Tox RPT

Summary of Toxicity in California Waters:
2001 - 2009
J. Hunt
D. Markiewicz
M. Pranger
Prepared for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

November 2010
Summary of Toxicity Data Comparability
in California Waters
1 Assessment Questions
This document presents a summary assessment of toxicity in California watersheds and
coastal waters using data from SWAMP and partner programs. The following questions are
addressed:
1. Where has toxicity been observed in California waters?
2. What is the magnitude of observed toxicity?
3. How do the results of toxicity measurements compare among waters draining urban,
agricultural, and other land cover areas?
4. What chemicals have been implicated as causing toxicity?
5. What are the ecological implications of aquatic toxicity?
6. How are test results affected by the statistical methods applied, particularly with
respect to use of the Test of Significant Toxicity that US EPA recently released?
2 Background
The word “toxicity” is used here to indicate a statistically significant adverse impact on
standard aquatic test organisms in laboratory exposures. A number of different species,
including crustaceans, algae, fish, and mollusks, have been used, following widely accepted
test protocols with strict quality assurance. Toxicity test organisms are surrogates for aquatic
species found in the environment. Toxicity tests are especially useful in water quality
monitoring because they can detect the effects of all chemicals (whether measured or not)
and respond to pollutant mixtures. These results may or may not have any relationship to
human health.
The test organisms have been chosen because they are relatively sensitive to toxic
chemicals. Toxicity detected by these organisms might not acutely impact other types of
organisms. Endpoints are the measured effects on test species (e.g., fish, crustaceans, etc.).
All endpoints measured lethality (as % survival), except for cell counts for the algal population
growth endpoint.
3 Findings
Information is presented here to answer the key assessment questions. Additional
information, documentation, program information, data sources and literature cited are
available from the authors and will be presented in a larger interpretive report available by
early 2011.
November 2010
Page 1
Where has toxicity been observed in California waters?

The attached maps (Figures 1 – 8) show locations of sites sampled for toxicity by SWAMP
and partner programs. All sites presented in this document are color coded using the
categorization process described in Figure 11, which considers the available toxicity test
endpoints in both water and sediment. Relative to the 303(d) impaired waterbody listing
process, a site coded “green” would not be listed for toxicity. Sites coded “yellow” to “red”
may be listed if the number of toxic samples met the criteria outlined in the State Water
Board’s Listing and Delisting Policy.
Toxicity has been observed in all Regions. Streams in upper watersheds and mountainous
areas tend to produce fewer toxic samples, while samples from downstream sites in the
valleys and along the coasts tend to be more toxic. These lower watershed sites drain larger
areas with greater levels of human activity. Consistent sediment toxicity has been observed
in many bay and harbor sites. In most years since 1991, for example, annual surveys of San
Francisco Bay have shown at least moderate sediment toxicity at a majority of sites
throughout the Bay.
Figures 1 – 8. See maps at the end of this document.
Table 1. Summary of information presented in attached maps (Figures 1 through 8)
Figure Spatial Results Presented
No. Coverage (water, sediment, or both)
1 Statewide Both
2 Statewide Sediment
3 Statewide Water
4 Northern CA Both
5 Central CA Both
6 Southern CA Both
7 Statewide Water (summary by Region)
8 Statewide Sediment (summary by Region)
What is the magnitude of observed toxicity?

Of the 992 sites in this assessment, 473 (48%) had at least one sample in which toxicity was
measured in either water or sediment with at least one endpoint (e.g., lethality in one of the
test species). Of these, 129 (13% of the total) were classified as high toxicity sites, meaning
that the average result for the most sensitive species in all samples from the site was more
toxic than the high toxicity threshold for that species (see Figures 7 and 8).
November 2010
Page 2
Different Regional Boards use different monitoring designs based on water quality priorities.
The North Coast (Region 1) and Lahontan (Region 6) Regions, for example, tend to focus on
sedimentation and habitat degradation, so the number of sites in these Regions for which
there were toxicity data for this assessment was relatively low (12 sites in each). The
greatest number of sites (298) was in the Central Valley Region (Region 5), which has many
lowland waterbodies where pollution from toxic chemicals is a concern. Many Regions have
conducted non-SWAMP toxicity studies; however, those data are not yet available in CEDEN
so they have not been included in this assessment. The percentage of sites with at least one
toxic sample ranged from 17% in the Lahontan Region (Region 6) to over 50% in the San
Francisco Bay (Region 2), Central Coast (Region 3), Central Valley (Region 5), and Santa
Ana Regions (Region 8)(see Figures 7 and 8).
How do the results of toxicity measurements compare among waters draining urban,
agricultural, and other land cover areas?
Samples from sites in agricultural and urban areas had significantly higher toxicity than sites
in less developed areas (Figure 9), and had a greater magnitude of toxicity (Figure 10). The
differences in toxicity between undeveloped and urban areas was highly statistically
significant (p < 0.0005); and the same is true for the difference between undeveloped and
agricultural areas. A subset of the sites assessed (536 out of 992) for this report were
mapped and categorized for land cover using geographic information system (GIS) analysis.
For each site, an area 1 km upstream (including tributaries) and 500 m on either side of the
stream was mapped. If land cover within those areas was greater than 10% “developed”
(National Land Cover Dataset classification), they were designated as urban. This is based
on the widely supported impervious surface area model that shows decreased ecological
condition in streams draining lands with greater than 10% impervious surface area. Sites
with greater than 25% agricultural land cover were classified as agricultural sites. Sites were
classified as “undeveloped” if they had both less than 10% urban and less than 25%
agricultural land cover. Sites were classified as “ag-urban” if they had both greater than 10%
urban and 25% agricultural land cover.
November 2010
Page 3
Figure 9. Toxicity distribution for samples collected from sites in urban, agricultural, and less
developed areas. Lower values represent lower levels of survival, and indicate higher
toxicity. Data are for the most sensitive test species at each site. Solid lines, from top to
bottom, represent the 90th, 75th, 50th (median), 25th and 10th percentiles of the distribution.
Dotted lines are the mean result.
95th
100 75th
Most Toxic Species Performance
50th (median)
80
Increasing Toxicity
Mean
(% Control)
60
25th
40
20
10th
0
Undeveloped Agricultural Urban

