regional_partnerships_nwqmc_12.6.07 cooperative regional monitoring in southern california stephen...

Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Stephen B. Weisberg

Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority

(www.sccwrp.org)


WHAT IS SCCWRP?

• Joint Powers Agency founded in 1969

• Initiated to address regional monitoring and research needs– Cumulative impact assessment

– Methods development

– Data integration

• Member organizations include city, county, state, and federal agencies– Unique combination of regulators and regulated


MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS

San Diego Regional Water Quality Board

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board

State Water Resources Control Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

California Ocean Protection Council

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

City of Los Angeles

Ventura County Watershed Protection Division

Orange County Watershed and Coastal Resources

Orange County Sanitation District

City of San Diego


REGIONAL MONITORING BACKGROUND

• Started with 1990 National Research Council assessment of monitoring in southern California– $17M in annual monitoring could not be integrated to provide a

regional assessment of condition

• Many impediments to a regional assessment – Most monitoring was site-specific

– Different parameters among groups

– Different methods

– No common QA

– Lack of data management systems

• SCCWRP Commission stepped up to solve the problem– Two-thirds of the ocean monitoring in southern California is in

response to NPDES permits

Federal Government 3,148

State Government 547

Local Government 1,274

NPDES Permittees 24,034

Private Party 394

University 1,883

Total 31,279


Southern California Coastal Monitoring Expenditures (in $1,000s, 1997)

UNIQUE FUNDING MECHANISM

• 90% funded through in-kind services– A participatory program

• Facilitated through resource exchange– Regulators allow exchange of some routine monitoring elements for

an equal level of effort in the Bight program

– Regional monitoring has even been formalized in some permits

• The cooperative nature provides a mechanism for dialog about monitoring approaches– Monitoring methods manuals

– QA protocols

– Data management structures

– Data interpretation approaches


BIGHT’03 WAS THE THIRD REGIONAL SURVEY

• Started with a Pilot Project in 1994– Limited to SCCWRP member agencies

– Focused on contaminant effects on sediment and fish quality

• Opened up to all interested parties in 1998– 62 organizations participated

– Added a shoreline microbiology component

– Expanded into Mexico

• 66 organizations participated in 2003– Expanded the number of habitats sampled

– Added remote sensing to the tool box

– Greater number of academic partners



MULTIPLE REGIONAL MONITORING COMPONENTS

• Coastal Ecology– Fish and sediment quality

• Water Quality– Nutrients and harmful algal blooms

• Shoreline Microbiology

• Rocky reef

COASTAL ECOLOGY BASICS

• Primary question: What is the spatial extent of chemical contamination and their biological effects?

• Probability based sampling design– Stratified to evaluate potential impact areas

– Approximately 400 sampling sites

• Multiple indicators at each site– Sediment chemistry

– Toxicity

– Benthic infauna

– Fish tissue contaminants

– Gross pathology

– BiomarkersRegional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

STRATA

• Mainland continental shelf- 5-30m - 30-120m- 120-200m

• Mainland slope and basin- 200-500m - 500-1,000m

• Embayments- Ports/harbors- Marinas- Estuaries

• Discharge zones- Large POTW - Small POTW- Stormwater receiving areas

• Special Management Areas- Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary- Santa Monica Bay National Estuary Program

COASTAL ECOLOGY BASICS

• Primary question: What is the spatial extent of chemical contamination and their biological effects?

• Probability based sampling design– Stratified to evaluate potential impact areas

– Approximately 400 sampling sites

• Multiple indicators at each site– Sediment chemistry

– Toxicity

– Benthic infauna

– Fish tissue contaminants

– Gross pathology

– BiomarkersRegional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

PRODUCTS OF COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING

• Assessment of condition

• Methods standardization

• Regional assessment tools

• Information management

• Dialogue about data interpretation



Sediment Total DDT (ng/g-dry wt.)

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000

Per

cen

t o

f S

CB

Are

a

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Low to

Moderate Risk

Little to

No Risk

Em

ba

ym

en

ts

Ma

inla

nd

Sh

elf

La

rge

PO

TW

s

Pe

rce

nt

Are

a >

SQ

GQ

10

10

20

30

40

Mod to Hi Risk

.(34%)

(65%) (1%)

S

ma

ll P

OT

Ws

Slo

pe

/ba

sin

s

Is

lan

ds

PERCENT AREA EXCEEDING SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES


Sediment Concentration (g DDT/g-OC)

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Wh

ole

Fis

h C

on

cen

tra

tion

(n

g/g

-we

t w

t.)

