4.26 CEP/RMP Sediment Core Plan Draft & Comments CFWG Sept 2005.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Clean Estuary Partnership and the RMP Comparing two stakeholder programs producing science in support of policy James M. Kelly, Chair Bay Area Clean.
Advertisements

Benthic Assessments One benthic ecologists concerns and suggestions Fred Nichols USGS, retired.
AN OVERVIEW Jay A. Davis San Francisco Estuary Institute.
Mercury Strategy Outline RMP CFWG September 14, 2007.
Introduction of Version 2.0b Significant changes to sediment model –Box volumes are no longer static. –Net sedimentation is constrained by box geometry.
Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan RMP CFWG Meeting January 15, 2008.
RMP Dioxin Strategy Susan Klosterhaus Sources Pathways and Loadings Workgroup Item #9.
Dredge Data Evaluation TRC Meeting March Don Yee.
Developing Water Quality Solutions for SF Bay
Contaminants at the Estuary Interface Jon Leatherbarrow 1 Rainer Hoenicke 2 Lester McKee 1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 California Resources Agency.
Bay Sediment Budgets: Sediment Accounting 101 David Schoellhamer Megan Lionberger Bruce Jaffe Neil Ganju Scott Wright Greg Shellenbarger U.S. Geological.
Outline 1.Brief overview of multibox model (John) 2.Results of independent testing (Katherine) 3.Next steps for development (?)(John) 4.Overview of planned.
Concentrations and loads of PCBs and OC pesticides in the Guadalupe River watershed Jon Leatherbarrow 1,2, Lester McKee 1, John Oram 1 1 San Francisco.
Dioxins (PCDD/Fs) in San Francisco Estuary Mike Connor, Donald Yee, Jay Davis, Christine Werme RMP Annual Meeting May 2004.
Draft Data - Do not cite or quote Spatial and temporal patterns in food web accumulation of Hg EEPS Five Year Workplan Presentation to Exposure and Effects.
Draft Strategy Revised RMP Modeling Strategy John Oram Jay Davis Item #8.
Dioxin Sources, Loadings, and Inventory Data for San Francisco Bay RMP Technical Review Committee Meeting March 18 th, 2008.
Pollutant Loads to the Bay: Measuring the L in TMDL Lester McKee Sources Pathways and Loadings Workgroup and Watershed Program Manager SFEI RMP Annual.
Item #4 Slide 1 A Mass Budget of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers in San Francisco Bay, CA John J. Oram, Lester J. McKee, Christine E. Werme, Mike S. Connor,
PCBs Total Maximum Daily Loads San Francisco Bay Fred Hetzel SFB-RWQCB May 13, 2003.
Impairment Assessment and Conceptual Model of Legacy Pesticides: DDT, Chlordane, and Dieldrin RMP Annual Meeting May 4, 2004 Jon Leatherbarrow, Chris Werme,
The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project and Bay Water Quality SFEI Letitia Grenier, Jay Davis, Robin Grossinger.
Cristina Grosso, John Ross, Don Yee, Sarah Lowe Amy Franz, Pedrag Stevanovic, Jennifer Hunt Upload RMP analytical results from laboratories into the relational.
Introduction to modelling extremes
Ecosystem Modeling Framework For Quantitative Seascape Ecology Supporting Ecosystem Assessment and Management Howard Townsend NOAA/NMFS/OHC/Chesapeake.
Sensitivity Analysis In deterministic analysis, single fixed values (typically, mean values) of representative samples or strength parameters or slope.
Monitoring and Pollutant Load Estimation. Load = the mass or weight of pollutant that passes a cross-section of the river in a specific amount of time.
U.S. EPA: NCEA/Global Change Research Program Jim Pizzuto and students University of Delaware Changing Climate and Land Use in the Mid-Atlantic: Modeling.
Urban Planning Applications of GIS GIS can be applied to many types of problem. Among these are representatives of both raster and vector data base structures,
US Army Corps of Engineers ® Engineer Research and Development Center West Bay Diversion Evaluation 1-Dimensional Modeling CWPPRA Technical Committee and.
Ecosystems Climate and Land-Use Change Water Natural Hazards Core Science Systems Energy and Minerals, and Environmental Health U.S. Geological Survey.
1 of 25 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 5 - Define Decision Rules 15 minutes Presenter: Sebastian Tindall DQO Training Course Day 2 Module 14.
