RMP NewsVolume 2, Issue 2

Regional Monitoring News, Summer 1996

Contents

PAHs in the Estuary

Indicators of Biological Effects of Contamination in the Estuary

Steering Committee Meeting Highlights

RMP Annual Meeting

Photo Gallery: Wetlands Pilot Study

Staff Profile: John Haskins

Calendar

Announcements

PAHs in the Estuary

by Jay Davis, SFEI

The three major classes of trace organic contaminants measured in the RMP are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and the organochlorine pesticides (DDT and others). Like PCBs and organochlorine pesticides, PAH concentrations in some parts of the Estuary are high enough to raise concern over possible adverse effects on aquatic organisms and human health. PAH concentrations at many RMP stations exceed guidelines relating to protection of either aquatic life or human health. In several respects, however, PAHs are distinct from the PCBs and organochlorine pesticides. The most important distinction is that significant sources of PAHs continue to generate these chemicals and release them into the environment. When PAH residues enter the Estuary they accumulate in sediments and organisms at the bottom of the food web, posing a toxicological threat to these organisms and their predators. 

Origins and Sources to the Estuary

PAHs consist of two or more fused benzene rings in various arrangements (Figure 1). A tremendous variety of PAHs occurs in nature, with different combinations of benzene rings, other ring structures, and attached carbon chains. A subset of 15 to 20 PAHs with 2 to 6 rings is typically measured in aquatic environments because they are the most abundant, mobile, and toxic members of this class of compounds. 
 
  

Naphthalene	Phenanthrene
Pyrene	Benzo(k)fluoranthene

PAHs are ubiquitous in the environment, forming whenever organic substances are exposed to high temperatures. Burning plant material, as in a forest fire, a log in a fireplace, charcoal in a grill, or a cigarette, is one of the primary sources of PAHs. PAHs are also present in crude oil. Crude oil is formed when subterranean deposits of plant material are subjected to moderately high temperatures over millions of years. PAHs are one of several classes of compounds produced in this process. Crude oil may be the most complex organic mixture on earth, consisting of thousands of different chemicals. Crude oils obtained from different locations contain varying proportions of PAHs and other constituents. The proportions of individual PAHs present in different crude oils, along with other characteristics of the mixtures, can be used to "fingerprint" the oils. These fingerprints are often used in assessing the extent of environmental impacts due to oil spills. For example, field surveys conducted after the Gulf War could distinguish the recently spilled Kuwaiti crude oil from Saudi Arabian or Iranian crude oil. 

Combustion of gasoline and other petroleum products results in the formation of residual material (e.g., smoke and soot) that also contains PAHs. The fingerprint of PAHs present in these residuals from combustion is quite different from the typical crude oil fingerprint. Because of this difference it is possible to tell whether PAHs from environmental samples are predominantly attributable to either crude oil (petrogenic) or combustion (pyrogenic) sources. Water, sediment, and bivalve samples collected in the RMP and analyzed for PAHs consistently have a fingerprint indicating pyrogenic sources. 

Prior to the modern era of massive fossil fuel consumption, combustion of wood and other plant material was the primary source of PAHs in the environment. Currently, however, additional important sources of the PAHs found in the Estuary are crude and refined petroleum products and the smoke and soot generated upon their combustion. A significant quantity of the pyrogenic PAHs that enter the Estuary is generated by motor vehicles. 

Vehicle exhaust contains PAHs that can reach the Estuary through two basic mechanisms. First, PAHs that remain suspended in the air can be deposited directly onto the surface of the Estuary, either during rainfall (wet deposition) or through deposition of dust particles (dry deposition). Second, PAHs attached to particles that settle on the ground can be transported to the Estuary in stormwater runoff, when rain carries PAHs from the surfaces of streets and parking lots into channels, creeks, and ultimately the Estuary. 

Petrogenic PAHs enter the Estuary as a result of spills and leaks of oil and refined oil products. The largest recent example of such a spill occurred in 1988 when approximately 400,000 gallons of crude oil was released into Suisun Bay due to an accident at the Shell Oil Company refinery in Martinez. The existence of pyrogenic and petrogenic sources of PAHs has led to the presence of PAHs throughout the Estuary, especially near urban and industrial areas. 

The spatial distribution of PAH concentrations at RMP stations is generally consistent with the hypothesis that street runoff is a primary source of PAHs to the Estuary. PAH concentrations in water and sediment are highest at stations from the South Bay to the San Pablo Bay station, and are markedly lower further upstream in Suisun Bay and the Rivers (Figures 2 and 3). This range of high concentrations corresponds with the most urbanized portion of the Estuary. 

