PAGE 1 Show Image
Aquatk Habiia~ Instiruve____________________________
SCREENING OF PROBLEMS
RELA~NG TO ThE
SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA
David J.H. Phillips
Donald J. Baumganner
November 30, 1987
San ~ran(i~co Bat - Delia
PAGE 2 Show Image
PAGE 3 Show Image
Aquaik Habiiat Ins~iiuie___________________________
CONTENTS
Summary (i)
1. Introduction l
II. Production of the Consolidated Problem List 2
111. Consolidated List of Bay-Delta Problems 6
Problem area I. Inflows 6
Problem area II. Land Use 12
Problem area Ill. Waterway Modification 18
Problem area Iv. Pollutants 20
IV. The First Screening Process 30
V. The Second Screening Process 41
Appendix A. Original problem lists
Appendix B. Placement of MAC and PAC problems.
Appendix C. Relationships between original and consolidated
problem lists.
San Franci~ca Baa - D~Iia
PAGE 4 Show Image
PAGE 5 Show Image
PAGE 6 Show Image
PAGE 7 Show Image
Aquatic Habirai I,isIitu~e___________________________
SUMMARY
EPA Region Ix requested AHI to produce a Consolidated list
of problems relating to the San Francisco-Bay Delta, and to
screen these problems against criteria adopted at the Management
Conference (MAC) meeting of 27 May 1987.
AHI received three lists of problems, generated initially by
the MAC, the Public Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). These lists included a total of 189 problems,
although considerable overlap and duplication between the lists
was evident. A consolidated problem list (containing 83
problems) was developed, using the TAC list of 18 May as a basis
for format. The problems were placed in four categories (as
requested by EPA and the MAC), relating to inflow, land use,
waterway modifications and pollutants.
Problems on the consolidated list were scored against three
criteria in an initial screening process. The criteria
related to: (1) effects on multiple resources or uses of the
estuary (2) whether the issues involved were of a 5ystemwide
impact; (3) whether the issues had major local impacts. Of the
83 problems, 43 Survived such screening by satisfying each of the
three criteria. The majority of the problems which Survived
initial screening were in the categories relating to land use
(especially wetlands) and to pollutants.
A second screening process was undertaken to further reduce
the number of problems. This process scored only those problems
surviving initial screening against a further four criteria,
which related to costs and time-frames of studies, probable costs
Son FTun(i~%(~0 I3u~ - De~Iio
PAGE 8 Show Image
PAGE 9 Show Image
Aquatk HabilaK Inslitule___________________________
of controls, and the existence of ongoing investigations on the
problem area, Of the 43 problems passing initial screening, 28
also survived the second screening process. Once again, issues
relating to land use and pollutants dominated the surviving
probleins,
On the basis of the criteria employed, the 28 problems
surviving the two-stage screening process are considered to be
most worthy of further consideration for funding. However, this
does not necessarily imply that either AHI or EPA endorses these
problem areas for funding by the Project.
Problems which are thought by AHI to be priine candidates
for further detailed consideration are listed in the final
section of part V of the report (pages 47 and 54). These include
problems relating to inflow regimes, mapping of wetlands,
monitoring of contaminants, dredging and duinping, and containinant
analysis, especially quality assurance.
ji1D]1__________________
~ r' NI
Sun Francisco Bat D~'iiu
(ii)
PAGE 10 Show Image
PAGE 11 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Institute___________________________
AC~OWLEDGEMENTS
Many `nembers of the various EPA San Francisco Estuary
Project committees provided constructive comments on the draft
version of the present report. Critical reviews of that draft
were provided by Jack Anderson, Alex Horne, Brian Melzian and
Andrew Gunther; we are grateful to these reviewers in particular
for their contributions. AHI staff members who contributed to
this document in its draft or final version include Andrew
Gunther, Jay Davis, Susan Prather and Emilia Martens.
Special thanks are due to Mike Monroe of EPA Region IX, who
acted as Project Officer and provided guidance and direction
throughout the project. Financial support was provided by EpA.
Sun Franc ,~co BUL - Deliu
(iii)
PAGE 12 Show Image
PAGE 13 Show Image
Aquaik Habiiai Institute___________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
The Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI) was requested, as one of
the tasks in an existing cooperative agreement with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX, to contribute to
the definition of problems in the San Francisco Bay-Delta.
EPA staff provided AHI with lists of problems developed by
the Management Conference (MAC), Public Advisory Committee (PAC)
and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and with certain
directives arising from the MAC meeting of 27 May 1987. The AHI
task was to synthesize froin these materials a Consolidated list
of problems relating to the Bay-Delta, and to subject this to a
screening process against a number of criteria, in order to
identify high-priority problems which should be further addressed
by the Bay-Delta Project (in Issue Papers or otherwise). This
report presents the results of such a process.
Sun Francisco BUL - Delia
PAGE 14 Show Image
PAGE 15 Show Image
Aquatfr Habiiai ln~~ituIe___________________________
II. PRODUCTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PROBLEM LIST
AHI was provided with three lists of problems by EPA Region
IX staff, following the MAC meeting of 27 May 1987. These three
lists were as follows:
* The MAC list, generated on 23 April 1987, comprising 84
issues in total.
* The PAC list, generated on 8 May 1987, including a total of
57 issues.
* The TAC list of 18 May 1987 (which derived from several
previous versions), including 48 specific problems.
In addition to these three lists, EPA staff provided AHI in early
June with copies of written material from Alex Hildebrand
(Manager of the South Delta Water Agency and a member of the PAC)
and Stephen McAdam (San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission), and requested that comments in these be
taken into account in the production of a consolidated list of
problems relating to the Bay-Delta. The additional material is
included as Appendix A to this report, as MAC members have not
seen these items previously. The original MAC, PAC and TAC lists
are also included in this Appendix. It was decided that no
problem areas required adding to the three original lists, as the
topics in the two additional letters were either generically or
specifically covered by items in the original lists.
The three lists (from the MAC, PAC and TAC) differed
considerably in format. The MAC and PAC lists of problems
generally constituted brief questions or statements relating to
perceived problem areas, and were unstructured in respect of
a- ~ r' ~
San Franci~ca Baa - Delia
2
PAGE 16 Show Image
PAGE 17 Show Image
Aquatk Habital Ins~j~uie___________________________
problem category. By contrast, the TAC list was quite highly
structured, problems being stated under subheadings in four major
categories. These categories were essentially identical to
those agreed by the MAC on 27 May 1987 as potential priority
problem areas; i.e., they related to inflow, land use, waterway
modification and pollutant issues. In addition, most MAC members
at the 27 May meeting felt that the TAC problem list was in a
helpful and understandable format.
The three lists, containing a total of 189 problems, showed
evidence of considerable overlap. Major issues in the estuary
(particularly those relating to fisheries or pollutant sources)
often appeared in all three lists, although frequently with
differing degrees of detail or specificity. Many other topics
also appeared in more than one list, but sometimes with slightly
different emphasis.
As the TAC problem list of 18 May was more highly structured
and generally fitted the desired problem categorization, this
list was used as a basis to generate a consolidated set of
problems relating to the Bay-Delta. The four main problem
categories were reworded according to requests from the MAC
meeting of 27 May and to directions from EPA staff. Sub-areas
were added to each category to further structure the TAC list
(this involved moving some TAC problems from one portion of a
category to another). The MAC and PAC lists were closely
perused, and decisions were made to:
* Add the problem to the TAC list as a new problem area;
or * Add the problem to the TAC list by rewording an existing
San Francisco Bat Delia
3
PAGE 18 Show Image
PAGE 19 Show Image
Aquaiic Habi~ai In~1(tuIe__________________________
TAC problem (generally when differences in emphasis existed
between comments in similar areas);
or * Consider that the problem was already covered by the TAC
list.
The results of this process are shown in Appendix B. It will be
noted that only in a few cases, the stated problems were not
understood; this may have been caused by faulty transcription of
the problem or for other reasons. It was not possible to
identify individuals on the two committees as the source of
specific guestions so that their intent be clarified; as a
result, these problems were omitted. In a few other cases,
problems as stated in the original lists were considered not to
be part of the problem definition phase, but to refer to other
activities in the Bay-Delta project. Some of these concerned
topics such as socio-economic issues; EPA staff have instructed
AHI that several of these matters will be covered by Issue Papers
and do not therefore require consideration in the present phase
of problem definition. A few issues in the PAC list were deemed
to be issues which were best covered in detail by that committee
(e.g. PAC 57) rather than within the framework of the present
process of problem definition.
The addition of the items from the MAC and PAC lists, and a
general restructuring of the TAC list, gave rise to a
consolidated problem list which is shown as section III in this
report. Each problem is identified in respect of its origin (see
information in parentheses after each problem) and problems are
numbered sequentially throughout. Where problems were
Thi__________
San Franc,~co Bay - D~Iiu
4
PAGE 20 Show Image
PAGE 21 Show Image
Aqua*k Habi~ai Inslitule___________________________
significantly reworded froin the original, an asterisk (*) is
added in parentheses. In a few cases, new proble'n areas were
added by AHI; these are shown by the notation [NEW*). In case
~nembers of any of the Cominittees `night wish to trace a problein
froin the original lists to the consolidated list (which is found
between pages 6 and 29) , these relationships are shown in
Appendix C. For example, on page C:l, MAC question 68 is
redesignated as AHI question 33 on the consolidated list.
San F~anci~co Bud Delia
5
PAGE 22 Show Image
PAGE 23 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat 1nstitute
III.CONSOLIDATED LIST OF BAY-DELTA PROBLEMS
PROBLEM AREA I. HOW DOES FRESHWATER INFLOW AFFECT THE BENEFICIAL
USES, PUBLIC HEALTH AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF
THE ESTUARY?
