Post on 20-Dec-2015
transcript
Southern California Bight Southern California Bight Regional Marine Monitoring ProgramRegional Marine Monitoring Program
Ken SchiffKen Schiff
www.SCCWRP.orgwww.SCCWRP.org
Monitoring in the Southern Monitoring in the Southern California BightCalifornia Bight
• More than $31M per year monitoring the SCB– Ca. 75% is by NPDES permittees
• Approximately 5% of the areas is routinely monitored– Inconsistency in the areas that are monitored
• Unable to answer basic questions about the health of the SCB
Development of Regional Development of Regional Marine MonitoringMarine Monitoring
• Regional Monitoring surveys every five years– aka the “Bight Program” (1994, 1998, 2003)
• Integrated, collaborative monitoring using existing local programs– Periodic “trade-off” for site-specific monitoring
• Address cumulative effects– Assess the range of natural variability
Bight ’03 as an Example Bight ’03 as an Example
• 61 Organizations
• $7M Program– Less than $700K cash
• Three major components– Coastal Ecology– Shoreline microbiology– Water quality
Coastal Ecology ComponentCoastal Ecology Component
• What is the spatial extent and magnitude of impact in the SCB?– How does this vary among areas of interest?
• What is the mass of pollutants in the SCB?– Sediments, water, biota?– How does this compare to emissions from land-
based discharges?
Areas of InterestAreas of Interest
• Offshore– Depth zones from surfzone to deep coastal basins
• Embayment– Ports, harbors, marinas, estuaries
• Publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)– Large, small
• Channel islands
Map of B’03 Strata
%,
#*
")
#*
%,
#*%,
!(
")
#*
!(
#*
%,
")
!(
%,
!(
%,#*
%,
#*
#*
%,
$+
!(
$+
#*
")
")
")
%,
%,
%,
#*
!(
#*
#*
#*
%,
#*
#*
%,")
!(
$+
!(
")
#*
%,
%,
%,
#*
%,
#*
#*
!(
")
%,
%,
%,
#*
!(
")#*#*")
!(
#*
%,
%,
!(
!(
!(
%,
")!(
%,
%,
!(
!(
%,
#*
%,
!(
!(
%,
#*
%,
#*
%,
")#*
!(
#*
%,
%,
%,
$+
!(
!(
")
%,
#*
#*
%,
%,
#*
!(
%,
%,
!(
")
!(
!(
%,
%,
!(
#*
!(
!(
#*
")
%,
%,
")
!(
%,
!(
!(%,
#*
#*
%,
$+
!(
%,
%,
$+
#*
")!(
$+
%,
%,
#*
%,
")
!(
#*
$+
%,
%,
!(
!(
!(
%,
")
#*
#*
%,
%,
#*
%,
%,
!(
")
%,
#*
")
!(
#*
!(
!(
%,
!(
#*
")
#*
%,
")
!(
!(
!(
")
#*
#*
#*
#*
")
#*
#*
%,
!(
#*
#*
#*$+
!(
!(
#*
!(
!(
#*
!(
$+
#*
!(
#*
#*
%,
#*
#*
!(
$+
%,
!(
")
#*
%,
!(
!(
!(
")
#*
!(
%,
!(
%,
")
")
")
!(
!(
#*#*
!(
#*
#*
!(
%,
#*
")%,
%,
#*
!(
#*
!(
#*
$+
%,
#*
")
")
!(
!(
%,
#*
%,
#*
%,
!(
#*
!(
")
%,
#*
!(
#*
!(
%,
%,
%,
")
!(
$+
!(
!(
%,
#*
$+
!(
%,
#*
$+
#*
!(
!(
#*
#*
")
#*
$+
!(
#*
#*
%,
#*
#*
!(
$+
%,
#*
#*
!(
%,
#*
#*
!(
#*
!(
#*
#*
!( !(!(
$+
!(
%,
$+
!(
!(
%,
%,
")")
$+
$+
")
%,
$+
")
")
$+$+
$+
$+
$+
")
$+ $+
")
$+ ")
")
$+
")")")
$+")
")")
")
")
")")
")")
")
Los Angeles
Ventura
Santa Barbara
Orange
San Diego
120°0'0"W 119°0'0"W 118°0'0"W
33°0'0"N
34°0'0"N
³0 60 12030
Kilometers
Bight '03 Chemistry Sample Sitesby Subpopulation
#* Basin
!( Bays") Estuaries$+ Island Shelf%, Mainland Shelf#* POTW!( Slope
IndicatorsIndicators
