Contents

Flea Killers in the Estuary

Central San's Experience with Diazionon and Chlorpyrifos

Annual Report Review Summary

Annual Meeting Summary

Steering Committee Meeting Summary

RMP Database Web Page

SINBAD

Administrative Civil Liabilities

RMP Program Participants

Staff Profile: Rainer Hoenicke

Calendar

Announcements

Flea Killers in the Estuary

by Jay Davis, San Francisco Estuary Institute

Of all the contaminants measured in the RMP, the organophosphate pesticides are perhaps the most likely to be causing toxicity in Bay-Delta biota. Some of the most popular pesticides in current usage, including diazinon, chlorpyrifos (Dursban), and malathion, are classified as organophosphates. This article provides some general background information on organophosphates and a specific description of diazinon, one of the organophosphates of greatest concern in the Estuary. 

Characteristics of Organophosphates

The term organophosphate refers to the chemical structure of these pesticides, which centers around a phosphorus atom. The key properties of organophosphates that account for their popularity are their potency toward insects and their limited persistence in the environment. 

Organophosphates owe their toxicity primarily to their inhibition of acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that degrades the neurotransmitter molecule acetylcholine. Animals exposed to toxic quantities of organophosphates suffer from excessive stimulation of their nerve cells due to the lack of acetylcholine degradation. Chemicals with this mode of action can be extremely potent, as exemplified by the nerve gases used in chemical warfare. A few milligrams of Sarin, an extremely potent nerve gas, can kill a human (Sarin was the chemical used in the recent fatal terrorist attack in a Japanese subway). Although organophosphate pesticides are hundreds of times less toxic than Sarin, humans are susceptible to organophosphate toxicity, but the primary concern with regard to human exposure is for people who might be exposed directly to pesticide residues (such as pesticide applicators and farm workers). Organophosphates in surface waters do not appear to pose a threat to human health. 

The physical and chemical properties of organophosphates are representative of the pesticides currently in wide usage, and are much different from their predecessors, the extremely persistent and lipophilic (tending to accumulate in fat) organochlorine pesticides such as DDT. Organophosphates are more soluble in water and less lipophilic than the organochlorines, and therefore do not have as strong a tendency to accumulate in estuarine biota. Organophosphates are readily broken down in the environment by either abiotic or biotic processes, and this property also limits the degree to which organophosphates accumulate in biota. Organophosphates are readily metabolized by animals, reducing the possibility of transfer through more than one trophic level, although consumption of exposed prey could conceivably lead to acute exposures in predators. 

Extensive farm and household use of organophosphates leads to contamination of the Estuary by runoff from both agricultural and urban areas. In the Central Valley millions of pounds of organophosphates are applied each year to a variety of crops. Approximately one million pounds of organophosphate are applied to control twig borers, scales, and other insects in stonefruit orchards (almonds, peaches, prunes, and plums) in January and February. Another million pounds are applied to alfalfa fields in March and April for aphid control. The combination of these periods of heavy application with winter rainfall leads to washoff of pesticide residues from the orchards and fields into the Estuary and its tributaries. Irrigation of agricultural fields in the dry season leads to continuing transport of organophosphates and other pesticides into the Estuary. Organophosphates are also used extensively for pest control in homes, gardens, landscaping, and as a flea-killer on pets, leading to significant mass loading in runoff from urbanized watersheds of the Estuary and to contamination of influent waters at sewage treatment facilities (see Bart Brandenburg's companion article on page 1). 

Diazinon

Diazinon is heavily used in California in agricultural, commercial, and residential applications to control a variety of insect and nematode species. In 1990, 665,000 pounds of diazinon active ingredient were applied on over 32 crops in Central Valley counties. Use of diazinon on stone fruit orchards (especially almonds) in the dormant season alone accounted for over 250,000 pounds in 1990. Agricultural use of diazinon has probably increased since 1990 due to the restriction of the use of parathion, another organophosphate that had been a prevalent dormant spray. The combination of pesticide application and rainfall events in January and February lead to large fluxes of diazinon and other pesticides into the Delta from Central Valley runoff. In February 1993 a pulse of diazinon derived from orchard runoff was tracked from Sacramento all the way to Martinez, where 122 ng/l (or parts per trillion, or ppt) was measured. 

