1 / 36

Advances in Understanding Pollutant Mass Loadings

Advances in Understanding Pollutant Mass Loadings. Lester McKee Jon Konnan, Richard Looker, Nicole David, Jay Davis. Article on Page 77 of the Pulse. Why Measure Loadings?. Fish consumption advisories since 1993 San Francisco Bay is listed as impaired for a range of contaminants

erasmus-sweet
Download Presentation

Advances in Understanding Pollutant Mass Loadings

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. Advances in Understanding Pollutant Mass Loadings Lester McKee Jon Konnan, Richard Looker, Nicole David, Jay Davis Article on Page 77 of the Pulse

  2. Why Measure Loadings? • Fish consumption advisories since 1993 • San Francisco Bay is listed as impaired for a range of contaminants • Initially loadings information was generated to develop TMDL project reports written by the Water Board • More loadings information • Measurement of progress towards targets

  3. What are the priority contaminants?

  4. What are the Main Sources and Pathways? In-Bay contaminated sites Urban Stormwater Guadalupe River Focus is on the larger pathways that are deemed potentially controllable

  5. What Stormwater Loading Studies are ongoing? • Sacramento River • Guadalupe River • Zone 4 Line A

  6. Sacramento River at Mallard Island near Pittsburg

  7. Sacramento River at Mallard Island near Pittsburg

  8. Sacramento River at Mallard Island near Pittsburg

  9. Sacramento River at Mallard Island near Pittsburg

  10. Concentration on particles(Low – moderate flow)

  11. Concentration on particles(Large storms)

  12. Loadings per year - Sediment Journal of Hydrology: McKee et al., 2006 Mean = 1 million metric t

  13. Loadings per year – Mercury ET&C: David et al., in review Mean = 210 kg

  14. Loadings per year - PCBs Mean = 9.6 kg

  15. Guadalupe River at Hwy 101 in San Jose

  16. Guadalupe River at Hwy 101 in San Jose

  17. Guadalupe River at Hwy 101 in San Jose

  18. Mercury on Particles

  19. PCBs on Particles Urban stormwater Non-urban stormwater

  20. Loadings per year - Sediment Mean = 14,000 metric t

  21. Loadings per year - Mercury Mean = 130 kg Methylmercury <<1%

  22. Loadings per year - PCBs Mean = 0.9 kg PBDEs = 2.5x greater

  23. Zone 4 Line A Tributary at Cabot Blvd. in Hayward

  24. Zone 4 Line A Tributary at Cabot Blvd. in Hayward

  25. Zone 4 Line A Tributary at Cabot Blvd. in Hayward

  26. Loadings normalized per unit area per year

  27. What have we learned?Mercury

  28. What have we learned?PCBs

  29. Remaining Questions and Progress Mercury • Which watersheds are most contaminated? • What are the loadings from specific watersheds and the region as a whole • Currently based on sediment Hg concentrations and out-dated estimates of regional sediment loads • Little information on mercury speciation • Methylmercury • Reactive mercury

  30. Remaining Questions and Progress PCBs • Little information on loadings from small heavily industrialized watersheds • Mainly near the Bay margin • Focus on “old industrial” • Which watersheds are most contaminated? • What are the sources and processes of release?

  31. Remaining Questions and Progress • PBDEs and OC pesticides • One box model paper published in Environment International (Oram et al 2008) • Penta and Octa banned – when will the loads go down - will the Bay recover? • Dioxins and pyrethroid pesticides • No information on urban loadings • Little to no information on other pathways • Selenium, Copper, Nickel, PAHs • Not recently discussed

  32. What are the remaining questions? All contaminants • Are there “high leverage” areas or processes on the Bay margin where contaminants impact the base of the food web • What is the linkage between watershed loadings and “hotspots” or “high leverage” areas on the Bay margin

  33. Planning efforts to prioritize and address data gaps • Small Tributaries Loadings Strategy • Being developed now • Mercury Strategy (page 4 of the Pulse) • First strategy to be developed • Dioxin Strategy • Priorities vary by stakeholder – very expensive so still debate over funding • Modeling Strategy • Being developed now

  34. Small Tributaries Loading Strategy 1) Impairment • Which are the “high-leverage” small tributaries that contribute most to Bay impairment? 2) Loading • What are the concentrations and average annual loads of pollutants of concern from small tributaries? 3) Trends • How are concentrations or loads of pollutants of concern from small tributaries changing on a decadal scale? 4) Support for Management Actions • What are the projected impacts of management actions and where should management actions be implemented? • A three page document that includes: • Key questions and priorities • Guiding principles • A timeline • Recommended methods

  35. Summary • Our understanding of pollutant mass loads has changed considerably • We now have accurate measurements of loads in three watersheds • But there are still many questions • Through time the needs for information are becoming more explicit and the RMP is adapting to new needs • Constant re-evaluation of the management questions • 5-year plans for the workgroups and the program as a whole • Focus strategy documents (contaminant or issue specific)

  36. Mercury labs MLML UCSC Brooks Rand Trace organics lab : AXYS Sediment studies USGS USDA RiverMetrics Field staff SFEI UCSC Water Board Acknowledgements

More Related