Chemical and Toxicological Properties

The chemical and toxicological properties of individual PAHs vary greatly. Lower molecular weight PAHs (2- and 3-ring compounds) tend to be more water soluble, more volatile, more readily metabolized, and less persistent. Higher molecular weight PAHs (4- to 7-ring compounds), are less water soluble, less volatile, less readily metabolized, and more persistent. 

These properties are reflected in data (collected in 1994) from the Estuary. Water samples collected in the RMP provide estimates of "dissolved" and "particle-associated" contaminant concentrations. Dissolved phenanthrene, a 3-ring low molecular weight PAH, comprised 33% of the total (dissolved plus particulate) phenanthrene. Higher molecular weight PAHs, such as pyrene (4 rings) and benzo(k)fluoranthene (5 rings), were less abundant in the dissolved phase (14% and 0%, respectively). These findings are consistent with the solubility of these chemicals in water: 435 ppb, 133 ppb, and 2 ppb for phenanthrene, pyrene, and benzo(k)fluoranthene, respectively. Because of their greater solubility, the lower weight PAHs are exchanged much more readily between water, sediment, and aquatic organisms. 

PAH fingerprints are based on the relative proportions of individual PAH compounds. Proportions of the three PAHs mentioned above in sediment were similar to those in the water particulate fraction, with relatively similar median sediment concentrations of phenanthrene and benzo(k)fluoranthene (both approximately 100 ppb) and higher median concentrations of pyrene (300 ppb). PAHs are relatively readily metabolized, which may explain the inconsistent ratios among these chemicals in the three species of bivalves deployed in the RMP. Fish, which have a higher capacity for PAH metabolism than bivalves, have correspondingly low concentrations of PAHs in their tissue. Pyrene, as a representative example, is one of the most abundant PAHs in sediment, water, and bivalves, but was generally not detectable in fish tissue in the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board's study "Contaminant Levels in Fish Tissue from San Francisco Bay". These data are consistent with the notion that metabolism of PAHs prevents their transfer through the vertebrate portion of the food web. The chemicals do enter the bodies of fish, but they are metabolized and eliminated. 

PAHs can elicit a wide variety of toxic effects in aquatic species, including effects on survival, growth, metabolism, reproduction, immune function, and photosynthesis. Due to their tendency to accumulate in sediment, PAHs pose an acute hazard primarily to benthic invertebrates, where concentrations at some RMP stations may be high enough to cause mortality to amphipods or other sensitive organisms. Of the 20 stations where sediment samples were collected in 1994, 11 had concentrations of one or more PAH that were in the range where toxic effects on benthic organisms are possible. The highest PAH concentrations observed in 1994, South Bay (BA21) and San Pablo Bay (BD22), approach the range where effects are probable on sensitive benthic species such as amphipods. 

The best understood aspect of the toxicity of PAHs is their carcinogenicity. In the late 1800s PAHs became the first compounds known to be associated with cancer, when occupational skin cancer was first documented in London chimney sweeps and in German coal tar workers. Carcinogenic PAHs all fall in the high molecular weight category, having four or more rings. These chemicals can cause cancer through their direct interaction with DNA. 

Some PAHs are among the most potent carcinogens known. Because of this potency, PAH guidelines for the Estuary relating to human health are relatively low and are sometimes exceeded by RMP samples. A water criterion of 31,000 parts per quadrillion applies to the carcinogenic PAHs, and is designed to protect the health of humans that consume organisms from the Estuary. Concentrations of one carcinogenic PAH, benzo(b)fluoranthene, exceeded this criterion at two stations in 1994. Other contaminant guidelines intended to protect human health are the Maximum Tissue Residue Levels (MTRLs) developed by the State Water Resources Control Board. MTRLs are used as alert levels indicating water bodies with potential human health concerns. The MTRL for total PAHs (0.93 ppb wet weight) was greatly exceeded by all of the RMP bivalve samples. PAH-induced carcinogenesis is also a concern for aquatic species. Studies conducted outside of the Estuary have associated PAH contamination with increased incidences of tumors in fish, especially bottom fish such as English sole. 

