Contents

Mercury in the Estuary

In Brief: 1995 RMP Results

1997 Cruise Schedule

Five-Year Review

Annual Meeting Summary

Trends in Aquatic Toxicity

RMP Data on the Web

Data Usage and Publication Policy

Newsletter Survey

Calendar

Announcements

Mercury In the Estuary

by Rainer Hoenicke, Jay Davis, and Adrienne Yang

Mercury (or quicksilver) is a naturally occurring metal which has several forms. It is also one of the most toxic substances, especially when combined with other elements to produce organic mercury compounds like methylmercury. Mercury has been found throughout the San Francisco Estuary at elevated concentrations in water, sediment, and organisms. It is of particular concern as a human health issue, as it accumulates in tissues and its levels increase up the food web. For example, fish bioaccumulate mercury of the most toxic form--monomethylmercury--and fish at the top of the food web can harbor mercury concentrations over one million times the mercury concentration in the water in which they swim. 

As a result of the tremendous increase in mercury production and use in this century, as well as the ease with which many forms of mercury dissolve in water, contamination of this metal is virtually world-wide. It travels easily through different environmental media including the atmosphere, in a variety of chemical forms, and is toxic to humans and other organisms in very low concentrations. California is unique in mercury contamination because in addition to the general, industrially related global increases, it also contains specific contamination sites. The California Coast Range contains one of the world's great geologic deposits of mercury. This mercury was mined intensively during the late 1800s and early 1900s primarily in support of gold mining in the Sierra Nevada where the mercury was used in the gold extraction process. A legacy of leaking Coast Range mercury mines and lost Sierra Nevada quicksilver is providing a significant, ongoing burden of mercury to the Estuary from both sides of the State (see also Estuary, Vol. 5, No. 5, October 1996, available from the San Francisco Estuary Project (510) 286-4392). 

Toxicity and Health Concerns

As mercury cycles through various forms and media, its bioavailability (ability to contaminate organisms) and toxicity change. Toxicity heavily depends upon the form the mercury is in. Since only 2% of the intake of inorganic forms of mercury is estimated to be absorbed into the bloodstream, inorganic mercury such as mercury chloride (Hg₂Cl₂) is, relatively speaking, a minor health hazard and has, for a long time, been used in medicines as a purgative and in dental fillings. Other inorganic forms have long been known to be a health hazard. For example, mercury nitrate, Hg(NO₃)₂, was used during the Industrial Revolution to soften felt and caused twitching and dementia among hatters, giving birth to the phrase"mad as a hatter." 

"In comparison, organic mercury forms such as methylmercury (CH₃Hg) and other organo-mercury compounds are much more toxic to humans, since over 90% of the intake of methylmercury, for example, is absorbed into the bloodstream. 

Because mercury is found throughout the environment, everyone is exposed to low levels through inhalation, absorption, and ingestion. Long-term exposure to low levels of metallic mercury and organic mercury affects the nervous system. Long-term exposure to low levels of inorganic mercury affects the kidneys. Short term exposure to higher levels of any form of mercury can result in damage to the brain, kidneys, and fetuses. Mercury has been found to have a harmful effect upon a wide range of systems including the respiratory, cardiovascular, hematologic, immune, and reproductive systems. 

Where Does Mercury Come From?

Natural Sources

Since mercury occurs naturally in the environment, there is a background concentration independent of human-related sources. Mercury can occur naturally in a variety of forms such as Hg⁰ (elemental mercury), Hg⁺² (dissolved in rainwater), or as the ore cinnabar HgS, and as an organo-metal, such as methylmercury. Through natural chemical and biological reactions, mercury changes form, becoming alternately more or less soluble in water, more or less toxic, and more or less biologically available. 

As with any site on Earth, there is natural mercury contamination in San Francisco Bay. However, it is difficult to determine just what proportion of mercury in the Bay Area is from natural sources since what is natural varies from one part of the world to the next. Natural sources include volcanic activity, forest fires, and oceanic releases. 