0.1

1.0

10.0

100.0

1000.0

10000.0

100000.0

r2 = 0.63


COMPARTMENT ESTIMATE OF TOTAL DDT (metric tons)

Benthic Fish <0.001

Pelagic Fish 0.001 – 0.025

Water Column 0.014 – 0.230

Sediment Approx. 200


COMPARTMENT ESTIMATE OF TOTAL DDT (metric tons)

Benthic Fish <0.001

Pelagic Fish 0.001 – 0.025

Water Column 0.014 – 0.230

Sediment Approx. 200

Total DDT Discharged Approx. 2,400

• Methods manuals– Field methods

– Lab methods

– Information management

– All available on the web (www.sccwrp.org)

• Intercalibration exercises – Fish identification

– Benthic infaunal identification

– Toxicology

– Chemistry

– Microbiology

METHODS STANDARDIZATION


PALOS VERDES SEDIMENT – FIRST ROUND

COMPOUND LAB-1 LAB-2 LAB-3 LAB-4 LAB-5 LAB-6

2-Methylnaphthalene ND 57 78 5 54 119

Biphenyl ND 44 54 17 25 57

2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 28 30 62 ND 39 64

Phenanthrene ND 36 60 9 64 52

Fluoranthene ND ND 53 12 57 64

Pyrene 43 255 374 20 109 108

Benz[a]anthracene ND ND 79 9 47 49

Chrysene ND ND 67 9 53 25

Benzo[e]pyrene ND 233 241 19 191 77

Benzo[a]pyrene ND ND 236 16 186 64

Perylene 41 359 312 20 165 138

Benzo[g,h,i]pyrene ND ND 91 ND 112 37

TOTAL 137 1130 2300 177 1430 1280


PALOS VERDES SEDIMENT – FINAL ROUND

COMPOUND LAB-1 LAB-2 LAB-3 LAB-4 LAB-5 LAB-6

2-Methylnapthalene 59 54 63 56 62 54

Biphenyl 53 26 39 47 41 33

2,6-Dimethylnaphtalene 103 31 75 79 46 28

Phenanthrene 76 71 53 58 64 66

Fluoranthene 45 68 55 39 75 75

Pyrene 139 215 137 138 163 168

Benz[a]anthracene 51 46 61 56 52 60

Chrysene 49 58 63 78 71 63

Benzo[e]pyrene 139 124 193 131 103 113

Benzo[a]pyrene 95 141 203 109 79 52

Perylene 168 259 227 237 119 142

Benzo[g,h,I,]perylene 25 99 75 ND 110 91

TOTAL 1,391 1,572 1,748 1,418 1,344 1,296


• Biocriteria development– How do we interpret complex biological data?

• Sediment quality assessments– How do we integrate chemistry, toxicology, and biology data?

• Unique opportunity for dialog among participating organizations in a non-regulatory setting– Productive discussion while writing the interpretive reports

REGIONAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS



Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata 612 Diplocirrus sp SD1 4Exogone lourei 465 Ampithoe sp 3Fabricinuda limnicola 240 Asthenothaerus diegensis 3Musculista senhousia 170 Euchone limnicola 3Caprella californica 113 Heteroserolis carinata 3Scoletoma sp 106 Lyonsia californica 2Scoletoma sp C 99 Neotrypaea californiensis 2Solen rostriformis 92 Sabellidae 2Amphideutopus oculatus 51 Acteocina inculta 1Podocerus fulanus 50 Aplousobranchia 1Amphipholis squamata 41 Ceriantharia 1Prionospio heterobranchia 40 Eteone brigitteae 1Paradexamine sp SD1 27 Glycera americana 1Mayerella acanthopoda 23 Halcampidae 1Spiophanes duplex 20 Heterophoxus ellisi 1Edwardsiidae 17 Macoma sp 1Pista percyi 17 Malmgreniella sp 1Ericthonius brasiliensis 15 Monocorophium acherusicum 1Leitoscoloplos pugettensis 14 Monocorophium insidiosum 1Oligochaeta 12 Nassarius tiarula 1Leptosynapta sp 11 Odontosyllis phosphorea 1Mediomastus sp 11 Paranemertes californica 1Megalomma pigmentum 10 Protohyale frequens 1Phoronida 8 Pyromaia tuberculata 1Leptochelia dubia 7 Scleroplax granulata 1Rudilemboides stenopropodus 6 Zoobotryon pellucida 1Theora lubrica 5 Imogine exiguus 1Anoplodactylus erectus 4 Planoceridae 1Stylochidae 1