The inflow of freshwater to the San Francisco Bay-Delta
ecosystem has been reduced by an estimated 60% from historical
(pre-185o) inflows, mostly by the diversion of water entering the
Delta to uses south of the Delta and in Southern California. In
addition to this general reduction in inflows of freshwater, the
flow regime through the major rivers and the Delta has been
changed by damming of upstream waters, introduction of controls
on water release from 5ub-catchments, and water diversions. The
reduction in freshwater inflows and the altered flow regime have
a range of consequences for the estuary.
A. HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS
How have hydrodynamic conditions in the Bay-Delta been
affected by reductions in freshwater inflow? [Tac 1/2']
l. Long-term mixing in the Bay is strongly influenced by
exchanges with the coastal ocean as well as by freshwater
inflows. How does the ocean-bay exchange process vary with
tidal amplitude, freshwater inflow, and currents in the
coastal ocean? [Tac I/2b]
Dr~, ~v1
San Franci~ca Bat - Deha
6
PAGE 24 Show Image
PAGE 25 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Institute___________________________
2. Variations in residence times in San Francisco Bay depend in
part on exchanges between the channels and the broad shallow
areas. How are exchanges between these areas affected by
changes in freshwater inflow rates, and how do these effects
compare with those of other factors such as tides and wind?
[TAC I/2c)
3. Gravitational circulation in the northern reach of San
Francisco Bay is an important component of the hydrodynamic
regime of the Bay-Delta, influencing pollutant dispersion
and the movement of biota. How do changes in freshwater
inflow affect the gravitational circulation in the northern
reach of the Bay? [TAC I/2d*]
4. Data suggest that large freshwater inflows from the Delta
reduce residence times in South Bay by replacing a
significant fraction of its water mass with fresh water.
What quantity of inflow and antecedent conditions are
necessary to adequately flush pollutants from the South Bay?
[TAC I/I, 1/2a*]
B. SALINITY INTRUSION
HoW have reductions in freshwater inflows or other phenomena
affected saltwater intrusions into the Delta? [TAC 1/2*]
5. The Delta ecosystem is severely affected when freshwater
inflow is small. Continued and increased freshwater
diversion will exacerbate salinity intrusion. What are the
;1131
~r~ i . ~i
Son Fron~i~co Bot D~iio
7
PAGE 26 Show Image
PAGE 27 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Institute
most appropriate management strategies to preserve the
integrity of the Delta ecosystem? (TAC 1/2e]
6. Failures of levees in the Delta could exacerbate the effects
of inflow reduction on saltwater intrusion, What quantita-
tive effect would levee failures exert on salinity intrusion
in the Delta and are there particularly sensitive areas in
respect of this? [MAC 4*, PAC 50*]
c. SEDIMENT FLUX
To what extent has reduced freshwater inflow affected
sediment fluxes throughout the estuary? [TAC 1/4]
7. Suspended particulates remove pollutants from the aqueous
phase. What impact does reduction in sediment loads have on
dissolved pollutant levels and on nutrient levels and
turbidity in the estuary? [TAC 1/4a]
8. Changes in sediment fluxes and Bay hydrodynamics interact.
How have the sedimentation rates and patterns in the estuary
been affected by this interaction? [TAC 1/4b*]
9. Altered sedimentation rates and patterns give rise to
changes in the Bay bathymetry over time. Is there a need to
update the bathymetric charts of the Bay? [MAC 81*]
San Francisco Bat . Delia
8
PAGE 28 Show Image
PAGE 29 Show Image
Aquaiic Habi£a~ Instilute___________________________
D. EFFECTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
To what extent have reductions of freshwater inflow affected
biological productivity in the ·stuary? [TAC 1/3)
10. The productivity of Suisun Bay depends on adequate
freshwater flows to maintain the null zone in the Bay. How
should freshwater inflows be znanaged to maintain or restore
fisheries Productivity? (TAC 1/3c]
11. Larval stages of important organisms such as English sole,
Dungeness crabs, and flounder are transported to their
nursery grounds by gravitational circulation which is driven
by freshwater inflow. To what extent does the lower
freshwater inflow reduce fisheries productivity? [TAC 1/3b*]
12. Survival of young stages of striped bass and salmon has been
correlated to freshwater inputs from the Delta. What
management strategies are available to maximize fisheries
productivity? [TAC 1/3a*]
13. Reduced freshwater inflows imply increased water diversions
from the Delta by pumping. The pumps entrain fish eggs and
larvae, and losses of fish occur at the screens. How
significant is this factor in the decline of anadroinous fish
stocks in the estuary? [TAC 11l/2b*]
14. Structures employed for water diversions also partially or
completely block the access to spawning areas for some
anadromous fish species. What can be done to improve this
situation? [MAC 40*]
~~n Frunci~co Bud DeIi~
9
PAGE 30 Show Image
PAGE 31 Show Image
Aqtiaiic H~biia~ ln~IiIu~e___________________________
E. WITHIN-BAY WATER USE
15. In addition to the inajor State and Federal diversion
projects, water in the Delta is abstracted for Within-Bay
uses. How significant is this in determining the health of
the estuary? (MAC 59*]
P. INFLOW OUALITY
16. Water diversions and use in the agricultural areas in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin catchments impact the quality of
water in Delta inflows. Is this detrimental to downstream
uses of the water, such as by agriculture in the Delta?
[PAC 20*]
17. Water diversions reduce the quality of downstream water.
Are potable water supplies within the Bay-Delta area being
adversely affected by upstream diversions? [MAC 46*]
G. PLOW REGIME
How have changes in the flow regime in the Delta impacted
the health of the estuary? [MAC 30*]
18. The overall reduction in freshwater inflows to the Delta has
been accompanied by changes in the flow regime. How does
the flow regime contribute to the effects of inflows on the
estuary? [NEW*]
San Francisco Baa D~'ira
10
PAGE 32 Show Image
PAGE 33 Show Image
Aquatic Habiiai Institute___________________________
19. Damming of upstream waters in the Sacramento and San Joaguin
Valleys and offstream storage provides considerable storage
capacity for freshwater. Can the management of water
diversions and inflows be improved to better protect the
health of the estuary at critical periods?
[NEW*]
II. MEASUREMENT OF INFLOWS
20. The importance of Delta inflows in influencing the overall
health of the estuary is generally agreed. However, the
estimation of inflows involves the use of various
assumptions. Can measurements of inflows to the Delta be
improved? [TAC 1/5*]
bun Francisco Baa' - Delru
Il
PAGE 34 Show Image
PAGE 35 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Institute___________________________
PROBLEM AREA ~. HOW DOES USE ~ LAND AND WETLAND5 AFFECT TIlE
BENEFICIAL USES1 PUBLIC HEALTH AND BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES OF THE ESTUA~y?
Land use on the margins of the Bay-Delta and (at least to
some extent) in the znore distant estuarine catchment area
influences the Bay-Delta ecosystem in many diverse ways.
Development of the margins of the Bay can affect the
hydrodynamics of the system, alter nutrient and sediment loads to
the Bay, and have impacts on the productivity and biological
diversity within the estuary. Particular attention has been
focused on wetlands at the Bay-Delta margins; past development
is estimated to have caused the loss of some 94% of the estuary's
historical wetlands area. Wetlands are particularly important as
a unique wildlife habitat in the Bay-Delta, in addition to being
a recreational resource. The remaining wetlands area and its
associated wildlife are at risk from future development and
possibly from the effects of pollution.
A. EFFECTS OF LAND USE
How has past and how may future development of the margins of
the estuary and its catchment affect the Bay? [NEW *]
21. Land use influences the Bay-Delta partially through' water
rights contracts. What unused and unfilled water rights
contracts exist at present within the catchment of the Bay?
[MAC 60 *]
22. Delta islands are important agricultural areas, dependent on
upstream water for irrigation. What is the effect of the
flooding of these islands on the Bay-Delta system? [MAC 76*]
San Fran~i~co Bat Delia
12
PAGE 36 Show Image
PAGE 37 Show Image
Aquaifr Habitai Inslilule___________________________
23. Land use issues, and in particular, wetlands areas, may
influence the local climate and oxygen production in the
Bay-Delta. Can such effects be quantified and controlled?
[PAC 12*]
24. Development of the Bay-Delta margins for general urban
growth or transportation needs causes changes in the shape
of the estuary and its hydrodynamics, with a range of
consequences. Have topographic changes of this type in the
past (and will anticipated future changes) affected
estuarine resources significantly? [TAC 11/2a*, PAC 51*]
25. Past development of the Bay-Delta margins has been largely
of a piecemeal nature, with many different agencies involved.
Can coordination be improved to reduce the overall impact of
future development of the estuarine margins? [PAC 52*]
B. EXTENT OF REMAINING WETLANDS
While it is claimed that some 94% of the historic wetlands
area in the Bay-Delta has been lost, no complete agreement
exists as to the areas of remaining wetlands, their
individual importance, or their risk of development.
[NEW *]
26. No acceptable definition of "wetlands" has been agreed. How
should this term be defined; in particular, should so-
called "seasonal wetlands" be included? [MAC 3*/PAC 43*]
~ .` ~` ru
Sun Fran~£'~< o But Deliu
13
PAGE 38 Show Image
PAGE 39 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat InstI.tute___________________________
27. There exists no up-to-date map of the coastal fringes of the
Bay-Delta showing wetland areas and impending developmental
areas. Should such a map be prepared (and updated
regularly) for coordinated coastal zone planning purposes?
[MAC 6*, PAC 2,3,5,8,13 *]
28. Concern exists over the abundance of eelgrass in the Bay-
Delta, and the loss of eelgrass areas. What is the extent
of past losses of eelgrass and what are the causative
factors for this loss? [MAC 66,67 *j
29. Events outside the Bay-Delta system may also threaten
wetlands and other riparian habitats. These include major
oceanographic and climatological disturbances, which could
cause changes in tidal heights. What can be done about
this? [MAC 37,71 *, PAC 4,45 *]
C. EFFECTS OF LOSS OF WETLANDS
Wetlands and other riparian areas provide unique habitats,
especially for birds and certain endangered species. In
addition, they may be important in respect of primary
productivity and as nursery areas for Bay organisms.