Human Sources

Mercury is used in a wide range of over 2,000 manufacturing industries and products including barometers, thermometers, mercury arc lamps, switches, fluorescent lamps, mirrors, catalysts for the oxidation of organic compounds, gold and silver extraction from ores, rectifiers, cathodes in electrolysis/electroanalysis, in the generation of chlorine and caustic paper processing, batteries, dental amalgams, as a laboratory reagent, lubricants, caulks and coatings, in pharmaceuticals as a slimicide, in dyes, wood preservatives, floor wax, furniture polish, fabric softeners, and chlorine bleach. Individual industries use different forms of mercury as well. 

It is estimated that the net domestic annual use of mercury was about 3,409 tons in 1986. Of this use: 

• 50% to 56% was used in the electrical industry,
• 12% to 25% was used in chlor-alkali plants to generate chlorine and caustic soda,
• 10% to 12% was used in paint manufacturing, and
• about 3% was used in the preparation of dental amalgams.

Global human-related sources include: coal-fired power plants, gasoline and oil combustion, smelting, chlor-alkali plants, sewage treatment, and mercury dumping from naval vessels. In the Bay Area much of the mercury contamination is due to mining related activities. 

The Mining Connection

Historically, mercury was mined intensively in the Coast Range and transported across the Central Valley for use in Sierra Nevada placer gold mining operations. Virtually all of the quicksilver used in these operations was ultimately lost into Sierran watersheds. It has been estimated that, in river drainages of the Mother Lode region alone, approximately 7,600 tons of refined quicksilver was inadvertently deposited in conjunction with Gold Rush era mining. Additional mercury was used throughout the gold mining belt of the northwestern and central Sierra Nevada. The majority of Coast Range mercury mines which supplied this practice have since been abandoned and remain unreclaimed. As a result of these two activities, widespread mercury contamination exists today on both sides of the Central Valley. 

Recent water quality data indicate that a significant amount of mercury from the Gold Rush era still exists in the sediment of the upper Yuba River watershed, and the mercury is being transported into Englebright Reservoir where it is largely trapped. Bioavailability studies show that the reservoir is acting as an interceptor of inorganic and methylmercury. Even though elevated levels of mercury are found in mined upstream tributaries and within the reservoir, the organisms below the catchment consistently show reduced mercury concentrations compared to above the reservoir. This means that the reservoir is acting as an interceptor of bioavailable mercury, preventing it from being transported downstream to the Estuary. Therefore much, but not all, of the mercury remaining from historic gold mining may be prevented from reaching the Estuary. However, in the rivers without dams, like the Cosumnes, gold mining mercury is still transported unimpeded to the Estuary. 

Recent work also suggests that the Coast Range may be a more important source of mercury to Central Valley Rivers and the Estuary than the Sierra Nevada. Possibly due to the reservoir trapping effect, the export of mercury from northwestern Sierra Nevada rivers was found to be considerably less than that contributed from rivers in the north central and northwestern parts of the State. 

As highlighted in Estuary (Vol. 5, No. 5, October 1996), highly elevated concentrations of mercury were observed in the Yolo Bypass during the unusually wet spring of 1995. Cache Creek, which drains Clear Lake, was determined to be a significant source of mercury. The areas draining Cache Creek have many large abandoned mercury mines, and are known to be enriched in mercury. Work by UC Davis researcher Darell Slotton on Davis Creek, a small tributary, has documented in-stream loads of approximately 200 kg of mercury in single wet seasons. Although mercury from Davis Creek is currently being intercepted by the Davis Creek Reservoir, mercury from other similar mercury mine regions remains available for downstream transport. Follow-up studies are underway by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and Slotton to determine whether mines are the main source of mercury and to determine how the bioavailability of mercury varies throughout the watershed. 

Data Trends in the Regional Monitoring Program

One of the apparently striking conclusions that can be drawn from RMP data is the lack of bioaccumulation of mercury in the bivalves transplanted for 90 to 100 days at various locations in the Bay for any of the three years of the RMP analyzed so far. Bivalves generally do not accumulate dramatically elevated mercury concentrations, and the mercury they do contain (primarily inorganic mercury) is transferred to the consumers of the bivalves far less efficiently than methylmercury. 

