|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
PAPERBACK PDF BOOK Free Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
MONITORING
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA'S
C O A S T A L
W A T E R S
Panel on the Southern California Bight of the
Committee on a Systems Assessment
of Marine Environmental Monitoring
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1990
OCR for page R2
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the panel responsible for the report were chosen for their special competence and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures
approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of dis-
tinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of
science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter
granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the
federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Frank Press is president of the National
Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences
the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,
and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to
secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy
matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the
National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel
O. Thier is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White
are chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
The program described in this report is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 14-12-0001-
30416 between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
National Academy of Sciences, Contract No. P-32690 with six California municipalities, and State of
California Contract No. 6-213-250-0 with the California State Water Resources Control Board. Federal
agencies that actively worked with the authoring committee include the Environmental Protection
Agent, Minerals Management Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Limited copies are available from:
Marine Board
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue
Washington, DC 20418
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-62163
International Standard Book Number 0-309-04327-1
Copyright (0 1990 by the National Academy of Sciences.
S189
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON A SYSTEMS ASSESSMENT OF MARINE
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
DONALD F. BOESCH, Chairman, Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium, Chauvin, Louisiana
JERRY R. SCHUBEL~ ~ce-Chairman, State University of New York,
Stony Brook New York
BROCK BERNSTEIN, Eco~alysis, Inc., Ojai, California
WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C.
WILLIAM GARBER, City of Los Angeles (retired), Playa del Rey,
California
ALLAN HIRSCH, Dynamac Corporation, Rockville, Maryland
FRED HOLLAND, VERSAR-ESM, Inc., Columbia, Maryland
KENNETH S. JOHNSON, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, Moss
Landing, California
DONALD O'CONNOR, Manhattan College, Glen Rock New Jersey
LISA SPEER, Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City
G. BRUCE WIERSMA, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho
Falls, Idaho
PANEL ON THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT
WILLIAM M. EICHBAUM, Leader, Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D.C.
DONALD BAUMGARTNER, Environmental Protection Agency,
Newport, Oregon
BROCK BERNSTEIN, EcoAnalysis, Inc., Ojai, California
WILLIAM GARBER, City of Los Angeles (retired), Playa del Rey,
California
WESLEY MARX, Author, Irvine, California
DOROTHY F. SOULE, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Staff
CELIA Y. CHEN, Staff Officer
JERRY M. NEFF, Rapporteur, Battelle New England Marine Research
Laboratory, Duxbury, Massachusetts
AURORE BLECK, Senior Project Assistant
. . .
1H
OCR for page R4
MARINE BOARD
SIDNEY ~ WALLACE, Chairman, Dyer, Ellis, Joseph & Mills,
Washington, D.C.
BRIAN J. WATT, r~ce-Chainnan, TECHSAVANT, Inc., Kingwood, Texas
ROGER D. ANDERSON, Bee Gee Shrimp, Inc., Tampa, Florida
ROBERT G. BEA, NAE, University of California, Berkeley, California
JAMES M. BROADUS, III, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts
F. PAT DUNN, Shell Oil Company, Houston, Texas
LARRY L. GENTRY, Lockheed Advanced Marine Systems, Sunnyvale,
California
DANA R. KESTER, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island
JUDITH T. KILDOW, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
BERNARD LE MEHAUTE, University of Miami, Miami, Florida
WILLIAM R. MURDEN, NAE, Murden Marine, Ltd., Alexandria,
Virginia
EUGENE K PENTIMONTI, American President Lines, Ltd., Oakland,
California
JOSEPH D. PORRICELLI, EC0, Inc., Annapolis, Maryland
JERRY R. SCHUBEL, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New
York
RICHARD J. SEYMOUR, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla,
California
ROBERT N. STEINER, Delaware River Port Authority, Camden, New
Jersey
EDWARD WENK, JR., NAE, University of Washington (emeritus),
Seattle, Washington
Staff
CHARLES A. BOOKMAN, Director
DONALD W. PERKINS, Associate Director
SUSAN GARBINI, Project Officer
ALEX STAVOVY, Project Officer
WAYNE YOUNG, Project Officer
DORIS C. HOLMES, Staff Associate
PAUL SCHOLZ, Staff Associate
AURORE BLECK, Senior Project Assistant
DELPHINE D. GLAZE, Administrative Secretary
GLORIA B. GREEN, Project Assistant
CARLA D. MOORE, Project Assistant
1V
OCR for page R5
Preface
PURPOSE
In 1987, the Marine Board of the National Research Council estab-
lished the Committee on a Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental
Monitoring. The committee's goal was to identity how monitoring con-
tnbutes to environmental management, to determine why monitoring does
not always produce useful information, and to recommend how more ef-
fective monitoring programs could be designed. The committee decided to
carry out three case studies: the Chesapeake Bay, the Southern California
Bight,: and particulate dispersion.
