Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan RMP CFWG

  • Slides: 19
Download presentation
Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan RMP CFWG Meeting September 14, 2007

Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan RMP CFWG Meeting September 14, 2007

Management Context l CFWG addresses linkages between sources and exposure/effects – – l In

Management Context l CFWG addresses linkages between sources and exposure/effects – – l In Bay transport/partition/transformation/removal processes Project effects of loads changes (management actions) on processes & ultimately exposure Fate work to date driven by TMDL needs – Mass budget/ conceptual models for priority pollutants, e. g. PCBs, Hg

Previous/Ongoing Work l Contaminant loads- NPDES permits, MDN, RMP river/trib/stormwater studies (Guadalupe, Mallard, Hayward

Previous/Ongoing Work l Contaminant loads- NPDES permits, MDN, RMP river/trib/stormwater studies (Guadalupe, Mallard, Hayward Z 4 LA) l Contaminant distributions- RMP, NOAA, BPTCP surface, USGS PAH/PCB/metal/Hg cores, USGS, UCSC wetland Hg cores l l Hydrology- USGS Uncles&Peterson, Gross, URS SFO Model Sediment dynamics- USGS Schoellhamer&Lionberger, Fuller radiodating, USACE Leahy l (Net) Sedimentation- USGS bathymetry trends, UCB Byrne/Watson in wetlands

Previous/Ongoing Work l Mass budgets: 1 box models for PCBs, PAH, PBDE; Multibox model

Previous/Ongoing Work l Mass budgets: 1 box models for PCBs, PAH, PBDE; Multibox model for PCBs; TMDLs for Cu/Ni, Hg, PCBs l Conceptual models for Cu/Ni, Hg (Tetra. Tech), OCpests, PCBs, dioxins (SFEI), OPpests (PERL), Se (LWA/PERL) l Speciation/Partitioning- Cu/Ni- UCSC Bruland/Flegal, Se- Cutter, Hg– Marvin-Di. Pasquale, Steding/Sedlak, PCBs – Luthy, DDT- USEPA l Transformation/degradation- Hg- USGS Marvin-Di. Pasquale, Cu/Ni- USGS Kuwabara/Topping l Biouptake- Se- USGS Luoma/Presser; PCB- Gobas et al. ; Hg. UCD Slotton, metals- UCSC Flegal/Luengen, Bruland

Questions to be answered: l l l Are the priorities and questions appropriate ?

Questions to be answered: l l l Are the priorities and questions appropriate ? Have we identified & prioritized the right workplan elements? (Are the budget allocations and timing appropriate? )

Right Priorities and Questions? l To date prioritized by focusing on individual contaminants (mirroring

Right Priorities and Questions? l To date prioritized by focusing on individual contaminants (mirroring TMDLs) – – l PCBs (via multi-box fate model) (mostly done? ) Hg – in progress Is it time to expand focus (or too early)? – – Expanded (generalized) application of sediment/ water fate/ transport models (multi-box) Other individual contaminants (Se, dioxins)?

#0: PCBs Priorities l Are PCBs still a priority for future work, or mostly

#0: PCBs Priorities l Are PCBs still a priority for future work, or mostly done for now? – – Yes done- already more effort than spent on anything else No more needed- large uncertainties in many model parameters and assumptions l Is multi-box sophisticated enough? – Model resolution outpaces input data? l Continued coring l Golden Gate export

#1: Hg Priorities l Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web

#1: Hg Priorities l Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury? (Hg Strategy Q 2) – – SPLWG focus on sources & loads CFWG focus on process linkages l – Sed/water transport/mixing, speciation, partitioning, de/methylation, export, burial, uptake* EEWG focus on food web/effects l *CFWG linkage via abiotic factors affecting uptake at primary producer/consumer level

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Priorities l What patterns of impairment are forecast for persistent,

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Priorities l What patterns of impairment are forecast for persistent, particle-associated pollutants for major segments and the Estuary as a whole under various management scenarios? – – – Piggyback off PCBs? Multi-box application to other pollutants (PBDE>dioxins>Se>PAH>pyreth>pharma>Cu) [other contaminants may benefit from coring, Golden Gate export estimates work also]

