RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009

download RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009

of 62

  • date post

    27-Mar-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    217
  • download

    1

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009

  • Slide 1

RMP Coring Plans 2010 and Onward RMP CFWG Meeting June 2009 Slide 2 Core- What Is It Good For? Bay pollutant inventory erosional time bombs? Model validation Conceptual &/or mechanistic Model development Empirical, mechanistic, hybrid Can recalibrate, but better up front Slide 3 Approach RMP/CEP 2006 1.Select RMP S&T (random) and continuous (undiked) wetland sites 2.Vibracore in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetlands/watershed 3.Freeze long core sections in field 4.Saw core into 2.5cm sections 5.Analyze sections at ~15 year intervals Using prelim. radiodating, literature estimates Slide 4 RMP/CEP Sites (Bay) Representative inventory, sedimentation 3 sites Central Bay, 2 sites each other segments Preference to RMP repeat stations Slide 5 Distribution of Sites (Wetland) Loading history Depositional zones 1 site each segment Pt Edith Martinez Wildcat Richmond Damon Sl. Oakland Greco Island Coyote Creek +1 watershed site Alviso Marina Slide 6 Lessons RMP/CEP 2006 1.Waiting for preliminary radiodating slowed study 2.17 cores x 10 sections/core = 170 samples 3.Created backlog at RMP laboratories (3+ years equivalent of S&T samples) 4.Total cost $300k+, hard to reduce, especially analytical costs (1 site = 10 samples x X analytes) Slide 7 Conceptual Model Sedimentation (from isotopes, bathymetric history) Similar in segment (shared water, sediment) But mesoscale differences (trib/shore proximity, etc) Pollutant distribution function of Sedimentation history Local land use/ loading Slide 8 Bay Hg Results < 1960 Slide 9 Conceptual Model Fits Radiodating fits bathymetric history North Bay erosive ( 137 Cs, 210 Pb near surface) Central, South Bay ~neutral, or erosive Lower South Bay depositional Contamination fits sediment history Top core sections ~ RMP surface sediments Lower contamination in deepest sections pre industrial background Contaminants elevated in industrial period Metals ~uniform downcore, PCBs higher nearer surface Slide 10 Wetland Hg Results < 1960 Slide 11 Wetland Results Radiodating fits sea level rise All areas net depositional (2-3mm/year) Lower South Bay subsiding, higher deposition Contamination fits sediment history Top core sections ~ RMP surface sediments Usually lower contamination in deepest sections pre industrial background Contaminants elevated in industrial period Sharper/higher peaks than in Bay cores Watershed (Alviso) site ambiguous Rapid deposition, but where is Hg peak? Slide 12 Need Cores? Better than before, but enough? N = 11 from RMP/CEP + 2-5 from USGS N depends on which analytes Maybe OK for Baywide scale but not enough for segment specific modeling (N=2) Time frame needed Before models need new data Resolution needed Slide 13 Option 1: Repeat 2006 Effort 1.10-11 RMP S&T (random) sites, 5 wetland, all Bay segments 2.Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland 3.Freeze/saw subsampling 2.5cm sections 4.Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals (150-165 samples) PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize 5.Total cost $350k+ ($300k in 2006) Slide 14 Option 2: Incremental Efforts 1.2 RMP S&T (random) sites (optionally +1 wetland?) in one Bay segment per year 2.Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland 3.Freeze/saw subsampling into 2.5cm sections 4.Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize 5.Cost ~$50k for Bay cores, ~$75 w/ wetland Slide 15 Budget 2010, Two Bay Cores Sample Collection & Processing$5,500 Laboratory Analysis$34,250 Radiodating 6600 PCBs, PBDEs 18750 Metals, Hg 6400 TOC, grainsize 2500 Proj Mgmnt, QC & Reporting$8,000 Total$47,750 Slide 16 +/- Incremental Approach Few sites, more often (e.g. 2 per segment, yearly) + Better workload for labs (20+ vs 100+ samples at once) + Costs better spread for RMP + Can get info on segments w/ greatest data needs first -Long time to get full Baywide set Other details can be decided depending on program needs Slide 17 Back to Basic Questions Do we need more cores? Probably, especially if we plan sub-segment scale models All at once, or a few at a time? A few at a time is easier for many logistical and budget reasons When, where, how many? Best early/before models finished, random/ representative of areas modeled, # samples depending on model Qs Slide 18 Nitty Gritty Details Example design to follow if desired Slide 19 Siting Approach 2010+ Use new random RMP S&T sites + Continue to build larger scale spatial data May get stations w/ similar characteristics - Low odds for special sites of interest (hot spots, watershed deltas, dep/erosional Slide 20 Sampling Approach 2010+ Unpowered (push/gravity/hammer) cores + Low equipment needs/cost -Cores >1m deep may be difficult Slide 21 Sectioning Approach 2010+ Field freezing, saw sectioning + Easy sectioning post sampling (solid core) + No hold time issues (within ~1 year) -Freezing causes core distortion -Clean (e.g. Teflon) saw difficult/impossible, but the devil we know (Alternatively) Field or lab extrusion + No freezing needed (~ambient or cooler chilling) Cleanliness unknown, depends on execution (staff, location, equipment) -Need extruding equipment/attachments Slide 22 Analysis Approach 2010+ Select set interval subsamples + Know which sections to send to labs a priori + Results from radiodating/chem labs sooner -Less flexibility on section spacing (longer or shorter cores, fast/slow deposition areas) (alternatively wait for radiodating, irregular spacing) Skip sections + No need to composite 1 sample = 1 section, -May miss narrow peaks (how likely?) (alternatively composite sections) Slide 23 Analysis Approach 2010+ Analyte selection- highest needs for particle associated persistent pollutants of concern PCBs Hg PBDEs (top 5 sections each core) ??? Add geologic /anthropogenic factors ICP-MS trace elements TOC, grainsize Slide 24 Approach 2010+ Summary 1.2 RMP S&T (random) sites (optionally +1 wetland?) in one Bay segment per year 2.Gravity/hammer core in Bay, Livingstone (piston) core in wetland 3.Freeze/saw subsampling into 2.5cm sections 4.Analyze up to 10 sections at ~10cm (skipping) intervals PCBs, PBDEs, metals, TOC, grainsize 5.Cost ~$50k for Bay cores, ~$75 w/ wetland Slide 25 Slide 26 Dating: Bathymetric History (USGS Bruce Jaffe) Sum bathymetric changes between surveys + deposition erosion Some sites depositional & erosional different periods Slide 27 Dating: Isotopes (USC Hammond) Cs in A-bomb max ~1960 Pb decay half life 22 yrs Decay/ mixing dilution can look similar If Cs & Pb similar likely mixing dilution Slide 28 LSB001: Fast accumulation ~150cm to 1960~60cm to 1960 Slide 29 LSB002: Fast accumulation ~130cm to 1960~30cm to 1960 Slide 30 LSB Wetland Deposition ~80cm to 1960 Slide 31 Hg Analyses ICP-MS HF extract (CCSF) vs CVAFS aqua regia (MLML) Slide 32 Lower South Bay 1960 = 30-60cm bay, 80cm C.Creek Slide 33 LSB Metals Downcore concentrations noisy Coyote Creek Hg max > Alviso! Coyote Hg max @ 1960s depth (80cm) Coyote Cu max @ 40cm = 1980s? ~max Cu discharge late 1970s (Palo Alto) ~surface sediment Cu USGS long term data Slide 34 Conaway 2004 vs Current 5nmol/g ~ 1mg/kg Slide 35 Lower South Bay PCBs PCB in bay cores max subsurface LSB001 max @40cm (60cm =1960) LSB002 max @30cm (30cm = 1960) Slide 36 SB001: Continuous Erosion? ~0cm to 1960~15cm to 1960 Core ID: SB001, X: 564867.30345800000, Y: 4163027.61900000000 1858 depth: -122 1898 depth: -123 1931 depth: -157 1956 depth: -124 1983 depth: -146 2005 depth: -160 2006 depth: -161 Reconstructed horizons: 0 Slide 37 SB002: No Change ~1950s ~0cm to 1960~12cm to 1960 Slide 38 SB Wetland Deposition ~30cm to 1960 Slide 39 South Bay Metals Downcore concentrations noisy Cu max @ Greco Island similar to Coyote, but into 1960s zone. Greco Hg max ~uniform in wetland to 55cm = 1930s? (1960s Cs penetration to 30cm) Slide 40 South Bay 1960 = 12-15cm bay, 30cm wetland Slide 41 PCB in bay max near surface SB001 (continuous erosion) at top ~5cm SB002 (no change since 1950s) ~10cm South Bay 1960 = 12-15cm bay, 30cm wetland Slide 42 CB001: No Change ~1940s ~0cm to 1960~5cm to 1960 Slide 43 CB002: Erosion to ~1920s ~0cm to 1960~20cm to 1960 Slide 44 CB006: Continuous Erosion ~0cm to 1960~12cm to 1960 Core ID: CB006A, X: 566290.21976900000, Y: 4174242.03589000000 1858 depth: -106 1898 depth: -134 1931 depth: -132 1956 depth: -183 1983 depth: -220 Reconstructed horizons: 0 Slide 45 Central Bay Metals Bay downcore concentrations smaller range than in SB/LSB No dating for wetland cores yet ~20cm subsurface max for Hg, Se, Cu in wetland, Similarly high conc for Se, Cu @ surface, 60cm Slide 46 Central Bay 1960 = 5-20cm bay, ?? wetland Slide 47 PCB in bay max near surface CB sites no change or eroding Central Bay PCBs 1960 = 5-20cm bay, ?? wetland Slide 48 SPB001: Erosion to ~1920s ~0cm to 1960~5cm to 1960 Slide 49 SPB002: Erosion to ~1880s ~0cm to 1960~2cm to 1960 Slide 50 San Pablo Metals ~20cm surbsurface max for Hg, Se, Cu in wetland No dating for wetland cores yet No secondary metal peaks Deeper concentrations fairly constant Slide 51 San Pablo Bay 1960= 2-5cm bay, ?? wetland Slide 52 PCB in bay max near surface SPB sites eroding, no reservoir San Pablo Bay PCBs 1960= 2-5cm bay, ?? wetland Slide 53 SU001: Erosion to ~1910s ~0cm to 1960~2cm to 1960 Slide 54 SU002: Erosion to ~1890s ~0cm to 1960~80cm to 1960?!! Slide 55 Suisun Metals Hg highly variable @ Pt Edith and SU002 No dating for wetland cores yet SU002 max concentrations in top section Hg, Se, Cu, subsurface spikes as well Slide 56 Suisun Bay 1960 = 2-80cm?! bay, ?? wetland Slide 57 PCB signal mixed Bay sites erosional according to bathymetry SU002 mixed history (PCBs > RMP surface seds at 100cm) Suisun Bay PCBs 1960 = 2-80cm?! bay, ?? wetland Slide 58 Results Sedimentation in segment ~similar (bathymetry, isotopes) Suisun, San Pa