[ <25% Ag, <10% Urb] [ >25% Ag, <10% Urb] [ >10% Urb, <25% Ag]
November 2010
Page 4
Figure 10. Numbers of sites (as a percentage of all sites in each land-cover category)
classified as non-toxic, moderately toxic, or highly toxic, using the coding system shown in
Figure 11. Some significant toxicity (yellow) and moderate toxicity (orange) categories are
combined here.
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0 Nontoxic (%)
40.0 Toxic (%)
30.0
Highly Toxic (%)
20.0
10.0
0.0
Undeveloped Agricultural Urban Ag‐Urban
(n=125) (n=62) (n=289) (n=60)
What chemicals have been implicated as causing toxicity?

There are thousands of pollutants that can cause biological impacts in waterways, and only
about 140 are routinely measured. Ambient water and sediment samples often contain
complex mixtures of many pollutants, often with additive effects. Toxicity tests are especially
useful in water quality monitoring because they can detect the effects of all chemicals
(whether measured or not) and also respond to pollutant mixtures. To find out which
chemicals in a sample are causing adverse impacts, toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs)
can be used to provide direct experimental evidence.
Table 2 summarizes dozens of studies in which TIEs have identified the causes of toxicity in
ambient water and sediment samples from California waterbodies, from 1991 to the present.
With the exception of ammonia, all of these ambient TIEs implicated pesticides, primarily
organophosphates and, more recently, pyrethroids. It is important to note that pesticides are
implicated as causing toxicity in streams draining residential and urban areas as well as
agricultural land.
November 2010
Page 5
Table 2. Classes of chemicals and specific compounds shown to have caused toxicity in
California waterbodies. The third and fourth columns give the numbers of samples in which
each of the chemicals listed was implicated in the TIEs conducted by the various studies.
Class Compound Water Sediment
Ammonia Ammonia 1 -
Carbamate Pesticide Carbofuran 4 -
Chlorpyrifos 11 4
Diazinon 13 -
Organophosphate
Ethyl Parathion 1 -
Pesticide
Malathion 3 -
Methyl Parathion 3 -
Bifenthrin 4 8
Cyfluthrin 3 3
Cyhalothrin 2 7
Pyrethroid Pesticide
Cypermethrin - 8
Esfenvalerate 1 -
Permethrin - 1
What are the ecological implications of aquatic toxicity?

A small number of studies have measured chemistry, toxicity, and ecological indicators to
investigate relationships between observed toxicity and observed impacts on stream and
estuarine ecosystems. In most of these studies, the connection between observed toxicity
and ecosystem impacts has been well established. In five journal articles, Anderson, Phillips,
and colleagues measured declines in aquatic invertebrate population densities at sites where
toxicity was observed in the Salinas and Santa Maria Rivers, downstream of the confluences
with pesticide-laden streams draining intensive agriculture. These authors, along with Lao,
also observed degradation of marine communities at sites exhibiting sediment toxicity in San
Diego Bay, Newport Bay, and the Ballona Creek estuary. Weston observed population
declines of the resident amphipod Hyalella in Delta and Central Valley waterways where
sediment toxicity was observed, often in watersheds dominated by residential land use 1 .
1
Literature cited will be included in the larger interpretive report released in early 2011.
November 2010
Page 6
How are test results affected by the statistical methods applied, particularly with
respect to use of the EPA Test of Significant Toxicity (TST)?
State Water Board staff is developing, for Board consideration, a Policy for Toxicity
Assessment and Control to establish new numeric toxicity objectives. The proposed policy
includes new numeric objectives for chronic and acute toxicity, a new statistical methodology
for determining whether a sample is toxic that is based on the US EPA’s Test of Significant
Toxicity (TST), and monitoring requirements for wastewater, stormwater and some non-point
source discharges. The TST also would be applicable to monitoring conducted by SWAMP
so this assessment was conducted using the new methodology.
In toxicity testing of ambient or stormwater samples, a single site sample often is compared
to a laboratory control sample. In these tests, the objective is to determine whether a given
sample of site water is toxic, as indicated by a significantly different organism response in the
site water compared to the control water using a traditional t-test or similar statistic. To
demonstrate the TST approach for ambient toxicity programs, SWAMP data from 409 chronic
tests for Ceriodaphnia dubia (crustacean) and 256 chronic tests for Pimephales promelas
(fish) were used by the US EPA to compare results of the two statistical approaches. The
following data are from the EPA TST Technical Document.
Table 3 summarizes results of Ceriodaphnia tests analyzed with the TST test method. The
majority (92%) of these comparisons resulted in the same decision using either the TST or
the traditional t-test approach. Of the other 8% of samples, approximately 6% (24 tests)
would have been declared not toxic using the traditional t-test approach when the TST would
declare them toxic. In 2% of the tests (7 tests), samples would have been declared toxic
using the traditional t-test approach when the TST would not indicate toxicity.
Table 3. Comparison of results of chronic Ceriodaphnia ambient toxicity tests using the TST
approach and the traditional (t-test) analysis.
EPA Test of Significant Toxicity
The two
Toxic Non-Toxic approaches
Traditional Toxic 20% 2% agree 92% of
(t-test) the time (green).
Non-Toxic 6% 72%
This analysis indicates there is little difference in the assessment of ambient toxicity
regardless of which statistical method is applied to the data.
November 2010
Page 7
4 Next Steps
The assessment questions addressed in this summary document will be more fully evaluated
in a detailed report to be released in early 2011. The data set will be expanded to include
additional information from SWAMP and partner programs to more fully address the details
and implications of toxicity in California waters. Topics that will be more fully explored in the
forthcoming report include: differences between sediment and water toxicity results, specific
patterns related to land use and hydrology, additional information on the causes and
ecological implications of toxicity, and temporal trends. In addition to the forthcoming
statewide report, SWAMP will be producing separate reports for each Regional Board
focusing on regional toxicity issues.
5 Caveats
The following points should be kept in mind when considering the information presented here:
1. Most of the data presented here were collected by monitoring studies designed to
increase understanding of potential biological impacts from human activities. Site
locations were generally targeted in low watershed areas, such as tributary
confluences or upstream and downstream of potential pollutant sources. Only a
minority of the sites were selected at random; therefore, these data characterize only
the sites monitored, and cannot be used to make assumptions about unmonitored
areas.
2. These results may underestimate ambient toxicity because most samples were
collected as “grabs” by filling a sample bottle or collecting sediment at one point in
time. Toxic chemicals often flow downstream in pulses. Studies in which test
organisms were caged in-stream often have detected toxicity when grab sample tests
have not.
3. This assessment integrates data sets from a number of programs. This integration was
made possible by the SWAMP quality assurance conventions and the SWAMP and
California Environmental Data Exchange Network (CEDEN) data management
system. There are, however, data from a number of other Water Board monitoring
programs that have not yet been submitted to CEDEN and were not used in this
analysis. Information on data sources is given in Table 3.
4. The different programs often had different monitoring objectives, and there is large
variation in the number of samples collected at each site and the number of sites
surveyed in each Region.
5. For land use evaluations, only land cover within one kilometer upstream of a site was
considered for categorizing the site. As a result, only local effects were assessed.
There could be far field effects from other land use types that might cause toxicity at a
site, which were not considered here.
November 2010
Page 8
6. All sites assessed were located in ambient waters, such as streams or estuaries.
None of the data here represent effluent or other waste discharges.
6 Data Quality and Data Sources

