1 / 62

RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward

RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward. RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009. Core- What Is It Good For?. Bay pollutant inventory erosional time bombs? Model validation Conceptual &/or mechanistic Model development Empirical, mechanistic, hybrid Can recalibrate, but better up front.

cole-frank
Download Presentation

RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009

  2. Core- What Is It Good For? • Bay pollutant inventory • erosional time bombs? • Model validation • Conceptual &/or mechanistic • Model development • Empirical, mechanistic, hybrid • Can recalibrate, but better up front

  3. Approach RMP/CEP 2006 • Select RMP S&T (random) and continuous (undiked) wetland sites • Vibracore in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetlands/watershed • Freeze long core sections in field • Saw core into 2.5cm sections • Analyze sections at ~15 year intervals Using prelim. radiodating, literature estimates

  4. RMP/CEP Sites (Bay) • Representative • inventory, sedimentation • 3 sites Central Bay, 2 sites each other segments • Preference to RMP repeat stations

  5. Distribution of Sites (Wetland) • Loading history • Depositional zones • 1 site each segment • Pt Edith Martinez • Wildcat Richmond • Damon Sl. Oakland • Greco Island • Coyote Creek • +1 watershed site • Alviso Marina

  6. Lessons RMP/CEP 2006 • Waiting for preliminary radiodating slowed study • 17 cores x 10 sections/core = 170 samples • Created backlog at RMP laboratories (3+ years equivalent of S&T samples) • Total cost $300k+, hard to reduce, especially analytical costs (1 site = 10 samples x X analytes)

  7. Conceptual Model Sedimentation (from isotopes, bathymetric history) Similar in segment (shared water, sediment) But mesoscale differences (trib/shore proximity, etc) Pollutant distribution function of Sedimentation history Local land use/ loading

  8. Bay Hg Results < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960

  9. Conceptual Model Fits • Radiodating fits bathymetric history • North Bay erosive (137Cs, 210Pb near surface) • Central, South Bay ~neutral, or erosive • Lower South Bay depositional • Contamination fits sediment history • Top core sections ~ RMP surface sediments • Lower contamination in deepest sections • pre industrial background • Contaminants elevated in industrial period • Metals ~uniform downcore, PCBs higher nearer surface

  10. Wetland Hg Results < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960 < 1960

  11. Wetland Results • Radiodating fits sea level rise • All areas net depositional (2-3mm/year) • Lower South Bay subsiding, higher deposition • Contamination fits sediment history • Top core sections ~ RMP surface sediments • Usually lower contamination in deepest sections • pre industrial background • Contaminants elevated in industrial period • Sharper/higher peaks than in Bay cores • Watershed (Alviso) site ambiguous • Rapid deposition, but where is Hg peak?

  12. Need Cores? • Better than before, but enough? • N = 11 from RMP/CEP + 2-5 from USGS • N depends on which analytes • Maybe OK for Baywide scale but not enough for segment specific modeling (N=2) • Time frame needed • Before models need new data • Resolution needed

  13. Option 1: Repeat 2006 Effort • 10-11 RMP S&T (random) sites, 5 wetland, all Bay segments • Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland • Freeze/saw subsampling 2.5cm sections • Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals (150-165 samples) PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize • Total cost $350k+ ($300k in 2006)

  14. Option 2: Incremental Efforts • 2 RMP S&T (random) sites (optionally +1 wetland?) in one Bay segment per year • Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland • Freeze/saw subsampling into 2.5cm sections • Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize • Cost ~$50k for Bay cores, ~$75 w/ wetland

  15. Budget 2010, Two Bay Cores

  16. +/- Incremental Approach • Few sites, more often (e.g. 2 per segment, yearly) + Better workload for labs (20+ vs 100+ samples at once) + Costs better spread for RMP + Can get info on segments w/ greatest data needs first • Long time to get full Baywide set • Other details can be decided depending on program needs

  17. Back to Basic Questions • Do we need more cores? • Probably, especially if we plan sub-segment scale models • All at once, or a few at a time? • A few at a time is easier for many logistical and budget reasons • When, where, how many? • Best early/before models finished, random/ representative of areas modeled, # samples depending on model Q’s

  18. Nitty Gritty Details • Example design to follow if desired

  19. Siting Approach 2010+ • Use new random RMP S&T sites + Continue to build larger scale spatial data ± May get stations w/ similar characteristics - Low odds for special sites of interest (hot spots, watershed deltas, dep/erosional

  20. Sampling Approach 2010+ • Unpowered (push/gravity/hammer) cores + Low equipment needs/cost • Cores >1m deep may be difficult

  21. Sectioning Approach 2010+ • Field freezing, saw sectioning + Easy sectioning post sampling (solid core) + No hold time issues (within ~1 year) • Freezing causes core distortion • Clean (e.g. Teflon) saw difficult/impossible, but the devil we know • (Alternatively) Field or lab extrusion + No freezing needed (~ambient or cooler chilling) ± Cleanliness unknown, depends on execution (staff, location, equipment) • Need extruding equipment/attachments