[TAC 11/1*]
ban Franc,~co But - Deilu
14
PAGE 40 Show Image
PAGE 41 Show Image
Aquatk Habiiai Ins~iIuIe___________________________
30. Compared to most other major estuaries, primary productivity
in the Bay-Delta is unusually low. Is habitat modification
and loss contributing to this low productivity, and would
the estuary benefit from enhancement of primary product ion?
[TAC I1/la*~
31. Coastal fishery stocks depend on the availability of
adequate nursery areas. To what extent has coastal
development reduced fisheries? [TAC Il/lb)
32. Wetlands, including riparian areas, are especially important
as habitats for birds, either seasonally or year-round. How
are migratory and resident birds being affected by the loss
or changes in such habitats in the Bay-Delta?
[TAC ll/lc*, MAC 23,32,36 *j
33. Certain endangered species are found only in wetlands.
What is the population status of these species and how will
further changes in such habitats affect them?
[TAC Il/Id *, MAC 24,68,69 *]
D. WETLANDS AND POLLUTION
Given their position at the Bay-Delta margins, wetlands
lie between pollutant sources and sinks in many cases. This
creates conflicts in respect of beneficial uses.
[NEW *j
__ _________jig 13. _____________
Dr., ~ v' vi
San F~anci~co Bat Delia
15
PAGE 42 Show Image
PAGE 43 Show Image
Aquaric H~bi~ai ln~1i1uIe
34. Urban run-off `nay enter wetlands en route to rivers or
the Bay. How does this affect the run-off characteristics
and are the habitats at risk from containinants present in
urban run-off? [MAC 16,17 *]
35. Effluents from sewage treatinent plants `nay also be
discharged to wetlands areas. Is this an acceptable
practice? [TAC II/3a*, MAC 35*j
36. Soine indications of high contaminant levels exist for bird
species using wetlands in the Bay-Delta and its catchment.
What effects are containinant levels having on bird
populations at present, particularly in respect of
reproduction? [NEW *]
E. MANAGEMENT OF RIPARIAN HABITATS
Partly because of previous losses of wetlands and other
unique habitats on the Bay-Delta margins, concern exists at
present over the efficient management and protect ion of
remaining areas. Decisions on the restoration and creation
of such habitats and the mitigation of impacts thereon are
required.
[TAC 11/3*]
~ r' NI
San Francisco Baa - Delia
16
PAGE 44 Show Image
PAGE 45 Show Image
Aquaiic H~biiav InstiKu~e___________________________
37. The existing division of responsibilities for protecting
wetlands may not be ideal. How effective is the current
process, and what additional regulatory/management
policies are needed to adequately protect these diminishing
resources? [MAC 27*,PAC 7*]
38. Concern exists in particular over the issue of public access
to wildlife habitats. How can recreational activities in
such habitats be managed both to ensure their continued
protection, and to maximize the recreational opportunities
provided by such areas? [MAC 42*, PAC 26,27*]
39. Loss of open space, including wetlands, reduces the quality
of life for Bay-Delta residents. What impact has this
factor had on economic growth in the Bay area? [PAC 6*]
40. Current mitigation practices include land banking --
developing one wetland while creating another. Is this
ecologically sound? [TAC Il/3b]
41. Management of the Bay-Delta margins could include restora-
tion of previously degraded wetlands. Is such restoration
likely to be ecologically successful? [TAC II/3c?
Sun Frunci~co Baa Deliu
17
PAGE 46 Show Image
PAGE 47 Show Image
Aqua£ic Habiiat Inslilule___________________________
PROBLEM AREA III. HOW DOES WATERWAY MODIFICATION AFFECT THE
BENEFICIAL USES, PUBLIC HEALTH AND
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE ESTUARY?
Extensive waterway modifications have taken place in the San
Francisco Bay-Delta. In the Bay itself, such modifications
include the construction of breakwaters, the development of
harbors and marinas, and the dredging of navigation channels. In
the riverine system, channels are modified in respect of their
width and depth, and dams and levees are constructed to divert or
store waters. Such modifications of waterways impact the estuary
mostly through direct influences on water flow patterns or
residence times, or by altering sediment fates, or by changing
the historical salinity regime.
The activities associated with waterway modifications
(dredging of material and its disposal elsewhere) are deemed to
be distinct from the modifications themselves, as their impacts
on sediment transport and contaminant distributions in the
estuary largely relate to pollutant issues. These activities are
thus covered in problem area IV.
How haye waterway modifications affected the Bay-Delta in
the past, and can their impacts be ameliorated? [NEW*j
42. The dredging of navigation and flow enhancement channels in
the Bay and the Delta may have adversely affected water flow
patterns and the distributions of particular habitats. How
may past impacts be reduced, and can the effects of future
modifications be predicted? [NEW*]
-r~, ,1- ~
San Franc,~ca Bat - Deiia
18
PAGE 48 Show Image
PAGE 49 Show Image
Aquaiic Habi~ai Instiiuie___________________________
43. The changes in width and depth of Delta channels influence
flow and residence times, giving rise to altered patterns of
salinity intrusion. What is the quantitative effect of such
changes in the past and are such events of critical
importance, e.g. in low flow years? [MAC 82*]
44. The dredging of channels in the Bay and Delta may alter the
movement of groundwater through the estuary. What effects
might this have? [MAC 22*]
45. Waterway modifications may affect the hydrodynamics of the
Bay, particularly in the Delta; this in turn may alter
contaminant distributions and transport. Are detrimental
effects occurring due to such factors? [TAC II1/2c*]
46. The rehabilitation of levees influences riparian habitats.
Are flora and fauna of such habitats seriously affected by
these factors?
[TAC I11/2a* MAC 31*]
47. The repair, maintenance and rehabilitation of levees in the
Delta influence water quality, especially in respect of
salinity intrusions. What are the effects of such activi-
ties on potable water supplies in the Delta? [PAC 23*]
48. The development of breakwaters, harbors and marinas
influences sediment fate in the estuary by creating areas of
slack water where sediments may accumulate. Do such areas
create hot-spots of high sediment contamination and does
this have significant impacts on Bay-wide water quality?
[NEW*]
~ r' -1 ru
San Francisco Bat 1)t~ii~
19
PAGE 50 Show Image
PAGE 51 Show Image
Aquaiic Habitat In~Ii~uIe___________________________
PROBLEM AREA IV. ROW DO IN-PLACE, POINT-SOURCE AND NON POINT-
SOURCE POLLUTANTS AFFECT THE BENEFICIAL USES1
PUBLIC HEALTH AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE
ESTUARY?
The San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem is subjected to
considerable loads of contaminants from diverse point and non-
point sources. In addition, concentrations of some contaminants
are known to be significantly elevated in some portions of the
estuary. The distribution and biological effects of these
contaminants have been poorly characterized, despite the
expenditure of very considerable sums on monitoring programs.
There is a need for improved coordination of research in the Bay-
Delta on pollutants. In particular, the demonstration of cause
and effect relationships for pollutants in the Bay-Delta
ecosystem is required. Problems exist in respect of the
characterization of pollutant sources and distribution in the
estuary; in defining the biological effects of pollutants in the
Bay-Delta; in selecting study methods; and in respect of the
management and regulation of contaminants in the estuary.
A. CHARACTERIZATION OF SOURCES AND DISTRIBUTIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
Despite considerable effort and expenditure on monitoring
contaminant sources and distributions within the Bay-Delta,
present knowledge is fragmentary and inadequate in many
respects. [TAC Iv/l*, MAC 84*~
ir~~ ~,` Nih
Sun Frun~i~co But - Deiiu
20
PAGE 52 Show Image
PAGE 53 Show Image
Aquaik Habi~a~ InstiIu~e___________________________
49. The contributions of various sources to overall contaminant
loads to the Bay-Delta are poorly defined. Which sources
are predominant for each contaminant type, and how can the
existing database be improved? [Sources considered should
include point discharges (industrial and municipal), urban
run-off, agricultural run-off, vessel-related pollution,
spills, landfill leachates, atmospheric deposition, dredging
and dumping, and inputs from rivers entering the Bay].
[TAC 1V/la,b*, MAC 9,64,65,83*, PAC 18,28,48*]
50. Certain areas of the estuary are known td be particularly
contaminated by one or more pollutants. What are the loca-
tions of Bay-Delta "hot-spots" and what major sources cause
this contamination? [MAC 44*]
51. Baseline data are required, against which to measure future
trends in contaminant levels in the Bay-Delta. Are existing
monitoring programs sufficient for this purpose; if not,
which programs should be introduced? [PAC 32*]
52. Some data suggest that pollutants are affecting the
populations of certain fish species in the Bay-Delta. Are
data on fish populations adequate to discern trends
accurately; if not, how can they be improved? [MAC 32*]
53. The open coastal waters of Northern California are relative-
ly pristine. Does the estuary export significant quantities
of contaminants to this environment? [TAC IV/lc]
Sun Francisco Bat - Delia
21
PAGE 54 Show Image
PAGE 55 Show Image
Aquatic H~bjiat In~IiruIe__________________________
54. Total contaminant loads to the Bay have generally increased
with urbanization. Can the historical record of contaminant
abundance be reconstructed through the analysis of sediment
cores and be used to set environmental goals? [TAC IV/Id]
55. The accumulation of certain contaminants in parts
of the Bay-Delta is considered to be a threat to some orga-
nisms. What aspects of knowledge on the bio-availability of
these contaminants need to be clarified to fully assess this
threat? [TAC IV/lej
B. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF POLLUTANTS
Concentrations of Contaminants which are potentially harmful
have been detected in sediment, water and organisms of the
Bay-Delta estuary. However, little is known of their actual
effects on estuarine biota or on human health.
[TAC IV/3]
56. Some stream waters entering the estuary exhibit significant
toxicity in bioassays. What is the contribution of agricul-
tural run-off and pesticides to this phenomenon? Should
additional testing be undertaken?