Data Quality Objectives for this Assessment
Comparability and data sources for this analysis: This analysis was able to use data
collected by SWAMP Regional and Statewide monitoring programs, as well as by partner
programs, because SWAMP has a developed systematic structure to document and evaluate
data comparability. This structure gives data users the ability to quickly combine data from
multiple sources to perform integrated assessments. The SWAMP Quality Assurance
Program has instituted standards for data quality and its verification while the SWAMP Data
Management Program has developed data formats, transfer protocols, and the California
Environmental Data Exchange Network that allow data to be brought together.
Statewide survey: Data were pooled from multiple sources to create the data set used in
this statewide survey. The quality objective for data usability and comparability among data
batches was defined as follows: data batches were usable for this analysis if toxicity test
controls met test acceptability criteria as set by the test protocols. Other quality control and
metadata information were not considered germane to the goals of this report. Data from
multiple test protocols (indicator organisms) measured at multiple laboratories were
integrated into a single data set for analysis.
Threshold development: Thresholds for distinguishing between moderate toxicity and high
toxicity were developed using data from multiple laboratories for all toxicity endpoints
presented in this analysis. For this purpose, the quality objective for data usability and
comparability among data batches was defined as follows: data batches were used only if
classified as “SWAMP-Compliant.” Data classified as “SWAMP-Compliant” have been
verified as meeting all measurement quality objectives and requirements as defined in the
2002 SWAMP Quality Assurance Management Plan or the 2008 SWAMP Quality Assurance
Program Plan.
Data Sources for this Assessment

The sources listed in Table 3 are for the data currently available in CEDEN. Many other
studies by the State Board, the Regional Boards, regulated entities, and partner programs
have been conducted but are not considered here. Many of those data sets will be entered
into CEDEN as time and funding allow.
November 2010
Page 9
Table 4. Summary of data sources* and date ranges used for this assessment.
Region Project Date Range No. of No. of
Sites Samples
SWAMP Monitoring 11/14/2006 - 11/15/2006 3 6
1
SWAMP Stream Pollution Trends 10/14/2008 - 10/15/2008 9 9
Region 1 Total Sampling 11/14/2006 - 10/15/2008 12 15
RMP - Status and Trends 7/27/2004 - 8/29/2007 72 220
2 SWAMP Monitoring 9/18/2001 - 1/3/2007 58 366
Salinas River Watershed 7/8/2002 - 9/22/2004 45 268
CCAMP 12/3/2001 - 9/22/2009 123 513
3
4
Ag Waiver RWQCB5 3/26/2003 - 11/28/2007 155 1190
East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition 7/31/2004 - 9/25/2007 26 1246
5 San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition 8/24/2004 - 9/25/2007 24 1074
SWAMP Monitoring 10/30/2006 3 6
6
7
8
9
Grand Total 8/7/2001 - 9/22/2009 992 7007

*There are data from a number of other Water Board monitoring programs (e.g., NPDES wastewater and
stormwater receiving water monitoring) that have not yet been submitted to CEDEN and were not used in this
analysis.
November 2010
Page 10
Authors
John W. Hunt, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Toxicology, University of California, Davis
Dan Markiewicz, Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory, University of California, Davis
Mark Pranger, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, SWAMP Data Management Team
Acknowledgements
We thank State Water Board staff Jeff Kapellas, Dana Nolan and Wynshum Luke for GIS
analysis of site drainage areas and land cover, as well as for creating the maps of toxicity
results in California.
November 2010
Page 11
Figure 11. Site categorization process