  22. Analysis Approach 2010+ • Select set interval subsamples + Know which sections to send to labs a priori + Results from radiodating/chem labs sooner • Less flexibility on section spacing (longer or shorter cores, fast/slow deposition areas) ± (alternatively wait for radiodating, irregular spacing) • Skip sections + No need to composite 1 sample = 1 section, • May miss narrow peaks (how likely?) ± (alternatively composite sections)

  23. Analysis Approach 2010+ • Analyte selection- highest needs for particle associated persistent pollutants of concern • PCBs • Hg • PBDEs (top 5 sections each core) • ??? • Add geologic /anthropogenic factors • ICP-MS trace elements • TOC, grainsize

  24. Approach 2010+ Summary • 2 RMP S&T (random) sites (optionally +1 wetland?) in one Bay segment per year • Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland • Freeze/saw subsampling into 2.5cm sections • Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize • Cost ~$50k for Bay cores, ~$75 w/ wetland

  25. Dating: Bathymetric History (USGS Bruce Jaffe) Sum bathymetric changes between surveys + deposition – erosion Some sites depositional & erosional different periods

  26. Dating: Isotopes (USC Hammond) Cs in A-bomb max ~1960 Pb decay half life 22 yrs Decay/ mixing dilution can look similar If Cs & Pb similar likely mixing dilution

  27. LSB001: Fast accumulation ~150cm to 1960 ~60cm to 1960

  28. LSB002: Fast accumulation ~130cm to 1960 ~30cm to 1960

  29. LSB Wetland Deposition ~80cm to 1960

  30. Hg Analyses • ICP-MS HF extract (CCSF) vs CVAFS aqua regia (MLML)

  31. Lower South Bay 1960 = 30-60cm bay, 80cm C.Creek

  32. LSB Metals • Downcore concentrations noisy • Coyote Creek Hg max > Alviso! • Coyote Hg max @ 1960s depth (80cm) • Coyote Cu max @ 40cm = 1980s? • ~max Cu discharge late 1970s (Palo Alto) • ~surface sediment Cu USGS long term data

  33. Conaway 2004 vs Current 5nmol/g ~ 1mg/kg

  34. Lower South Bay PCBs • PCB in bay cores max subsurface • LSB001 max @40cm (60cm =1960) • LSB002 max @30cm (30cm = 1960)

  35. SB001: Continuous Erosion? ~0cm to 1960 ~15cm to 1960 Core ID: SB001, X: 564867.30345800000, Y: 4163027.61900000000 1858 depth: -122 1898 depth: -123 1931 depth: -157 1956 depth: -124 1983 depth: -146 2005 depth: -160 2006 depth: -161 Reconstructed horizons: 0

  36. SB002: No Change ~1950s ~0cm to 1960 ~12cm to 1960

  37. SB Wetland Deposition ~30cm to 1960

  38. South Bay Metals • Downcore concentrations noisy • Cu max @ Greco Island similar to Coyote, but into 1960s zone. • Greco Hg max ~uniform in wetland to 55cm = 1930s? (1960s Cs penetration to 30cm)

  39. South Bay1960 = 12-15cm bay, 30cm wetland

  40. South Bay1960 = 12-15cm bay, 30cm wetland • PCB in bay max near surface • SB001 (continuous erosion) at top ~5cm • SB002 (no change since 1950s) ~10cm

  41. CB001: No Change ~1940s ~0cm to 1960 ~5cm to 1960

  42. CB002: Erosion to ~1920s ~0cm to 1960 ~20cm to 1960

  43. CB006: Continuous Erosion ~0cm to 1960 ~12cm to 1960 Core ID: CB006A, X: 566290.21976900000, Y: 4174242.03589000000 1858 depth: -106 1898 depth: -134 1931 depth: -132 1956 depth: -183 1983 depth: -220 Reconstructed horizons: 0

  44. Central Bay Metals • Bay downcore concentrations smaller range than in SB/LSB • No dating for wetland cores yet • ~20cm subsurface max for Hg, Se, Cu in wetland, • Similarly high conc for Se, Cu @ surface, 60cm

  45. Central Bay1960 = 5-20cm bay, ?? wetland

  46. Central Bay PCBs1960 = 5-20cm bay, ?? wetland • PCB in bay max near surface • CB sites no change or eroding

  47. SPB001: Erosion to ~1920s ~0cm to 1960 ~5cm to 1960

  48. SPB002: Erosion to ~1880s ~0cm to 1960 ~2cm to 1960

  49. San Pablo Metals • ~20cm surbsurface max for Hg, Se, Cu in wetland • No dating for wetland cores yet • No secondary metal peaks • Deeper concentrations fairly constant

More Related