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Unpublished data provided by Darell Slotton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