The following goals were established for this case study:
· to assess the design of monitoring programs in Southern California
In terms of their technical components and linkages to relevant policy
issues;
1 The purpose of this case study was to conduct an overall review and assessment of marine mon-
itoring in the Southern California Bight. Although there is a long tradition of monitoring in
the bight, there is widespread concern that intensive monitoring activities are not efficient and
that the information that results is not sufficiently used for decision making by governmental
agencies. There is also concern that monitoring does not produce a readily accessible, coher-
ent picture of conditions in the bight's marine environment. Accordingly, this study examines
Monitoring as a system that includes both institutional and technical aspects, then recommends
possible improvements to this system. This study thus concentrates on the interface between
technical or scientific issues and institutional and policy issues. It does not, other than for il-
lustrative purposes, attempt to describe environmental impacts or actual conditions of marine
waters and living resources in the bight.
OCR for page R6
· to use the assessment to develop guidance for future monitoring
practice and institutional frameworks in the region; and
· to assess whether monitoring meets society's needs as manifested
in regulations, public opinion, and scientific research.
In pursuit of these goals, this study accomplishes four main objectives:
1. it describes the natural environmental setting, including the physical
setting and sources of environmental pollutants and habitat change;
2. it reviews the regulatory and institutional framework, including
monitoring responsibilities in the government, academic, and public sectors;
3. it discusses the evolution of monitoring and current monitoring
activities in the bight; and
4. it analyzes current monitoring practice in the context of the first
three objectives and describes a conceptual framework for improved mon-
itoring.
In combination, these objectives define the overall environmental,
regulatory, historical, and institutional framework within which this study
assesses monitoring in the bight. The emphasis is on systematic use by
regulatory and management agencies of the data collected and not on the
technical adequacy of individual collection activities.
METHODS
The Committee on a Systems Assessment of Marine Environmental
Monitoring established a case study panel to pursue the goals and objectives
described above. The case study panel performed much of its work through
a series of fact-finding meetings held throughout Southern California to
seek viewpoints from the monitoring community. A planning meeting was
attended by panel members, representatives of the California state and re-
gional water quality boards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, municipal dischargers,
and various research groups. This initial meeting achieved three results:
1. members identified important issues for the panel to investigate,
2. prepared a list of knowledgeable experts who would be invited to
make presentations to the panel about these issues, and
lions.
3. specified background information needed for the panel's delibera
The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project prepared a report
for the panel providing background information for each monitoring pro-
gram in the bight, including detailed maps and data on sampling design,
parameters sampled, sponsoring agency, relevant permits, and cost.
V1
OCR for page R7
Experts invited to address the panel at subsequent fact-finding meet-
ings were asked to make written and oral presentations. They were asked to
consider specific questions about monitoring effectiveness and about their
personal experiences with monitoring programs. As a result, the panel
received information from experts knowledgeable about and experienced
with a variety of issues, including fisheries management, the relationship
of large-scale ecological processes to monitoring objectives, institutional
relationships, public health, nonpoint sources of pollution, legal and regu-
lato~y requirements, wastewater treatment, thermal discharges from coastal
power plants, public perceptions and interests, marine science, and moni-
toring design and implementation. In addition, some panel members made
field visits in the region. At the conclusion of these fact-finding sessions,
the panel held further meetings to discuss the structure and content of the
case study report and to review and discuss draft material.
ORGANIZATION
This case study is organized into seven chapters:
Chapter 1 The Southern California Bight provides a basic descrip-
tion of the geography' hydrology, water quality, climate, habitats, and
natural resources of the area. It also describes land use patterns and
economic activities.
Chapter 2 Sources of Pollution and Habitat Change discusses major
activities that result in pollution and habitat change, such as oil exploration
and production, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, power
plant thermal discharges, stormwater and surface runoff, aerial fallout, and
ocean dumping. It also contains a discussion of the characteristics of the
resultant pollutants and their concentrations in the environment.
Chapter 3 Regulatory Framework and Public Concerns sets forth the
basic state and federal regulatory framework (water quality control, public
health and safety, and natural resources protection) and the concerns and
perceptions of the public about certain policy objectives for the bight.