RMP stations are located in the center of the Estuary in order to provide information on background levels of contamination. RMP data indicate that background concentrations of PAHs in sediment approach concentrations where toxic effects on biota occur. It is likely that concentrations at locations closer to contaminant sources around the edge of the Estuary are significantly higher and well within the range where toxic effects occur. The continuing presence of sources of PAHs around the margins of the Estuary and their persistence in sediments means that these concentrations are not likely to decline significantly in the near future. 
 

back to contents 

Indicators of Biological Effects of Contamination in the Estuary

by Bruce Thompson and Michael May, SFEI

One of the primary reasons for monitoring the Estuary is to assess the potential for harm to estuarine life. As part of monitoring, many contaminant concentrations are measured. However, a measured concentration is just a number. How can this number be translated into potential harm? This difficult question has no simple answer. Each contaminant's potential for harm is affected by its context in the estuarine environment: other contaminant levels, salinity, temperature, and a multitude of other variables may play a role. Determining how all these variables interact to create potential harm is a daunting, if not impossible, task. 

A more direct approach to assessing potential harm, an approach which avoids many of the difficulties of interpreting contaminant concentrations, is to expose living organisms to Estuary water or sediment and look for adverse effects. In this method, the organisms used serve as indicators of biological effects. 

The RMP includes measurements of several indicators of biological effects from exposure to contaminants in the Estuary. These include aquatic and sediment bioassays, and survival and condition of transplanted bivalves (oysters, mussels, and clams). In a bioassay, laboratory organisms are exposed to Estuary water or sediment samples under controlled conditions and observed for a prescribed time for adverse effects. In the transplant measurement, bivalves are brought in from relatively uncontaminated areas outside the Estuary, placed in mesh bags and anchored 1 meter off the bottom of the Estuary for 90 days. Upon retrieval, the proportion of living to dead organisms is determined, and measurements of dry tissue weight vs. shell cavity volume (condition) are made. All measurements are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail in the RMP Annual Reports and Quality Assurance Program Plan. 

These measurements are considered to be indicators of the potential for biological effects because most of the measurements are not made on actual residents of the Estuary. Although one of the test species, the amphipod Eohaustorius, does inhabit the Estuary, it is rare. The mussel and oyster species used in the bioassays and transplant studies are not Estuary inhabitants. However, the freshwater clam Corbicula is a common inhabitant of the Delta. 

Measurements of contaminants accumulated within the transplanted bivalves are made in the RMP, but those measurements are not a "biological" effect per se. Accumulation of contaminants may cause a biological effect (e.g. reduced survival, reduced biological "condition"), but accumulation itself is not a biological effect. 

All of the indicators of biological effects used in the RMP are in common use in other monitoring programs throughout the country and all have standardized testing protocols. Each RMP indicator may independently demonstrate the potential for actual biological effects on Estuary inhabitants. Collectively, they provide a "weight-of-evidence" for possible biological effects at each station. In this summary, the RMP results are interpreted altruistically as indicative of potential biological effects, keeping in mind the limitations of the tests discussed. 

This article summarizes the results from the first three years of RMP biological effects monitoring. The stations with the greatest indications of biological effects are identified, and the lack of any relationships between potential biological effects and existing water and sediment quality guidelines is shown and discussed. 

Results of RMP Biological Effects Monitoring

Not all indicators are measured at all stations each sampling period. All six biological effects measurements listed in Table 1 were made at seven stations in 1993 and 1994, and at no stations in 1995. The 1995 data is currently in draft, and may be subject to revision. 

In this summary, the indication of toxicity or a potential biological effect is defined as an observed difference, large enough to be statistically significant, between indicator organisms and "control" organisms (Table 1). Results are presented in Table 2 and are described below. 

Aquatic Bioassays. There was no indication of toxicity at any of the eight RMP stations tested in 1993. Algae growth was actually enhanced compared to the controls at most stations. In 1994, toxicity was observed in the mysid test at Red Rock and Napa River in the February sampling periods. No toxicity was observed using larval bivalves in 1994. In 1995, mysid toxicity was observed at San Joaquin River in the February sampling period. The larval bivalve tests showed no toxicity in 1995. 

Bivalve Survival and Condition. In 1993, survival of the transplanted bivalves was below 80% at four stations in the northern Estuary. Oyster survival was low at the Napa River station in both the wet and dry sampling seasons. Clam survival was low during the dry sampling season at the Sacramento and San Joaquin River stations. In 1994, bivalve survival was below 80% at Coyote Creek, Petaluma River, and Grizzly Bay in both sampling periods. Petaluma River and Davis Point survival was below 80% during both 1995 sampling periods. In the wet sampling season of 1995, bivalve survival was also below 80% at Dumbarton Bridge, Redwood Creek and Red Rock. In the dry season, Coyote Creek, Napa River and San Joaquin River were also below 80% survival. 

