Browse All Documents
1–3 of 3
Status of Perennial Estuarine Wetlands in the State of California$0.00
Status of Perennial Estuarine Wetlands in the State of CaliforniaState Water Resources Control Board | November 1, 2008...Summary
Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state submit biennial reports describing the health of its surface water, including...
Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires each state submit biennial reports describing the health of its surface water, including wetlands, to the USEPA. This document reports on the health of California’s perennial, saline estuarine wetlands. Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water along the coast where freshwater runoff meets and mixes with salt water from the ocean. Based on the draft definition of wetlands for California, an estuarine wetland is an area within an estuary that is exposed at low tide and covered with rooted vegetation. The health of the state’s estuarine wetlands is estimated from a statewide survey of the distribution, abundance, and ambient condition of estuarine wetlands.
The survey had three components: 1) landscape profile; 2) probability-based assessment of ambient condition; and 3) assessment of selected estuarine wetland restoration and mitigation projects. The results help answer four fundamental management questions: 1) where are the State’s estuarine wetlands and how abundant are they; 2) what is the ambient condition of estuarine wetlands statewide and how does their condition vary by region; 3) what are the major stressors and how do they vary among coastal regions; and 4) what is the condition of permitted restoration projects relative to ambient condition. This fourth question demonstrates how data could be used to evaluate policies and programs affecting the distribution, abundance, and condition of estuarine wetlands.
The landscape profile described the distribution and abundance of the State’s estuarine wetlands relative to other estuarine habitats and explored the underlying causes through a detailed examination of trends in San Francisco Estuary. A probability-based survey was used to assess the ambient condition of saline, perennial estuarine wetlands. The statewide ambient survey involved 120 sites allocated equally among four regions: North Coast, San Francisco Estuary, Central Coast, and South Coast. An additional 30 sites were allocated to South Coast to test for a difference between large and small estuaries. The field survey was conducted in the Fall of 2007. The statewide ambient survey in turn served as a regional frame of reference for project assessments.
Both the ambient survey and the project assessments utilized the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM; Version 5.0.2). CRAM is a field-based method to assess wetland condition based on visible indicators of four wetland attributes: Landscape Context, Hydrology, Physical Structure, and Biological Structure. Results were reported as the percent of the total area of estuarine wetland in California likely to fall within four categories equally-spaced categories of possible CRAM index or attribute scores, which range from 25-100: Scores greater than 82 = Category 1; scores between 63 and 82 = Category 2; scores between 44 and 63 = Category 3; and scores less than 44 = Category 4.
Landscape Profile. Approximately 91% of the historical amount acreage of California wetlands has been lost due to reclamation and land use. Accurate estimates of estuarine wetland loss in particular are only available for the San Francisco Estuary. In spite of losing approximately 85% of its saline wetlands and almost 92% of its freshwater tidal wetlands, the SF Estuary has almost 44,500 acres of estuarine wetlands at this time, about 77% of all the estuarine wetlands in the state. Although land use varies among the estuaries of California, it has affected the distribution, abundance, size, and shape of estuarine wetlands in consistently deleterious ways. It has decreased the amount of estuarine wetland and increased the number of small wetlands, thus increasing the distance between wetlands.
In the more urbanized estuaries of the South Coast, Central Coast, and SF Estuary, many wetlands are embedded in intensive land uses and bounded by levees. These conditions diminish the hydrological and ecological connectivity among the wetlands, increase their susceptibility to invasion and local catastrophic events, and reduce their overall capacity to serve society.
Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006$0.00
Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams: Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006State Water Resources Control Board | July 25, 2006...Summary
One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is...
One of the first steps in managing our environmental resources is to determine their current condition by answering the key question, “What is the overall condition of California’s surface waters?” Often-raised questions relating to the condition of our waters include, “Is the water safe to drink?” “Are the waters safe to swim?” “Are the fish safe to eat?” “Is aquatic life healthy?”
The condition assessments presented in this report focus on two waterbody types: coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams. The assessments in this report focus on the question “Is aquatic life healthy?” The “aquatic life” use designation in California’s water quality control plans refers to the beneficial uses of waters that support either warm-water or cold-water ecosystems, including fish, wildlife, invertebrates, vegetation, and other components of aquatic ecosystems. While historical assessments of water quality have primarily focused on describing chemical water quality, this report includes assessments based on biological indicators when available.
This report includes assessments of the condition of coastal bays and estuaries and wadeable perennial streams statewide based on data collected through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). These statewide assessments represent the state’s initial attempt to make broad statistical estimates of the conditions of these waterbody types. It establishes baselines against which to compare future assessments. All the statewide assessments based on Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program datasets have known levels of certainty. These confidence intervals are not included in this report but are available in the technical reports cited. The statewide assessments rely on data from a survey design that generates statistically defensible, unbiased assessments of the conditions of these waterbody types. As such, they did not specifically focus on areas of high impact. Other sampling, which has targeted such areas have shown toxicity and elevated chemical levels in some areas. In addition, only a limited set of indicators were used for the assessments. These indicators are specified in each section.
The federal Clean Water Act’s Section 305b requires each state to report on the quality condition of its waters. The California State Water Board submits its water quality condition assessment report biennially to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The reports submitted by states serve as the basis for U.S. EPA’s National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress.
