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 Denise Greig, The Marine Mammal Center

3. Replumbing the Bay: The CA Water Projects Since 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 5 1 10 HgPCBsDioxinsSeDieldrinDDTChlordane

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 time Sediment yield Expected response

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 Unpublished data provided by Darell Slotton Sentinel Species for Evaluating Mercury Release Mississippi silverside 2005

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

13. Wetland Goals Project PastPresentFuture Wetland Design Guidelines: www.wrmp.org

14. Updates linked to Ca 401 Certification Program

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

16. CRAM Design Template Wetland Condition Landscape Context HydrologyPhysical Structure Biotic Structure 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 Western Waterfowl Migration Routes

19. SF Bay Seals Major estuary use Blood sampling common 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=18 n=12n=18n=26 Source: Giesy and Kannan 2001, ES&T; n=3

21. SERL USGS USGS-RMP Sewage Treatment Upgrades

22. Cloern, 2006

23. Nutrient Sampling

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

26. 12 6 6 9 6 6 9 11 12 9 81 20 21 24 32 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

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. Mortality 4 Janet Thompson, USGS