In the RMP, diazinon concentrations in water have been measured in 1994 at 15 RMP base stations in February, April, and August (Figure 1). In addition, as part of a special study on contamination in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (at Rio Vista and Manteca, respectively) two upstream stations in the Delta were sampled on six dates in April and May. The highest concentrations of diazinon were observed in the February base station samples. As might be expected due to agricultural runoff, base stations at the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers had relatively high concentrations of diazinon in February. The highest concentration by far in 1994, however, was at Coyote Creek in February. Another high concentration was measured at Pinole Point in February. The detection of relatively high concentrations in the lower Estuary indicate that the Delta is not the only significant source of organophosphates in the Estuary. The origins of the residues at Coyote Creek are probably a combination of urban runoff, agricultural runoff, and effluent from the San Jose/Santa Clara wastewater treatment plant. 

 
Figure 1. Diazinon concentrations in the Estuary in 1994. Concentrations in nanograms per liter, or parts per trillion. Several samples were collected at Rio Vista and Manteca in April and May. 
 
 

In water, diazinon is converted by hydrolysis to comparatively nontoxic breakdown products. The rate of hydrolysis is an important factor in determining the persistence of diazinon in waters of the Estuary. Hydrolysis of diazinon is dependent upon the acidity of the water. In waters that are slightly basic, such as waters of the Estuary, diazinon has been reported to persist for 4 to 6 months. 

Diazinon concentrations in water samples from April and August were analyzed by a different laboratory than were the February samples. April and August concentrations were much lower than February. This seasonal pattern might be expected due to seasonal variation in rainfall and runoff, but may also be partially due to methodological differences among the two analytical laboratories. Calibration exercises with these laboratories in 1996 will help clarify whether the observed seasonal variation is an accurate reflection of concentrations in the Estuary. 

Crustaceans are closely related to insects, and since the organophosphates are designed to kill insects, it follows that crustaceans are among the most sensitive aquatic organisms with regard to these chemicals. In freshwater, cladocera (or water fleas) are typically the most abundant crustaceans. One water flea, Ceriodaphnia dubia, is frequently used as a test organism to assess the toxicity of effluents and ambient waters. Water fleas do not tolerate saltwater. Instead, other crustaceans called copepods are abundant in saltwater. In both freshwater and saltwater, crustaceans are a primary food source for small fish, making them an important component of the estuarine food web. 

 
Figure 2. A water flea (Daphnia pulex), usually 1-3 mm in length. 
 

Toxicity tests show that water concentrations of 200 parts per trillion (ppt) of diazinon are lethal to C. dubia. In the Delta and its upstream tributaries, diazinon concentrations have often exceeded this level. In February 1993 during a period of peak runoff from stonefruit orchards toxicity tests demonstrated that water samples from the Sacramento River at Rio Vista were acutely toxic to C. dubia for 3 consecutive days and from the San Joaquin River at Vernalis for 12 consecutive days. Diazinon concentrations during these periods (between 200 and 300 ppt in the Sacramento River and 150 and 1100 ppt in the San Joaquin River) appeared to be sufficient to cause the observed toxicity. 

Although C. dubia is relatively sensitive to diazinon toxicity, some other freshwater invertebrates appear to be even more sensitive. Furthermore, sublethal effects such as inhibition of reproduction occur at even lower concentrations than those causing mortality. Saltwater invertebrates tested to date have not been as sensitive as C. dubia, but the database is small. Fish are less sensitive to diazinon than crustaceans. The most sensitive fish species tested to date is the rainbow trout, which suffers mortality at 90,000 ppt, almost 500 times higher than the concentration that is lethal to C. dubia. Sublethal effects (such as reduced fecundity and developmental abnormalities) have been observed in fish exposed to concentrations on the order of 1000 ppt. 

Currently there is no EPA criterion for protection of aquatic life due to diazinon toxicity. In 1973, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) established a guideline of 9 ppt as a maximum concentration for protection of aquatic life. Diazinon concentrations measured in RMP water samples were frequently above the NAS guideline and appear to be in the range where effects on sensitive crustaceans are possible. It is likely that diazinon pulses due to episodic runoff events in both agricultural and urban portions of the Estuary are toxic to sensitive species. It is possible that these concentrations are sufficient to have significant population-level impacts on sensitive zooplankton species. 