The process used to characterize the magnitude of toxicity at each site was designed to take
into consideration the widely varying number of samples and test endpoints (such as fish or
crustacean survival) among sites. If any toxic samples were measured for a site, the site was
categorized based on the most sensitive endpoint. This process considers both individual
sample results and the mean results for sites with multiple samples. Relative to the impaired
waterbody listing process, a site coded “green” would not be listed for toxicity. Sites coded
“yellow” to “red” would be listed if the number of toxic samples met the criteria outlined in the
State Water Board’s Listing and De-listing Policy.
Is any sample from the site No Site is coded green:

toxic*? Non-toxic
Yes
Is any sample from the site

No Site is coded yellow:
more toxic than the high
Some significant toxicity
toxicity threshold**?
Yes
Is the mean for all samples No

from the site more toxic Site is coded orange:
than the high toxicity Moderate toxicity
threshold?
NOTE:
Yes *”Toxic” means sample result (e.g., survival)
Site is coded red: is significantly lower than the control result
High toxicity using the EPA Test of Significant Toxicity.
**The high toxicity threshold was derived for
each endpoint as the mean between the most
toxic 25th percentile of all toxic samples and
the point of 99% confidence that the samples
was toxic.
November 2010
Page 12
!
(
!
(
!
(
X
W
!
(
F
G!(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
(
!
#X
*!
(!!
(!
(!#
W*
(!
((
X
WX
W
( !
! (
( !
!
X
W X
W
(!
#
*
X
WF
G
(!
(
X
W
!
(!
(
!
(
!
( !
*X
WX
(!
# (!
(!
(!
WX (!
( !
!
(!
(
!
(
F
G
W
(!
X
W
(
!
( !
!
#
*(!
F
G
!
(
((
#
*
!
(!
(!
X
W
F
GF
G
X
W!( !(
!
( F
!
(!
X !
W F
( ( !
G
! X
W
(!
(
( (!
!
!
(
(
(!
(
G !(
(!
! (*# #
*X
W FGF
G X
W !
(
#
*
#!( !(* (XW!( !(X
!
( ! (
X
W
!
(
(*
!
( !
( !
(
!
(!
( X WX
W #F
G F
G
!
(
(!
!
X
W
F
G
FG #
* W
#
*
!
(
!
( #
*
#
*X
W
!
( !
X
W (
!
!
( (X
X
W
!W!
(
X
W
X
W
!
(
!
(#
* !
( X
W
F
G
(X
WX
!
(
!
(F
G
WXF
G
WFW
G
F
G X
WX
W
!
(
#
*
X
W
!
(
X
W
F
G
!
(!
!
(
(X
W
!
(
(*#X
W
( X
!
!
!(!
(
X
W
X
W
(
(
X
WX
W
#
!
* !
(
(X
(!
(W
!
(
!
(!
(!
! #*
*
F
G# #
*
(X
W #
*
!
!
(#
X
*
W
!
(
X
W
!
!
(
(!
(
# !( !(
*
X
WX
W
!
(
X
W
!
X
W
X
W#
* (!
(!
X
W
!!
((
!
(
!
X
WX
W
!
(
!
(
X
W#
*
X
WX
W
#
* X
W!(!( !(
X
WG*
F !
(
#XF
G
!
(
WF
GF
G
!
(
!
(
#
* F
G
X
W XX
#
WW
*
F
G
#
*
F
G
X
W!
(!
X
WF
G
X
W
!
(
(XW !
(
( X
X
W X
W
*
#
!
(
W!(X
W#F
*
!
(
G X WX !
(
!
(
W#
*
X
W!
(
#
*
X
W!
( X
W
#
X
*
WX
W #
* !
(
!
(
X
W
!
!
( X
W
!
(!!
(!
(XW#
*X
W
(!
(X
W(#
*
!
(
!
(
!(X
(!
W!
(
( X
#X
* !
!
(
F
G !
(
(W W (XW*#!(
!
(!
!
(!
(!
(
X
W#
*
X
W #
*
F
G
!
(
!
(
!
(X
W
#
*
!
(
!
(!
F
G!
(
( #
*!
(
!
(
!
!
(
X
W
F
G(!
!
!
(
(!!
(!
(
X
W!(!( !(
X
W(F
F
G
!
(
! GF
GF
G
F
G #*
* # #
!
(
( *
!
( !
(
W X
X W!
X
W X
W!
(
!
( X
W
#
*X
W
!
( !
(
X F
G
W!(!(*
#!(
!
( F
G !(
!
(
X
W !
(
X
W
!
(
X
W
X
W!
!
(
(#
X
W
#
**
!
(
X
W !
(
F
G#
*
F
GF
G
F
GG!(!(X
F
#
* W
!
(!
(
!
(
X
W!
X
W
(!
(
!
(
X
W (!(!
(!
(!
(!
(!
F
!
(
GF X
W
GF!
(
G
FX F
G !
(! (!
(
!
(!
!
( !
( !
(!(!
!
(
(
(
F!(FX
W !
(
GW
!
(
!F
G
(
!
(!
(X
W
#FF
* F
G
GG
!
((F
!!
(
X
G!(!(!(!( !(!(X
W
G
F
!
(
!
( !
( !
(
W (X
!
(
! X
W
W
!
(
!
(!
(G G
!
!
(
(
( X W !
(
X X
W
!
(
W!(!(!(F
G(F
! G
!
(
(!
X
W
( #
*
( F
!
#
*
F
G (G
!
!
#
(
*
!
!(
!
(
(! !
(X
W
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
(!
(
(
(!
!(
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state map.mxd (11/5/10)