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Priorities l To prioritize do we want to continue to

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Priorities l To prioritize do we want to continue to mirror TMDLs? – – Some efficiency in grouping contaminants, e. g. hydrophobic organics But responsiveness to stakeholder needs important (RMP mission relevance and timeliness)

Questions Review: Are the priorities and questions appropriate? 0. Are PCB questions sufficiently answered

Questions Review: Are the priorities and questions appropriate? 0. Are PCB questions sufficiently answered for now? 1. Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury? 2. What patterns of impairment are forecast for persistent, particle-associated pollutants for major segments and the Estuary as a whole under various management scenarios? Any others, or tweaks to the above? l

#0 PCB elements l l Right elements, right study priorities? None directly planned –

#0 PCB elements l l Right elements, right study priorities? None directly planned – l Future coring, Ggate export have PCB component but not necessarily their only/central focus. Do we need more PCB specific questions answered? – Degradation rates? Hot spot transport?

#1: Hg Elements l l Right elements, right study priorities? Already funded 1. 2008

#1: Hg Elements l l Right elements, right study priorities? Already funded 1. 2008 Data Integration 1. l Me. Hg mass budget ($ via RMP data integration? )- tool for prioritizing data gaps 2008 top tier SS proposals (CFWG) 1. 2. l Sediment reactive Hg special study (UCSC) Hg isotope signatures (2 yr x $75 k) Reactive Hg in trib (& air? ) sources (1 yr x $60 -160 k) ~150 k placeholder in 2009, 2011 for Hg questions – “Identify high leverage sources, processes, pathways”

#2: Other Pollutant Elements l Right elements, right study priorities? – 1. Screening application

#2: Other Pollutant Elements l Right elements, right study priorities? – 1. Screening application of multibox (RMP data integration) 1. 2. Would need loads, literature review for new pollutants Continued coring (alternate years special study? S&T element? ) 1. 3. If not reorder (to match anticipated TMDL timelines? ) How much is sufficient/ representative? Sediment export – 1. Remote observations (Oram), G Gate, other bridges (Schoellhamer)

Budget and Timeline l Appropriate distribution? 2007 Me. Hg budget 25 Multibox screen 2009

Budget and Timeline l Appropriate distribution? 2007 Me. Hg budget 25 Multibox screen 2009 20 GGate outflow 8 Coring 180 Reactive Hg 40 Hg Processes 273 2010 25 50 PCB mbox finish total 2008 100 150 175 2011 2012 25 25 25 100 150 125 175 125

Budget and Timeline l Alternative (more even) distribution? 2007 Me. Hg budget 25 Multibox

Budget and Timeline l Alternative (more even) distribution? 2007 Me. Hg budget 25 Multibox screen 2009 20 GGate outflow 8 Coring 180 Reactive Hg 40 Hg Processes 273 2010 25 50 PCB mbox finish total 2008 2011 2012 25 25 25 50 50 100 75 75 150 150 150

Budget and Timeline l Alternative distribution? – More distributed coring effort l (Maybe) harder

Budget and Timeline l Alternative distribution? – More distributed coring effort l (Maybe) harder on sampling logistics? – l – 2 -3 core sites on RMP S&T surface sampling cruises Easier for analysis (esp. radiodating shorter half life isotopes) Distributed effort for process studies l l Pros/cons depends on study design, budget Large influence, large uncertainty = top priority

Elements review: l Have we identified and prioritized the right workplan elements? – –

Elements review: l Have we identified and prioritized the right workplan elements? – – What directions beyond proposals already made? Me. Hg mass budget may help ID gaps? l – RFPs to get proposals addressing specific elements? Other pollutant data sufficient for a multibox? l E. g. Loads and other details needs higher for multibox

Budget review: l Are the budget allocations and timing appropriate? – – Commensurate with

Budget review: l Are the budget allocations and timing appropriate? – – Commensurate with importance of pollutant questions In time to inform management actions l TMDL schedule to prioritize among pollutants?