Of more importance in consumption-related toxicity to humans is the pathway of methylmercury through larger fish that feed on other fish. Mercury bioaccumulation in these larger fish has resulted in tissue concentrations 100,000 times higher than concentrations in adjacent water. In 1994 a fish tissue contamination study was conducted for the San Francisco Estuary as part of the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program. Findings revealed tissue mercury concentrations above levels of human health concern in several fish species analyzed. Mercury concentrations were particularly high in the two shark species sampled. Based on the concentrations of mercury and other contaminants measured in this study, advisories concerning consumption of fish caught from the Bay were issued by the California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) in December 1994. Adults were advised to limit consumption of Bay sport fish to two meals per month. Pregnant or nursing women and children under six were advised to limit consumption to one meal per month. The advisory also states that large shark and striped bass should not be consumed at all. It should be noted that the advisory does not apply to salmon, anchovies, herring, and smelt caught in the Bay. 

In 1997 a follow-up to the 1994 work is being conducted as part of the RMP. Seven species have been targeted for sampling, including striped bass, leopard shark, California halibut, white sturgeon, white croaker, shiner surfperch, and jacksmelt. The objectives of this sampling effort are: 

1. to produce the information needed for updating human health advisories and conducting human health risk assessments, and
2. to measure contaminant levels in fish species over time to track trends and to evaluate the effectiveness of management efforts.

This sampling will be conducted in June. In order to establish long-term trends in concentrations, sampling for mercury and other contaminants in fish tissue will continue to be conducted in future years. For more information on RMP fish studies contact Jay Davis at SFEI: (510) 430-0801. 

 
 

Potential Control Measures

Control of human-related sources of mercury pollution involves both point and area source control. Point source control is often wielded through mechanical or chemical means, while area control is often executed by administrative means. It is always true that it is easier to recover mercury at the source, where it is more concentrated, than it is to recover it after it has dispersed in different forms and species throughout the environment. The continuous cycling of mercury through its many different forms also complicates the job of devising effective clean-up methods. 

Source Control: Mercury point source investigators have been very effective in isolating sources in the environment. Extremely sensitive analytical instrumentation is now available to monitor total mercury emissions or to analyze mercury's different forms down to the picogram (a millionth of a millionth of a gram) level. Source control includes the remediation of abandoned mines, waste stream capture, and flue gas scrubbing. 

Area Control: Ingestion of fish and other seafood contaminated with methylmercury is a dominant source of mercury exposure in many parts of the United States and the world. Administrative controls to limit the exposure of humans to mercury include warning limits on the amount of fish consumed in a given period. Other area controls include capping waste sites to limit exposure to the environment, specialized dredging, and washing of mercury-contaminated soil and sediment. 

The Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has formed a task force to take a broad view of the mercury situation in the Northern Estuary from the Central Bay up to the Delta. The need for this pilot project surfaced because of smaller, shallow water, North Bay dischargers who are faced with regulation compliance problems if mercury limits were set at the same levels for all dischargers. The goal of this project is to find a broad range of cost-effective solutions for point and non-point source pollution and to determine the largest source(s) of mercury. 

Key questions which will be considered by the Regional Board are: 

• How does mercury get transported down a watershed system and where are the key points during the transport at which inorganic mercury is transformed to organic mercury, which poses a risk for the Estuary?
• What is the proportion of historic mercury contamination versus current sources?
• What is the rate at which existing sinks of mercury are moving from the Bay to the ocean and how do current loading rates affect this process?
• What human activities accelerate or dampen the transfer of mercury currently found in the Bay system to more bioavailable organic forms, and do the cumulative effects of these activities substantially increase human health and wildlife risks?
• How do we estimate mercury loading from the atmosphere, small North Bay watersheds, the Sacramento River, and point source discharges?