Surveys of zooplankton populations indicate long-term declines in water fleas and other crustaceans in the freshwater portion of the Estuary. It seems quite plausible to hypothesize that organophosphate insecticides have played a role in these declines. 
 

back to contents 

Central San's Experience with Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos

by Bart Brandenburg, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District

Background

Treated effluent being discharged to Suisun Bay by the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Central San) has shown consistent acute toxicity. Out of the last 35 monthly toxicity tests, 32 have been toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia, an aquatic organism commonly used as an indicator species to assess water quality. Organisms such as Ceriodaphnia dubia are a food source for fish, and therefore, toxic effects on these organisms may weaken the food web and subsequently may cause a reduction in the fish population. Even though Central San's effluent is toxic to the indicator species, Ceriodaphnia dubia, dilution in the outfall mixing zone may reduce or eliminate any actual toxicity in Suisun Bay; but the concern over cumulative effects remains. Ceriodaphnia dubia toxicity is not currently a violation of standards but Central San is concerned that it could be in the future. 

Through a rigorous toxicity identification process, two organophosphate (OP) insecticides (diazinon and chlorpyrifos) were confirmed to be the responsible toxicants. Both OPs are highly toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia. The LC₅₀ (dose at which half of the organisms die) in laboratory dilution water for diazinon and chlorpyrifos is 380 ng/l (or parts per trillion, ppt) and 70 ng/l, respectively. Central San's effluent concentrations for these pesticides has ranged between 80 ng/l and 500 ng/l for diazinon and between 40 ng/l and 110 ng/l for chlorpyrifos. The LC₅₀ in a sewage matrix for an individual pesticide is unknown at this time because the technology has not been developed to selectively remove a single pesticide from the matrix. Chlorpyrifos in particular may be less toxic in sewage than in laboratory water because some forms of organic carbon tend to bind with the insecticide, reducing bioavailability. 

The effluent from several other publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) in the Bay Area has been tested using the special low detection limit procedures developed by Central San's laboratory. The results showed that the concentration of organophosphates (OPs) in the effluent from most of these POTWs compares with Central San's. Also, the results showed that most POTWs did not remove a significant portion of the insecticides through the treatment process. 

Source Identification

From a literature search and personal telephone calls, we found that little is known regarding specific sources of OPs to the sanitary sewer. Over the last two years, Central San has gained some knowledge on the subject with the goal of using this data to better target our education and regulatory efforts. 

Through a sampling program conducted last year, Central San has identified the following sources of OPs: residential, pet groomers, kennels, and commercial pest control operators. More extensive sampling will be needed to better understand the mass contribution of each source. The following table shows the range and mean values found for each source. The sampling program employed enzyme-linked immunosorbant assays (ELISA), which is a new and highly sensitive procedure to measure concentrations of OPs. ELISA is both sensitive and accurate and analytical results can be obtained in hours. 
 
 

* The number in parenthesis indicates the number of samples. 
** Samples less than the detection limit were considered to be zero. 

Flea Dips and Shampoos

A survey of stores selling flea dip products containing chlorpyrifos showed that sales of these products for the year accounted for nine pounds of active ingredient. If all of this active ingredient was discharged to the sewer, it could account for a significant amount of the chlorpyrifos in Central San's effluent. Sampling downstream of pet groomers and residential areas tends to confirm the use and sewer discharge of chlorpyrifos-containing flea dip products. 

Based upon the results of the survey and sampling program, further work was conducted to determine whether flea dips and shampoos without chlorpyrifos were less toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia. The study found the following range of toxicity expressed as the number of daily pet applications needed to cause Central San's effluent to be toxic to Ceriodaphnia dubia. These are probably conservatively low numbers in part because not all of the product applied to the pet is believed to be discharged to the sewer. 
 

 FLEA DIP/SHAMPOO PRODUCT TOXICITY 

* Number in parenthesis indicates the number of products tested with this active ingredient. 
 

The study shows that only a few daily uses of chlorpyrifos-containing flea dip products have the potential to significantly contribute to Central San's effluent toxicity. Other products have substantially less significance. Central San is considering using the results of this study to encourage sales restrictions of chlorpyrifos-containing products and the use of alternatives. Ultimately, a mandatory sales ban may be needed. 

Pesticide Information Campaign

Concurrent with research on sources of OPs, Central San has conducted a multi-faceted public information campaign. The campaign targeted residential users and promoted proper use and disposal of pesticides. The campaign theme and corresponding logo is "Don't Dump Down Drains." The campaign began in the Spring of 1995 and included the following activities and materials: 
 

• The Contra Costa Times published a front page feature newspaper story with photos during the campaign kick-off.
• The newspaper article resulted in two prime time television news stories.

