1 / 37

San Francisco Bay Pilot

San Francisco Bay Pilot. Mike Connor Executive Director San Francisco Estuary Institute. Federal Agencies EPA - Karen Schwinn, Associate Director, OW,, Region 9 NOAA - Rebecca Smyth, California Regional Coordinator USGS - Jim Cloern, Dave Schoelhamer, Research Scientists

ericyoung
Download Presentation

San Francisco Bay Pilot

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. San Francisco Bay Pilot Mike Connor Executive Director San Francisco Estuary Institute

  2. Federal Agencies EPA - Karen Schwinn, Associate Director, OW,, Region 9 NOAA - Rebecca Smyth, California Regional Coordinator USGS - Jim Cloern, Dave Schoelhamer, Research Scientists USFWS - Colin Eagle-Smith, Environmental Contaminants State of California Steve Ritchie, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Dr. Paul Siri, State Coastal Conservancy Tom Mumley, San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Chuck Armor, Interagency Ecological Program Marcia Brockbank, San Francisco Estuary Program Barbara Washburn, OEHHA Dr. Terry Fleming, SWAMP, (EPA on-loan) Academia Dr. Toby Garfield, San Francisco State University Dr. John Largier, UC Davis, Bodega Bay Non-profit Sector Heather Kerkerring, CeNCOOS Dr. Francisco Chavez, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Denise Greig, The Marine Mammal Center Partners

  3. Replumbing the Bay:The CA Water ProjectsSince 1956 ~30% of inflow routed to irrigation and Southern California

  4. 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 Delta Smelt (IEP)

  5. Spring Calanoid Abundance (IEP) P. amurensis L. tetraspina Number per cubic meter

  6. Current Projects in the San Francisco Bay Region

  7. Few Contaminants Account for Most Risk Ratio of Amounts in Fish to Benchmark 10 5 1 Hg PCBs Dioxins Se Dieldrin DDT Chlordane

  8. Legacy Pollutants: Amount in Bay >30x larger than annual inputs

  9. Bay Sediment PCBS

  10. Hydraulic Mining Dominates the Bay Sediment Budget Practiced 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 Expected response Sediment yield time

  11. Sentinel Species for Evaluating Mercury Release Mississippi silverside 2005 Unpublished data provided by Darell Slotton

  12. Effects Egg Hg Linking Mercury to Effects:A Conceptual Model Abandon Abandonment Hatchability (Obj. 1A) Trophic Transfer Egg Hg Egg Hg Fail-to-Hatch (Obj. 1B) Maternal Transfer Incubation Hatch (Obj. 3) Survive Chick Survival (Obj. 2) Mortality (<10 d) Egg Hg

  13. Wetland Goals Project Past Present Future Wetland Design Guidelines: www.wrmp.org

  14. Updates linked to Ca 401 Certification Program

  15. Part of a Developmental Framework for Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring 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

  16. Landscape Context Hydrology Physical Structure Biotic Structure CRAM Design Template Wetland Condition • Four attributes of wetland function contribute to the overall wetland condition • Scores are recorded for metrics for these attributes

  17. Multiple Level of Effects (MLOE)

  18. Western Waterfowl Migration Routes • 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

  19. Major estuary use Blood sampling common SF Bay Seals Draft Interim Report to NOAA Fisheries/NMFS, April 2001.http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~halmark/tagging.htm

  20. PFOS Detections in Baltic, Artic, and SF Bay n=3 n=18 n=26 n=12 n=18 Source: Giesy and Kannan 2001, ES&T;

  21. Thanks Dave Tucker USGS SERL USGS-RMP Sewage Treatment Upgrades

  22. Cloern, 2006

  23. Nutrient Sampling

  24. Heavy Emphasis Fresh Water Flows Nutrients Contaminants Wetlands Biology Little Emphasis Air Groundwater Summary

  25. 12 • 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 12 6 6 20 9 6 6 21 12 12 24 12 12 9 11 12 9 32 81

  26. Steps of CRAM Assessment Step 1: Identify and classify the Focal Wetland Step 2: Assemble background information Step 3: Sketch the CRAM Assessment Area (AA) Step 4: Conduct the office assessment of AA Step 5: Conduct the field assessment of AA Step 6: Complete CRAM QA/QC Step 7: Submit assessment results using eCRAM

  27. Fill out site info …

  28. And score the site conditions …

  29. Upload data from Field PC or transcribe from paper forms

  30. Then view the data. Select a site …

  31. Zoom to it…

  32. On an aerial image …

  33. Of the AA …

  34. And compare site scores to ambient condition

  35. Average PBDEs in SF Bay Seal Plasma

  36. 4 Mortality - Janet Thompson, USGS

More Related