In the San Francisco Estuary, mercury contamination is probably far too widespread for direct or physical area control measures to be effective or economically feasible. However, significant opportunities may exist for effective point source remediation of important mercury discharges, which would otherwise continue to be transported into the Estuary. 

Acknowledgments

This article contains excerpts from a larger paper, Mercury Effects, Sources, and Control Measures by Alan B. Jones and Darell G. Slotton, which is available from SFEI. Review contributions by Dr. Christopher Foe, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Joseph Domagalski, United States Geological Survey, are gratefully acknowledged. Information on current work on mercury in the Northern Estuary was provided by Kim Taylor, S.F.B. Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

For more information on fish contamination in California, contact the Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section (PETS) of OEHHA, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704-1011, at (510) 540-3063, or the Sacramento office, 601 North 7^th Street, P.O. Box 942732, Sacramento, CA 94234-7320, at (916) 327-7319. County departments of environmental health may have more information on specific fishing areas. 
 

back to contents 

In Brief: 1995 RMP Results

by Adrienne Yang

The 1995 RMP Annual Report has been completed. That report includes monitoring results from the Base Program, Pilot and Special Studies, and summary and perspective articles contributed by RMP investigators and other scientists. Below are a few highlights from the RMP Base Program. For the Executive Summary and the full report please contact SFEI at (510) 430-0801 or visit our world wide web site at: http://www.sfei.org. 

Water

Dissolved trace element (i.e., metals) concentrations were generally elevated at the Southern Slough and South Bay monitoring stations. Relative to other Estuary reaches, most dissolved trace organics were elevated in the South Bay with concentrations progressively decreasing from Coyote Creek to the Golden Gate station. This pattern was repeated with dissolved organics data adjusted for total suspended sediment, which indicated the presence of trace organic sources in the South Bay and DDT compounds at the Rivers station. 

Clear seasonal variations were observed for arsenic, cadmium, dissolved silver, and some trace organics. Arsenic, cadmium, and dissolved PAH concentrations were high throughout the Estuary in August, silver concentrations were especially elevated in the South Bay in August, and the pesticide diazinon was highest at nearly all stations in February. 

In 1995, the overall pattern of water quality exceedances was very similar to that of 1994; concentrations of many contaminants were above applicable water quality objectives or criteria. Of the trace elements, copper, chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel had concentrations higher than water quality guidelines on one or more occasions with copper, mercury, and nickel being most frequently above guidelines in the Southern Sloughs, South Bay, and Northern Estuary. Of the trace organic contaminants total PCBs, total PAHs, and several individual PAHs and pesticides had concentrations above guidelines. The stations with the largest number of exceedances were Coyote Creek, Dumbarton Bridge, and Petaluma River. For a summary of aquatic toxicity results, please see Trends in Aquatic Toxicity on page 5. 

Sediment

Despite 1995 being a very wet year, the distributions and concentrations of sediment contaminants in the Estuary remained similar to those in previous years. Average concentrations of silver, cadmium, lead, mercury, and selenium were highest in the South Bay and Southern Sloughs, while average concentrations of arsenic, chromium, copper, nickel, and zinc were highest in the Northern Estuary. Trace organic contaminant concentrations in sediment were always higher south of the Golden Gate, similar to the pattern found in water. 

Probably due to the wet winter, nearly all trace metal concentrations were higher in August than in February at the Southern Slough stations. For trace organics, PAHs were generally highest in February in the South and Central Bays, PCBs were highest in August in the South Bay, and DDTs were always higher in August. 

As in past years, nickel concentrations were consistently above the Effects Range Median guideline developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; however, nickel occurs naturally in the soils of the Bay Area, and these natural sources may provide larger inputs than human sources. Also similar to past years, arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, and DDTs were usually above the Effects Range Low concentrations. Bioassays conducted over the past six years indicate that sediment toxicity is widespread in time and space; the highest incidence of toxicity occurred at Grizzly Bay where sediments were toxic in 60% of test conducted between 1991 and 1996 . 