!
!
(
(
!
(!F
G!
!
(!
(!!
(!
(
!(( !
(
!
(!
(
X
W
F
!
(
G!(F
( !
G(!
(F
G
!
(
!
(!
(
(( !
! (
(!
! ( !
(
X
W F (X
W !( F
!
!
(
X
W
!
(
X
WG
X
W
!
(
!
X
!
W
(
!
F
(
G#F
* G
GF
!(!
!
((
!
(
!!
((
!
(!
(
!
!
(
((
!
(!
( G #
* (X
!
W
(!#
*
X
W
!
X
W!
(!
(#
*
F
G
X
!
(!
X
W
(
W !(X!
(
!!
(!
( ( X
WF
G!
(
#
* X
W!(
# W
!
(!
(
!
(! ( ! #
*
( #*
*#*
X
W
*F
G
!
#
*
(!
(
X
W
F
!
(
G X
W F
G
#
X
W (X W !
(!
Site Toxicity F
GF
G!!
(
(!
(F
G#
*
!
( !
(
X
W!(X!
(
W(!(!(!(
!
(
X
W
(
!
(
X
W
F
G!
#
* X
W !
(
Ü X
W (!
! ( (!
(
! # F
W *
X G 0 50 100 F
G#!(!(!(!(X
* W
!
!(!
( F
G!(
Non-
Low High
F
G FG!
(
toxic Miles
Figure 1. Magnitude of toxicity at all California sites assessed, based on the most sensitive
species (test endpoint) in either water or sediment samples at each site.
!
(
!
(
!
(
X
W
!
(
F
G!(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
*X
# W !
(!!
(!
(!
(!
(
( !
!
(
!
(
(
!
( !
(
!
(!
(
!
( !
(!
#
* X
F
G
W
( !
( !
!
(!
(
(!
(
!
( !(
!
(!
(
!
X
WF
G
!
(
!
(
((
(!
!
(
!
(
!
F
(!
GG
(!
( X
W !( !
(
(!
GF
!
( ! !
( ! (
(!
! (#
* (F
G F X
W !( !
(
!
(!
#
* (!
! ( !
(!
!
(! (
!
(
!
(
(#
* F
G (! ( ! (
(
!
(! X
W
(X
W
X
W
!
(
X
WX
W
#
*
! F
GX
W
F
GX
W
F
G
F
G
!
( F
G F
G !
(
!
(!
(!
FG X
W
!
(
(!
(
!
X
W
X
W!
(
X
W
!
(
!
!
(
(
X
W
X
W#
!
!
(
(!
*(
!
( !
(
FG
F
G
X
W#
*#
F
G* #
*(!(!(#
*X
W
!
(!
(
(!
!(!
X
WX
W
!
(!
X
(
X
W
X
W
W##
*
F !
(
(!
! !
(
!
( !
(
W
F
G !
(
G
!
(
*X
WF
G
FG
!
(
!
( X
W
F
GF
G
#
*F
GX
WF
G
!
(!
( !
(!
( X
( ! (
!
(
!
(
( *#
! #
!
(
!
(
*F
!
(
G
!
(!
(
#
*#*
!
!
(
!
(!W
(!
(
X
W
!
(
(!
!
(!
(
!
( !
(
X
W!
( !
(!
(
#
*XX
W(#
!*
(!(!
!
(!
!
((
(
!
(
!
(!
( !
(( !
(! X
W!!
(
X
W
!
(
((!
(
!
(
W#
*
#
*!
( !
((!
( !(
!
X
X
W
X
WW F
G
((!
!
F
G
!
(
(!
!
(
!
(
(
! !
(
!
X
W!(!( !(
F
G(FG# !
(
X
W!
(!
* #
*X ( #
!
(
* !
(
W
!
!
( !
(!
!
(F
(!
(!
GXW
(
#
*X
W !
(
(!
(!
!
(
!
( F
G !
(
!
(
!
( !
(
!
(
X
WX
!
(!
W (
X
W
#
*
F
GX
W
!
(F
G !(
X
W!
(
!
(
!
(
X
WX
W
(!
!
X
W
(FG !(!( !( GF
GF
G
!
( !
(
W F
X F G F S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state map.mxd (11/5/10)
G G !(
X
W
F
X
W (X
W !(
(FG
!
X
W
!
(X
WX
W
X
W
!#
*
!
(
(!
FG
(
!
(
!
GF
( G !
F(X
W (#
*
X
W
X
W
!
X
W
!(F
X
W
!G !(!(!(!(!(!( !( X
WF
!
(
G
#
*# !
(
*#
*#
!
!
(
F
G
#
!
(!
(!
*(
X
WF
G
( !
( !
(
!
( X
W
*
Site Toxicity FX
W!(!(!(F
G !
(
#
*
G
!
( ! !
(
( !(
X
W !(
!
(
!
(
X
W (# *!(!(!( !( !(
Ü X
W !
(
! X # F
W * G 0 50 100 FG#
*!(!(!( !(G F
G
Non-
Low High F
G F!
(
toxic Miles
Figure 2. Magnitude of sediment toxicity at all California sites assessed, based on the most
sensitive species (test endpoint) in sediment samples collected at each site.
!
(
*W
# X#
*
!
(
X
WX
W
X
W (
X
W
! (
!#
*
X
W!(
F
G!
X
W
#
*XW
W
!(
(
X(!(!W X!
(
#
*
X
W
FG!
( X
W
!
(F
G
X (!(!
W #
*
X#
*X
W
*(! (!(!(! W
!
(
# !
(!
(
#
*X
W
#
*X
W
!
(
#
* !
(
!
(
!WXW X# X
WX
WX
W #
*X
WX
!W
XW
!
( !
(
X
! W
! (
(
X!
!(
! W
*
X#
*W
# X
WX
W
#
*!
(
X
W!#*
(
XW * # #
*X
W
!(
(
W
!
(
X
W
!
(!
(
!(
(
(
X#
*X
!W
X*(
!
!(
X
WX
W#
#
*
*
!
(
#
*
!(
!(
(
!
X
W
!!
((
!
(
(
W(
X
W
#
*X
W
X
W
#
* X(! (!
W
XW
W #
* X
W XX
WW
#
*
#
*
!
(
X
W!(
(
X
W
X
W
!
(!(X
!W
#
*
! W
W
( X#
*
XX(! W XW #
*
XWX
!
(
#
*!
(
X
W
X
W
#
X
W
*X(!#(!
W
#
*
! *
!
!
(
( (
#
*
(
!WX
W
X
X
W X#
W*
X
W!
(
X#
W!(
(!
!
(
*XW
W X
W
#
*
!
(
#
*
!
(
(!
(
!!
((
! !
(
!
( F
G X
W
!
(
XW
W #
*
X
!
(!
(!
(
XF
!
(
!
(!
(G #
* X
W
! F
(
#
*F
GG
F
G #
*
!
(
X
W X
WX
WX
W
X
W
!
(
!
(
X#
W *
X
W
X
W
!
(
X
W
X
WW
!
(
X
#
*#
*
!
(
X
W !
(
F
G