Printed materials were developed and distributed to nurseries and hardware stores in Central San's service area. At the time the materials were distributed to stores, Central San staff made a presentation to store employees about the campaign and its purpose. The printed materials included the following:

• Point-of-purchase brochures and displays that informed readers of how pesticides may be affecting the local water environment. Also, the readers were told of the millions of dollars it may cost to remove pesticides at the treatment plant if pesticides are not kept out of the sewers. 
• A "Pests Bugging You?" brochure was also displayed to inform readers of less toxic methods of pest control. The Contra Costa County Hazardous Waste program provided the brochures. 
   
• Sets of three 35mm slides were distributed to several cinemas to be shown prior to the feature presentation.
• Quarter-page newspaper advertising was purchased in three newspapers, which are distributed to Central county residents

Future Projects

More work should be done on source research, particularly trying to quantify the mass contribution from specific types of sources already identified. Within the limitations of our budget and staffing, Central San intends to continue sampling sources of OPs this coming spring. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) has offered to provide assistance in this upcoming work. Also, Palo Alto and Union Sanitary District have offered support. Additional offers of support are most welcome. At AQUA-Science, Central San's contract toxicity laboratory, pioneering research work is being done on methods for selectively removing diazinon and chlorpyrifos from a sewage matrix. This work should provide some interesting results this coming year. Outreach to pet groomers and pet supply stores is anticipated as follow-up to the flea dip toxicity testing. A Spring 1996 public information campaign is also being planned, again targeting homeowners. Also planned is an information campaign to include recommended Best Management Practices targeted to commercial pesticide applicators. 

To reach our goal of zero toxic events caused by OPs, Central San is committed to a long- term coordinated strategy. Central San hopes to foster partnerships with the DPR, pesticide manufacturers, POTWs, storm water programs, and others to better understand urban pesticide use and promote proper pesticide disposal. 

For more information, call Bart Brandenburg at the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District at (510) 229-7361. 
 

back to contents 

A Summary of Annual Report Review Comments

by Rainer Hoenicke

While preparing the second annual report for the Regional Monitoring Program, SFEI staff attempted to reflect some of the lessons learned during the first year of the program and incorporate to the best extent possible suggestions for improvement received at the Annual Meeting at the end of 1994 and at subsequent gatherings. The Draft 1994 RMP Report on Trace Substances in the San Francisco Estuary placed more emphasis on background information and attempted to make stronger connections between contaminant patterns in water, sediment, and bivalve tissue, as well as environmental effects. 

We received a number of very thoughtful and substantive comments from participating agency staff, which are summarized below. Many of the comments are indicative of an increased level of interest in RMP findings and a sign that program participants are becoming more and more involved in shaping the future direction of the RMP. SFEI staff have done their best to incorporate many of these comments into discussions at the Annual Meeting, and will also raise them at the Program Technical Review Committee and Steering Committee meetings that occur on a quarterly basis. 

One set of reviewers observed that, while 48 out of 72 samples collected for copper in 1994 exceeded the EPA water quality criterion of 2.9 ppb, only two locations demonstrated toxicity (where survival of test species exposed to Estuary water was significantly lower than in control tests with "clean" water). However, neither of these stations exhibited levels of copper above the EPA criterion. Conversely, locations having the highest copper concentrations did not show any toxic effects. Similar observations were made with respect to the pesticide diazinon, whose concentrations at the Coyote Creek station in the wet season of 1994 were higher than what is known to be toxic to some aquatic invertebrates. However, no toxicity in the RMP test organisms was observed in water collected from the station with high diazinon concentrations. In addition, one reviewer questioned the use of bivalve larvae as indicators of aquatic toxicity, because of the observed lack of correlation between elevated levels of trace contaminants in water and toxicity. 

These observations point out the need for further investigating the connection between chemical measurements and effects on organisms and for the development of suitable estuarine indicators that may provide this linkage. The RMP has begun to address these issues by holding an environmental indicator workshop in September of 1995 and investigating the use of the resident amphipod Ampelisca abdita in sediment toxicity tests. The usefulness of current RMP water toxicity indicators may be discussed at a future Program Technical Review Committee meeting. 

With respect to observed sediment toxicity patterns and their relationship to possible effects concentrations, one reviewer commented that the sediment chemistry results are much more alarming than presented in the draft report. Although for most individual contaminants, background concentrations were generally at the low end of the range in which ecological effects might be occurring, sediment organisms are exposed to a whole host of chemicals. The concentration ranges for as many as 17 of the 21 measured chemicals or chemical groups at which individual contaminants have a possible effect was exceeded at a number of stations, and cumulatively these contaminants may easily explain some of the observed sediment toxicity. In 1996, a more in-depth assessment of the causes of sediment toxicity will be conducted to reflect most recent scientific models and findings. 

