san francisco bay pilot mike connor executive director san francisco estuary institute
TRANSCRIPT
San Francisco Bay Pilot
Mike ConnorExecutive Director
San Francisco Estuary Institute
PartnersFederal Agencies
EPA - Karen Schwinn, Associate Director, OW,, Region 9NOAA - Rebecca Smyth, California Regional CoordinatorUSGS - Jim Cloern, Dave Schoelhamer, Research ScientistsUSFWS - Colin Eagle-Smith, Environmental Contaminants
State of California Steve Ritchie, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration ProjectDr. Paul Siri, State Coastal ConservancyTom Mumley, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control BoardChuck Armor, Interagency Ecological ProgramMarcia Brockbank, San Francisco Estuary ProgramBarbara Washburn, OEHHADr. Terry Fleming, SWAMP, (EPA on-loan)
AcademiaDr. Toby Garfield, San Francisco State UniversityDr. John Largier, UC Davis, Bodega Bay
Non-profit SectorHeather Kerkerring, CeNCOOSDr. Francisco Chavez, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research InstituteDenise Greig, The Marine Mammal Center
Replumbing the Bay:
The CA Water Projects
Since 1956 ~30% of inflow routed to irrigation and
Southern California
Delta Smelt (IEP)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003
0500
10001500200025003000350040004500
1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Eurytemora Pseudodiaptomus Sinocalanus
Spring Calanoid Abundance (IEP)
P. amurensis
L. tetraspina
Nu
mb
er p
er c
ub
ic m
eter
Current Projects in
the San Francisco
Bay Region
Few Contaminants Account for Most Risk
Ratio of Amounts in Fish to Benchmark
5
1
10
Hg PCBs Dioxins Se Dieldrin DDT Chlordane
Legacy Pollutants: Amount in Bay >30x larger than annual inputs
Bay Sediment PCBS
Hydraulic Mining Dominates the Bay Sediment BudgetPracticed from 1863 – 1884, then outlawed.
>100 million m3 of sediment washed into Central Valley.Main bed sediment pulse passed Sacramento ~1950.
Channel and floodplain deposits remain. still moving thru system.
Expected response
time
Sed
imen
t yi
eld
Expected response
Unpublished data provided by Darell Slotton
Sentinel Species for Evaluating Mercury Release
• Mississippi silverside 2005
Linking Mercury to Effects:A Conceptual Model
Trophic Transfer
Maternal Transfer
Fail-to-Hatch
Hatch
Mortality (<10 d)
Survive
Incubation
Abandon
(Obj. 1A)
(Obj. 1B)
(Obj. 2)
(Obj. 3)
Egg Hg
Ab
and
on
men
t
Egg Hg
Hat
chab
ility
Egg Hg
Ch
ick
Su
rviv
al
Egg Hg
Eff
ects
Wetland Goals ProjectPast Present Future
Wetland Design Guidelines: www.wrmp.org
Updates linked to Ca 401 Certification Program
Level 1: Landscape assessment based on the distribution, abundance, shape, size-frequency, etc of wetlands (e.g., NWI, Ca Wetland Inventory).
Level 2: Rapid assessment using checklists or other semi-quantitative devices to score wetland sites relative to a range of condition from least impacted to highly degraded (e.g. ORAM, CRAM).