#
*F
GF
G
F
G# X
*(!(!W
!(
(!
!
(
X
W X
W
!(
(!
!
(
X
W !( !(
!( !
!(
!(
(
FGF
!
(
X
W
GF!
(
G
FW F
G !(
( !
!(
!
(
(
! (
(
! (
!(
!
(
!
!
!(X
W !
(
GX
!
(
!
(#
F
G
!
(X
W
*FF
!
(F
GF
GG
!
(!
(
X
W
G
F
!
(
!
( !
( (
X
G(! (!(! (!(!W
! !W
!
(
( X
!
(X
W
!
(!F
( G
!
(
! WX !
(
!(
( F
G
!
!
(
X
W
!
(! W
(
!(
!
(
!(
X!#
*
!
(( F
!
#
* !G
!*
(#
!
(
!
(
!
(
(
! (
( X
W
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!(
(
!
(!
!!
(
! ! ( !
!(
(
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\wattox map.mxd (11/5/10)
!(
(!
(F
G
!
(
!(
!
(!
((
!(
(
!!
!((!(
! !
(!(
(
!(
( F
G!(
!(
(
!
(
!
!(
!(
( !
!
(!(!
(
!
(
!
(
!
(!
(
!
(
!
!!
(
((
(
!!
(
!
(
!
(
(!
!(
#
* !(
( F
G(!
XW
W*W
F
G
!(
(
X X!!(
!(
! (
# !(
(!! !
!( #
*(!#
*# X(!
W
#X #
*W *
!(
(
! (
( ! *#
*#
X
W
F
G
X
W
!(
(
X
WX
W !
! (
( ! !
( * !(
( !
Site Toxicity G W
F XX
XW
!(
( ! !
(
!(
(
!
(
GW
F XW !
( !(
( !! !
(
Ü
(
!(! ( !! (
# F
W *
X G XF
( !! F
G(!
GW
!
( 0 50 100 !(
(!
(
!( (
Non-
Low High
F G ! ( !
toxic Miles
Figure 3. Magnitude of water column toxicity at all California sites assessed, based on the most
sensitive species (test endpoint) in water samples collected at each site.
(
!
i th
Sm
R.
(
!
North Coast
Kla
ma
RWQCB
th
Riv
er
River
Pit (
!
X
W
M
X
W
ad
Lahontan
Riv
RWQCB
er
(
!
F
G Su s
an
R.
Ee
l (
!
Ri
ve (
!
(
!
Sac r a m e
r
(
! Central Valley
RWQCB
nto
River
(
!
!(
( !
# X
* #X
W*WX
! (
( ! (
!(
(
!!
!(
W (
!
(
!
.
Feather R
ee
R.
(
! (
! (
!
W XX WW F
(
! G (!
k
Nav X Tr uc(
!
Ü
(
!
ar r
! oR
( (
! (
!
! * #(! (! (!X!XW
#
*
#
*X
W (
W
(
(
!
(
!
F
G
.
Ru
X
W XF
G
W (!(!
s
Cach
sia
(
!
e
Cr
n R
(
!
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\r1 map.mxd (11/5/10)
(
!
(
! (
! XX
WW
(
!
iver
#F
*
er
! (!(
X
W
G
F
#(!(!(!X
WG * W
!(
(
F
G ! (
!
Riv
! !F
(
X X
W
(
!
F
G
(GF
G
GX
W (
!
(
! (
!
c
A m er i
an
(
!
F (
!
(
!
(
! F
G
R.
mnes
Site Toxicity F
G (
!
(
!
(
!
#
* X
W su X
W
# F
W *
X G #
*
Co
(
!
Non- #
* X
W(!(!(! (
! F
G (
! 0 10 20
Low High (
!
toxic
(
! #
* X
W
(
!
! (
(
(
!
!
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
X
W (
!
Miles
#
* F
G (
! (
! (
!
#
*
WF G X #
#(!* X
W sensitive
(
!
Figure 4. Magnitude of toxicity at ! sites in!X
W(
!
X F
G
W
northernX
W
F
G *
California, based X
W
on the most
(
!!(
( !X
X
W
(W
(
X
W X
W
F
G
F
G
X
WF
GFG
FG F
G
(
!
!*#X
W
G at eachX W
(
! (
orX
Wsediment
X
W X
WX W
(
!(
!
species (test endpoint) in either water (
! (
!
X
W X Wsamples
X
WF (
!
F
Gsite.
! (!(
! #F
*G #
* (
!(
!(
X
W
F
G
X
W
!(
F
G
!F
! (
!
X
(
X
W (
! X
W
(
!
F
G
(GF
G
GW
(
!
(
! (
!
(
!
F (
!
(
!
(
! F
G
X
W F
G (
! (
!
R.
(
!
(
! #
* X
W
n es
R.
#
* m
mento
# F
G su
* X(!(!(!
W Co
(
!
.
Lahontan
(
!
e R
(
!
n
X um
XW
(
!
#
* kel (
Sacra
(
! (
!
RWQCB
! (
W o
(
! ( !
(
! M (
!
! (
!
GFG
(
! (
! (
!
#F
* #
* X
!*# X W
(
!
!(
(
(
!!
X
W
X
WX
W
X
W X
W !(
X
W
F
F
G
X
W
(GF
X
W
!(
F
GG
X
W
FG
!
F
G F
G F
G
#
* ( (
!
! W #
*XW
XW
W (
! !WX
GW
(
!
XW X
r
X
WX W
W X W (
F((
!
ve
(
!
X #
*
(
!(! XF
G X
W
Ri
(
!( X
W X
W (
!(! ( !
X W
W
(
!
F
GXG*
W
F
G X
W #
*
#
*X(! *
W(
! (#
*
!(
!
Riv
er
isl
s
(
!!
!
X X #
au
XW
W XX
W W ! (
( (
!
F #
* #
* # X
!W n e
!( X
W # Sta
!
#W X (
#
* #W X #W
*
(
X*
X*
(
!
*
n
W ( ! (
!( ! (
! (
!
m
(
!(
X
WW ! (
!
XW
W(
! X
olu
!X
#
* X
!W X
W erc
ed Ri ver
SF Bay X
W
(
!
W
Tu
(
!(
#
* M
X
WX
WXW
W
XX
WW
X
W
(
#
*
X
W ! WX (
! (
!
Central Valley
(
!
RWQCB X
WF
GX
W
X
W
X
W X
#
*
(
!
F
G (! FG#
*
F
GF X
W#
*
(
X
WX
W
(
!
X W
W G (
!
RWQCB
(
!
X
X
W