PM2.5 Model Performance Evaluation- Purpose and Goals PM Model Evaluation Workshop February 10, 2004 Chapel Hill, NC Brian Timin EPA/OAQPS.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Modeling sand transport and sandbar evolution along the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam.
RA-228 AND RA-226 FROFILES FROM THE NORTHERN SOUTH CHINA SEA Hsiu-Chuan Lin, Yu-Chia Chung and Chi-Ju Lin Institute of Marine Geology and Chemistry, National.
Modeling Copper Runoff in San Francisco Bay Area Watersheds Jim Carleton US EPA.
Anoxia in Narragansett Bay Can we predict it?.
1 Impact of uncertainty of land management practices on carbon sequestration Brian McConkey April 8, 2009.
Historical Sedimentation in the San Francisco Estuary Bruce Jaffe 1, Theresa Fregoso 1, Amy Foxgrover 1, Shawn Higgins 2 1 United States Geological Survey.
Benefits of the Redesigned RMP to Regional Board Decision Making Karen Taberski Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region.
Spring-neap Variation in Fecal Pellet Properties within Surficial Sediment of the York River Estuary Emily Wei VIMS REU Prospectus Presentation Mentor:
Atmospheric Deposition Strategy Straw Proposal. What Pollutants Matter? Highest priority – known impairment AND air sources: Hg, dioxins Moderate priority.
Application of Neuro-Fuzzy Techniques to Predict Ground Water Vulnerability B. Dixon, Ph.D. University of South Florida St. Petersburg, Florida 33701,
Center for Radiative Shock Hydrodynamics Fall 2011 Review Assessment of predictive capability Derek Bingham 1.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
A Watershed Year for RMP & CEP: Sources Pathways & Loadings 2002/03 Lester McKee & Jon Leatherbarrow May 2003.
Case study: 137 Cs as tracer for sedimentation processes in an Italian coastal area Roberta Delfanti, ENEA - La Spezia, Italy IAEA Regional Training Course.
U Linda Russio: Organizer u Patricia Chambers: Pulse, photos u Todd Featherston and Mike May: IT u Mike Connor: AM Session u Bruce Thompson: PM Chair u.
1 of 36 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 6 - Specify Error Tolerances (60 minutes) (15 minute Morning Break) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall DQO Training Course.
Experiences in assessing deposition model uncertainty and the consequences for policy application Rognvald I Smith Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh.
Lead NAAQS Review: 2 nd Draft Risk Assessment NTAA/EPA Tribal Air Call August 8, 2007 Deirdre Murphy and Zachary Pekar OAQPS.
August 1999PM Data Analysis Workbook: Characterizing PM23 Spatial Patterns Urban spatial patterns: explore PM concentrations in urban settings. Urban/Rural.
1 of 27 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 5 - Define Decision Rules (15 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course Module 5.
Hg Process Study Options RMP CFWG September 14, 2007.
Analysis and numerical modeling of Galveston shoreline change – implications for erosion control Dr. Tom Ravens and Khairil Sitanggang Texas A&M University.
SPARROW: A Model Designed for Use With Monitoring Networks Richard A. Smith, Gregory E. Schwarz, and Richard B. Alexander US Geological Survey, Reston,
Assessment Methods for Ammonia Hot-Spots (Working Group 3) Expert Workshop under the UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution 4-6 Dec.
Copper Source Loading Estimates (Process Profiles) Physical & Chemical Characterization of Wear Debris (Clemson University) Water Quality Monitoring (ACCWP)
August 1999PM Data Analysis Workbook: Characterizing PM23 Spatial Patterns Urban spatial patterns: explore PM concentrations in urban settings. Urban/Rural.
Goal of Stochastic Hydrology Develop analytical tools to systematically deal with uncertainty and spatial variability in hydrologic systems Examples of.
1 of 48 The EPA 7-Step DQO Process Step 6 - Specify Error Tolerances 3:00 PM - 3:30 PM (30 minutes) Presenter: Sebastian Tindall Day 2 DQO Training Course.
TTWG Report & Technical Topics SRRTTF Meeting Dave Dilks March 16, 2016.
Beach Modelling: Lessons Learnt from Past Scheme Performance Project: SC110004/S Guidance on approach to beach modelling.
SF Bay Hg Coordination Meeting Feb 2009
Improved Forecasting for PCBs in San Francisco Bay
The Long Term Fate of PCBs in San Francisco Bay Jay A. Davis
Status & Trends Component The Design Process
PART I: brief review report, including research gaps & possibilities
Presentation transcript:

4.26 CEP/RMP Sediment Core Plan Draft & Comments CFWG Sept 2005

General Objectives (for CEP & RMP) Build understanding of ecosystem characteristics and processes… To provide sufficient (better) basis for deciding among possible management alternatives

Specific Objectives (for this Study) Estimate future loads from eroding buried contaminants Estimate historic loadings of contaminants (especially recent decades) Characterize contamination with depth to assess current status and likely future changes Provide data for parameterization and evaluation of the multi-box model

If ~20 Cores Budgeted: Random sampling –Pros: aim to be representative of studied system –Cons: muddy signal, may need many samples before important factors IDd Deterministic sampling –Pros: build process with relatively few samples –Cons: selected samples often not characteristic of larger system (e.g. USGS depositional cores)

Sediment Core Sampling Strategy Hybrid Approach –Some samples specifically to understand loading history (deposition only zones) –Remainder of sites to begin representative characterization of Bay sediments

Initial Effort Timeline One cruise 1 year (not 2 years) –Relatively few stations spaced widely apart –Long lived isotopes, pollutants, ~1 yr storage not too bad if stored properly –Not enough samples (e.g. 10 in yr 1) for info to change stratification midstream

Sampling Effort Distribution Use general Bay segmentation scheme –Suisun, San Pablo, South, Lower South Bay Areas with bathymetric change history mapped Different sediment and pollutant loading quantities and sources Cores from each segment –1 depositional (wetland or deep Bay?) –1 erosional –2 more characteristic of that segment Depositional, neutral, or erosional

Modeling & Other Needs Hybrid approach seeks some of each –Assumes near 0 possibility that any model can do without verification of loading histories or process outcomes ? Is how much of each ? –~20 samples not a large number –Numbers likely not definitive of loading or representativeness –Collect excess samples of each type? Will we be able to get around to analyses soon enough?

Example Stratification + 0 -

Distribution of Sites

Future loads from erosion Unmixed buried sediments become mixed Pollutant profiles at depth mixed layer? –Introduced and averaged into mixed layer –Widespread characterization preferred Rate of erosion –Extrapolate recent history (Jaffe rates) –Predicted from model (calibrated to Jaffe?)

Future Loads w/ no More Cores Assume a range of profiles from existing data? –Pollutant profiles at depth mixed layer –How much higher or lower is reasonable? –Trend is likely depth > or = surface USGS cores depth > surface Many others suggest depth ~ surface –Guessing time scale of change much harder

Historic Contaminant Loadings Depositional cores reflect past conditions Potential limitations: –Ambiguous chronology: multiple tracers? –Natural or manmade disturbances: choose sites carefully? –Not representative of Bay: what does it reflect? Deep bay or wetland?

Historic Contaminant Loadings Deep bay cores –Pros:likely less hot spot influence, more representative of segment conditions –Cons: integrate more processes = more degrees of freedom (mixing w/ other seds, long response time), location history uncertain Wetland cores –Pros:respond more quickly to changes, reflective of local sources (hotspot, effluent or tributary), better mapped, history –Cons: more reflective of local sources, slow accretion

Alternatives Historic Loadings Assume Breivik close enough? Revise Breivik with upper and lower bounds? –How low/high is reasonable? Monitor current loads with time series Guadalupe river, Mallard Island Representative enough? –Project trends backward for hindcast?

Contaminant Profiles w/ Depth System status not just in surface 5cm sediments Dominant sedimentation regimes in each segment sampled ( sedimentation) Spatially variable but representative in long term –(must start somewhere) Alternatives (?) –Assume concentration surface sediments Even larger uncertainties

Data for Model (Multi box or other) Past & future loads, current system status are needed to model –(input parameters, initial or final conditions) Loads and status data needed independent of model –Relative priority somewhat model dependent –Which is more important?

Comments on Plan to Date Too expensive (much of CEP budget) Underfunded for objectives Too little of budget for interpretation/reporting Any geologic cores for sediment transport perspective? Why not Cs137 or mix of other tracers? Can cores be collected and stored for later analysis? Why wetland cores (not in model)?

Comments on Plan to Date Expect high % of useless cores Use screening analyses Need more sections per core for temporal trends (fewer cores more sections)

Regional Board Wish List Some Central Bay sites Trade OC pesticides for other organics in some samples? –Selenium (for a background baseline?) –PCDD/Fs –Background PCB levels