In 1993, bivalve condition decreased during deployment at all stations sampled during the dry season except the two Central Bay stations. Condition decreased during the wet season at the three most eastern stations only. Results in 1994 were similar, except that the three most upstream (eastern) stations had decreased condition only during the wet season. 1995 data continues the overall pattern, with dry season condition decreased at all stations except a Central Bay station, and wet season condition decreased at the four most upstream stations only. 

Survival and changes in condition while deployed in the Estuary could be due to factors other than exposure to contaminants. Being transplanted into the Estuary from other areas is, in itself, stressful. However, Central Bay bivalves typically show no decrease in survival and condition, supporting the idea that transport stress alone is not significant. Often, the transplanted bivalves are not "clean," containing some low levels of contaminants before transplantation into the Estuary. How these low levels of contaminants affect condition is unknown. Changes in salinity, suspended sediments, bivalve food supply, or reproductive status may also affect survival and/or condition. Low salinities were ruled out as a cause of mortality in all cases because the measured salinities were within the known tolerances of all species used. 

Sediment Bioassays. In 1993 sediment toxicity was observed at all eight stations sampled in one or the other of the tests, at one or the other sampling periods. Amphipods exhibited effects at all stations each sampling time except at the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. Larval bivalves exhibited effects at all stations except South Bay and Yerba Buena Island, and during both sampling periods at the three most upstream stations. 

In 1994, toxicity was observed at all but the three Central Bay stations tested. As in 1993 larval bivalves indicated toxicity at both of the river confluence stations. The dry season amphipod tests did not indicate toxicity at any of the stations. 

In 1995, the only station to show no toxicity was Davis Point. Both tests during both seasons showed some toxicity in the Estuary. Toxicity indications were not limited to a particular geographic region. 

There were several considerations in interpreting the sediment bioassay results. Tests using a standard reference toxicant (cadmium chloride) showed that the amphipods used in August 1994 were slightly more tolerant than usual which may explain the lack of toxicity observed. The salinity of sediments collected from the freshwater stations in the northern Estuary and Rivers was altered by the addition of saltwater necessary to conduct the tests. It is not known how the salinity alterations affect the toxicity of those sediments. 

Stations with the Greatest Indications of Biological Effects.

To assess the potential for biological effects at each RMP station, the total number of significant differences from controls ("hits") in all of the biological effects measurements for 1993-95 was compiled. At each station, the number of hits was divided by the number of measurements taken to produce a "hit ratio" representing the frequency of positive toxicity indications. 

The hit ratio for 1993-95 at RMP stations where all six measurements were conducted in 1993 and 1994 shows that the San Joaquin River, Napa River and Grizzly Bay stations had the greatest indications of biological effects, with ratios of 0.50, 0.47, and 0.47, respectively (Figure 1). The Sacramento River and Pinole Point stations were next highest at 0.41 and 0.27 respectively. In the South Bay, the Redwood Creek station had a ratio of 0.29. The Yerba Buena Island station had the lowest ratio for 1993-95, 0.14. 

In general, the most biological effects were at the northern Estuary stations, the least in the Central Bay. 

Are The Areas With High Contaminant Concentrations The Areas With The Most Toxicity Hits?

The observation of significant biological effects ("hits") measured at each RMP station were then compared to water and sediment quality guidelines to evaluate whether the "hits" could be related to exceedance of the guidelines. This evaluation only included the RMP stations where the full suite of contaminant measurements were conducted at the same time as either aquatic or sediment effects measurements were conducted. 

For this evaluation, existing Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life (total concentrations, National Toxics Rule), and the EPA Inland Water Plan for freshwater stations were used. The sediment quality guidelines used were National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Effects Range-Low (ERL) concentrations (see inset). 

Comparison of the information in Table 2 and Table 3 indicates that the number of aquatic (non-sediment) "hits" was not statistically related to the number of water quality exceedances at stations sampled for 1993-95. Stations with no water quality exceedances often had several "hits" (Petaluma River, Aug. '94) and vice versa (Redwood Creek, Feb. '94). 