A great number of comments related to the PCB measurements and data quality of trace organic contaminants in general. As the RMP evolves and attempts to meet emerging information needs of participants, the data quality objectives at the time the program was originally designed may no longer be adequate. The RMP patterned its trace organics analysis procedures on the National Status and Trends Program administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Initial analysis of patterns of PCB composition in water, sediment, and bivalve tissue revealed that quite stringent laboratory procedures are required for meeting the RMP data quality needs. These changes have been implemented. The field of organic analytical chemistry is rapidly evolving, and a scientific consensus is emerging that the quantification of the commercial Aroclor mixtures is fraught with too many errors to provide meaningful results. As a result, regulatory guidelines for PCBs will most likely change in the near future to apply to specific congeners rather than Aroclor mixtures. Only because the RMP analyte list for PCBs is so extensive were we able to discern and rectify quality assurance problems. The newly revised list will also assist in drawing some meaningful conclusions about contamination sources, the age of compounds found in water, sediment, and bivalve tissue, and identify if any control measures are feasible. 

Another important point raised among the comments is the inclusion of a stated objective to identify potential sources of contaminants, including historical contamination, air deposition, shipping traffic, point sources, and surface runoff. This issue will remain a topic of discussion among the Regional Board and program participants over the next months. 

A number of comments were also received on the special study comparing RMP sampling sites with those close to three major municipal treatment plant outfalls. The statistical basis of using the "reference envelope" approach to comparisons, as opposed to the traditional analysis of variance between sites to determine potential differences was not well understood, and the final report contains a better summary of this relatively new statistical tool. 

We encourage everyone who would like to participate in these discussions to call either Bruce Thompson or Rainer Hoenicke with your concerns, ideas, and questions, or work with your representative on the Steering or Program Technical Review Committee (see p. 5 of Volume 1, Issue 1 for lists of representatives). 
 

back to contents 

Meeting Notes

The Annual Meeting: A Summary of the Panel Discussion

by Rainer Hoenicke

SFEI held the second Annual Meeting of the Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances on January 19 to provide highlights of results from the 1994 monitoring year and to stimulate discussion of how the monitoring information is used by regulatory agencies and dischargers, and what kind of program adjustments might be beneficial. The audience was almost twice as large as last year's and was quite diverse, ranging from program participant representatives to Bay Area scientists, members of SFEI's Committee of Policy Advisors, consultants, environmental interest group representatives, and staff from a variety of regulatory and resource agencies. 

It became apparent that the current meeting facilities on the Richmond Field Station are no longer adequate to accommodate this large number of attendants. Thought is also being given to holding two separate events - one focused on scientific findings and results, the other on environmental management implications. For the next meeting, SFEI may hold the first forum, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board may sponsor the policy and management meeting. 

The panel discussion focused on whether the current program objectives are adequate to meet the needs of participants, the regulatory agencies, and the interested public. There was not sufficient time to truly consider all aspects. SFEI will use all questions submitted by members of the audience for follow-up interviews with key panelists to be published in future newsletters. So, please stay tuned. A sample of panelists' opinions is included below: 

Panel members, spanning a wide range of interests from municipal and industrial dischargers, dredgers, storm water management and regulatory agencies, to environmental groups, provided their views on two key questions related to the RMP objectives of providing status and trends data on water and sediment contamination in the Estuary, and determining which pollutants are not meeting water quality objectives: 
 

1. How appropriate are the program goals and objectives from your perspective?
2. How conducive are the program objectives for allowing mid-course corrections in your pollution prevention programs or management decisions in general?

Ellen Johnck, Executive Director of the Bay Planning Coalition, moderated the discussion. All panel members agreed that the current program objectives are a good start and are appropriate for determining trends and for long-term decision-making. The RMP objectives are not suitable for steering decisions on a year-by-year basis, which should be done with supplementary information collected by individual programs. Definitions of "the Estuary" and "Watersheds" are needed. 

Good water quality data are a platform for evaluating the health of the Estuary. The easy solutions have already been implemented, and only a solid and unambiguous database will help in decision-making. Focusing on watershed management as a next step is a good direction. The objectives are appropriate for a gross indication of Bay health. 