Chapter 4 Monitoring and Research Programs in the Southern Cal-
ifornia Bight discusses the relationship between research and monitoring
and the general types of monitoring applied in studies of the bight. It
-
characterizes the roles of government and of the private sector in these
activities.
Chapter 5 A Framework for the Analysis of Monitoring sets forth in
general terms the theoretical objectives for a monitoring program and dis-
cusses in detail a conceptual framework that will ensure that the objectives
are achieved.
Chapter 6 Analysis of Monitoring Efforts examines specific aspects
of certain monitoring efforts in the bight and evaluates the results in light
. .
V11
OCR for page R8
of the conceptual framework and the societal expectations in Southern
California. Recommendations for change are set forth in this chapter.
Chapter 7 Conclusions and Recommendations sets forth the com-
mittee's conclusions and recommendations.
THE STUDY'S AUDIENCE
This study was requested by the parent Committee on a Systems As-
sessment of Marine Environmental Monitoring. Its findings and conclusions
and the underlying discussion are an important source of information for
the work of that committee. However, because of high interest in the con-
dition of the environment and marine monitoring in Southern California
this report will be of substantial interest to parties in that region.
Although environmental monitoring is most often considered to be
within the exclusive domain of the scientific community, successful design
and use of environmental monitoring depends on a system that reaches
beyond scientists. The general public and interest groups have substantive
questions about the condition of the marine environment that monitoring
must address. Political leaders and policy makers need to make tough
decisions about the allocation of monetary resources to particular control
strategies, and monitoring results provide information upon which their
success may be documented. Public and private managers must imple-
ment control programs and be able to predict as well as determine their
success or failure on the basis of monitoring information. Finally, the sci-
entific community is vital to the appropriate design and implementation of
monitoring programs.2
This study, based on an examination of the monitoring system as a
whole, makes recommendations about marine monitoring that respond to
the needs and responsibilities of all these interests. Thoughtful considera-
tion, debate, and (undoubtedly) modification can contribute to the evolution
of marine monitoring in Southern California to make it a strong component
of the overall program of environmental protection and restoration.
2The incorporation of relevant scientific knowledge in monitoring programs helps ensure that
important questions will be properly addressed. Appropriate scientific analysis of monitoring
results will also increase understanding of how the marine environment functions and responds
to human impacts.
. . .
V111
OCR for page R9
Acknowledgments
The Panel on the Southern California Bight would like to express its
gratitude to a number of individuals whose assistance has been invaluable in
the development of this report. The committee thanks Dr. Jerry M. Neff for
his efforts as rapporteur. Appreciation is also conveyed to Jack Anderson
and staff scientists at the Southern California Coastal Water Resources
Project for providing the committee with the background document A
Historical Review of Monitoring in the Southern California Bight, as well as a
wealth of additional assistance. Brock Bernstein worked long and hard to
shape the final report.
Many thanks also to the following individuals for their valuable input to
the report: Blake Anderson of the Orange County Sanitation District, Gary
Davis of the National Park Service, Dorothy Green of Heal the Bay, Robert
Grove of Southern California Edison Company, Janet Hashimoto of the
Region IX office of the Environmental Protection Agency, George Jackson
of Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Burton Jones of the University of
~ , . . ~
Southern California, Edward Liu of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board, John McGowan of Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
John Melbourn of the San Diego Department of Health Services, Richard
Methot of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Robert Miele of the
County Sanitation District of Los Angeles, John Mitchell of the Los Angeles
Department of Public Works, Paul Papanek of the Los Angeles County
Department of Health Services, John Stephens of Occidental College, and
Ken Wilson of the California Department of Fish and Game.
The committee also expresses its special appreciation to the federal
1X
OCR for page R10
government liaisons who played an integral part in helping to make this a
relevant and useful document: Alan Mearns of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Brian Melzian of the Region IX office of the
Environmental Protection Agengy, Fred Piltz of the Minerals Management
Service, and Douglas Pirie of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Finally, a special thanks to the state and local representatives of
California whose concern for the region's coastal ocean environment and
support for this project allowed this endeavor to transpire: Susan Hamilton
of the city of San Diego, Irwin Haydock of the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District, Robert Montgomery of the city of Oxnard, Michael
Moore of the Orange County Sanitation District, John Norton of the
California State Water Resources Control Board, Jan Stull of the Los
Angeles County Sanitation District, Frank Wada of the Hyperion Treatment
Facility, and Craig Wilson of the California State Water Resources Control
Board.
x
OCR for page R11
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
1 THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT . .
Physical Setting, 1
Habitats and Natural Resources, 9
Land Use and Economic Activity, 11
SummaIy, 14
. . .
