1 / 15

Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan

Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan. RMP CFWG Meeting January 15, 2008. Management Context. CFWG addresses linkages between sources and exposure/effects In Bay transport/partition/transformation/removal processes

elu
Download Presentation

Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan

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. Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan RMP CFWG Meeting January 15, 2008

  2. Management Context • CFWG addresses linkages between sources and exposure/effects • 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

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

  4. Pollutant Priorities • To date prioritized by focusing on individual contaminants (mirroring TMDLs) • Pollutant priorities • High: PCBs (via multi-box fate model) (mostly done?), Hg – in progress • Medium: dioxin, Se, current pesticides, pharma • Low: OC pesticides, trace metals

  5. #0: PCBs Priorities • Are PCBs mostly done for now? • Yes - already more effort than for anything else • Continued coring (not just for PCBs) • Golden Gate export (also not just PCBs) • Other possibilities but low priority? • No - large uncertainties in many parameters • Full 2 or 3-D ? Model complexity outpaces input data? • Does sedimentation component need revision

  6. #1: Hg Priorities • Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury? (Hg Strategy Q2) • SPLWG focus on sources & loads • CFWG focus on process linkages • Sed/water transport/mixing, speciation, partitioning, de/methylation, export, burial, uptake* • EEWG focus on food web/effects • *CFWG linkage via abiotic factors affecting uptake at primary producer/consumer level

  7. Process Priorities • (Particulate?) multi-pollutant priorities • Sediment cores: for PCBs and other analytes, & sediment mixing/transport processes • Golden Gate export estimates • Multi-pollutant model generalization: • Hydrophobic organics first? • Food web structure secondary (or for EEWG?) • Are there tweakable management levers?

  8. #2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Process Priorities • 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? [coring, Golden Gate export, model estimates also benefit other pollutants] • Multi-box application to other pollutants (PBDE>dioxins>Se>PAH>pyreth>pharma>Cu)

  9. #2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Process Priorities • Prioritize multibox generalization • Some efficiency in grouping contaminants, e.g. hydrophobic organics • But responsiveness to stakeholder needs important (RMP mission relevance and timeliness) • Need/ability to develop input data to match • Priority not necessarily set by TMDL but by stakeholder interest • Or multibox revision? • Adjustable sedimentation in segments first?

  10. Questions Review: • Are the priorities and questions appropriate? 0. PCB specific questions sufficiently answered for now? • Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury? • 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?

  11. #0 PCB elements • Right elements, right study priorities? • None specifically planned for PCBs (more general transport) • More PCB specific questions • Degradation rates? Hot spot transport? – currently put into the lower priority category for potential studies

  12. #1: Hg Elements • Right elements, right study priorities? • Already funded • Sediment reactive Hg special study (UCSC) • 2008 RMP Data Integration- MeHg mass budget as a tool for prioritizing data gaps • 2008 bioaccumulation (EEPS & CFWG) small fish project expansion • To be funded • 2008 SS RFP and proposal package: “Identify high leverage sources, processes, pathways” • Missing components?

  13. #2: Process Priority Elements • Right elements, right study priorities? • Continued coring (alternate years special study? S&T element?) • How much is sufficient/ representative? • Sediment export – • Remote observations (Oram), G Gate, other bridges (Schoellhamer) • Multibox Screening application or revision for bathymetry • Would need loads, literature review for new pollutants • Pollutant Priorities set by stakeholder interest

  14. Budget and Timeline • Appropriate distribution?

  15. Budget & Timeline Review: • Are the budget allocations and timing appropriate? • Commensurate with importance of pollutant questions • In time to inform management actions • TMDL schedule may affect prioritization

More Related