Some differences of opinion existed on the panel with respect to data interpretation, distribution of RMP findings, and integration of information with other monitoring programs and scientific findings. As a member of the interested public and tax/rate payer who "ultimately helps fund the program," Trish Mulvey (Clean South Bay) requested that an explicit objective to the RMP be added: Interpretation and distribution of RMP findings. Others also felt that greater emphasis should be placed on more in-depth analysis, and that communication is important. Monitoring information should be much more tightly integrated into the decision-making system with decision points and feedback loops clearly established before the data are collected. RMP conclusions should be communicated to decision makers and the public in terms that they can understand and act upon. 

David Coe (Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin) questioned whether extensive interpretation and integration of results with other findings is a realistic goal. Expanding the funding base to include "upstream" sources in the Sacramento Valley should be pursued. This sentiment was shared by a number of other panel members. Linkage with efforts going on in the Sacramento River watershed and using RMP data in modeling efforts to predict impacts of pollutant reductions is important. 

Paul Jones provided an EPA perspective, stating that the primary purpose of the RMP is to provide information to aid assessment of management actions and protection of the ecological health of the Estuary. Linkage of management actions to environmental data has not yet been accomplished to a sufficient degree, and mechanisms for achieving that need to be found, such as appropriate indicators. Integration and communication of results is important in this endeavor. 

Two questions or comments from the audience that panelists responded to were that more effort should be made to define pollution sources. How many years will it take to make good management decisions? Answer: The term "sources" needs to be defined first. Maybe the RMP could move toward determining and modeling source categories, such as air deposition, resuspension, river contributions. Loretta Barsamian, Executive Officer of the Regional Board, affirmed that this may be an appropriate direction for the RMP. 

Another question focused on the timing and frequency of sampling and whether tidal cycles, sediment resuspension events, etc. may introduce variability that cannot be accounted for at this point and that may obscure the picture that RMP data are currently giving. The answer was that logistical and financial constraints are preventing a design that would eliminate these potentially confounding factors, but that other data collection efforts, e.g. by USGS and UCD can be used to account for these influences. The suggestion was made that a pilot study could investigate how important spatial and temporal variability are and how much they may influence RMP data. 

Thanks to all panel members and to Ellen Johnck for moderating! 
 

The January 22nd RMP Steering Committee Meeting: A Summary

by Rainer Hoenicke

At the beginning of each year, one of the main items of interest to Program Participants is: "How much money will I have to pay into the funding pool?" Michael Carlin, Chief of the Planning Division at the Regional Board, indicated that only a 10% funding increase is in store for 1997, which includes any follow-up work on fish contamination. Funding allocations among the various discharger categories are open for discussion among participants and the Regional Board and may be reviewed in the next few months. Chuck Weir, representing the large publicly owned treatment works, requested a letter from the Regional Board explaining how cost allocations are calculated. Michael Carlin agreed to send out a formal letter to all participants and will convene a special meeting after individual organizations have come up with suggested changes. 

The 1996 workplan element on scoping out a phased approach to fish contamination monitoring will remain on hold until the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has completed its final review and analysis of the San Francisco Bay Fish Contaminant Study. 

The Steering Committee discussed what preparations for the 1997 Program Review might be necessary and will prepare their thoughts for a review process by the April meeting. Agreement was reached to hire an outside party for development of a Request for Proposals before budgetary decisions can be made for 1997 resource allocations required for the review. 

The Committee will also be prepared at their April 15 meeting to provide input on a monitoring framework that will be necessary for the program review in 1997. Copies of a discussion paper "Towards a Framework for Regional Monitoring Program Objectives and Indicators," by Bruce Thompson, are available by calling Gabriele Marek at SFEI at (510) 430-0801. 
 

back to contents 

Data Management

Visit the RMP Database Web Page!

Jung Yoon and Todd Featherston

The RMP database World Wide Web (WWW) page was demonstrated at the annual meeting on Friday, January 19, and received many positive comments from the participants. The RMP database web page allows anyone with access to the WWW to dynamically select, view and download RMP data using a point and click user interface. Presently, the web page is still under construction and serves only as a demonstration of what is possible to do on the web. Data displayed is in draft form and should not be used for analytical or interpretive purposes. The download option is currently disabled and the data content is limited to wet season water data results from 1995. 

