Contaminant Fate WG 5 Year Plan

RMP CFWG Meeting

January 15, 2008

Management Context

CFWG addresses linkages between sources and exposure/effects– In Bay transport/partition/transformation/removal

processes– Project effects of loads changes (management

actions) on processes & ultimately exposure Fate work to date driven by TMDL needs

– Mass budget/ conceptual models for priority pollutants, e.g. PCBs, Hg

Questions to be answered:

Are the priorities and questions appropriate ? Have we identified & prioritized the right

workplan elements? Are the budget allocations and timing

appropriate?(gross evaluation)

Pollutant Priorities

To date prioritized by focusing on individual contaminants (mirroring TMDLs)

Pollutant priorities– High: PCBs (via multi-box fate model) (mostly

done?), Hg – in progress– Medium: dioxin, Se, current pesticides, pharma– Low: OC pesticides, trace metals

#0: PCBs Priorities

Are PCBs mostly done for now?– Yes - already more effort than for anything else

Continued coring (not just for PCBs) Golden Gate export (also not just PCBs) Other possibilities but low priority?

– No - large uncertainties in many parameters Full 2 or 3-D ? Model complexity outpaces input data? Does sedimentation component need revision

#1: Hg Priorities

Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury? (Hg Strategy Q2)– SPLWG focus on sources & loads– CFWG focus on process linkages

Sed/water transport/mixing, speciation, partitioning, de/methylation, export, burial, uptake*

– EEWG focus on food web/effects *CFWG linkage via abiotic factors affecting uptake at

primary producer/consumer level

Process Priorities

(Particulate?) multi-pollutant priorities– Sediment cores: for PCBs and other analytes, &

sediment mixing/transport processes– Golden Gate export estimates– Multi-pollutant model generalization:

Hydrophobic organics first?

Food web structure secondary (or for EEWG?)– Are there tweakable management levers?

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Process Priorities

What patterns of impairment are forecast for persistent, particle-associated pollutants for major segments and the Estuary as a whole under various management scenarios?– Piggyback off PCBs? [coring, Golden Gate export,

model estimates also benefit other pollutants]– Multi-box application to other pollutants

(PBDE>dioxins>Se>PAH>pyreth>pharma>Cu)

#2: Persistent Particulate Pollutant Process Priorities

Prioritize multibox generalization – Some efficiency in grouping contaminants, e.g.

hydrophobic organics– But responsiveness to stakeholder needs important

(RMP mission relevance and timeliness)– Need/ability to develop input data to match– Priority not necessarily set by TMDL but by

stakeholder interest Or multibox revision?

– Adjustable sedimentation in segments first?

Questions Review:

Are the priorities and questions appropriate? 0. PCB specific questions sufficiently answered for now?1. Which processes, sources, and pathways contribute

disproportionately to food web accumulation of mercury?

2. What patterns of impairment are forecast for persistent, particle-associated pollutants for major segments and the Estuary as a whole under various management scenarios?

Any others, or tweaks to the above?

#0 PCB elements

Right elements, right study priorities? None specifically planned for PCBs (more general

transport) More PCB specific questions

– Degradation rates? Hot spot transport? – currently put into the lower priority category for potential studies

#1: Hg Elements

Right elements, right study priorities? Already funded

– Sediment reactive Hg special study (UCSC)– 2008 RMP Data Integration- MeHg mass budget as a tool for

prioritizing data gaps– 2008 bioaccumulation (EEPS & CFWG) small fish project

expansion To be funded

– 2008 SS RFP and proposal package: “Identify high leverage sources, processes, pathways”

Missing components?

#2: Process Priority Elements

Right elements, right study priorities? Continued coring (alternate years special study? S&T

element?)– How much is sufficient/ representative?

Sediment export – – Remote observations (Oram), G Gate, other bridges

(Schoellhamer) Multibox Screening application or revision for

bathymetry– Would need loads, literature review for new pollutants– Pollutant Priorities set by stakeholder interest

Budget and Timeline

Appropriate distribution? 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Multibox (PCBs) 20

Golden Gate Outflow 8 40

Sediment Coring 27(54) 33(67) 100 100

Reactive Hg (UCSC) 40

High leverage Hg RFP 100 100 150 150

MeHg Budget 25 25 25

Multibox screening 40 25 25Food Web Hg (Small Fish EEWG) 150 150 150 100 100

Subtotal 120 183 175 125 175 125

Budget & Timeline Review:

Are the budget allocations and timing appropriate?– Commensurate with importance of pollutant

questions– In time to inform management actions

TMDL schedule may affect prioritization