# Presentation: 718450

## COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

**COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA**

**Stephen B. Weisberg**
**Southern California Coastal Water ****Research Project Authority**
**(www.sccwrp.org)**

## WHAT IS SCCWRP?

**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

**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

**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

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

**State Government****	****	****	****	****547**
**Local Government****	****	****	****	****1,274**
**NPDES Permittees****	****	****	****	****24,034**
**Private Party****	****	****	****	****	****394**
**University****	****	****	****	****	****1,883**
**Total****	****	****	****	****	****	****31,279 **

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

**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

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## MULTIPLE REGIONAL MONITORING COMPONENTS 

**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
- Biomarkers

- Regional_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
- Biomarkers

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## PRODUCTS OF COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING

**Assessment of condition**
**Methods standardization**
**Regional assessment tools**
**Information management**
**Dialogue about data interpretation**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## PERCENT AREA EXCEEDING SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES 

**Low to**

**Moderate Risk**

**Little to**

**No Risk**

**Embayments**

**Mainland Shelf**

**Large POTWs**

**Percent Area > SQGQ1**

- 0

- 10

- 20

- 30

- 40

**Mod to Hi Risk**

- .

**(34%)**

**(65%)**

**(1%)**

**  ****Small POTWs**

**Slope/basins**

**  ****Islands**

**PERCENT AREA EXCEEDING SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES **

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

| 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 |

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

| 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 |

## PRODUCTS OF COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING

**Assessment of condition**
**Methods standardization**
**Regional assessment tools**
**Information management**
**Dialogue about data interpretation**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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

- 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**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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 |

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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

- 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**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Species

**Species**

**Species**

**Abundance**

**Abundance**

## 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

- 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**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## POTENTIAL FLAWS WITH INDIVIDUAL LINES OF EVIDENCE

**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

**MLOE FRAMEWORK**

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

**Notes:**
Schematic of the MLOE assessment framework proposed for use in California’s SQO program.  Data integrations follows a two-step process.  (1) The three lines of evidence are used to determine the severity of biological effect (based on benthic impacts and toxicity) and the potential for chemically-mediated effects (based on sediment chemistry and toxicity).  (2) The station assessment is based on a comparison of the severity of effect and potential for chemically-mediated effect.  Note that the benthos is given greater weight for determining biological effects.

## PLATFORM FOR ASSESSING NEW TOOLS AND ISSUES

**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

## PRODUCTS OF COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING

**Assessment of condition**
**Methods standardization**
**Regional assessment tools**
**Information management**
**Dialogue about data interpretation**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

|  | 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

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## 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 **

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

## Map of B’03 Strata

**Map of B’03 Strata**

## Total PAH 

|  | 
Range Between Labs |  | Coefficient 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% |

**Total PAH **
**(ng/g)**

**Total DDT **
**(ng/g)**

**Total PCB **
**(ng/g)**

- Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07