SPLWG May 2010
Item #2
L McKee
Page 1 of 2
STLS element #4c - POC LOADS MONITORING IN REPRESENTATIVE
WATERSHEDS – RECONNAISSANCE
Sarah Pearce and Lester McKee, SFEI, Oakland, CA
ESTIMATED COST:
OVERSIGHT GROUP:
$12,000 (2010 special and pilot studies budget)
Sources Pathways and Loading Work Group (SPLWG)
PROPOSED DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE
Deliverable
Task 1. Preparation for reconnaissance fieldwork
Task 2. Reconnaissance fieldwork
Task 3. Reporting (draft and final report)
Due Date
March 2010
April 2010
May / June 2010
BACKGROUND
Conducting loads studies in “observation” watersheds is a long standing recommendation
of the SPLWG (see Davis et al., 2001). Recent TMDL reports on PCBs and Hg
emphasize the influence of local small tributaries on water quality in the Bay and call for
reduced loadings from urban areas. Provision C.8.f of the February 2009 draft tentative
order of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) describes the need for permitees to
monitor eight watersheds to generate loads information.
During the development of the RMP Small Tributaries Loading Strategy (STLS) it
became clear that the location of loads monitoring efforts would be better informed if
watersheds could be ranked by taking into account attributes such as hydrology, land use
and known contaminant sources, age and “condition” of development, the source and
magnitude of suspended sediment loads, and a range of measures of the sensitivity of the
adjacent Bay margin (food web impacts or receiving water quality). The ranking study is
planned for completion in early 2010. Given logistical reasons such as channel form and
safety that restrict the practical implementation of a loads monitoring study, the SPLWG
(May meeting) recommended a reconnaissance study to investigate sampling locations in
the top ranked watersheds.
The objective (outcome) of the proposed reconnaissance study will be a recommendation
of technically feasible and “safe” locations for consideration for future small tributary
loads monitoring in relation to the STLS and the MRP (i.e. the main target audience
being BASMAA and the Water Board). The tangible outputs of the study will be:
1. Visual field inspections, measurements of channel characteristics, and photodocumentation of potential sampling locations in the lower non-tidal reaches of
each high ranking watershed
2. A short <20 page technical report (see Pearce and McKee (2006) for an example)
APPLICABLE RMP MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS
Level I RMP, Q3: What are the sources, pathways, loadings, and processes leading to
contaminant-related impacts in the Estuary?
Level II RMP, Q3C: What is the effect of management actions on loads from the most
important sources, pathways, and processes?
SPLWG May 2010
Item #2
L McKee
Page 2 of 2
Level III SPL Q2:
What is the watershed-specific and regional total water flow, load of
sediment, and load contaminants entering the Bay from the
urbanized small tributaries and non-urban areas draining to the Bay
from the nine-county Bay Area and are there trends through time?
Level IV STLS Q2: What are the loads or concentrations of pollutants of concern from
small tributaries to the Bay?
SAMPLING DESIGN / METHODS
 Obtain a copy of the list of ranked watersheds based on the outcomes of the STLS
study “Develop criteria and rank watersheds”.
 Conduct a reconnaissance of each potential sample location (<30) to gather sitespecific information including:
a) USGS gauge number
k) D50 visual estimate (mm)
b) USGS gauge years of operation
c) USGS SSC (historic/current/none/ years of
operation)
d) USGS bed load (historic/current/
none/years of operation)
e) Channel type (natural/ engineered/ storm
drain/etc)
l) Debris type and abundance (wood/trash/etc)
f) Channel width (m)
p) Jurisdiction
g) Top of bank height (m)
q) Sidewalk (y/n)
h) Channel gradient (%)
r) Lighting (y/n)
i) Bank controls
s) Vehicle access (y/n)
m) Overhead sampling structure (y/n/ yes but)
n) Overhead structure height from bed (m)
o) Permission needed (y/n)
j) Bed controls

Facilitate discussion at Workgroup meetings through the provision of a matrix for
rapid comparison of each watershed and a technical report to describe each
location in more detail.
BUDGET
Description
Task 1. Preparation for reconnaissance fieldwork
Task 2. Reconnaissance fieldwork
Task 3. Reporting (draft and final report)
Total
Labor cost
$1,000
$7,500
$3,000
Direct cost
$500
Total
$1,000
$8,000
$3,000
$12,000
REFERENCES
Davis, J.A., Abu Saba, K., and Gunther, A.J. 2001. Technical report of the Sources Pathways and Loadings
Workgroup. San Francisco Estuary Institute, September 1999. 55pp.
Pearce, S, and McKee, L., 2006. Sources, Pathways, and Loadings Work Group, Bay Area Stream
Reconnaissance, Technical Memo. Prepared to support a workgroup debate and final decision of where
to conduct a second Small Tributaries Loading Study. Document 1:
http://www.sfei.org/rmp/SPLWG_meetings/12-1505/Item4_SPL_SmallTribsReconnaissanceStudy.pdf