[TAC IV/3f*, MAC 25,28*, PAC 41*]
San Francisco Baa - D~Ii~i
22
PAGE 56 Show Image
PAGE 57 Show Image
Aquaik Habitat InstiIute___________________________
57. Diluted effluents from industrial and municipal point
sources also exhibit toxicity, to phytoplan)tton and other
biota. What impacts do these discharges exert in the Bay-
Delta itself? Could the discharges be better located?
[TAC IV/3c*, MAC 48*, PAC 21*]
58. Both dredging and dumping release large quantities of
sediment into the water column, increasing the turbidity of
Bay waters. Does this significantly affect primary
productivity in the estuary? [TAC 11I/la*]
59. The movement of sediments through dredging and dumping
activities may mobilize contaminants and re-introduce these
to the water column, either in dissolved form or in
association with sediment particles. How significant is
this factor in the estuary? [TAC I11/lb*, MAC 20*]
60. Dumping sites in the Bay have been selected because of high
dispersive capacities; however, little is known of where
dredged material is actually transported to in the Bay. The
accumulation of spoil dumped at Alcatraz is of particular
concern. Can current practices and dumping areas be better
selected to protect the estuary? [Nsw*]
61. Some estuarine sediments have been shown to be toxic to Bay
Delta biota. What locations harbor toxic sediments and what
effects do these have on biota in the estuary?
[TAC IV/3g*, MAC 5,7*]
r' . vI
San Francisco Baa - Delia
23
PAGE 58 Show Image
PAGE 59 Show Image
Aquaik Habiiai In~tiIu~e___________________________
62. Samples collected from the sea-surface Thicrolayer from urban
bays in Puget Sound and elsewhere have been shown to be
highly toxic to eggs and larvae of commercial fish. Is
there a similar problem in the Bay-Delta estuary?
[TAC IV/3e]
63. Tributyl tin (TBT) is widely used on vessels berthed in the
estuary. TBT use has been shown to contribute to the
decline of shellfish in European estuaries. Is there a
similar problem in the Bay-Delta estuary? [TAC IV/3d]
64. It is widely believed that populations of several Bay-Delta
species have declined over the last 20 years. Reproductive
impairment has been documented in some species of fish. To
what extent have pollutants contributed to this decline?
[TAC IV/3a,b*]
65. Concern has been expressed over the hoineporting of vessels
in the Bay-Delta. Do such vessels constitute a threat to
Bay-Delta biota? [PAC 55*]
66. Contaminants.pose a particular threat to public health if
they are present in potable water supplies. Are such
potable waters of acceptable guality at present?
[PAC 22*]
~~, ` v' vI ________________
San Francisco Baa Delia
24
PAGE 60 Show Image
PAGE 61 Show Image
Aquatk Habiia~ In~riiu~e____________________________
67. Shellfish in the Bay-Delta are not presently commercially
harvested for human consumption , due to microbial and
chemical pollution. What are the economic losses from this?
Does non-commercial exploitation constitute a threat to
public health? [TAC IV/3h,i*1 MAC 62,63*j
68. Species other than shellfish in the Bay-Delta also accumu-
late parasites, inicrobial agents and contaminants of various
types. Is public health at risk from the consumption of
these species? [TAC IV/3h,3'*]
C. STUDY NETHODS
Progress in characterizing the abundance and biological
effects of contaminants in the Day-Delta depends upon the
use of the best available methodology, continuing
enhancement of study methods, and high standards of quality
assurance and quality control in all investigations.
[TAC IV/2*J
69. It is currently impossible to derive a comprehensive picture
of chemical distribution in the Bay-Delta ecosystem because
of inadequate standardization of study methods and analyti-
cal techniques. How should quality assurance and quality
control procedures be implemented within the Bay-Delta
research community? [TAC IV/2a]
r' -1
San Francisco Baa Delia
25
PAGE 62 Show Image
PAGE 63 Show Image
Aquatic Hab1.iat In~ti£u~e____________________________
70. Regulatory agencies have recently developed a broader
approach to the evaluation of toxicity of waste discharges.
Despite this, there is disagreement on the selection of
appropriate toxicity tests for environmental regulation.
Which tests provide the most meaningful basis for regulatory
decisions? [TAC IV/2b]
71. Acute bioassays do not adequately predict most kinds of
chronic or latent effects of toxicants on biota. Is it
possible to select bioassays that predict such effects?
[TAC IV/2c]
72. Bay-Delta sediments contain concentrations of PAHs and
metals which could be acutely toxic to organisms. However,
bioassay testing of Bay sediments on a variety of species
has produced highly conflicting results among tests. How
can the toxicity of sediments be accurately predicted in
order to establish sediment quality criteria? [TAC IV/2d]
73. Present monitoring programs documenting contaminant concen-
trations in water, sediment and organisms report large
numbers of measurements below detection limits, reducing
value for money and the worth of the database in evaluation
of Bay-Delta problems. What steps can be taken to avoid
this waste of resources? [TAC IV/2e]
74. Current monitoring indices (e.g. the striped bass health
index) used for evaluating fish stocks are relied upon
heavily. How accurate are such indices and can they be
improved? [TAC 1V/2f*]
San Francisco Bat Delia
26
PAGE 64 Show Image
PAGE 65 Show Image
Aquaiic Habitat Institute___________________________
75. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually on moni-
toring contaminant fates and effects in aquatic environments
in the U.S. However, very little attention is paid to the
use of these data or the coordination between programs when
they are designed. How can this dilemma best be avoided in
Bay-Delta studies? [TAC IV/2g]
76. Research has indicated correlations of many factors in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem, including those concerning the impact
of contaminants on Bay resources. However, the establish-
ment of definitive cause and effect relationships is elusive.
What studies should be done to remedy this situation?
[TAC IV/2h]
77. Recent syntheses of long-term studies of bottom communities
have provided great insight into temporal and spatial
trends. What other long-term studies of living resources
are required to differentiate between natural and anthropo-
genic causes of change? [TAC IV/2i]
D. REGtLATORY AND XANAGEMENT CONCERNS
The control of contaminant discharges to the Bay-Delta
receiving waters relies upon a complex regulatory procedure,
involving the issue of discharge permits, the setting of
water quality objectives, the requirement for treatment of
wastes, and many other activities by various State and
Federal agencies. [NEW*)
San Francisco Baa Delia
27
PAGE 66 Show Image
PAGE 67 Show Image
Aquaik Habiiai Instirule___________________________
78. Water quality objectives are breached for some toxicants in
certain portions of the Bay-Delta. Which areas are these
and what can be done to avoid this scenario? Are existing
waste treatment practices adequate? [MAC 12,33,45,51*]
79. Future urban growth on the Bay-Delta Tnargins and in the
catchment is likely to give rise to increased loadings of
toxicants to receiving waters. What is the projected growth
in loads and how can this be accommodated? [MAC 77*]
80. Urban and agricultural run-off are thought to be the source
of considerable loads of certain types of contaminants in
the estuary. How can these inputs be controlled; in parti-
cular, how effective is grading in the control of run-off?
[MAC 34*, PAC 11*]
81. Very large quantities of petroleum and products thereof are
transported into and out of the Bay-Delta annually. Are the
currently available technology and the materials on hand
adequate to deal with oil spills in the estuary?
[MAC 73,74*, PAC 16,17*]
82. The complexity involved in regulating contaminants within
the Bay-Delta is matched by the competing beneficial uses of
Bay-Delta waters, e.g. by upstream dischargers and down-
stream users. How can communication and coordination between
agencies be improved? [PAC 39*]
San Fran~i~ro Bat Delia
28
PAGE 68 Show Image
PAGE 69 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Institute___________________________
83. Federal, State and sometimes local regulations exist which
relate to permissible contaminant levels in biota.
However, such regulations are not always consistent. Is
existing legislation adequate and appropriate in this area?
[MAC 54*~
San Franci~ca Baa - D~iia
29
PAGE 70 Show Image
PAGE 71 Show Image
Aquatic Habiiui Insiiiuie___________________________
IV. THE FIRST SCREENING PROCESS
l. CRITERIA EMPLOYED
The criteria employed in the initial screening process of
the 83-problem consolidated list were provided by EPA Region Ix,
as agreed by the MAC meeting of 27 May 1987. The three criteria
were as follows:
* Does the issue concern an impact on a number of resources
or uses of the estuary?
* Does the issue have a systemwide impact?
* Does the issue have major local impacts?
It should be noted that ranking each of the problems on the
basis of these three criteria was not a straightforward task.
This was a function of one or more of the following:
(i) The problems ranged in nature from more generic to highly
specific areas. Problems of a more generic nature (i.e.
covering a broader subject matter) are more likely to
score well against the above criteria than those of a very
specific nature.
(ii) In some cases, a problem which was subjectively deemed to
be of importance in the Bay-Delta did not surviVe the
initial screening process. Thus, for example, problems
relating specifically to fisheries, or birdlife, or
endangered species, were considered in most cases to
relate to single resources (and hence failed criterion l
above). It might be argued that these topics are
actually related to multiple resources, as all involve
San Fran(i~f o Bat - I)elru
30
PAGE 72 Show Image
PAGE 73 Show Image
Aquaiic Habi~ai Insiituie___________________________
recreational activities also. However, this argument is
somewhat tenuous. Had such concepts been employed
throughout the screening process, almost all issues would
have survived, as each part or property of the estuary is
related in some fashion to multiple resources and to its
overall health. For the initial screening process to have
some value, the criteria were thus employed strictly, and
an attempt was made to avoid more tenuous connections
between different facets or properties of estuarine
resources.