SFEI has recently implemented a standard database structure for RMP data and the web page link to the database was based on this structure. Starting with the data generated from 1995 sampling cruises, all data submissions to SFEI by subcontractors are being prepared in this standard format to allow effortless addition of new data to our database which will be also accessible via the web page. Check out our home page at http://www.sfei.org and follow the link to RMP DATABASE DYNAMIC QUERY MENU (available for access on 2/1/96) and follow the on-screen directions. We welcome any suggestions and comments so please call Jung at (510) 430-0801 x 411 or use the comments icon located at the top of the web page to let us know what you think! 

(This site must be viewed with Netscape version 2.0 or later˜if you do not have a copy, you can download it from the link on our web page). 

SFEI's RMP Database Web Page. 
 
 

The Scientific Information Network for the Bay and Delta (SINBAD)

by Ted Daum

Presently the Bay-Delta is studied and monitored by a plethora of private, municipal, state, and federal agencies, with well over 50 different public and private entities, each with its own particular focus, known to collect data in the region. Limited access to the data or even knowledge of the existence of the data curtails much of its potential usefulness on a regional scale, including the formulation of ecosystem management decisions. Simply trying to find who is or was collecting what specific data where is a major and time consuming undertaking. Improving general knowledge of and access to existing Bay-Delta data will be an important step towards implementing the Regional Monitoring Strategy. In addition, it will significantly increase the return on the original investment of compiling these data, because the product will be used by a wider audience and for more than a single purpose. In an era of ever-tightening budgets, there are compelling incentives to improve the return on limited research and monitoring funds. In 1989 SFEI's predecessor, the Aquatic Habitat Institute, was provided with funding by the San Francisco Estuary project and the State Water Resources Control Board to develop an on-line information system in order to facilitate knowledge of and access to existing datasets. This system, called the Scientific Information Network for the Bay and Delta (SINBAD) consists of two databases. 

The first database, the Estuarine Data Index (EDI) consists of detailed summaries that describe research and monitoring efforts in the San Francisco Estuary. The EDI currently contains 70 summaries of Bay-Delta research and monitoring programs, both current (as of 1993) and historical, with elements including water quality, bioaccumulation, sediments and dredging, hydrodynamics and Delta inflow, contaminant loading, benthos, avian, fisheries, wetlands, and miscellaneous studies. A menu-driven search capability for EDI entries was developed which utilizes thesaurus keywords, parameters analyzed, program agencies, and narrative description of geographic scope as possible search criteria. 

The second database, the Bay-Delta Bibliography, contains approximately four thousand entries compiled from in-house publication lists of state and federal agencies, consulting firms, and environmental organizations. The entries consist of scientific journal article reprints and so called "gray literature" (i.e. agency reports, environmental impact statements, articles, etc.). All of the entries pertain either to the San Francisco Bay-Delta or to pertinent studies in other estuaries. Most entries have abstracts and many are contained in SFEI's noncirculating library, as indicated by a library call number. 

SINBAD was first made accessible via modem in 1990. At that time the Internet, a worldwide computer network enabling communication and sharing of resources between different types of computers, was an obscure technology of limited use. Now, with the recent widespread expansion of the Internet and its associated tools, a quantum leap in the accessibility of SINBAD is possible, without requiring major changes in operation of or investments by the organizations holding data. The "World Wide Web" (WWW) is the portion of the Internet which utilizes hypertext mark-up language (HTML) and other technologies to allow easy links to other computers and the inclusion of text, graphics, and sound. A "home page" is an electronic magazine created by an individual or organization to convey information to whomever wants access to it. The home page is located at a unique "website" on a computer with links to the WWW. SFEI plans to transfer the Bay-Delta bibliography to its website in the near future. 

Due to a reduction of general program funds, 1993 was the last year in which the EDI was updated and entries were logged into the Bay-Delta Bibliography. SFEI is currently looking for funding to update EDI and place it on SFEI's website. This update could increase the functionality of the EDI, for in addition to program summaries, links to actual program data records could be implemented for "priority" datasets (i.e. Bay-Delta monitoring data which are deemed significant on a regional scale by resource management consensus). As before, there could be a menu-driven search capability for EDI entries. A further search enhancement could consist of the linkage of a program's sample site locations in the real world, as listed in the EDI summary by latitude-longitude, to corresponding points or areas on an electronic "basemap" of the Bay-Delta on the EDI website. This technique, known as georeferencing, would enable spatial queries by Bay reach, county, watershed or other geographic criteria, or interactively by mouse. If your agency is interested in supporting EDI, please contact Ted Daum at (510) 430-0801, ext 212. 
 

back to contents 

Environmental Projects As Components Of Administrative Civil Liabilities

by Wil Bruhns, Regional Water Quality Control Board

As part of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's enforcement authorities, the Board often imposes administrative civil liabilities, i.e. fines, for violations. The Regional Board encourages the use of Supplemental Environmental Projects in exchange for a reduction in the monetary component of a penalty required by an Administrative Civil Liability (ACL) order or other penalties due to the State for a violation of Board requirements. 