F
G X
WF
#
*
F
GF
G
GX
!(
(!
F
G
(
!(
(
!
X
W
!
!F
(G
#
*
# W
*
X
W
(
!
XW
X(! W
(
!
XW
WX#
*
#
* X
W
(
! (
X
W X
W
!
#(! W
* X
(
!
X
W X
W
#
** (
!
#
*(
! #
* X
W
(
!
X
W X
W #F
* G X
W#WX #
*#
*
(
!(
! (X
!W(
!
(
!
X*
W (
!
!WX #
*
(
!
X (!
W ! W
(
#
X
(
(
!
er
v
(
!
# F
*
Ri
(
! (
!
! W
( X(
!
X
W G (!
in
X
W X
W(!(!* X
W X*
W #(!
qu
(
(
!(
!(
!(
! ! (
! #(!*
(!
X
W
# (
! #
*
(
!(
!(
!(
a
(
!
Jo
! San
(
! !
(
!
#
*
X
WX
WX
W
(! (
!
G(! F
(
! G #
*
X
W(
! F X
W (
!
(
X
W
F
G
(
!
F
G Pajaro River
r
ive
Kings R
(
!
GF
G F
G
F
G (
!
(
F
!(
!
F
G #*
* (
!
X
W # #
*
XX
W
Sa
(
!
X
W X(! W
W
lin
! W
X W
(
#W
X*
as
X
Ri
(
!
F
G
ve
(
!
X
W
r
(
!
(
! #
*
Central Coast
(
!
RWQCB
(
!
(
! F
G
X
W
X
W (
! S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\r2 map.mxd (11/2/10)
X
W
(
!
XW
W X
W
X
(
!
XW
W
(
!
(
!
X #
*
Site Toxicity X
W
(
!
*
#W
#*
# X* XSanta Maria R.(!
G(!(! W
(
!
Non-
toxic
# F
W *
X
Low
G
High
0 10
Miles
20
Ü F*
G*
GF
#
FF
G
#
*
G#
F
(
!
(
!
X (!
W (
! !(
!(
Figure 5. Magnitude of toxicity at sites in central California, ! (
!( !
(
!( ! based on the most sensitive
!( !(
X
W
species (test endpoint) in either water or sediment samples at eachX site.
W X
W
( (
! (
!
(
!
(
!
X
WXWX
W
(
!
(
!X
W
(
!
(
!
X
W #
*
X
W
(
!
#XW*
#*
*# G!(!( X
W (
!
*
F
G*
GF
#
F
#
F
#
*
G Lahontan
Central Coast RWQCB
(
!
F
G (
!
X
W !( RWQCB
( !
! (!
(!(
(!
! (! ( (
!
(!
X
W X
(
W (
! (
!
X
W
! (
! !
(
!
(
(!
F
G F
G F F
G (!
! (
!
(!
(
(
! (
!
(
!
(
! X
W
F
G GF
G!(!(X
W
(F
!G X
W
#!(F
* (
!
GF
G
X
WF
G
(!
!
(
! (!
F
(G!
F
G
(!
(
X
W
F
G!( X
!(
(!
W!(!( X
(!
!(
(
WX WF
GF
!(!
(!(!G
(!
(
!(
(!
!
(
!
(!
!( (X
!W (F
!G X
W(!
!
#
*
(
F
G
(
!
(
!
(
! X
W(!
!
(
!
!(!
(
(X
W(!
! (
( G
F (
!
#
*
F
G (
! (
!
Santa Ana
! (!
!
W !( !( !( !( *
X (
!# !( ( (
! (!
!(!(
RWQCB
(
!
(!
! (
!
(!(
!(!(! (F
(!
(
!
G!( !( !(!( !(
(
! (
! F
G
Los Angeles X
W
F
G ! (
( ! (
!
G !( !(
F (
!
RWQCB ( !
! ( ! (
!
(! (
!(
(
!
X
W
( !
!
X
W
(
!
X
WXF
GG*
WX
W
X
W
(
!((
!
F# F
(
! (
!(
!(
!
(
!
(
!
(
! X
W (
!
WX
XW
(!
!
(
!(
(
!
(
!
X
W
(!
!(
(
!(
!
(
!(!
!
(
!(
(
!
G(
!(
!
(
!(
!
(
!
X
W
#
*#
*
X
W
# !( !(!( !( X
W
#
*
(
!
Site Toxicity GF
FG *
(X
(
!
WF
G X W
! (
!
W #
X * F
G X
WX G
#
*
F (
!
Ü
0 10 20
(
!
Non-
Low High
W (
!
( !
!
(
!
(!
!(
(
toxic Miles
(
!
X
W (
! (
!
(
!
F
G
(
!
(
!
#!(!(
*
(
!
#
*
FG (
!
#
* FG
(
!
( !
! ( W
X(!
!
(!
!
(
(W
X(!
! (
F
G#
* #
* (
!
(
!
(
!
(!
! (
(!
! ( (!
!(!(
Santa Ana
(
! (
!
(
! F
G
( RWQCB
(
!
W
X
F
G F
G
(
( !
!
(!
! (
(
!
!
( !
! ( ! (
!
(! (
(
!(
!
W
X
(!
!
W
X
(
W
XWF
GG#
XW
X
W
X
(
!(
!(
!
F* F
(
! (
!(
!(
!
(
!
(
!
(
! W
X (
!
W
XW
X
(!
!
(
!( W
X
(!
!(
(
!(
!
(
!(!
!
(
!(
(
!
G(!
!
(
!((
!
(
!
#
W
X
*#
*
W
X F
G
Colorado River
(
!
* !( !(!( !( W
X
(
!
GF
G # (
!
F
RWQCB
(W
XF W
X !(
G W X
! (
!
W
XW G
#
*
F
X
(
!
( !
! ( F
G# X!(!(
W
(
!
(
!(
(!
! *
(
!
W
X (
! (
! #
*
!( (
!
#
* *W
# XF
Ü #
*!(!( G
San Diego #
FG*W X #
*
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\r3 map.mxd (11/2/10)
F
G!( !( W W
X!( (
!
( X
RWQCB F GFG
W
X (
! (
!
0 10 20 W
X
F
(
!
G F
!
W
X !(W X!( (
!
(
!
G #
* W
X
Miles
W
X
(
!
G!( !( #
F *W X!( !(!(!(!( !( (
!
Site Toxicity W
XFG#
*!( !(
(
!
(
!
(
! F
G (
!
(
! W #
X * F G (
! ( W
! X !(
Non-
Low High F
G
FG F
G
toxic
Figure 6. Magnitude of toxicity at sites in southern California, based on the most sensitive
species (test endpoint) in either water or sediment samples at each site.
Statewide Water Toxicity
7.0%
No water toxicity sites