The Inventory Report is the primary report for the public about the condition of the nation’s waters. The report is also used to inform water quality management decisions, including the allocation of certain Clean Water Act funds among states. However, key reviews of national and state monitoring and assessment efforts suggest that the National Water Quality Inventory Report does not accurately portray water quality conditions, that the monitoring done by states does not always allow for valid assessments of water quality condition in unmonitored waters, and that a consistent approach to monitoring and data collection is needed to support core water programs (U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2000; National Research Council, 2001). As a result, the information provided on the status and trends of waters at statewide and at national scales may be inadequate to support decision making.
The water quality condition assessment reports submitted thus far by California have been based on a regional approach to reporting. The approach corresponds to the structure of the nine California Regional Water Boards and provides essential information for specific waterbodies. However, the assessments cannot be successfully integrated into an accurate statewide report because regions use a variety of assessment approaches and do not always apply criteria consistently. Also, due to limited resources, monitoring has generally focused on problem identification. Clean waters were less likely to be targeted for monitoring, and assessments were based on data with a bias towards sites that were likely sampled due to suspected problems. Furthermore, assessments could not be extrapolated to unmonitored waterbodies or those with insufficient data.
That there is no current way to develop a valid national picture of water quality condition speaks both to the monitoring and assessment challenges faced by states as well as the need for improved assessment tools. The California Water Boards have actively taken steps to meet these challenges. The Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program’s (SWAMP) comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy describes some of these steps (A comprehensive monitoring and assessment strategy to protect and restore California’s water quality. Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. 2005. [http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/swamp/reports.html]).
As part of the strategy, SWAMP has partnered with U.S. EPA on large-scale monitoring efforts through the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program October 2006 Clean Water Act Section 305b Report 2006: California Water Quality Condition Assessment Report effort relies on a statistical monitoring approach that allows assessments of the condition of waters to be extrapolated to unmonitored areas.
For 2006, U.S. EPA has agreed that California can use a different format to submit and meet its Clean Water Act Section 305b reporting requirements. This report would include assessments based on an evaluation of California data collected under U.S. EPA’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. The assessments apply to two waterbody types: (1) coastal bays and estuaries and (2) wadeable perennial streams. “Wadeable” streams are streams, creeks, and small rivers that are shallow enough to sample without boats.
The assessments focus on one beneficial use (aquatic life use) and are based on a limited suite of key indicators. Specifically, the report had to include sections summarizing:
• Statewide assessments of coastal bays and estuaries based on California data collected as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Coastal Waters.
• Statewide assessments of wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in California as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters.
• Assessments of northern and southern coastal California’s wadeable perennial streams based on aquatic invertebrate data collected in these areas as part of the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program for Inland Surface Waters.
When available, assessments from large-scale regional monitoring efforts such as the Regional Monitoring Program for San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast Long-Term Environmental Assessment Network, the Southern California Bight Project, and the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program have been included.
Specifically, more detailed assessments of the San Francisco Bay, the Central Coast, and the Southern California Bight areas are included as part of the coastal waters assessment. More detailed assessments of the Santa Clara River Watershed in Southern California and waters in the Central Coast region are included as part of the wadeable perennial streams assessment. Brief summaries of the Regional Water Boards’ surface water ambient monitoring programs are included in the final section of this report.
Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness in Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats: Final Report on the Status of Three Central California Estuaries$0.00
Watershed-scale Evaluation of Agricultural BMP Effectiveness in Protecting Critical Coastal Habitats: Final Report on the Status of Three Central California EstuariesCentral Coast Regional Water Quality Board | April 30, 2010...Summary
Along California's Central Coast, the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria Rivers drain to coastal estuaries that provide essential habitat for early life stages...
Along California's Central Coast, the Pajaro, Salinas, and Santa Maria Rivers drain to coastal estuaries that provide essential habitat for early life stages of commercially and recreationally important marine fish species, threatened anadromous fish species, migratory birds, and other wildlife. These are the largest watersheds on the central coast and each contains year-round, intensively cultivated agricultural land that supports a $3.5 billion/year industry producing most of the nation's lettuce, artichokes, and crucifer crops. Runoff from irrigated agriculture constitutes a significant portion of river flow during most of the year, and a number of studies have documented pesticide occurrence and biological impacts in these watersheds.
Evidence of pesticide impacts has encouraged diverse stakeholders to begin implementing farm management practices (MPs) to reduce pesticide concentrations and toxicity in agricultural runoff. This project is designed to complement ongoing evaluations of individual MPs with measurements of pesticide concentrations throughout the estuarine environments, including the water column, sediments, and in resident biota. Biological effects were measured at the organism and community levels. Chemical analyses emphasized pesticide impacts because previous research in these watersheds has indicated these are the primary chemicals of concern impacting beneficial uses. A broad suite of pesticides were measured, including legacy organochlorines, widely-used organophosphates, increasingly-used pyrethroids, herbicides and fungicides.
Sampling in the three estuaries was conducted from January 2008 until October 2009. A total of fifteen sampling events were conducted in each estuary, and these were divided between eleven irrigation season events and four storm events. Storm and irrigation monitoring included water toxicity and chemistry analyses for pesticides. Samples were collected at multiple stations in the estuaries and in key tributaries flowing to the estuaries. In addition, sediment toxicity was assessed at eight estuary stations and the tributary stations during three irrigation season sampling events. Benthic community characterizations were also conducted in May and October 2008. All sediment samples were analyzed for pesticides, as well as grain size and total organic carbon. Pesticide analyses in resident fish and sand crab tissues were conducted once in each estuary. The goal of this project was to establish a baseline of estuary conditions with respect to pesticide impacts as MPs are beginning to be implemented.