(iii) In certain cases, the criteria did not specifically
relate to the problem listed. An example is question 20,
related to the need for improvements in Delta flow
measurements. The actual measurement of this parameter
does not relate properly to any of the criteria above,
although inflow quantity her se and its change with time
is thought to be of considerable importance in defining the
health of the Bay resources. In this case, a pragmatic
approach was taken to the problem. It was reasoned that
if inflow measurements provided data approximating actual
flows (and generally reflected flow variations with time
accurately), this problem would not be paramount in
importance. Similar approaches were taken elsewhere,
both in the first and second screening process.
Sun Francisco Baa - D~IIa
31
PAGE 74 Show Image
PAGE 75 Show Image
PAqua£ic Habiiai InsIiIu~e___________________________
Despite such drawbacks (which would exist whichever criteria
were chosen), the initial screening process is considered to be a
useful tool in selecting the problems of greatest impact in the
Bay-Delta. It might also be noted here that weighting of
criteria or scoring within criteria were both considered as
methods of refining the first screening process. These were
rejected, however, as being insufficiently objective in nature
(and not previously agreed by either the MAC or EPA). Individual
problems were thus scored as "l" (passes criterion) or ll0ll (fails
criterion). Scoring was conducted independently by four
technical staff members of AHI producing rather uniform results.
The authors jointly evaluated those problems which were not
uniformly rated by the four scorers and arrived at a consensus.
Scoring on this basis is depicted in Table l; the following
sections discuss the results by major category.
2.INFLOW
While Delta inflow is widely believed to be important in its
effects on the San Francisco estuary, only 5 of the 20 problems
(25%) relating to inflow on the consolidated list survived the
initial screening process. A variety of reasons exist for this,
as shown in the "remarks" column of Table l. The two main
reasons for failure in the screening process were either a lack
of systemwide impact in respect of some problems (e.g. those
concerned with gravitational circulation, or the South Bay or
Delta areas only) or a lack of impact on more than one resource
(e.g. those problems relating to agriculture, fisheries or
potable water only).
____________i~i_____________
~ r' ~?`
San Francisco Bay . Delia
32
PAGE 76 Show Image
PAGE 77 Show Image
one prooieni pa~~e~ u inwcaie~ one pro~iem iaii~ ~ ~~~~i~ ~r'~ cn~non K~a~on? ior brie iaiier are. i~ven
in the remark~co1umn.
impact on Su3temvideMajor local
Number everal rcsourcc~ Impact 1mpact~ REMARKS
or used
/N.~Q~ ?`~."
___ 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
2 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
1 O 1 NORTHERNREACHONLV
4 I O 1 SOUTH BAY ONLY
5 1 O 1 DELTA ONLY
6 O O 1 AGRICULTURE AND DELTA ONLY
7 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
1 O 1 MAINLY DELTA AND NORTHERN REACH
9 O 1 1 BATHYMETRY AND VESSEL TRAFFIC ONLY
10 O O 1 FISHERIES AND NORTHERN REACH ONLY
11 O 1 1 FISHERIES ONLY
12 O 1 1 FISHERIES ONLY
13 O 1 O FISHERIESONLY' PROBABLYNOT MAJOR LOCAL IMPACT
14 O 1 1 FISHERIES ONLY
15 1 O 1 DELTA ONLY
16 1 O 1 bELtAbNLY
1 7 O O 1 POTABLE WATER AND NORTHERN REACH ONLY
1 ~ 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
19 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
20 O O O NOTCENTRALTO INFLOW EFFECTS
21 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
22 O O 1 AGRICULTURE MAINLY- DELTA MAINLY
23 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
24 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
25 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
27 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
2S- 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
29 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
30 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
31 O 1 1 FISHERIES ONLY
32 O 1 1 BIRD LIFE ONLY
331 O 1 1 ENDANGERED SPECIES ONLY
34 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
35 1 O 1 PROBABLYONLY LOCAL EFFECTS
O 1 1 BIRD POPULATIONS ONLY
37 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
3 O 1 1 RECREATION ONLY
39 O 1 1 ECONOMICS ONLY
40 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
41 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
33
PAGE 78 Show Image
PAGE 79 Show Image
T~b1e 1. (Continued).
Impact on ~~temvideMajor local
Number everal re:ourcc: impact impect~
or use: RIEMARKS
fr4 Tt~~.4)~'
42 O 1 UNLIKELYTOBESYSTEMWIDEINEFFECT
43 1 O 1 DELTAONL~
44 O O 1 LOCAL IMPACTSONLY LIKELY
45 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
46 0 0 I LOCAL EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE ONLY
47 O O I POTABLE WATER AND DELTA ONLY
48 I I 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
L~ 1'7~~VTS
49 1 I 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
50 I O I LOCAL BY DEFINITION
51 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
52 O I I FISHERIES ONLY
53 I O I NOT ESTUARY RELATED AS SUCH
54 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
55 I 1 I SURVIVES SCREENING
56 I 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
57 1 1 I SURVIVES SCREENING
58 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
59 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
60 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
61 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
62 O I 1 FISHERIES ONLY
63 1 O I LOCAL EFFECTS ONLY PROBABLY
64 O 1 1 FISHERIES ONLY
65 1 O I LOCALEFFECTSONLYPROBA~LY
66 O 1 1 POTABLE WATER ONLY
67 1 O 1 SHELLFISH BEDS NOT SYSTEMWIDE
6P 1 I O NOT LOCAL IN NATURE
69 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
70 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
71 1 1 I SURVIVES SCREENING
72 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
73 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
74 O 1 O FISHERIES ONLY; NOT LOCAL IN NATURE
75 1 I 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
76 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
77 1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
1 1 1 SURVIVES SCREENING
79 I I I SURVIVES SCREENING
80 I I I SURVIVES SCREENING
81 1 I I SURVIVES SCREENING
82 I I O NOT LOCAL IN NATURE
83 I I I SURVIVES SCREENING
34
PAGE 80 Show Image
PAGE 81 Show Image
Aqualic Habiiai Jnsiiiu~e__________________________
Freshwater inflow into the Bay through the Delta is (and has
been) the subject of study by many organizations and is the
central topic of the State Water Resources Control Board Hearings
commenced in mid-1987. Many of the previous and ongoing studies
have been concerned with understanding impacts of inflows on
single resources, such as agriculture or fisheries. The mandate
of the EPA Bay-Delta Project and the limited funds available for
developing information and methods to protect Bay-Delta resources
suggest that Project funds should be directed toward inflow
questions which are clearly related to managment actions to
control impacts on multiple resources or uses of the estuary.
The five problems relating to inflow which survived the
initial screening process fall naturally into three groups, as
follows:
(i) Problems l and 2 relate to inixing of Bay-Delta waters and
residence times within the estuary, as influenced by Delta
inflow rates.
(ii) Problem 7 concerns the impact of sediment flux through
the estuary, which has been altered with the change in
inflow rates. This is likely to be significant in respect
of nutrient and turbidity levels in the estuary and may
influence dissolved contaminant levels in the system.
(iii) Problems 18 and 19 both concern the flow regime, as
opposed to total inflow quantities ner se. This topic was
proposed for inclusion in the MAC meeting of 27 May 1987.
These problems are considered of high priority, as in a
pragmatic sense it is far more likely that inflow regimes
~£in Franci.sco But D('I1u
35
PAGE 82 Show Image
PAGE 83 Show Image
Aquaiic Habilai In~iiiu1e___________________________
could be subsL-antially altered in t'~e estuary
management strategies, than that total inflow c~~ -I·~I~
could be significantly changed.
3.LAND USE
Of 21 original problems in the consolidated lI£~, 5C~ffl
survived the initial screening process (62%). This hic.~ ~`~c~.~
rate is a function of the general importance of facz-zr~ r=~&
to land use in deter~nining the health of tee estuarrn.ne :~3~L- -
Problems in this category which failed the inl$:i&-l
process did so mainly because of a lack of impact o:~ i:~t:ffi ~i)~ffi~
resc~rces or uses of the est'~ary. The 00~nLent5 in s~c-~~: l
above are relevant to this topic; this criterIon
strictly in order to reduce the problem list to a n~na~~~--rn
Problems passing the criteria used in initial c~~ern~~:- ~
fall into two general groups, relating to pact an& Jt'J~?.
development of the Bay-Delta maroins and its contr~l, an t~
host of issues concerning wetlands. Topics concerning wet~~~
were succe~sft~1 5n p~ss1n~ +:~~ scr~~-~~p~ -~~
of the scarcity of remaining wetland areas (hence c-r
importance as a unique habitat) and their probable or
demonstrated effects on both the Bay-Delt~ as a Whbffi3
portions o-~ the estuary. In~uf flcient data eyIst on t:-
iinportance of wetlands to the Bay-Delta ecosystem; funds
from the Bay-Delta project coulQ' help to redress this.
_ __ _ ______~1£1____ _ _ _
Sun ~~ran~i~~o Bud - D('I1Q
PAGE 84 Show Image
PAGE 85 Show Image
Aquatic Habi~aI In~*iguie___________________________
4. WATERWAY MODIFICATION
The consolidated list of problems contained only 7
individual issues in this category. Of these, 2 passed the
initial screening process (29%). The problems which failed did
not relate significantly to multiple resources or uses in the
estuary (numbers 44, 46 and 47) and/or were not considered to be
of major systemwide impact (all problems except 45 and 48).
The two problems in this category which survived the
screening process are related to each other. Problem 45 concerns
the impacts of waterway modifications on the hydrodynamics of the
Bay-Delta, and hence on contaminant distributions within the
estuary. Problem 48 is a more specific topic in the same general
area, dealing with sedimentation and contaminant build-up in
areas of poor flushing created by the development of harbors and
marinas. Certain areas of this type in the Bay are known to
exhibit highly elevated levels of toxicants in sediments,
although whether these affect water quality of the Bay as a whole
is uncertain.
5. POLLUTANTS
This constituted the largest category in the consolidated
problem list, with a total of 35 issues. Some 23 of these
survived the screening process (66%), a success rate similar to
that in the land use category.