• Sediment characteristics• Sediment chemistry• Sediment toxicity• Infaunal biological community• Fish community• Fish bioaccumulation• Fish pathology• Debris and trash
Cumulative EffectsCumulative Effects
Percent of SCB Total
Strata Area Copper
Mass
Total DDT
Mass
Embayments 0.7 2.1 0.5
Mainland Shelf 22.4 10.1 13.7
POTWs 1.3 1.0 9.9
Slope and Basin 67.8 84.6 75.5
Islands 8.0 2.2 0.4
SanDiego
Dana Point
Santa Barbara
25
Kilometers
500
Los Angeles
Total DDT in Sediments of the SCBTotal DDT in Sediments of the SCB
Low to Moderate Risk
Little to No Risk
Em
bay
me
nts
Mai
nla
nd
Sh
elf
PO
TW
Ou
tfal
ls
Slo
pe
and
Bas
ins
Isla
nd
s
Pe
rcen
t A
rea
> S
QG
0
10
20
30
40
Mod to Hi Risk
.
Percent Area Exceeding Sediment Quality Guidelines
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Mar
inas
Po
rts
Riv
erM
ou
ths
Bay
s
Per
cen
t o
f E
mb
aym
ent
Are
a
SeverelyDegradedDegraded
Impacted
MarginalDeviationReference
Biological Effects in EmbaymentsBiological Effects in Embayments(Benthic Response Index)(Benthic Response Index)
Shoreline Microbiology Shoreline Microbiology ComponentComponent
• What is the extent and magnitude of shoreline impacted by bacteria?– How does it vary by area?
• Are fecal indicator bacteria correlated with human specific virus?
• What is the relationship between shoreline concentrations and surfzone concentrations?
IndicatorsIndicators
• Fecal indicator bacteria– Total coliforms, fecal coliforms, enterococci
• New methods– Rapid indicators
• Human specific virus
Shoreline Water QualityShoreline Water Quality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Point ZeroPerennial
Perennial Ephemeral Sandy Rocky All SCBPer
cen
t S
ho
reli
ne
Mil
e-D
ays
Exc
eed
ing
W
ater
Qu
alit
y S
tan
dar
ds Storm
Summer
Water Quality ComponentWater Quality Component
• What is the extent of stormwater plumes in the coastal oceans?– What is the temporal lifecycle of plumes?
• What is the impact of stormwater plumes ?
• Is remote sensing a useful monitoring technique?– Use boats for groundtruthing
IndicatorsIndicators
• Remotely sensed data– space, air, ground, water
• Water quality data– Physical data– Nutrients, trace metals, trace organics, toxicity
• Biological data– Plankton, domoic acid
Collaboration is a Powerful Collaboration is a Powerful and Positive Forceand Positive Force
• Greater perspective of environmental condition– More than any single agency can accomplish
• Development of regional scale assessment tools– Biocriteria, Sediment quality objectives
• Excellent platform to test new ideas and technology– Remote sensing, in situ samplers, others– New chemicals of concern, improved methodology
Collaboration is a Powerful Collaboration is a Powerful and Positive Forceand Positive Force
• Requires work to assure comparability– Quality assurance, information management, etc
• Fosters communication– Regulated, regulatory, environmental communities must
agree on data assessment
• Results are directly integrated into the management framework– Regional monitoring being written into NPDES permits