in Region 1. *
13.1%
55.8%
24.1%
586 sites
Note: These data characterize only the sites
monitored and cannot be used to make
Region 5 Water Toxicity
assumptions about unmonitored areas.
27.3%
45.5%
4.2% 2.3%
64.6% 25.0% 176 sites

31.3%
48 sites
Region 3 Water Toxicity No water toxicity sites

in Region 6. *
22.0%
44.0%
13.8%
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state chart map.mxd (11/12/10) Editor: J. Kapellas, OIMA

109 sites 20.2%
3.1%
1.9%
89.5%
5.6% Region 7 Water Toxicity
12.5%
162 sites
58.3%
20.8%
Toxicity
24 sites 8.3%
"
) "
Non-
) "
) "
) Region 8 Water Toxicity
100.0%
Low High
toxic
Ü
0 50 100 Region 9 Water Toxicity
2 sites
Miles 7.7%
66.2% 6.2%
*
Previous toxicity studies have been conducted in these Regions, but the data
were unavailable in CEDEN for assesesment at the time of this report's writing. 20.0%
65 sites
Figure 7. Magnitude of toxicity in water statewide and by Regional Water Board. Color coding
is as shown in Figure 11.
Region 1 Sediment Toxicity
16.7%
Statewide Sediment Toxicity
66.7%
16.7% 14.9%
12 Sites
7.3%
54.2%

23.5%
16.0%
61.8% 9.9%
12.3%
629 Sites
212 Sites
Note: These data characterize only the sites
monitored and cannot be used to make
assumptions about unmonitored areas.
20.6%
37.3%
6.9%
35.3%
102 Sites
16.7%
12.8%
2.3% 83.3%
S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state sedtox chart map.mxd (11/12/10) Editor: J. Kapellas, OIMA

65.1% 19.8%
12 Sites
86 Sites
20.7% Region 7 Sediment Toxicity

11.1%
41.4%
37.9% 22.2%
50.0%
Toxicity 29 Sites 16.7%
"
) "
) "
Non-
) "
) Region 8 Sediment Toxicity
18 Sites
Low High 10.3%

toxic 6.2%
40.2%
Ü
43.3% Region 9 Sediment Toxicity
0 50 100 16.4%
97 Sites
6.6%
Miles 62.3%
14.8%
61 Sites
Figure 8. Magnitude of toxicity in sediment statewide and by Regional Water Board. Color
coding is as shown in Figure 11.

Tox RPT

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Tox RPT

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Summary of Toxicity in California Waters:

Prepared for the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program

Where has toxicity been observed in California waters?

What is the magnitude of observed toxicity?

Undeveloped Agricultural Urban

What chemicals have been implicated as causing toxicity?

What are the ecological implications of aquatic toxicity?

6 Data Quality and Data Sources

Data Sources for this Assessment

Grand Total 8/7/2001 - 9/22/2009 992 7007

Figure 11. Site categorization process

Is any sample from the site No Site is coded green:

Is any sample from the site

Is the mean for all samples No

No water toxicity sites

64.6% 25.0% 176 sites

Region 3 Water Toxicity No water toxicity sites

S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state chart map.mxd (11/12/10) Editor: J. Kapellas, OIMA

Region 4 Water Toxicity

Region 5 Sediment Toxicity

Region 2 Sediment Toxicity

Region 6 Sediment Toxicity

S:\GIS\SWAMP\Toxicity Report\state sedtox chart map.mxd (11/12/10) Editor: J. Kapellas, OIMA

Region 4 Sediment Toxicity

20.7% Region 7 Sediment Toxicity

Low High 10.3%

Вам также может понравиться