San Francisco Bay Pilot

1
San Francisco Bay Pilot

• Mike Connor
• Executive Director
• San Francisco Estuary Institute

2
Partners

• 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

3
Replumbing the BayThe CA Water ProjectsSince
1956 30 of inflow routed to irrigation and
Southern California
4
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 gt30x larger than
annual inputs
9
Bay Sediment PCBS
10
Hydraulic Mining Dominates the Bay Sediment Budget
Practiced from 1863 1884, then outlawed. gt100
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Unpublished data provided by Darell Slotton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
Linking Mercury to EffectsA 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 (lt10 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, IBIs) and to validate Level 1
and Level 2 results
16
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

• 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
SF Bay Seals

• Major estuary use
• Blood sampling common

Draft Interim Report to NOAA Fisheries/NMFS,
April 2001. http//userwww.sfsu.edu/halmark/tagg
ing.htm
20
PFOS Detections in Baltic, Artic, and SF Bay
n3
n18
n12
n18
n26
Source Giesy and Kannan 2001, EST
21
Sewage Treatment Upgrades
22
Cloern, 2006
23
Nutrient Sampling
24
(No Transcript)
25
Summary

• Heavy Emphasis
• Fresh Water Flows
• Nutrients
• Contaminants
• Wetlands
• Biology
• Little Emphasis
• Air
• Groundwater

26
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
27
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

28
Fill out site info
29
And score the site conditions
30
Upload data from Field PC or transcribe from
paper forms
31
Then view the data. Select a site
32
Zoom to it
33
On an aerial image
34
Of the AA
35
And compare site scores to ambient condition
36
Average PBDEs in SF Bay Seal Plasma
37
4
Mortality
-
Janet Thompson, USGS