Bivalves

Unlike in previous years, lead and nickel were the only trace metals that uniformly accumulated substantially above background concentrations--lead at all Estuary stations and nickel at all but one. Despite the unusually high concentrations of mercury in sediment at the San Jose/Sunnyvale LEM station in February and June, no signal from high mercury loads suspected to have been transported into the Estuary was observable in bivalve tissue at any of the South Bay stations. For trace organics, total PCBs were uniformly lower in 1995 compared to 1994. 

Many of the chlorinated pesticides showed distinct seasonal differences at most stations. Elevated wet-season concentrations were observed at Coyote Creek for DDTs, chlordane, and dieldrin, suggesting runoff as a source. 

Of the trace elements with Maximum Tissue Residue Level guidelines, only arsenic had levels higher than guidelines; however, it should be noted that this guideline was exceeded even at the uncontaminated control site. Of the trace organics, only PCB and PAH levels were consistently above guidelines throughout the Estuary. For the second year in a row, the two sites (Coyote Creek and Petaluma) with the most elevated contaminant concentrations in tissues also showed pronounced bivalve condition index (a measure of bivalve health) decreases. 

Trends

From 1993 to 1995 most contaminant concentrations remained constant, with no obvious increasing or decreasing trends. Average PCB concentrations appear to have decreased in sediments in the River and Central Bay (Figure 1), while DDTs appear to have decreased in water and sediments in the Rivers (Figure 2), but there were no observable differences in other reaches. 

back to contents 

Where is the RMP Going?

by Rainer Hoenicke

At the time the Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances was established, the Regional Board and Program Participants agreed to build in regular reviews that would evaluate the Program from a variety of angles. The first of these external program reviews began this January, during the fifth year of the RMP, and will be completed in June. 

The inherent purpose of monitoring programs is to inform decision-makers through successive measurements about what kind of change in conditions is occurring over time. Monitoring programs are only valuable if the scientific information is used to adjust policy, management, and individual decisions that may have direct bearing on the status of the resource or the system being monitored. Decision-makers can encompass managers, regulators, scientists, and the public. Only if their needs are clearly identified and taken into account will monitoring produce useful information. 

The five-year RMP review is evaluating: 

• if the objectives of the RMP are reflecting the users' expectations,
• if the scientific and technical approaches are appropriate to meet the stated objectives, and
• if these approaches are carried out in an efficient manner.

A team has been assembled of highly respected and experienced scientists that have expertise in the design, management, and evaluation of large-scale monitoring and assessment programs. The review panel will evaluate administrative, quality assurance, and statistical design questions, as well as the effectiveness of information management and how effectively the information generated is used by the Regional Board and Program Participants. 

Core review questions fall into the components of Program Objectives, Program Activities, Outputs, Organization, and Administration. The review includes an assessment of how these components interact with each other. The panelists are currently preparing their individual assessments which will be combined into a report. After reviewing various drafts, the RMP Steering Committee will develop a schedule for implementing recommendations. Stay tuned for the outcome. 
 

RMP 1997 Cruise Schedule

back to contents 

Annual Meeting Summary

by Rainer Hoenicke

The 3^rd Annual Meeting of the Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances was held on February 6 and 13, 1997, at the Samuel Merritt College Health Education Center in Oakland. The purpose of this year's meeting was three-fold. First, it provided an opportunity to summarize results from the 1995 monitoring year for Program Participants and other interested parties. Second, as part of an external Program Review, a group of experts in monitoring design, data management, science administration, and policy development could familiarize themselves with the Program and talk to scientists, SFEI staff, and Program Participants contributing to the RMP (see the article Where is the RMP Going? on page 2). Third, the Annual Meeting served to clarify the linkages between the scientific information that is being collected as part of the monitoring program and the management decision-making process. 