The Board's policy is to encourage the use of environmental projects. These projects can be divided into environmental restoration, pollution prevention, pollution reduction, and public education projects. The Board does not have a preference for particular kinds of projects, but does prefer that environmental restoration or enhancement projects be located in the general vicinity of the original violation. Projects may also be of more general environmental benefit, such as education projects. However the project should not be used to mitigate damage caused directly by the original violation or to implement measures required to comply with permits or regulations, since this is the responsibility of the discharger regardless of any penalties involved. 

It is the discharger's responsibility to propose a project for Board approval. This would be done in response to an ACL Complaint issued by the Board's Executive Officer. The proposal should include a detailed description of the project, including a time schedule. If the Executive Officer finds the proposal acceptable, a revised Complaint will be issued and the proposed ACL package will be taken to the Board as a waiver of the discharger's right to contest the Complaint. In other words, a discharger cannot simultaneously contest a proposed ACL and propose a project. The decision on whether to pursue a project needs to be made within 30 days of receiving a complaint. Additional time to work out the details of a project is often granted, but this needs to be reasonable and only after the discharger has indicated in writing that it will not contest the ACL. 

Board staff have solicited suggestions for potential projects and maintain a list which dischargers may use to review and determine appropriate projects. Dischargers may also wish to contact local governments or public interest groups for potential projects in their area. 

Recently, fine moneys have supported a number of SFEI's programs including Kids in Creeks, The Annual Conference for Educators (Teaching About Watersheds), the computerized program Exploring the Estuary, and the Wetlands Goals Process. For more information on the Institute's programs call Kathy Kramer at (510) 430-0801 ext. 211. General questions regarding the policy can be directed to Wil Bruhns, Public Assistance Officer at the Regional Water Quality Control Board, at (510) 286-0838. Questions regarding specific Supplemental Environmental Projects should be directed to Board staff working on a particular violation. 
 

back to contents 

RMP Program Participants

back to contents 

Staff Profile: Meet Dr. Rainer Hoenicke--Environmental Scientist

Impervious Surface Reduction Conference

An Impervious Surface Reduction Research Symposium will be held on March 29, 1996 at the Longhouse, Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. The conference is sponsored by the City of Olympia and the Washington State Department of Ecology. The keynote speaker is Tom Schueler from the Center for Watershed Protection. Possible topics include Compacted Soils, Alternative Surfaces, Roads and Parking Lots, Watershed Assessment Methods, Policies and Regulations, Costs and Benefits, Incentives, and Public Involvement and Education. For additional information contact K.C. Environmental Consultants at (360) 753-7141 or Cedar Wells from the City of Olympia, Public Works Department at (360) 753-8454. 
 

back to contents 

RMP Calendar

February 1 (Thursday) 
SFEI RMP Database web page up for browsing (http://www.sfei.org). 

February 27 (Tuesday) 
RMP Technical Committee Meeting. 9:30am to 12:30pm, at SFEI. 

March 11th (week of) 
RMP wetlands sediment sampling. 

April 15 (Monday) 
RMP Steering Committee. 9:30 am, at SFEI. 

May 10 (Friday) 
3rd Bay Area Volunteer Monitoring Conference, at the San Leandro Library, from 9 - 4:30. Sponsored by the State Water Resources Control Board, National Park Service's Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program, and the Urban Creeks Council. For more information, contact Joelle Bouchard at SFEI at (510) 430-0801 x 566. 

Announcements

CALLING ALL GRADUATE STUDENTS 

Looking for a research paper topic? The RMP data set now has approximately 80,000 data points involving water quality measurements, trace substance concentrations in water, sediment and bagged bivalves, benthic samples, etc... SFEI staff has only begun to analyze this data set, and numerous types of analyses could be performed. If interested, call Dr. Rainer Hoenicke at (510) 430-0801 x 731. 
 
 

San Francisco Estuary Institute
7770 Pardee Lane
Oakland, CA 94621-1424
(510) 746-SFEI (7334)
Fax (510) 746-7300
www.sfei.org