COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

1. COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Stephen B. Weisberg Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority (www.sccwrp.org)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Southern California Coastal Monitoring Expenditures (in $1,000s, 1997) Federal Government 3,148 State Government 547 Local Government 1,274 NPDES Permittees 24,034 Private Party 394 University 1,883 Total 31,279

6. 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

7. 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

8. MULTIPLE REGIONAL MONITORING COMPONENTS • Coastal Ecology • Fish and sediment quality • Water Quality • Nutrients and harmful algal blooms • Shoreline Microbiology • Rocky reef

9. 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

10. 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

11. PRODUCTS OF COOPERATIVE REGIONAL MONITORING • Assessment of condition • Methods standardization • Regional assessment tools • Information management • Dialogue about data interpretation

13. PERCENT AREA EXCEEDING SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES Low to Moderate Risk (34%) 40 Little to Mod to Hi Risk No Risk 30 (65%) (1%) Percent Area > SQGQ1 20 10 0 Islands Embayments Slope/basins Large POTWs Small POTWs Mainland Shelf .

17. 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

18. METHODS STANDARDIZATION • 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

19. 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

20. PALOS VERDES SEDIMENT – FINAL ROUND

21. Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

22. REGIONAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS • 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

23. Abundance Species Species Abundance

24. 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 Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07

25. 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

26. Benthos Toxicity Chemistry Toxicity Severity ofEffect Potential for Chemically Mediated Effect Station Assessment MLOE FRAMEWORK Three lines of evidence (LOE) needed to assess sediment condition

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. Map of B’03 Strata

35. Total PAH (ng/g) Total DDT (ng/g) Total PCB (ng/g) Regional_Partnerships_NWQMC_12.6.07