 

Similarly, the number of sediment bioassay "hits" and the number of sediment quality (ERL) exceedances at stations sampled for 1993-95 were not statistically related. Stations with up to 16 ERL exceedances had no toxicity "hits" (Horseshoe Bay, Feb. '94), and some stations with sediment toxicity had only one ERL exceedance (Sacramento River, Feb. '94). 

The absence of any relationship between potential biological effects and appropriate guidelines may have occurred for several reasons. The existing guidelines are not specific to San Francisco Estuary and are based on testing of different organisms than used in the RMP. Water quality criteria are generally considered to be conservative and often contain safety factors. Additionally, "standards" do not exist for some contaminants, such as the pesticide diazinon, which is known to be toxic in the Estuary. Alternatively, the use of "hits" and "standards" for this evaluation assumes some kind of effect threshold, above which effects occur, and below which no effects occur. In fact, organisms generally respond to contaminant concentrations gradually, and prolonged exposure to low contaminant concentrations may produce effects similar to short exposure to higher contaminant concentrations. 

We do not yet know what specific contaminant(s) caused any of the biological responses measured in the RMP. Water and sediments contain a mixture of many potential effectors. More sophisticated analyses using actual concentrations and the measured gradual response (e.g. percent survival) are currently being conducted to attempt to determine which contaminants or classes of contaminants may be responsible. 

Conclusions

The majority of the biological effects observed thus far in the RMP have been in sediment toxicity and in bivalve condition. In 1993 and 1995, sediment toxicity occurred more often, but in 1994 decreased bivalve condition occurred more frequently. Aquatic toxicity has occurred at only three stations from 1993-95. 

The Central Bay stations exhibited very little potential biological effects. However, the northern parts of the Estuary, including the Napa River, Grizzly Bay, and the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers indicated more possible biological effects than the other RMP stations. 

The large rivers transport considerable amounts of contaminants into the Estuary. However, such transport is usually seasonal. One of the biggest questions facing the RMP is the timing of the aquatic bioassay sampling. Toxic concentrations of pesticides are known to come from the Central Valley into the Estuary each winter. Preliminary data from the February sampling period in 1996 indicate aquatic toxicity at some of the River confluence stations and Grizzly Bay. These possibly relate to pesticides transported from the Central Valley. 

Finally, the question of how the current RMP indicator measurements actually relate to biological effects on inhabitants in the Estuary needs to be addressed. To this end, the RMP has supported several Special and Pilot Studies. In 1994, a Pilot Study was started to study the use of animals living in Estuary sediment (benthos) to evaluate actual contaminant effects in the Estuary (see 1994 Annual Report). Another Special Study has focused on the development of a resident amphipod for use in sediment bioassays (see 1994 Annual Report). Is there any evidence of effects of contaminants on threatened and endangered fish populations in the Estuary? That question is currently being considered by the Interagency Ecological Program's (IEP, a nine-agency federal and state group working on environmental problems in the Delta) Contaminant Work Team, which includes SFEI staff. 

It is clear that the RMP needs to identify a larger suite of biological indicators of contaminant effects, particularly indicators that directly measure ecological effects in the Estuary. Measurements such as phytoplankton productivity, and production or abundances of key zooplankton, benthic species, and fish would provide broader and more direct measures of the condition of the Estuary's biological resources. Some of these measurements are already being made by other monitoring programs in the region. 

The identification of possible new indicators was the focus of an RMP-sponsored Workshop on Ecological Indicators held last fall. A large number of recommendations were received and are being tabulated and evaluated. The results will be included in RMP Annual Report. The addition of new indicators to the RMP will be considered by the RMP committees over this next year. 
 

How is the ERL sediment quality guideline determined?  The Effects Range-Low (ERL) value is a guideline incorporating the results of a large number of sediment contaminant studies. Each study identified, for a given contaminant, the concentration below which no adverse effects (such as mortality, abnormal development, etc.) were observed. As might be expected, results varied between the studies; plotting the distribution of the results (for a given contaminant) creates a graph similar to Figure 1. The Effects Range Low (ERL) value is that value low enough to incorporate all but the lowest 10% of the study results (also known as the 10th percentile of the distribution) (Figure 2).