Species Species AbundanceAbundance

• Biocriteria development– How do we interpret complex biological data?

• Sediment quality assessments– How do we integrate chemistry, toxicology, and biology data?

• Unique opportunity for dialog among participating organizations in a non-regulatory setting– Productive discussion while writing the interpretive reports

REGIONAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS



POTENTIAL FLAWS WITH INDIVIDUAL LINES OF EVIDENCE

• Chemistry– Bioavailability poorly understood (e.g. paint chip, tar ball)– There may be unmeasured contaminants

• Toxicity– Confounding factors (e.g. ammonia)– Agitation enhanced bioavailability– Differing sensitivity among test species

• Benthic infaunal assemblages– Physical disturbance (anchor, dredging)– Oxygen stress


MLOE FRAMEWORK

Severity of Effect

Potential for Chemically

Mediated Effect

Station Assessment

Benthos Toxicity Chemistry Toxicity

Three lines of evidence (LOE) needed to assess sediment condition


PLATFORM FOR ASSESSING NEW TOOLS AND ISSUES

• New methods– IDEXX enterococcus method– Toxicity identification evaluation– Sediment profile imaging camera– Satellite imagery

• New Issues– Emerging contaminants

• Endocrine disruptors• Flame retardants • Next generation pesticides

– Harmful algal blooms

CATALYSTS

• A common question– An audience for the answer: The SCCWRP Commission

• Available resources– Resource exchange

– We have the population density to have multiple candidate participants

– We were given incentive funds (thank you EMAP!)

• Perception of likely success– It will happen with or without you

– Continuity and previous success creates a positive perception

• A neutral organization in a leadership role– Credibility of the products is essential


CHALLENGES

• Time– Interminable planning meetings

• Flexibility to change– New collection methods

– Provides an opportunity for upgrading

• Intercalibration costs– Can initially be larger than implementation costs

• Loss of autonomy– Most program managers are invested in their own thing



OCSD LACSD

Chemistry

Committee meetings $27,884 $59,339

Intercalibration 39,538 97,754

Survey sample processing 34,950 11,184

Microbiology

Committee meetings 4,706 8,607

Intercalibration 4,064 10,359

Survey sample processing 13,317 3,203

CHALLENGES

• Time– Interminable planning meetings

• Flexibility to change– New collection methods

– Provides an opportunity for upgrading

• Intercalibration costs– Can initially be larger than implementation costs

• Loss of autonomy– Most program managers are invested in their own thing


THE CONCEPTS ARE SPREADING TO OTHER HABITATS

• Streams – Co-joining of discharger and state programs – Regional QA evaluations– Common data management

• Wetlands

• Rocky intertidal

• Subtidal hard-bottom reefs

• Beach water quality



Map of B’03 StrataPointConception

Marina del Rey

Los Angeles

Dana Point

SanDiego

300 15

kilometers200m

Bight 03 Sediment Grab Sample SitesSuccessful

Abandoned

34° 00'

33° 00' N

120° 00' W 118° 00'

LA/LB Harbor

San Diego Bay

Range Between LabsCoefficient of

Variation

1998 before 137-2,300 67%

1998 after 1,180-1,750 15%

2003 before 1,036-1,936 27%

1998 before 6,560-21,900 50%

1998 after 8,410-19,500 31%

2003 before 7,770-16,662 25%

1998 before 529-1,950 46%

1998 after 901-1,500 20%

2003 before 920-1,442 19%

To

tal

PA

H

(ng

/g)

To

tal

DD

T

(ng

/g)

To

tal

PC

B

(ng

/g)


regional_partnerships_nwqmc_12.6.07 cooperative regional monitoring in southern california stephen...

Documents