstein and Cantillo, 1998; Apeti et al., 2012).

    Sediment and Tissue Sample Analysis: PAHs were analyzed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry in the selected ion monitoring mode. PCBs were analyzed using gas chromatography/electron capture detection. Organochlorine pesticides were also analyzed using gas chromatography/electron capture detection. Butyltins were quantified using gas chromatography/flame photometry. Silver, cadmium, copper, lead, antimony, and tin were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry. Aluminum, arsenic, chromium, iron, manganese, nickel, silicon and zinc were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectrometry. Mercury was analyzed using cold vapor - atomic absorption spectrometry. Selenium was analyzed using atomic fluorescence spectrometry. Total metal was analyzed. Additional information on the protocols used for the analysis of the organic and inorganic contaminants can be found in Kimbrough et al. (2006), and Kimbrough and Lauenstein (2006), respectively.

    The measurement quality objectives of the National Status and Trends specify accuracy and precision requirements of 30% for organic analytes and 15% for inorganic analytes in tissue samples. QA procedures include running blanks, spiked samples, and standard reference materials with each batch of samples. Any batch failing to meet the specifications is reanalyzed or rejected. The QA Criteria may be found in NOAAs Tech Memo NOS NCCOS 30 and 29. The standard NSandT analytical protocols are described in Kimbrough et al. (2006a and 2006b).

  2. How accurate are the geographic locations?

  3. How accurate are the heights or depths?

  4. Where are the gaps in the data? What is missing?

    Data are believed to be complete

  5. How consistent are the relationships among the observations, including topology?

    Sample collection followed established protocols for the National Status and Trends. The analytical instruments were calibrated by standard laboratory procedures. In total, approximately 5% of all analyses were QC analyses. Processing quality was considered acceptable if the following criteria were met: blanks were less than three times the minimum detection limit; accuracy, as determined by analysis of reference materials, was within 30% for organic analytes and within 20% for inorganic analytes; and precision, as determined by replicate analyses, was within 30% for organic analytes and within 20% for inorganic analytes. Contact the project manager for additional information on the Quality Assurance Project Plan


How can someone get a copy of the data set?

Are there legal restrictions on access or use of the data?

Access_Constraints: None
Use_Constraints:
NOAA requests that all individuals who download NOAA data acknowledge the source of these data in any reports, papers, or presentations. If you publish these data, please include a statement similar to: "Some or all of the data described in this article were produced by the "NOAA's Ocean Service through its National Status and Trends Program (NSandT)"

  1. Who distributes the data set? (Distributor 1 of 1)

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA)
    Attn: Dennis Apeti
    National Status and Trends Program
    1305 East West Highway - 9th floor
    Silver Spring, MD 20910

    301-713-3028 (voice)
    301-713-4388 (FAX)
    Tony.Pait@noaa.gov

  2. What's the catalog number I need to order this data set?

    Downloadable Data

  3. What legal disclaimers am I supposed to read?

    These data were prepared by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference therein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. Any views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Although all data have been used by NOAA, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by NOAA as to the accuracy of the data and/or related materials. The act of distribution shall not constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by NOAA in the use of these data or related materials.

  4. How can I download or order the data?


Who wrote the metadata?

Dates:
Last modified: 23-Dec-2013
Metadata author:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (CCMA)
National Status and Trends Program
1305 East West Highway - 9th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910

301-713-3028 (voice)
301-713-4388 (FAX)
Tony. Pait@noaa.gov

Metadata standard:
Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata (FGDC-STD-001-1998)


Generated by mp version 2.9.13 on Fri Nov 21 10:43:38 2014