The first of the two days focused on programmatic issues and served as a forum for review panelists to interview managers of participating agencies and the Regional Board to hear first-hand about the value of the RMP, ideas on program improvements, and lessons learned since the inception of the RMP in 1993. SFEI's Senior Scientist, Dr. Bruce Thompson, set the stage by relating "environmental values" which are important to society as a whole, such as fishable waters, recreational opportunities, and preservation of threatened plant and wildlife species, to specific environmental indicators that could tell decision-makers and the public whether or not these values are being realized. A monitoring program is most meaningful if it can measure some kind of response, hopefully a positive one, to actions being undertaken to meet well-defined environmental goals. Dr. Thompson's presentation attempted to stimulate some thought as to whether or not the current objectives of the RMP are sufficient to address Estuary condition in terms of pollutants and to supply environmental managers with the right kind of information. 

Subsequent speakers presented background and results related to two RMP Pilot Studies on wetlands and watersheds. These speakers were followed by Larry Kolb, Assistant Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). Mr. Kolb explained the rationale behind the Regional Board's "Watershed Management Initiative" and the implications for effective project prioritization and resource allocation. 

With the two RMP review coordinators, Drs. Brock Bernstein and Joe O'Connor, serving as facilitators, the afternoon session was spent interactively between the program review panelists, RMP Participants, staff from regulatory agencies, and members of the audience. 

The second day of the Annual Meeting focused on key scientific findings of the 1995 monitoring year, a preview of selected 1996 results, and various perspectives on toxicity trends and of selected pollutant categories in water, sediment, and tissue. Data presentations were followed by examples of how RMP findings, together with other studies, are being used in a management context, such as the development of sediment quality guidelines, evaluation of dredged material, or in permitting waste water discharges. Dr. Brian Cole of the United States Geological Service opened the technical session with a recent picture of the hydrologic condition immediately following the January floods, and general Estuary water quality parameters that influence pollutant concentrations, such as salinity, dissolved oxygen concentrations, and phytoplankton biomass. Karen Taberski from the Regional Board closed the second day of the Annual Meeting with a preview and general description of the Fish Contamination Pilot Study which will help assess the health risk level associated with consuming contaminated fish from the Estuary. 

Both days of the Annual Meeting were well attended with 96 people attending the first day and 140 the second. As in the previous two years, the primary audience was the environmental management community made up of regulatory and resource agencies, public and private dischargers of treated waste water, storm water, dredged material, and cooling water. The meeting also attracted a significant number of scientists and members of public interest groups. In response to the increasing size of the monitoring information base, an expansion of the meeting to a two-day conference became necessary and seemed to work for most attendees. If you have any comments about how well the Annual Meeting served your needs, or if you have suggestions for improvements, please contact Rainer Hoenicke at (510) 231-5731 or via e-mail at jay@sfei.org. 
 

back to contents 

Trends in Aquatic Toxicity

by Bruce Thompson, SFEI

The RMP has been conducting aquatic bioassays on ambient water samples since the program began in 1993. Three different bioassays have been conducted on samples collected in the wet (usually February) and dry (August) climate periods. In 1993, the diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana and larval bivalves (mussels or oysters) were used. Beginning in 1994, the mysid Mysidopsis bahia was used instead of the diatom. For the mysids, percent survival in 7 day exposures to ambient water is measured. For the larval bivalves, percent normal development in 48 hour exposures is measured. Toxicity is indicated when the results in the ambient water sample are statistically lower than in a clean water control. The bioassays have been conducted through contracts with S.R. Hansen and Associates in Concord in 1993 and 1994, and by Pacific EcoRisk Laboratory in Martinez beginning in 1995. 
 

In 1993, no toxicity was reported at any of the RMP stations in either the diatom or larval bivalve test. Toxicity has never been observed in the larval bivalve test at any RMP station. However, toxicity to the mysids has been observed in 46% of the samples collected from the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, Grizzly Bay, and Napa River stations (Table 1) in 1994 through February 1997. Toxicity was less frequent in 1994 and 1995 than in 1996 and 1997. Beginning in February 1996, toxicity occurred in almost all samples at those four stations. Toxicity was so severe at the San Joaquin River station in February 1996 and 1997 that none of the mysids survived the 7 day exposure. In contrast, aquatic toxicity has only occurred in one other sample in the Estuary (Red Rock, February 1994) since testing began in 1993. 