San Fran<~i~co Bat
37
PAGE 86 Show Image
PAGE 87 Show Image
$ Aquatic Habitat 1n~titute____________________________
The problems relating to pollutants which failed the
screening process did so for a variety of reasons, as shown in
Table l. Some were of Tnajor concern to only a single resource in
the estuary (e.g. wildlife, fisheries, potable water, shellfish
beds). Others were not systemwide in their impact (e.g.
pollutant hot-spots, tributyltin effects, shell fisheries).
Finally, some were not-of major local iinpact (e.g. fish stock
monitoring).
The 23 problems surviving initial screening in this category
are best grouped under their headings shown in the consolidated
list of problems. These are:
(i) Characterization of contaminant sources and distributions:
problems 49, 51, 54, and 55.
(ii) Biological effects of pollutants: problems 56 to 61.
(iii) Study methods: problems 69 to 73, and 75 to 77.
(iv) Regulatory and management concerns: problems 78 to 81, and
83.
It is notable here that despite the expenditure of largc- =um~ of
money in the past on monitoring contaminants in the Bay-Delta,
issues relating to characterization of their sources and
distributions continue to be of concern. In particular,
contaminant transport and remobilization through dredging and
dumping activities in the estuary is an issue considered worthy
of attention. Problems relating to study methods were also
highly successful in surviving the initial screening process,
suggesting that these issues are important and that the existing
Sun Francisco Bat - D~iia
38
PAGE 88 Show Image
PAGE 89 Show Image
F Aquaiic Habiiat Instiiu*e___________________________
database on contaminants in the estuary is inadequate due to
methodological problems. Regulatory and management concerns
scored well in initial screening; many of these problems are
generic in nature and `nay have significant impacts on multiple
Bay resources or uses, both systemwide and in local areas.
6. SUMMARY OF INITIAL SCREENING PROCESS
The 83 problems on the consolidated list were ranked against
three criteria provided by the EPA and agreed by the MAC at their
meeting of 27 May 1987. No weighting was accorded to the
criteria, as these processes were deemed to be insufficiently
objective in nature. Individual problems were scored as "l"
(passes) or "o" (fails) on each criterion, and were considered to
have survived the initial screening process if they passed all
three criteria employed.
In the four major problem categories (inflow, land use,
waterway modification and pollutants), overall success rates in
surviving the initial screening process were 25%, 62%, 29% and
66% respectively. The low success rate in the inflow category
related to either a lack of major systemwide impact in respect of
specific problems, or to a probable lack of impact on more than
one resource within the Bay. It is noted that inflows to the Bay
are the subject of many ongoing studies which are heavily funded,
and will be considered in detail in the State Board Hearings
later this year. The large numbers of problems relating to
wetlands and to pollutants surviving the screening process
reinforce the considerable attention paid to these areas by the
bun Frunci~co BUL Deli£i
39
PAGE 90 Show Image
PAGE 91 Show Image
LAquatic Habi£al Institute___________________________
individual cominittees, and indeed by the Bay cominunity in
general.
The initial screening process reduced the consolidated list
of 83 probleins to a total of 43. It was felt that this number
was too great to perinit detailed consideration by the MAC at the
`fleeting of 9 July 1987. A second screening process was thus
undertaken, on only those problems which had survived the initial
screening.
Stin Fran~i~co Bud - Delia
40
PAGE 92 Show Image
PAGE 93 Show Image
Aquaiic Habital 1nsii*u~e__________________________
V. THE SECOND SCREENING PROCESS
l. CRITERIA EMPLOYED
The criteria employed in the second screening process
(applied only to the 43 problems surviving the initial screen)
were agreed by the MAC on 27 May 1987 and were as follows:
* Can the issue be studied within expected Project cost
constrai~ts?
* Can the issue be addressed within the 5 year Project time
frame?
* Can the issue be abated with control programs that would
not be prohibitively expensive?
* Is the issue one which is not being adequately studied in
the Bay now?
It is recognized that advice from the MAC meeting of 27 May was
that some important problems relating to the Bay-Delta ecosystem
might be omitted by application of the cost and time constraints
inherent in the above criteria. However, the initial screening
process has reduced the number of problems in the ccnsolidated
list only to 43, which is considered too great for meaningful
consideration without an attempt at further screening. In
addition, the funding and time constraints on the EPA Bay-Delta
Project are undoubtedly relevant to decisions on issues which
this particular project should address; hence, these criteria
are seen as valid to identify such issues.
It was necessary to approximately quantify certain cost-
related terms in the criteria employed in this screening process.
Sun Frun~i~~o But - Deiiu
4l
PAGE 94 Show Image
PAGE 95 Show Image
Aquatic Habivat In~~iiute___________________________
"Expected Project cost constraints" were considered to be a total
of $2 inillion, available over the remaining 4 years of the Bay-
Delta Project. This is approximately 50% of the likely total
budget through that period. The question of "prohibitive
expense" of control measures is more difficult to deal with, as
the value of controls (the improvement in estuarine resources
generated by their introAuction) should be taken into account
(i.e. the exercise is of a cost-benefit nature essentially). On
balance, it was considered that $100 million should be used as
the cut-off point to define "prohibitively expensive" controls.
There was no attempt to relate the cost to inferred benefits.
As in the initial screening process, neither weighting of
criteria nor scoring within a criterion were employed in the
second screening of problems. Individual problems were thus
scored as "l" (passes criterion) or "0" (fails criterion) . The
results of the second screening process are shown in Table 2. In
general, a higher percentage of problems survived screening
against the four criteria used here than was the case for the
initial screening process. Problems which did not survive are
considered below.
2. INFLOW
Problems l and 2 failed to survive the second screening
process. This was largely due to the considerable costs involved
in attempting to significantly alter the mixing regimes or
residence times of Bay waters. The tidal prism of the Bay is
already very considerable and could not easily be enhanced.
bun Franci~~o Bud DeI~u
42
PAGE 96 Show Image
PAGE 97 Show Image
able 2. Results of the second screening proce~$ Problem numbers refer to those in the consolidated list "1
indicMes the problem passes; "O indicates the problem fails to satisfy the criterion. Only problems
survlvl nq Ifle 1 nltlal screening process considered.
cost Time ~ontro1 Present
Number constraints frame ro~ram cost studies Remarks
/.~.r~ Or's'
1 1 1 O O E~'PENSIVE TO CONTROL USGS DWRSTUDY
2 1 1 O 1 EXPENSIVE TO CONTROL
3
4
5
6
7 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
8
q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
1 9 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
20
21 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
231 1 1 O 1 CONTROL NOT POSSIELE
24 1 1 O O RETROSPECTIVE CONTROL UNLIKELY MOE)ELLING
25 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
26 1 1 1 1 SURVIVL~ SECOND SCREENING
27 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
29 O 1 O 1 E~~PEN5IVE TO STUDY IMPOSSIBLE TO C04TROL
301 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
31
321
331
34 1 1 1 1 URYIVES SECOND SCREENING
35.'
361
37 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
3cI
39
4'' 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
41 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
43
PAGE 98 Show Image
PAGE 99 Show Image
TuuLi~ 2. (Cunbnu~).
Co:t Ii me Control Pre:ent
Number constreint~ freme proqrom cost studies Remarks
W4 76:~L.~ ).
~`?/~.%r~ .T/LW
42
43
44
45 O I O EXPENSIVE TO STUDY OR CONTROL
46
47
48 1 1 1 I SURVIVE SECOND SCREENING
49 1 O PRESENTLY STUDIED AT AHI AND ELSEWHERE
50
51 I 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
52
53
54 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
55 O O O 1 VERY DIFFICULT AND COSTLY TO STUDY OR CONTROL
56 1 1 O O DIFFICULT TO CONTROL,-CVRW()CB STUDY
57 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
58 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
59 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
60 ,1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
61 1 1 O 1 EXPENSIVE TO CONTROL
62'
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
70 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING*
71 1 1 1 O PRESENT STUDIES (STATE AND FEDERAL) ADEUU4TE
72 1 1 1 O PRESENT STUDIES (STATE AND FEDERAL) ADEOUATE
73 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
74
75 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
76 1 1 1 1 SURVIVES SECOND SCREENING
77 O O 1 1 EN PENSIVE TO STUDY AND LONG-TERM
7o~ 1 1 1 1 SURVIVESSECONDSCREENING*
79 1 1 1 1 SURVIYESSECONDSCREENING*
80 1 1 1 1 SURVIVESSECONDSCREENING*
81 1 1 1 O COASTGUARDRESPONSIBILITY
82
83 1 1 1 O SWRC8/DHS/FDA RESPONSIBILITY
Ofl9oiflq ~tudie~ exist but could be ~upp1emented.
44
PAGE 100 Show Image
PAGE 101 Show Image
Aqualic Habzial Ins1i~uve___________________________
Significant improvements in flushing by enhancing inflow
quantities are also not likely to occur, given the continuing
demands for water from outside the Bay-Delta catch~ent area.
3.LAND USE
* Problem 23: It is cost unlikely that wetland areas can be
sufficiently increased over that presently existing to
significantly affect either the local climate or oxygen
production.
* Problem 24: Modeling studies of Bay-Delta hydrodynamics have
been employed in the past (and can be used in future) to
investigate the influence of development on the Tflargins of the
estuary on water flows. Past effects are most unlikely to be
controllable.
* Problem 29: Major oceanographic and climatological events
outside the Bay-Delta system cannot be controlled, and would be
costly to study.
4.WATERWAY MQDTFICATION
The detailed effects of waterway inodifications on Bay-Delta
hydrodynamics and contaminant distributions (problem 45) would be
costly to study, either by modeling or field studies; both would
probably be required to resolve significant problems. The control
of such effects might also be expensive, at least if changes to
existing waterway depths or widths were required.