Level 3: Evaluation of ecological services in their own regard (e.g., Unit Hydrograph, IBI’s) and to validate Level 1 and Level 2 results
Part of a Developmental Framework for Comprehensive Assessment and
Monitoring
CRAM Design Template
Wetland Condition
Landscape Context
Hydrology Physical Structure
Biotic Structure
Four attributes of wetland function contribute to the overall wetland condition
Scores are recorded for metrics for these attributes
Multiple Level of Effects (MLOE)
International Importance for Migratory Birds• Pacific Flyway Migration and Wintering Area (20% of N. A. waterfowl in the Central Valley & SF Bay)• Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network
Western Waterfowl Migration Routes
SF Bay Seals
• Major estuary use• Blood sampling
common
Draft Interim Report to NOAA Fisheries/NMFS, April 2001. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~halmark/tagging.htm
PFOS Detections in Baltic, Artic, and SF Bay
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Baltic Sea Baltic Sea CanadianArtic
NorwegianArtic
SF Bay
ng
/mL
n=18n=12 n=18n=26
Source: Giesy and Kannan 2001, ES&T;
n=3
1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
5
10
15
Bot
tom
DO
(m
g/L)
0
10
20E
fflue
nt A
mm
onia
(m
g/L)
SERL USGS
USGS-RMP
Sewage Treatment Upgrades
Cloern, 2006
Nutrient Sampling
Analyte RMP Range RMP Detection Limit USGS Range USGS Detection Limit
Dissolved Ammonium 20-250 µg N L-1 1-10 µg N L-1 0.8-292.6 µg N L-1 0.7 µg N L-1
Dissolved Nitrate+Nitrite 0.14-1914 µg N L-1 0.7 µg N L-1
Dissolved Nitrate 10-4650 µg N L-1 3 µg N L-1
Dissolved Nitrite 0-130 µg N L-1 0-8 µg N L-1 0.14-37.5 µg N L-1 0.7 µg N L-1
Dissolved ortho PhosphateDissolved Silicate 370-871 µg Si L-1 1-28 µg Si L-1 21.6-9370.4 µg Si L-1 2.8 µg Si L-1
Total NitrogenTotal Phosphorus
Particulate NitrogenParticulate PhosphorusTotal Dissolve NitrogenTotal Dissolved PhosphorusTotal Dissolved Phosphate 9-1192 µg P L-1 0.5-4.1 µg P L-1 11.5-617.9 µg P L-1 1.5 µg P L-1
Chlorophyll a 0.97-36.82 µg L-1 0.01-0.03 µg L-1 0.1-149.9 µg L-1 0.1 µg L-1
Phaeophytin 0.41-22.66 mg/m3 0.01-0.08 mg/m3
Chlorophyll a/a+PHA 0.14-1Dissolved Oxygen 4.33-9.90 mg L-1 0.30 mg L-1 4.2-14.6 mg L-1 2%
Conductivity/ Salinity 2.00-33.21 psu 2.00 psu 0.04-32.32 psu
Total Suspended solids 0.79-329.60 mg L-1 0.05-1.85 mg L-1
Total Suspended particulate matter 1-847 mg L-1 0.10 mg L-1
Dissolved Organic Carbon 0.87-7.4 mg C L-1 0.025-0.081 mg C L-1
Dissolved Inorganic CarbonpH 7.70-8.32 pH 0.01-0.10 pHParticulate CarbonPhotosynthetically Active Radiation
Response Variables
Ancillary Analyses
San Francisco
Tier 2
Tier 1
Summary
• Heavy Emphasis– Fresh Water Flows– Nutrients– Contaminants– Wetlands– Biology
• Little Emphasis– Air– Groundwater
121266
966
1212
12129
11129
81
20
21
24
32
Score card summarizes the results for sub-metrics, metrics, attributes and the AA.
Scoring is transparent and allows for easy evaluation of AA strengths and weaknesses.
Stressor Checklist can be used to identify possible corrective actions
Steps of CRAM Assessment
Step 1: Identify and classify the Focal WetlandStep 2: Assemble background informationStep 3: Sketch the CRAM Assessment Area (AA)Step 4: Conduct the office assessment of AAStep 5: Conduct the field assessment of AA Step 6: Complete CRAM QA/QCStep 7: Submit assessment results using
eCRAM
Fill out site info …
And score the site conditions …
Upload data from Field
PC or transcribe from paper
forms
Then view the data. Select a site …
Zoom to it…
On an aerial image …
Of the AA …
And compare site scores to ambient condition
Average PBDEs in SF Bay Seal Plasma
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
BDE 47 BDE 99 BDE 100 BDE 153 BDE 154
ng
/g
Mortality4
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0
5
10
15
20
Biv
alv
e B
iom
ass
(
g A
FD
W m
-2)
Janet Thompson, USGS