The cause of the observed toxicity to the mysids is not clear. Because of the location near the bayward end of large rivers, and the time of the year (February at least) that toxicity was observed, dissolved pesticides, particularly diazinon and chlorpyrifos, are suspected. However since the ambient water tested usually contains numerous contaminants, it is difficult to tell which ones may be responsible. Toxicity Identification Evaluations (TIEs) are chemical fractionation procedures that can identify the probable cause of toxicity. However, the RMP does not currently conduct TIEs on toxic water samples, but should consider including them in the future. Water chemistry data from the 1996 samples are just now being analyzed and may shed some light on the possible causes of toxicity. 

Table 1. Percent survival of mysids exposed to ambient water for 7 days at four northern RMP sites. 
* indicates toxicity. 
 

The implications of the aquatic toxicity observed in the RMP samples on invertebrates, fish, and birds that inhabit those areas is also poorly understood. Some studies focused on biological effects of contaminants in water are being developed by the Interagency Ecological Program. The RMP also needs to pursue that question. 
 

back to contents 

back to contents 

RMP Data on the Web

by Jung Yoon and Todd Featherston

RMP data are now accessible via the WWW. The Online RMP Database was unveiled at the Annual Meeting in February and it received many positive comments from the participants. The Online RMP Database allows anyone with access to the WWW to dynamically select, view, and download data using a point and click user interface. We have completely redesigned the web page to be more user friendly and informative; each screen now provides directions specific to the screen and context sensitive information. Unlike the limited demonstration version introduced last year, all published RMP data (1993 through 1995) are now accessible. 

We took a "wizard" approach in designing the Online RMP Database where a user is prompted to make one decision per screen and move on to the next screen until all required information (data type, parameter type, time, and location ) is provided. The information is sent to the RMP Database at SFEI and the database returns the specific data set to the user. The resulting output can either be viewed online in the web browser or downloaded in ASCII format which can be loaded into any spreadsheet application. Please read the online instructions for more detailed information. 

To access RMP data, point your web browser to SFEI's home page (http://www.sfei.org) and click on the link to Online RMP Database link. You will then be presented with a Data Usage and Publication Policy (see page 9). Please read the policy and then click on Online RMP Database button to start your data request. We welcome any suggestions and comments so please use "Click here for Comments" button to let us know what you think. 
 

back to contents 

Data Usage and Publication Policy

The RMP collects a large amount of data each year. Including the data collected in the BPTCP Pilot Studies, in addition to the RMP data since 1993, the amount of information is formidable. 

One of the main principles of the RMP has been to be able to obtain and provide data in a timely manner to a variety of potential users. The purpose of this Policy Statement is to provide some guidelines for usage, reporting and publication of RMP data. It is not the intent of this Policy to restrict RMP data usage or availability. 

All of the RMP and BPTCP data have been obtained and analyzed using public funds. Therefore, the data are public domain and the RMP cannot constrain the availability or usage of the data. However, prudent usage, knowledge of the data quality, and professional courtesy should all be considered in obtaining and using RMP data. 

Annual Report

The RMP Annual Report is the main way information from the base program and Pilot and Special studies is collectively reported. The first obligation of RMP investigators and participants is to provide RMP data to SFEI to assure Annual Report publication in a timely manner. 

Base Program results will generally be produced by SFEI staff. However, some sections, or contributions to discussions may be solicited by the Program Manager. Pilot and Special Studies summaries will usually be written under contract by the lead investigator. Suggestions for other contributions may be made to the Program Manager who will consider all reasonable requests to include information. The content of the Annual Report will be determined by the Steering Committee upon recommendation by the Technical Review Committee. 