San Franci~ca Baa D~Iia
45
PAGE 102 Show Image
PAGE 103 Show Image
PAGE 104 Show Image
_______________________Aquatic Habi~a~ Jnsliiule
5.POLLUTANTS
* Problem 49: AHI (and certain other organizations) are
presently compiling data on contaminant sources and their
distributions in the Bay-Delta, for the State Board hearings
and the EPA Estuary Project. Additional work on this topic is
not considered necessary.
* Problem 55: Much study is being undertaken on a world-wide
basis on contaminant bio-a~ailability. This topic is very
broad and exceptionally complex. It is considered unlikely
that short-term projects could adequately address this area of
work.
* Problem 56: The control of agricultural run-off and consequent
sporadic acute toxicity of streamwaters is very difficult to
achieve, at least if pesticide use is to continue. The Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board is expending
considerable time and money on such problems currently.
* Problem 61: The toxicity of Bay-Delta sediments may be
redressed only through their removal or covering. This process
would be exceptionally costly if significant areas of sediments
were involved; additionally, the problem of disposal would be
considerable.
* Problems 71 and 72: EPA and other national organizations are
undertaking large programs concerned with bioassay techniques.
The Bay-Delta Project is unlikely to be able to significantly
improve on this effort.
* Problem 77: Resolution of this important question will depend
on acquisition of a long-term database of high quality field
observations.
Sun Francisco Baa - Deliu
46
PAGE 105 Show Image
PAGE 106 Show Image
Aquatic Habitat Ins~iiuIe___________________________
* Problem 81: Oversight of the control of oil spills is the
responsibility of the US Coast Guard.
* Problem 83: Regulations designed to protect public health are
generally thought to be adequate in the Bay-Delta. There is no
evidence from epidemiological studies of significant problems.
6.SUMMARY OF SECOND SCREENING PROCESS
Of 43 problems entering the second screening process, 28
survived. These problems are considered to be of high priority
in the Bay-Delta ecosystem and worthy of further detailed
consideration. The surviving problems are listed by category in
Table 3.
Several individual problems or issues stand out from this list
as of greatest potential importance. These are suggested to be
the following:
* Inflow regimes (Problem l9)
Given the continued and increasing demand for water from the
Delta, it is likely that proposals to significantly increase
total inflows of freshwater to the Bay would be vigorously
opposed by proponents for competing demands. The amelioration
of the various effects of water diversions may thus be more
likely to be successful through changes in the inflow regime,
to protect critical areas or resources at particular times.
Such practices exist already in respect of the control of
saline intrusions, but could be extended to protect other
resources, if this were found to be feasible.
San Francisco Baa Delia
47
PAGE 107 Show Image
PAGE 108 Show Image
Aquatk Habitat Ins£iiuie____________________________
Table 3. Problems surviving the two-stage screening process and
considered to be of high priority for inore detailed
study within the EPA Bay-Delta Project.
Category Number* Problem
Inflow 7 Suspended particulates remove
pollutants from the aqueous phase.
What impact does reduction in
sediment loads have on dissolved
pollutant levels and on nutrient
levels and turbidity in the
estuary?
18 The overall reduction in freshwater
inflows to the Delta has been
accompanied by changes in the flow
regime. How does the flow regime
contribute to the effects of
inflows on the estuary?
19 Damming of upstream waters in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin provides
considerable storage capacity for
freshwater. Can the management of
water diversions and inflows be
improved to better protect the
health of the estuary at critical
periods?
Land Use 21 Land use influences the Bay-Delta
partially through water rights
contracts. What unused and
unfilled water rights contracts
exist at present within the
catchment of the Bay?
25 Past development of the Bay-Delta
margins has been largely of a
piecemeal nature, with many
different agencies involved. Can
coordination be improved to reduce
the overall impact of future
development of the estuarine
margins?
26 No acceptable. definition of
"wetlands" has been agreed. How
should this term be defined; in
particular, should so-called
"seasonal wetlands" beincluded?
______ i
San Francisco Bat Delia
48
PAGE 109 Show Image
PAGE 110 Show Image
Aqua~fr Habiiat Jn~tiiuie___________________________
Table 3. (Continued).
Category Number* Problem
Land Use (contd.)
27 There exists no up-to-date map of
the coastal fringes of the Bay-
Delta showing wetland areas and
impending developmental areas.
Should such a map be prepared (and
updated regularly) for coordinated
coastal zone planning purposes?
28 Concern exists over the abundance
of eelgrass in the Bay-Delta, and
the loss of eelgrass areas. What
is the extent of past losses of
eelgrass and what are the causative
factors for this loss?
30 Compared to most other major
estuaries, primary productivity in
the Bay-Delta is unusually low. Is
habitat modification and loss
contributing to this low
productivity, and would the estuary
benefit from enhancement of primary
production?
34 Urban run-off may enter riparian
areas en route to rivers or the
Bay. How does this affect the run
off characteristics and are the
habitats at risk from contaminants
present in urban run-off?
37 The existing division of
responsibilities for protecting
riparian habitats, including
wetlands, may not be ideal. How
effective is the current process,
and what additional
regulatory/management policies are
needed to adeguately protect these
diminishing resources?
40 Current mitigation policies include
land banking -- developing one
wetland while creating another. Is
this ecologically sound?
San Francisco Baa - D~Iia
49
PAGE 111 Show Image
PAGE 112 Show Image
Aquaiic Habiiai In~iitute___________________________
Table 3. (Continued).
Category Number* Problem
Land Use (contd.)
41 Management of the Bay-Delta margins
could include restoration of
previously degraded wetlands. Is
such restoration likely to be
ecologically successful?
Waterway
Modification ,48 The development of breakwaters,
harbors and marinas influences
sediment fate in the estuary by
creating areas of slack water where
sediments may accumulate. Do such
areas create hot-spots of high
sediment contamination and does
this have significant impacts on
Bay-wide water quality?
Pollutants 51 Baseline data are required, against
which to measure future trends in
contaminant levels in the Bay-
Delta. Are existing monitoring
programs sufficient for this
purpose; if not, which programs
should be introduced?
54 Total contaminant loads to the Bay
have generally increased with
urbanization. Can the historical
record of contaminant abundance be
reconstructed through the analysis
of sediment cores and be used to
set environmental goals?
57 Diluted effluents from industrial
and municipal point sources also
exhibit toxicity, to phytoplankton
and other biota. What impacts do
these discharges exert in the Bay-
Delta itself? Could the discharges
be better located?
58 Both dredging and dumping release
large quantities of sediment into
the water column, increasing the
turbidity of Bay waters. Does this
significantly affect primary
productivity in the estuary?
San Francisco Bat' Delia
50
PAGE 113 Show Image
PAGE 114 Show Image
Aquatic Habirul In~~iiu*e___________________________
Table 3. (Continued).
Ca
tegory Number* Problem
Pollutants (contd.)
59 The movement of sediments through
dredging and dumping activities may
mobilize contaminants and re-
introduce these to the water
column, either in dissolved form or
in association with sediment
particles. How significant is this
factor in the estuary?
60 Dumping sites in the Bay have been
selected because of high dispersive
capacities; however, little is
known of where dredged material is
actually transported to in the Bay.
The accumulation of spoil dumped at
Alcatraz is of particular concern.
Can current practices and dumping
areas be better selected to protect
the estuary?
69 It is currently impossible to
derive a comprehensive picture of
chemical distribution in the Bay-
Delta ecosystem because of
inadequate standardization of study
methods and analytical techniques.
How should quality assurance and
quality control procedures be
implemented within the Bay-Delta
research community?
70 Regulatory agencies have recently
developed a broader approach to the
evaluation of toxicity of waste
discharges. Despite this, there is
disagreement on the selection of
appropriate toxicity tests for
environmental regulation. which
tests provide the most meaningful
basis for regulatory decisions?
San Franci~ca Baa - Delia
51
PAGE 115 Show Image
PAGE 116 Show Image
Aqua£ic Habiiat Ins*iiu£e___________________________
Table 3. (Contiriued).
Category Number* Problem
Pollutants (contd.)
73 Present monitoring programs
documenting contaminant
concentrations in water, sediment
and organisms report large numbers
of measurements below detection
limits, reducing value for money
and the worth of the database in
evaluation of Bay-Delta problems.
- What steps can be taken to avoid
this waste of resources?
75 Hundreds of millions of dollars are
spent annually on monitoring
contaminant fates and effects in
aquatic environments in the U.S.
However, very little attention is
paid to the use of these data or
the coordination between programs
when they are designed. How can
this dilemma best be avoided in
Bay-Delta studies?
76 Research has indicated correlations
of many factors in the Bay-Delta
ecosystem, including those
concerning the impact of
contaminants on Bay resources.
However, the establishment of
definitive cause and effect
relationships is elusive. What
studies should be done to remedy
this situation?
78 Water quality objectives are
breached for some toxicants in
certain portions of the Bay-Delta.
Which areas are these and what can
be done to avoid this scenario?
Are existing waste treatment
practices adeguate?
79 Future urban growth on the Bay-
Delta margins and in the catchment
is likely to give rise to increased
loadings of toxicants to receiving
waters. What is the projected
growth in loads and how can this be
accommodated?
w, NI'q
San Francl4jco Baa - Delia
52
PAGE 117 Show Image
PAGE 118 Show Image
Aquaiic Habiia~ Insiiiu~e____________________________
Table 3. (Continued).
Category Number* Problem
Pollutants (contd.)
80 Urban and agricultural run-of f are
thought to be the source of
considerable loads of certain types
of contaminants in the estuary.
How can these inputs be controlled;
in particular, how effective is
grading in the control of run-off?
*Refers to number on consolidated list of problems (see section
III of this report).
San Francisco Bat Debra
53
PAGE 119 Show Image
PAGE 120 Show Image
Aquaric Habira~ Ins~iiu£e____________________________
* Wetlands ma~~ing (Problems 26 and 27)
Resources can only be protected if their existence is fully
acknowledged and their importance understood. It seems that
insuff icient data on wetlands are available to use as a basis
for their future management and protection.