Figure 1      Figure 2

The authors wish to acknowledge the investigators whose work is summarized in this article: Steve Hansen, aquatic bioassays; Dane Hardin and Jordan Gold, bivalve survival and condition; John Hunt and Brian Anderson, sediment bioassays, Russ Flegal and Norm Brooks, trace metals analysis; and Bob Risebrough and Terry Wade, trace organics analysis. Sarah Lowe and John Haskins at SFEI provided technical assistance. 
 

back to contents 

Meeting Notes: April 15 Steering Committee Meeting Highlights

The RMP Steering Committee oversees the RMP, allocates program funds, and reviews progress towards program goals. The RMP Steering Committee Meeting of April 15th was held at SFEI. Full minutes of the meeting are available by contacting Gabriele Marek at SFEI at (510) 430-0801. 

Monitoring Results In

Bruce Thompson reported that monitoring data from the 1995 program year was in, excepting the trace organic water data, which is due by the first of May. The monitoring cruises for the first sampling period of Program Year 1996 were conducted as planned. 

Fish Contamination Committee Formed

Karen Taberski of the Regional Water Quality Control Board proposed the formation of and agreed to chair an RMP "Contaminants in Fish" Committee to accompany the upcoming RMP Fish Contamination Study, which will collect and analyze Estuary fish for contaminants. The first meeting was held Thursday, June 13. 

Press Releases

A draft press release, describing the RMP and some initial findings, was presented to the Committee, and a discussion of what the RMP press release policy should be followed. Committee members volunteered to review press releases and develop a press release framework that outlines what the messages from the RMP are, who the press contacts should be, and when press releases should be issued. Rainer Hoenicke agreed to develop an option paper for the press release team's consideration. 

Implementation Plan Budget

Michael Carlin of the Regional Water Quality Control Board expressed the importance of building flexibility into each year's implementation of the RMP. It was agreed that a 10% change in any line item of a current year's budget, made through discussions with the Steering Committee and the Regional Board, would be appropriate. 

1997 Five Year External Review

For the 1997 five year review, the Committee decided to contract with a consultant to prepare a request for proposals and coordinate the review. Bruce Thompson will prepare a solicitation letter to begin the consulting firm selection process. The letter and cost estimates will be presented at the July meeting. 

1997 Program Plan

Costs for the 1997 Program as proposed in the 1997 Program Plan will increase 10% to $2,519,000, including $200,000 for the Fish Contamination Study. The Special Studies programs for 1997 will be suspended to provide funds for the external review. 

RMP Goals and Objectives

Bruce Thompson will be developing an "RMP Goals and Objectives Plan" for review at the next meeting, to spur discussion of the adequacy of current goals and objectives, and what goals and objectives should be set for the future. 
 

back to contents 

RMP Annual Meeting: Audience Questions Answered

by Rainer Hoenicke

In the last issue of RMP News, Rainer provided a summary of the panel discussion at the RMP Annual Meeting in January. During that discussion there was not sufficient time to address many of the questions submitted on cards by the audience. Subsequent to the meeting, questions from the cards were posed to members of the panel. Here are their responses: 

Q: How do the Regional Monitoring Program objectives relate to the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan? 

Paul Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, responds: 

The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) gave SFEI the charge to implement the Regional Monitoring Strategy and to foster the scientific understanding needed to meet resource protection goals for the San Francisco Estuary. One of the components in the Regional Monitoring Strategy deals with the issue of pollution prevention and reduction and how to track the effectiveness of management actions in this key area of the Plan. 

Parallel to the development of the CCMP, the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff examined their information requirements and determined that a comprehensive picture of contaminant patterns throughout the Estuary was needed and designed the Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances. 

The most straightforward approach to answering the question of how the Regional Monitoring Program relates to the CCMP is to check if the recommended monitoring objectives outlined in the Regional Monitoring Strategy are similar to those outlined in the RMP. And, in fact, a great degree of accordance exists despite their somewhat disparate origins. 

Because of the phased nature of the RMP, not all recommended monitoring actions outlined in the Regional Monitoring Strategy have yet been incorporated. For example, characterization of pollutant loads by source and relative contribution is not part of the suite of RMP objectives at this point. The RMP nevertheless provides important information based on which the pertinent management actions outlined in the CCMP can be adjusted. 

Q: Yesterday there was a Water Environment Federation panel discussing the Clean Water Act and the implications of watershed management. The panel mentioned the existence of a watershed academy sponsored by the EPA which is set up to help participants design a watershed framework and identify available funding resources and mechanisms through the EPA or at the state level. Is anyone on the panel aware of efforts to bring the watershed academy to Northern California? 

