1. The RMP Mercury Strategy Jay A. Davis San Francisco Estuary Institute Presented at: The RMP Mercury Coordination Meeting Feb 2008

2. Origins SF Bay pollutant enemy #1 Profusion of mercury proposals Tom Mumleys idea RMP Mercury Group –Stakeholder planning group –Key input from Regional Board

3. RMP Mercury Strategy Concise, living document Overarching goal to support water quality management decisions Articulates prioritized information needs of managers Focus on methylmercury –Premise: possible to identify key fractions and processes to achieve a more rapid solution Augments existing RMP Status and Trends monitoring

4. Management Questions for Mercury 1.Where is mercury entering the food web? 2.Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation? 3.What are the best opportunities for management intervention for the most important pollutant sources, pathways, and processes? 4.What effects can be expected from management actions? 5.Will total mercury reductions result in reduced food web accumulation?

5. Q1: Patterns in Uptake Major focus for next 3 years Spatial and temporal RMP Small fish RMP S&T: sport fish, bird eggs, water, sediment Other studies –FMP –SBMP –USGS

6. Q2: High Leverage Pathways Ideally follows Q1 Some work now, greater focus after a few years RFP Two potentially very valuable but somewhat risky studies –Blum isotopes –Hintelman DGTs Other studies –Sac Regional –WERF….

7. Q3: Opportunities for Intervention Ideally follows Q2 RMP focus on internal sources Other programs on external sources –Lesters Prop 13 Study

8. Q4: Effects of Management Actions Management actions including remediation, restoration, etc. Models – continual development –MeHg mass budget a start Monitoring –Regional monitoring –Local monitoring as actions are taken

9. Q5: Effect of Total Mercury Reductions Not part of the 1-4 sequence No specific studies currently planned

10. RMP Plan for Mercury Studies

11. Benefits Clear direction for obtaining needed information More effective use of RMP funds Framework for evaluating and communicating progress

12. Filling the Gaps Are there better ways of answering our questions? Are any important elements missing? –Systematic monitoring of restoration? Can we be coordinating existing elements better?