...... Xlll
..1
2 SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND HABITAT CHANGE . .
Major Sources of Contaminants, 17
Classes of Contaminants, 22
Overview of Environmental Problems, 35
Summary, 41
...... 16
3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND PUBLIC CONCERNS . . . 42
Regulatory Sector, 42
Interagency Cooperation, 50
Public Concerns for the Bight, 51
Summary, 52
4 MONITORING AND RESEARCH IN THE SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA BIGHT ........................................
The Monitoring Sector, 55
The Research Sector, 86
Summary, 95
X1
..54
OCR for page R12
A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF MONITORING
The Importance of Objectives, 98
The Role of Technical Design, 99
A Framework for Prioritizing Problems, 102
Summary, 113
6 ANALYSIS OF MONITORING EFFORTS ......
Institutional Objectives and Their Limitations
, 118
Technical Design and Implementation, 127
Technical Interpretation and Decision Making, 134
Overall Organization of Monitoring, 138
Summary, 140
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions, 143
Recommendations, 144
REFERENCES . .
. .
X11
...97
.... 116
..... 142
.............. 146
OCR for page R13
Executive Summary
With nearly 15 million people in the region, Southern California's
coastal ocean) is coming under increasing environmental stress. There is
little coastal space that is not subject to some form of development or
resource utilization-including oil extraction, commercial and recreational
fisheries, municipal and industrial wastewater discharge, ship traffic, and
recreation.
There is in the region a broad public perception of environmental
degradation. This is set against a backdrop of extraordinarily complex
natural ecosystem processes that are not fully understood, extensive public
and private efforts to protect and restore environmental systems, and great
public concern for the environment.
Environmental management efforts have included numerous marine
environmental monitoring programs. These efforts have been both ex-
tensive (for example, the long-term time-series resource assessments of
the California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigation [CalCOFI]) and
elaborately detailed, such as the monitoring programs for municipal waste
water and electric power plants. The total amount of money and effort
expended by public utilities, private industry, and government agencies in
marine monitoring efforts in Southern California is conservatively estimated
at well over $17 million annually.
1 This report addresses the region known as the Southern California Bight, the oceanic region
from Point Conception, California to Mexico and seaward from the coast to the California Cur
rent.
. . .
X111
OCR for page R14
As part of a larger assessment of marine environmental monitoring, the
National Research Council analyzed the effectiveness of marine environ-
mental monitoring in the Southern California Bight. The study committee
found an extensive system of monitoring of environmental conditions in
the bight, but also widespread concern that the system is not efficient and
that its products are not sufficiently used for decision making.
The committee found that because monitoring in the bight is predom-
inantly organized around discharge permits responding to water quality
regulations, there is a fragmented approach to assessing environmental
quality. There are deficiencies in monitoring for public health concerns
and nonpoint discharges. Also, there are no existing formal mechanisms
for integrating the wide array of monitoring activities and their findings; as
a result, it is difficult- if not impossible- to present a coherent picture of
the state of the bight as a whole. There is a glaring need for a regionwide
monitoring system and for effectively reporting findings to the public, the
scientific community, and policy makers.
In response to these findings, the committee recommends that a re-
gional monitoring program be established that would address public health
impacts, natural resources and nearshore habitat trends, nonpoint source
and riverine contamination, and cumulative or areawide impacts from all
contaminant sources.
A regional program should involve participation by the public and
scientific communities at local, state, and federal levels and should include
built-in mechanisms to communicate its conclusions to regulatory agen-
cies and the public, the committee noted. It should also include review
mechanisms and allow easy alteration or redirection of monitoring efforts,
whenever justified by monitoring results or other information. Anticipated
benefits from a regional program would include:
~ greater cost efficiency through use of standardized sampling, analysis,
data management, and coordination of effort;
· ability to address specific questions about environmental conditions
and resources and to alter or redirect monitoring efforts as needed; and
more effective use of monitoring information in decision making by
ensuring better communication with and involvement by the public and
scientific community.
Implementing a regional program will require coordination among lo-
cal, state, and federal agencies and the integration of their regulatory, data,
and management needs. Only through an integrated systemwide approach
can important environmental and human health objectives identified by so-
ciety be successfully attained: ensuring that it is safe to swim in the ocean
and eat local seafood, providing adequate protection for fisheries and other
living resources, and safeguarding the health of the ecosystem.
XIV
