The RMP Mercury Strategy: Studies

Underway

Talk Presents Multiple Data SetsKatie Harrold, Aroon Melwani, Andy Jahn, Jay Davis, John Oram, Shira Bezalel, Jen Hunt, Sarah Lowe, Karen TaberskiRegional Monitoring Program

Joel Blum, Gretchen Gehrke University of Michigan

Holger Hintelmann, Brian DimockTrent University

Mark Marvin-DiPasquale, David Krabbenhoft, Collin Eagles-Smith, Josh AckermanUS Geological Survey

Mark Stephenson, Wes HeimMoss Landing Marine Laboratories

Darell Slotton, Shaun AyersUniversity of California - Davis

What is being done to answer the questions in the Mercury Strategy?

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions

Question 1: Where is mercury entering the food web?

• RMP Studies– Small Fish– Sport Fish– Avian Eggs– Sediment– Water

• Other Studies– South Baylands

Mercury Project

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions Question 2: Which processes, sources, and

pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation?

• RMP Studies– Methylmercur

y Model – DGTs– Mercury

Isotopes– Small fish

• Other Studies– WERF– Effluent

Monitoring

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions Question 3: What are the best opportunities for

management intervention for the most important pollutant sources, pathways, and processes?

• RMP Studies– Methylmercury

Model Development

• Other Studies– Prop 13:

Control Options in Tidal Wetlands

– Props 40/50: Control Options in Suisun Marsh

– Prop 13: Urban stormwater BMPs

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions

Question 1: Where is mercury entering the food web?

Coyot

e Ck

Redwoo

d Ck

Yerba

Bue

na Is

Pinole

Pt

Grizzly

Bay

Sacra

men

to R

San Jo

aquin

R

Me

thyl

me

rcu

ry (

ng

g-1

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Se

dim

en

t

MeHg in sediments – probabilistic stations

Mississippisilverside

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Benicia State ParkSan Quentin

Paradise BeachBerkeley Frontage

TiburonTreasure Island

Point IsabelOakland Middle Harbor

Candlestick ParkEden Landing

Newark SloughBird Island

Alviso SloughPond A16Pond A13Pond A12

Pond A5Pond A2W

Pond A1

San Francisco Bay

South Bay Salt Ponds

Mercury (g g-1 wet weight)

Topsmelt

White sturgeon

Mer

cury

Con

cent

ratio

n (p

pm)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

So

uth

Ba

y

Sa

n P

ablo

Ba

y

So

uth

Ba

y

So

uth

Ba

y

So

uth

Ba

y

Sa

n P

ablo

Ba

y

Sa

n P

ablo

Ba

y

Sa

n P

ablo

Ba

y

1997 2000 2003 2006

Sediments - RMP and other studies

Land Within 2 Km Buffer0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.01

0.1

1

10

THg (ng g-1

)10 100 1000 10000

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

0.01

0.1

1

10

TOC (%)0.1 1 10

0.01

0.1

1

10

Latitude37.4 37.6 37.8 38.0 38.2

0.01

0.1

1

10

a b

c d

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

Land Within 2 Km Buffer0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.01

0.1

1

10

THg (ng g-1

)10 100 1000 10000

MeH

g (n

g g-1

) 0.01

0.1

1

10

TOC (%)0.1 1 10

0.01

0.1

1

10

Latitude37.4 37.6 37.8 38.0 38.2

0.01

0.1

1

10

a b

c d

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

Open Enclosed

• Nearshore and enclosed sites higher

Land Within 2 Km Buffer0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.01

0.1

1

10

THg (ng g-1

)10 100 1000 10000

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

0.01

0.1

1

10

TOC (%)0.1 1 10

0.01

0.1

1

10

Latitude37.4 37.6 37.8 38.0 38.2

0.01

0.1

1

10

a b

c d

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

Land Within 2 Km Buffer0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.01

0.1

1

10

THg (ng g-1

)10 100 1000 10000

MeH

g (n

g g-1

) 0.01

0.1

1

10

TOC (%)0.1 1 10

0.01

0.1

1

10

Latitude37.4 37.6 37.8 38.0 38.2

0.01

0.1

1

10

a b

c d

MeH

g (n

g g-1

)

Open Enclosed

Sediments - RMP and other studies

Total Length (mm)

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Hg

(g/

g w

et)

0.01

0.1 ARROW GOBYCHEEKSPOT GOBYMISSISSIPPI SILVERSIDESHIMOFURI GOBYTOPSMELTYELLOWFIN GOBYBAY GOBYSTRIPED BASSNORTHERN ANCHOVYPACIFIC HERRING

0.4

0.003

Wetland/margin species

Open water species

Small fish also show nearshore/offshore pattern

Sed

imen

t

What do available data suggest?

Question 1: Where is mercury entering the food web?

• Southern parts of Estuary • South Bay Salt Ponds• Nearshore areas• Enclosed areas• Marsh sloughs and

vegetated marsh (sediments)

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions Question 2: Which processes, sources, and

pathways contribute disproportionately to food web accumulation?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg

• Stratified probabilistic sampling

• Sampling 108 unique locations

Expanded small fish

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?– Industrial

watershed drainages?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?– Industrial

watershed drainages?

– WWTPs?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?– Industrial

watershed drainages?

– WWTPs?– Contaminated

sediments

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?– Industrial

watershed drainages?

– WWTPs?– Contaminated

sediments– Hg mine

drainages?

• What kinds of sites are higher in fish Hg– Wetlands?– Enclosed

sloughs?– Industrial

watershed drainages?

– WWTPs?– Contaminated

sediments– Hg mine

drainages?– Compare to ambient bay

and long term sites

DGT = Diffusive Gradient in Thinfilm

• Surrogate for biotic MeHg exposure

• Integrates water or sediments longer duration than grab samples

DGTs in the field

Can be placed in any aquatic location

Goals of the San Francisco Bay Hg Isotope Study

Determine the Hg isotopic composition of BedrockMine tailingsGold miningHg from bedrock in the drainage basin• Hg from Hg mine tailings• Hg from placer Au mining• Urban run-off• Municipal waste water• Atmospheric deposition• Determine the spatial distribution of Hg isotopic compositions

in Bay sediments (at least 9 sites) to investigate sources of Hg in sediments

• Determine the Hg isotopic compositions of fish from the same sites to investigate sources of Hg to fish

Answering the Mercury Strategy Questions Question 3: What are the best opportunities for

management intervention for the most important pollutant sources, pathways, and processes?

AcknowledgementsKatie Harrold, Aroon Melwani, Andy Jahn, Jay Davis, John Oram, Shira Bezalel, Jen Hunt, Sarah Lowe, Karen TaberskiRegional Monitoring Program

Joel Blum, Gretchen Gehrke University of Michigan

Holger Hintelmann, Brian DimockTrent University

Mark Marvin-DiPasquale, David Krabbenhoft, Collin Eagles-Smith, Josh AckermanUS Geological Survey

Mark Stephenson, Wes HeimMoss Landing Marine Laboratories

Darell Slotton, Shaun AyersUniversity of California - Davis