Publications, Presentations and other Reports

There are many other opportunities to disseminate RMP results. Some formal journal publications and technical reports have been produced from RMP data, and several presentations at regional and national symposia have been made by RMP participants and SFEI staff. The use of RMP data in presentations, peer reviewed publications, or other technical reports is encouraged. However, peer-reviewed publications using RMP data should be the privilege of the RMP investigators. Other researchers who want to use RMP data should extend professional courtesy to the RMP investigator(s) that produced the data (see Table 1), which includes consideration for co-authorship or acknowledgment on publications or reports based mostly on RMP data. It is recommended that researchers who want to use RMP data discuss their intentions with the RMP investigator(s) early-on in manuscript preparation. Notification of the RMP Program Manager is also requested so that an RMP Contribution Number can be issued (see below). 

World Wide Web Access

RMP data is available on the WWW. It is anticipated that there will be occasions where the data would be used in reports or publications by non-RMP participants. The guidelines stated in this policy apply. A copy of this Policy Statement is posted to all who access RMP data via the WWW. 

RMP Contribution Numbers

A record of all RMP-related publications and reports will be maintained by SFEI. All authors that publish RMP data should obtain a RMP Contribution Number from the RMP Program Manager. Publications that use mostly RMP data should cite a RMP Contribution Number in the Acknowledgments. 

Contact

RMP Program Manager, Bruce Thompson, Ph.D., SFEI, Richmond, CA. (510) 430-0801; brucet@sfei.org. 
   
Table 1. RMP Investigators. This list is for the RMP base program. Principal Investigators for RMP Pilot and Special Studies are included in the Annual Reports. 
 

back to contents 

Newsletter Survey

Regional Monitoring News will be undergoing some changes over the next few months. Although the focus of the newsletter will still be on the RMP, we will be broadening our scope to include other monitoring and research activities. Please help us in our endeavors by completing and returning the survey below. We will use your comments and suggestions to make this newsletter even better. Surveys should be sent to: 

San Francisco Estuary Institute 
1325 S. 46^th Street, Bldg. 180 
Richmond, CA 94704 
(510) 231-9414 (FAX) 

1. How often do you read the RMP News? 
 

2. The articles are of interest to me.... 
 

3. How do you find the technical level of the articles? 
 

4. To what audience(s) would you like to see this newsletter tailored? (please circle all that apply) 
 

5. Are you generally satisfied with the format of the newsletter? 
 

6. What topics would you like to see covered in future issues? 
 

7. Would you be willing to write articles for future issues? Y N 
 

If yes, please give us your name, contact phone number, and article topic(s). 
 

8. How can this newsletter be improved? 
 

9. Do you have any suggestions for names of the revamped newsletter? 
 

10. Additional Comments? 
 

Name and Affiliation (optional): 
 

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this survey. 
 

back to contents 

RMP Calendar

RMP Technical Review Committee Meeting, 9:30-3:30, at SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Friday, May 23^rd 
SFEI Seminar Series with Dr. Darell Slotton on "Mercury in Northern California: Sources, Sinks, and Bioaccumulation," 11:00-12:00 at the EBMUD Administration Building, 375 11^th Street, Oakland. 

Monday, June 2^nd 
RMP Review Workshop, 9:30-12:00, at SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Monday, June 2^nd 
NORCAL SETAC, at the University of San Francisco. Information: Robert Toia (415) 422-5927. 

Monday, June 9^th 
RMP Steering Committee Meeting, 9:30-12:00, at SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 

Monday, July 21^st 
RMP Steering Committee Meeting, 9:30-12:00 at SFEI offices on the Richmond Field Station. 
 

Announcements

1995 RMP Annual Report Available

The 1995 RMP Annual report is now available from SFEI for $25 ($15 for non-profit organizations). Shipping and handling is included. To order, please contact Gabriele Marek at (510) 430-0801. 1993 and 1994 Annual Reports are also available. 

RMP Contribution Numbers

SFEI has begun compiling articles and reports that have been produced using mainly RMP data. Please help us by providing reprints and/or a list of titles of articles or reports that you have produced using mainly RMP data. Each document will be catalogued and assigned a RMP contribution number. The listings of RMP contributions will help us demonstrate the applicability and use of RMP data. For more information, please call Bruce at (510) 231-5613. 
 

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