Michael Carlin, Regional Water Quality Control Board, responds: 

The Watershed Academy is a training seminar developed for U.S. EPA by one of their contractors. Some courses have been developed and others are in various stages of development. The Watershed Academy provides, in general terms, ways to approach watershed management and the potential tools and resources available to implement watershed management. The Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances, for example, is highlighted as one of the case examples of a monitoring consortium developed to collect information on a regional watershed level. The availability of the courses will depend on U.S. EPA funding. The contractor does expect to have core courses design completed by this fall. The Watershed Academy will be available to federal, state, and local government agencies, non-profit organizations, and other entities. 

Q: How does the Board propose to use the RMP data to: 

1) begin to identify the sources of contaminants of concern as suggested by the panel; 

2) begin to identify reasonable measures to improve water quality; and 

3) improve the equity of both regulation and funding sources? 

Michael Carlin, Regional Water Quality Control Board, responds: 

The data from the RMP is not strictly for use by the Regional Board but is available for use by the entire community. The Regional Board has and will continue to use the RMP data to help focus our regulatory efforts through our ongoing public process. The Regional Board will be directing our resources to address the most significant environmental issues and to ensure that responsible parties and the community at large are participating. As always, we are committed to ensuring a strong review of new information and feedback into the public process. Two current examples how the Regional Board is using the RMP is the formation of work groups in the near future on selected constituents of concern and fish contamination issues to address the points raised in your question. Since we will be seeking community involvement to address these issues, we will be seeking your technical syntheses of the information on a watershed or sub-watershed basis. It is not just what the Regional Board will be doing to protect and restore the estuary and its watershed but rather what we are all willing to do. 

Finally, to borrow a great quotation "ask not what the estuary can do for you but rather what you can do for the estuary". 

Q: How do you see the Regional Monitoring Program fitting into the Watershed Management Initiative being developed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board? 

Michael Carlin, Regional Water Quality Control Board, responds: 

The RMP is one component of the comprehensive approach to watershed management being developed by the Regional Board. Monitoring is the mechanism to identify problems within a watershed as well as provide an indication that control, restoration or enhancement efforts are successful. The RMP started initially as a regional program focused primarily on water quality but is evolving to examine the beneficial uses associated with water quality. The RMP also provides critical linkages to local programs being conducted by permittees as well as volunteer efforts on a sub-watershed basis. The RMP may in the future be more focused on inflows to the system from rivers, streams, and creeks, thus aiding the identification of sources of contaminants, potential control strategies and assessing the success of control strategies. Thus, it provides vital information for performing water body assessments especially when we are attempting to address non-point sources. The RMP provides a critical appraisal of the Regional Board's Watershed Management Initiative in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness in environmental management. 

Q: Should more effort be put into defining pollutant sources and into assessment of environmental impact? 

Trish Mulvey responds: 

Yes. Until we have a meaningful understanding of pollutant sources, transport, fate and effects, we cannot formulate and prioritize source control programs and pollution prevention strategies. The Regional Board should collaborate with SFEI to design a program to complete the Water Quality Assessment of our creeks, rivers, lakes, wetlands and bays called for in the Clean Water Act (Section 305-B). The program should provide opportunities for trained citizen volunteers to assist in data gathering in a cost effective and technically valid manner, as they already do in other states, so that we can rapidly complete the assessment in all the watersheds around the Bay and Delta. I recommend that we have pilot demonstrations of the assessment protocols in Santa Clara Valley and the Napa River watershed which have been designated by the Regional Board for early implementation of their Watershed Management Initiative. We could also use the services of the various nodes of the riparian station network including the Lindsay Museum, the Sonoma Ecology Center, and the Coyote Creek Riparian Station. 

Q: Should the RMP data be issued to the public if it has not gone through the public and technical reviews that other documents issued by agencies are required to go through? 

Trish Mulvey responds: 

My interest is in supporting the mission of SFEI: "To foster the scientific understanding and public awareness needed to protect and enhance the San Francisco Estuary." I agree with SFEI's staff that to accomplish that understanding and awareness, environmental data need to be available to any interested person in understandable and usable format. Information from research and monitoring programs needs to be translated and interpreted so that its meaning is clear and understandable to those who use it. 

The request I made to the dischargers who fund the Regional Monitoring Program was to ask that they embrace a similar position and make funds available to provide meaningful information to the public about the findings of the Program. It is essential to the scientific integrity of the RMP that all data gathering and analysis have careful quality assurance and appropriate scientific and technical review before the findings are made available to decisionmakers and the public. 

Q: Should interpretation, synthesis and outreach/education be made specific goals of the RMP? 