* Monitoring of contaminants (Problem 51)
Despite the expenditure of large sums in the past, no
consolidated data base exists by which to ascertain comparative
degrees of pollution of different areas of the Bay-Delta or the
changes in such contamination patterns with time. It is
suggested that a program should be designed to provide such a
data base.
* Dredging and dumping (Problems 59 and 60)
Past studies have not adeguately documented the fate of
sediments or contaminants which are dumped at three major sites
in the Bay. This practice is potentially a significant source of
many contaminants within the estuary and is worthy of further
study, to determine how adverse impacts on biological resources
could be reduced or eliminated.
* Contaminant analysis (Problems 69 and 73)
The worth of the existing data base on contaminants in the
Bay-Delta depends entirely on the analytical methods used in
its establishment. Quality assurance and control issues have
not been accorded sufficient weight in the past, despite their
over-riding importance in developing and evaluating the
effectiveness of management strategies.
SQn Francisco Baa Deliu
54
PAGE 121 Show Image
PAGE 122 Show Image
b o How has change in sediment loading affected sedimentation
rates and patterns in the estuary?
5. Delta outflow is considered to be a prime factor in determining
the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem. However, certain assumptions
are made in calculating present outflow rates. Can estimates be
improved in the future?
II. band Use
Agriculture and urban development ave caused the loss of 94 percent of
the Bay-Delta estuary's historical wetlands and radically altered its
topography and wildlife habitat.
1. To what extent has habitat loss or modification affected biological
diversity, habitat value and productivity in the estuary?
a O Compared to most other major estuaries, primary productivity
in the Bay-Delta is unusually low. Is habitat modification
and loss a primary cause of this low productivity?
b o Coastal fishery stocks depend on the availability of adequate
nursery areas. To what extent has coastal development reduced
fisheries?
c o Bay-Delta wetlands provide extensive habitat for wildlife.
To what extent has the ~cline in wetlands affected resident
and migratory wildlife p~pulations?
d o Wetlands provide unique habitat for endangered species. How
has wetland loss affected populations of these specIes?
2. To what extent have land use modifications in the Bay-Delta affected
water circulation patterns?
a o Fish stocks in the Bay-Delta depend on larval transport into
the estuary by gravitational circulation, driven by surface
outflow currents. How significant is this ~ factor in the
declines of the Bay-Delta fisheries?
3. Management of the margins of the estuary requires decisions regarding
the restoration and creation of wetlands and mitigation of impacts
on existing wetlands.
a o There is very little estuary wetland acreage remaining.
Given this, is the creation or use of wetlands for wastewater
treatment environmentally desirable?
6 o Current ~:x~jg~~~~~ policies include land banking - developing
one wetla while creating another. Is this ecologically sound?
3
PAGE 123 Show Image
PAGE 124 Show Image
c o `\anagement of the Bay-Delta margins could include restoration
of previously degraded wetlands. Is such restoration likely
to be ecologically successful?
III Waterway Modification
Extensive waterway modifications have taken place in the San Francisco
Bay-Delta estuary. Modifications include dredging, levee construction
and maintenance, harbor and marina development and damming and diverting
of upstream waters. How have these activities affected the estuary
ecosystem?
~. Eight to nine million cubic yards of material are dredged from
Bay-Delta sites annually. How does this effect the ecosystem?
a o How is biological productivity influenced?
b o Do dredging activities significantly increase pollutant
concentrations and bio-availability in the water column of
the estuary?
2. Other non-dredging waterway modifications, e.g., levee construction
and harbor development also affect the beneficial uses of the Bay
and Delta.
a 0 Do these activities adversely affect biological communities?
b o Damming and diversion of waters in the estuary remove biota
from the Bay-Delta system. Is this significant in respect to
its effects on populations?
c o Waterway modifications may affect water circulation and
pollutant dynamics. To what extent are biota influenced by
such changes?
Iv. Pollutants
The San Francisco Bay-Delta ecosystem is subjected to considerable
loads of contaminants from diverse point and nonpoint sources. In
addition, concentrations of some contaminants are known to be significantly
elevated in some portions of the estuary. The distribution and biological
effects of these contaminants have been poorly characterized. However,
there is evidence that at least some biota are being detrimentally
affected by pollutants in the system.
I. Many toxic chemicals have been documented in the San Francisco ~`y-
Delta ecosystem. Current knowledge of the sources, transpurt,
distribution and fate of these contaminants is limited.
4
PAGE 125 Show Image
PAGE 126 Show Image
M~\). M1~
a o Many toxic chemicals are used widely in the Central Valley and
waters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers are sometimes
acutely toxic in bioassays of local organisms. Which contami-
nants, and in what quantities, are entering the Bay-Delta estuary
from the upstream catchment?
b o Thousands of tons of hydrocarbons enter the Bay-Delta system
annually, along with large amounts of complex mixtures of
other organic and inorganic contaminants. Non-point sources
contribute significant proportions of the total loads of some
contaminants in other estuaries, but no budget for Bay-Delta
contamination exists. What are the relative importances of
major sources in the Bay-Delta with respect to each contaminant
type?
c O The open coastal waters on Northern California are a relatively
pristine. Does the estuary export significant quantities of
contaminants to this environment?
d o' Total contaminant loads to the Bay have generally increased with
urbanization. Can the historical record of contaminant abundance
be reconstructed through the analysis of sediment cores and
be used-to set environmental goals?
e 0 The accumulation of selenium and other contaminants in parts
of the Bay-Delta is considered to be a threat to some organisms.
What aspects of knowledge on the bio-availability of these
contaminants need to be clarified to fully assess this threat?
2. The improved management of contaminants in the estuary requires a
deeper understanding of every aspect of the ecosystem. Progress in
characterization of contaminants in the estuary depends largely on
the selection of the most appropriate study methods.
a 0 It is currently impossible to derive a comprehensive picture
of chemical distribution in the Bay-Delta ecosystem because
of inadequate standardization of study methods and analytical
techniques. How should quality assurance and quality control
procedures be implemented within the Bay-Delta research co~unity?
b o Regulatory agencies have recently developed a broader approach
to the evaluation of toxicity of waste discharges. Despite
this, there is disagreement on the selection of appropriate
toxicity tests for environmental regulation. Which tests
provide the most meaningful basis for regulatory decisions?
c 0 Acute bioassays do not adequately predict most kinds of
chronic or latent effects `1f toxicants on biota. Is it possible
to select bioassays that predict such effects?
d o Bay-Delta sediments contain concentrations of PAHs and metals
which could be acutely toxic to organisms. However, bioassay
testing of Bay sediments on a variety of species has produced
highly conflicting results among tests. How can the toxicity
5
PAGE 127 Show Image
PAGE 128 Show Image
App. A:14
of sediments be accurately predicted in order to establish
sediment quality criteria?
e O Present monitoring programs documenting contaminant concentrations
in water, sediment and organisms report large numbers of
measurements below detection limits, reducing value for money
and the worth of the database in evaluation of Bay-Delta
problems. What steps can be taken to avoid this waste of
resources?
f o Current monitoring programs and indices (e.g., striped bass)
used for evaluating fish stocks are relied upon heavily. How
accurate are such indices and can they be improved?
g o Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually on monitoring
contaminant fate and effects in aquatic environments in the
U.S. However, very little attention is paid to the use of
these data or the coordination between programs when they are
designed. How can this dilemma best be avoided in Bay-Delta
studies?
I' o Research has indicated correlations of many factors in the
Bay-Delta ecosystem, including those concerning the impact of
contaminants on Bay resources. However, the establishment of
definitive cause & effect relationships is elusive. What
studies should be done to remedy this situation?
o Recent syntheses of long-term studies of bottom communities have
provided great insight into temporal and spatial trends. What
other long-term studies of living resources are required to
differentiate between natural and anthropogenic causes of change?
3. Concentrations of contaminants which are potentially harmful have
been detected in sediment, water and organisms of the Bay-Delta
estuary. However, little is known of their actual effects on estuarine
biota or on human health.
a o Populations of some species have declined in the Bay-Delta
estuary over the last 20 years. To what extent have pollutants
contributed to this decline?
b o Reproductive impairment of some fish has been documented in
the estuary. How widespread is this and what are its conse-
quences?
c o Diluted effluents have inhibited algal reproduction in selected
bioassays. Is effluent inhibiting primary productivity in the
estuary?
d o Tributyl tin is widely used on vessels berthed in the estuary.
TBT use has been shown to contribute to the decline of shellfish
in European estuaries. Is there a similar problem in the
Bay-Delta estuary?
6
PAGE 129 Show Image
PAGE 130 Show Image
App. A:1
· o Samples collected from the sea-surface inicrolayer from urban
bays in Puget Sound and elsewhere have been shown to be
highly toxic to eggs and larvae of commercial fish. Is there
a similar problem in the Bay-Delta estuary?
f o Some water samples from freshwater streams entering the Bay-
Delta system have been shown to be toxic in bioassays. How
widespread and significant is this phenomenon throughout the
estuary, and what are the causative factors?
g o Some estuarine sediments have been found to be toxic to Bay-
Delta biota. Under what circumstances and to what degree
does exposure to these sediments constitute a threat to the
system's resident and inigratory organisms?
h o OrganisTns in the Bay-Delta accumulate contaminants from the
water. Is there a risk to humans consuming them?
o Microbial contamination from urban runoff and sewage discharges
has resulted in the ~lo&~re of shellfish beds in the Bay. Is
there a risk to human health from seafood consumption or
primary Water contact?
CLOSURE
In summary, the Technical Advisory Committee has Identified four priority
problems that are central to estuarine management for the San Francisco Bay-
Delta system. These problem topics have been expanded using issue statements
to elaborate on the specifics of each problem. The issue statement listing
is not intended to be either exhaustive or final. It is meant to establish
the critical nature of the four priority problems to this estuary. Future
iterations of the list will address added issues and suggest their priorities
as appropriate for investigation under the Bay-Delta Project.
7
PAGE 131 Show Image