December 1993 Issues Online June 2007 April 2007 February 2007 December 2006 October 2006 August 2006 June 2006 April 2006 February 2006 December 2005 October 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 February 2005 December 2004 October 2004 August 2004 June 2004 April 2004 February 2004 December 2003 October 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 October 2002 August 2002 June 2002 April 2002 February 2002 December 2001 October 2001 August 2001 June 2001 April 2001 February 2001 December 2000 October 2000 August 2000 June 2000 April 2000 February 2000 December 1999 October 1999 August 1999 June 1999 April 1999 February 1999 December 1998 October 1998 August 1998 June 1998 April 1998 February 1998 December 1997 October 1997 August 1997 June 1997 April 1997 February 1997 December 1996 October 1996 August 1996 June 1996 April 1996 February 1996 December 1995 October 1995 August 1995 June 1995 April 1995 February 1995 December 1994 October 1994 August 1994 June 1994 April 1994 February 1994 December 1993 October 1993 August 1993 Select any issue from the menu in this bar.

Inside the Agencies

HONING IN ON HOT SPOTS

Environmentalists coined the term toxic hot spot in the 1980s, but the spots had no hard and fast definition until this fall, when California's Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program generated the first draft list of toxic hot spots statewide.

To come up with the list, which includes 26 known and 60 potential hot spots in the Bay-Delta region (see map), the state laid out a precise new working definition. Under this definition, a known toxic hot spot must meet any one or more of several conditions, including: exceedance of water or sediment quality objectives for toxic pollutants in state water quality control plans; demonstration of toxicity based on Bay Protection Program testing protocols; exceedance of human health protection standards for fish consumption; impairment of growth or reproduction of aquatic organisms in tests; or significant drops in aquatic species populations associated with toxic pollution.

Making a sound assessment of sediment quality presents the stickiest side of the new criteria for listing right now, as state officials struggle to establish clean reference sites for natural background levels of contaminants. Reference sites offer essential points of local comparison in evaluating a spot's toxicity. But recent studies of long-thought pristine sites in Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay resulted in 50-100 percent mortality of test organisms. The S.F. Regional Board's Karen Taberski suspects the culprit may either be testing methods or natural interferences. To iron out these problems, an extensive Bay Area reference sites study is now underway.

Upstream in the Central Valley, sediment quality has played a lesser role in the hot spots listing process. "In our area, we're talking about whole moving rivers, not stationary spots," says the Central Valley Regional Board's Jerry Bruns. Freshwater sediment testing protocols and criteria aren't as developed, as "off the shelf," as those for salt water, says Bruns. Because of this, his list is largely based on water column criteria or health warnings on fish.

Under the state's Bay Protection Program, these and other regional boards are now refining testing protocols, confirming the status of known and potential toxic hot spots and developing plans for clean up. Contact: Karen Taberski (510)286-1346 or Jerry Bruns (916)255-3093

COMMISSION GOES FOR GOLD

The financially strapped S.F. Bay Commission sent a strategy for an ambitious increase in its coastal management activities to the feds December 1 with an equally ambitious $600,000 price tag. The multi-task strategy addresses eight priority areas laid out in 1990 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act. At a Commission meeting on November 18, members decided to place highest priority on the task of planning for reuse of bayfront military bases slated for closure. If awarded, over half the federal funds would go to a second task - forging a partnership with local governments to develop a Special Area Plan for the protection, restoration, use and development of the North Bay's diked baylands and open space. "The rubber meets the road at the local level," says the Commission's Will Travis. "Local governments are receptive to gaining predictability through a plan." Other tasks include updating wetland policies in the Commission's 1968 San Francisco Bay Plan, working with the S.F. Regional Board on assuming responsibility for Army Corps wetland permitting in the Bay Area and expanding the Commission's authority to address shoreline hazards. Contact: Will Travis (415)557-3686

STATE PROCESS QUESTIONED

A judge's ruling in October smacked the state's hand for not following its own rules and shook the foundations of its water quality planning process. In the lawsuit, five dischargers (San Jose, Sunnyvale, Sacramento, Stockton and Simpson Paper) challenged procedures used by California's Water Resources Control Board in adopting statewide standards for toxics. The standards guide two overarching state plans for inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries. In a tentative decision, the judge ruled that the State Board's planning procedures had sidestepped environmental and economic checks and balances, primarily by failing to write the equivalent of an environmental impact report required under CEQA and by inadequately considering economics and the characteristics of individual water bodies as called for in the California Water Code. If the decision is finalized this January, statewide toxic standards will no longer be in effect. The state can then either go back to square one and redo all its plans - a prospect neither the state nor the dischargers relishes. Or it can wait for EPA to promulgate the standards, as it has in other states. Contact: Gary Grimm (510)286-0889

«To @@(newsletter_title)@@ Index

[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]

Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project