1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT (SCCWRP) Stephen B. Weisberg Executive Director

2. WHAT IS SCCWRP? Joint Powers Agency founded in 1969 Initiated to address regional monitoring and research needs -- Cumulative impact assessment -- Methods development -- Data Integration Member organizations include city, county, state, and federal agencies -- Unique combination of regulators and regulated

3. MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS City of San Diego City of Los Angeles Orange County Sanitation District Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts San Diego Regional Water Quality Board Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Board State Water Quality Board U.S Environmental Protection Agency

4. SCCWRP’S GOALS To develop, participate in, and coordinate programs to understand ecological systems in the coastal waters and to document relationships between these systems and human activities; To answer the questions regarding the southern California coastal waters: (a) Is it safe to swim? (b) Is it safe to eat the fish? (c) Is the ecosystem healthy? (d) Are the natural resources being protected? To effectively communicate our research findings and recommendations, through a variety of media to decision makers and other stakeholders; To serve as a catalyst in forming partnerships and alliances which further these goals; and To provide an information management system to archive, retrieve, analyze, and display SCCWRP data in order to achieve the above goals and enhance our understanding of the Southern California Bight.

5. SOME FOCAL POINTS OF CURRENT SCCWRP RESEARCH Source estimation Regional monitoring Stomwater assessment TMDL development

6. WHY STUDY MASS EMISSIONS? Relative risk among sources -- Where do the largest proportion of pollutants come from?? Changes over time -- Were management actions effective at reducing loads?

7. TYPES OF SOURCES YEAR OF LAST ESTIMATE Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)ongoing Power generating stations1995 Industrial dischargers1995 Hazardous material spills1989 Urban runoffongoing Dredged material disposal/ocean dumping1997 Oil platforms1996 Atmospheric depositionongoing Vessel bottom points an anodesongoing Oceanic currents1973

8. Year 190019201940196019802000 Population (millions) 0.1 1 10 Annual Discharge Volume (billion liters) 10 100 1000 Population Wastewater Flow LA River

9. Year 197019751980198519901995 Wastewater Volume (billion liters) 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 Suspended Solids (thousands metric tons) 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Wastewater Flow Suspended Solids

10. Year 197019751980198519901995 Mass Emissions (metric tons) 0 200 400 600 800 Chromium Copper

11. 1971 - 1972 0 20 40 60 80 100 Urban Runoff POTW Wastewater 1994 - 1995 Flow Suspended Solids Chromium Copper Nickel Lead Zinc Percent Contribution to Ocean 0 20 40 60 80 100 Ammonia Phosphorous

14. SANTA ANA RIVER PROJECT Collected water samples every 15 minutes for an entire year -- Automated sampler Almost 2000 samples -- Measured TSS on all -- Measured metals/organics on approximately 200 Several project goals -- Accurately estimate mass emission for the year -- Compare our estimate from intensive sampling with that of routine sampling frequencies -- Use simulation approach to identify optimal subsampling strategy

16. REGIONAL MONITORING Nearly $20M/year is spent on routine marine monitoring in southern California -- >80% is associated with discharge permits Despite this expenditure we can’t provide a regional assessment of condition Most monitoring is site-specific -- Less than 5% of the southern California coast is monitored Existing data can’t be easily integrated -- Different parameters -- Different methods -- Inaccessible data

17. WHAT ARE WE DOING TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM? Two cooperative regional monitoring surveys -- $3M effort in 1994 involved 12 organizations -- $8M effort in 1998 involving 62 organizations Unique funding mechanism -- Regulators modified permits reallocating sampling effort towards regional monitoring -- Helps keep costs nearly neutral for participants Dischargers work jointly with regulators to define most appropriate methodologies -- Pooling of expertise -- Increase in communication

20. SANTA MONICA BAY SEDIMENT (Final Round) ComponentLAB-1LAB-2LAB-3LAB-4LAB-5LAB-6 Naphthalene213162170191139193 2-Methylnapthalene376435480532405525 Biphenyl659644850800606796 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 403212255343228269 Fluorene332550402453 Phenanthrene116131145130109141 1-Methylphenanthrene1662276851128 Fluoranthene15228015013587183 Pyrene22719615523079185 Benz[a]anthracene9112614511865114 Chrysene1138812115283145 Benzo[e]pyrene129115155183171115 benzo[a]pyrene12510919519116266 Perylene6291791107226 benzo[g,h,I]perylene30100ndnd10997 TOTAL3,2793,2803,6533,9272,9573,515

21. SANTA MONICA BAY SEDIMENT (First Round) ComponentLAB-1LAB-2LAB-3LAB-4LAB-5LAB-6LAB-7LAB-8LAB-9 Naphthalene54171279271392595421187 2-Methylnapthalene12948572159405615193653270 Biphenyl2337561,14097606770297650437 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 1312174013722820394356138 Fluorene0387522469nd2619 Phenanthrene01374699109112699590 1-Methylphenanthrene01540051ndnd3152 Fluoranthene7604952687108187173149 Pyrene9101,1202879111153165158 Benz[a]anthracene00284306538140100122 Chrysene600320318346167136151 Benzo[e]pyrene003671117163117195138 benzo[a]pyrene0040913162nd163189139 Perylene024918357232815983 benzo[g,h,I]perylene0060010930160163nd TOTAL8342,4187,6574512,9572,8362,2944,0342,493

22. STORMWATER ASSESSMENT Where does the plume go? Is it toxic? -- Seasonal patterns What are the causes of toxicity -- Toxicity identification evaluation

25. Ballona Creek Stormwater

26. DISSOLVED METALS Median Effective ConcentrationBallona Creek(ug/L) Cd1200nd-1 CU313 – 28 Zn2236 – 183 Mn>40,0001 – 114 Pbnd – 16 Ni1 - 5

27. Dilution Decay Current Beach Bacterial Concentration Flow Plume Dispersion Study Storm Drain

32. SOME SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS OF TMDL DEVELOPMENT Problem definition Source identification Model development -- Hydrodynamic component -- Rate processes

33. Source 1 100,000 MPN/100mL Slow Stream, Fast Degradation Source 1 100,000 MPN/100mL Source 2 1,000 MPN/100mL FLOW 10,000 5,000 1,000 200900 Fast Stream, Slow Degradation Source 2 1,000 MPN/100mL FLOW 95,000 90,000 85,000 80,000995

34. BACTERIAL DEGRADATION STUDY Six day study -- Every six hours the first day Three bacteria plus virus Several potential factors -- Type of inocculant (sewage, stormwater) -- Temperature -- UV radiation -- Suspended solids -- Nutrient concentration