Trish Mulvey responds: 

Yes. The Regional Board and the dischargers who fund the RMP need to clearly state their goals for providing meaningful data to decisionmakers and the public and then provide the money to accomplish their goals. 
 

back to contents 

Teaching About Water Pollution Prevention˜Kids Taking Action

The 7th in the Institute's successful conference series for educators, Teaching About Water Pollution Prevention˜Kids Taking Action, will take place Saturday, October 26th at CSU Hayward. Two dozen speakers will present lectures and workshops on water pollution and how students can - and have - become involved in water pollution prevention and public awareness activities. 

In addition to the lectures and workshops, a dozen field trips to creeks, marshes and the Bay will be held on three weekend days following the conference. Approximately 250 K-12th grade educators are expected to attend this event. For more information, please call Adrienne Yang at SFEI at 231-5655. 

Watershed Pilot Study on Coyote Creek

The RMP Watershed Pilot Study is underway. The Coyote Creek watershed in Santa Clara County was selected as an appropriate area to link storm water and point source monitoring information with data collected in the southern reach of the Estuary. Please contact Rainer Hoenicke at (510) 231-5731 if you are interested in the detailed scope of work or want to be included on the mailing list of the focus group overseeing study progress. Thanks to the City of San Jose and the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program, SFEI was able to add a monitoring station at the lower end of Coyote Creek. Stay tuned for updates on what promises to become an interesting data set. 
 

back to contents 

Wetlands Pilot Study Photo Gallery

These photographs of recent field work for the RMP Wetlands Pilot study were taken at China Camp State Park. 
 

Taking a channel bank sediment core

Extruding a short marsh plain sediment core     Sieving marsh channel sediment for bethic (bottom-dwelling) organisms

back to contents 

Volunteer Watershed Monitoring Conference Held

by Joelle Bouchard

Over 120 people attended the Third Bay Area Volunteer Monitoring Conference on Friday, May 10, 1996 at the San Leandro Main Library. 

During the morning session, Mike Rigney and Dr. Josh Collins from the San Francisco Estuary Institute addressed conference attendees about how volunteer monitoring fits into the watershed framework, and Debbi Mytels from the Peninsula Conservation Center discussed the importance of setting watershed goals. Representatives from volunteer monitoring groups described their programs and monitoring protocols. 

The afternoon session included discussions about how to start a volunteer monitoring program and the various experiences that existing groups have undergone during the process of developing a riparian station. The conference concluded with two concurrent sessions: Monitoring With Students and Data Management. 

A materials fair was on display throughout the day and provided literature about existing riparian stations, monitoring protocols, funding and other monitoring-based information. 
 

Staff Profile: Meet John Haskins˜Environmental Technician

back to contents 

RMP Calendar

Wednesday, August 14thVolunteer Monitoring Meeting, 9:30-12, at the SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Thursday, August 15thThe Fish Focus Team of the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project will meet 9:30-12:30, at the SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Tuesday, August 20thPublic Information subcommittee of the RMP Fish Contamination Committee is meeting from 2-5 at 5900 Hollis Street, Suite E, Emeryville. 

Wednesday, August 21stRMP Technical Review Committee meeting, 9:30-3:00, at the SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Friday, August 23rdSFEI Seminar Series with Dr. Michael Fry on "Endocrine Disruptors in the Estuary" from 11-12 at 375 11th Street, Oakland. 

Monday, October 21stRMP Steering Committee Meeting, 9:30-12:30, at the SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Announcements

1994 RMP Annual Report Available

The 1994 RMP Annual Report is available from SFEI for $25 ($15 for non-profits). Shipping and handling is included. To order, contact Gabriele Marek at (510) 430-0801. Also available from SFEI are back issues of the RMP Newsletter. 

Join the RMP Electronic Mailing List

SFEI has established an RMP e-mail mailing list for RMP-releated annoucements (report availability, meetings, etc.). An e-mail account is all that is needed to join this list. To add yourself to the list, send a message to listserv@sfei.org with the words "subscribe RMP" in the body (not subject) of your message. A confirmation e-mail with full instructions on use of the mailing list will be sent in a few minutes. If you experience any trouble, call Todd at SFEI at (510) 231-9592. 

SFEI Seminar Series Begins

SFEI is hosting a monthly seminar series on environmental science relating to the San Francisco Estuary. The first speaker will present on August 23. Please see page 6 for more details. 
 

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