Our library features many hundreds of entries.

To search among them, click "Search" below to pull down options, including filtering by document type, author, year, and keyword.
Find these options under "Show only items where." Or you can also sort by author, title, type, and year clicking the headings below.

Export 194 results:
Filters: Author is Lester McKee  [Clear All Filters]
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z 
C
 (651.3 KB) (1.59 MB)
 (1.56 MB)
Dusterhoff, S.; Pearce, S.; McKee, L. J. .; Doehring, C.; Beagle, J.; McKnight, K.; Grossinger, R.; Askevold, R. A. 2017. Changing Channels: Regional Information for Developing Multi-benefit Flood Control Channels at the Bay Interface. Flood Control 2.0. SFEI Contribution No. 801. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.

Over the past 200 years, many of the channels that drain to San Francisco Bay have been modified for land reclamation and flood management. The local agencies that oversee these channels are seeking new management approaches that provide multiple benefits and promote landscape resilience. This includes channel redesign to improve natural sediment transport to downstream bayland habitats and beneficial re-use of dredged sediment for building and sustaining baylands as sea level continues to rise under a changing climate. Flood Control 2.0 is a regional project that was created to help develop innovative approaches for integrating habitat improvement and resilience into flood risk management at the Bay interface. Through a series of technical, economic, and regulatory analyses, the project addresses some of the major elements associated with multi-benefit channel design and management at the Bay interface and provides critical information that can be used by the management and restoration communities to develop long-term solutions that benefit people and wildlife.

This Flood Control 2.0 report provides a regional analysis of morphologic change and sediment dynamics in flood control channels at the Bay interface, and multi-benefit management concepts aimed at bringing habitat restoration into flood risk management. The findings presented here are built on a synthesis of historical and contemporary data that included input from Flood Control 2.0 project scientists, project partners, and science advisors. The results and recommendations, summarized below, will help operationalize many of the recommendations put forth in the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Science Update (Goals Project 2015) and support better alignment of management and restoration communities on multi-benefit bayland management approaches.

 (62.69 MB) (23.02 MB)
 (4.64 MB)
 (4.87 MB)
 (3.27 MB)
McKee, L. J. .; Lewicki, M.; Schoellhamer, D. H.; Ganju, N. K. 2013. Comparison of sediment supply to San Francisco Bay from watersheds draining the Bay Area and the Central Valley of California. Marine Geology Special Issue: A multi-discipline approach for understanding sediment transport and geomorphic evolution in an estuarine-coastal system.
 (1.66 MB)
 (1.61 MB)
 (11.98 MB)
 (3.34 MB)
Gilbreath, A. N.; McKee, L. J. . 2015. Concentrations and loads of PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, PBDEs, OC pesticides and pyrethroids during storm and low flow conditions in a small urban semi-arid watershed. Science of the Total Environment 526, 251-261 . SFEI Contribution No. 650.

Urban runoff has been identified in water quality policy documents for San Francisco Bay as a large and potentially controllable source of pollutants. In response, concentrations of suspended sediments and a range of trace organic pollutants were intensively measured in dry weather and storm flow runoff from a 100% urban watershed. Flow in this highly urban watershed responded very quickly to rainfall and varied widely resulting in rapid changes of turbidity, suspended sediments and pollutant concentrations. Concentrations of each organic pollutant class were within similar ranges reported in other studies of urban runoff, however comparison was limited for several of the pollutants given information scarcity. Consistently among PCBs, PBDEs, and PAHs, the more hydrophobic congeners were transported in larger proportions during storm flows relative to low flows. Loads for Water Years 2007-2010 were estimated using regression with turbidity during the monitored months and a flow weighted mean concentration for unmonitored dry season months. More than 91% of the loads for every pollutant measured were transported during storm events, along with 87% of the total discharge. While this dataset fills an important local data gap for highly urban watersheds of San Francisco Bay, the methods, the uniqueness of the analyte list, and the resulting interpretations have applicability for managing pollutant loads in urban watersheds in other parts of the world.

 (1.25 MB)
 (6.77 MB)
 (1.23 MB)
 (1.23 MB)
 (1.93 MB)
 (3.42 MB) (5.85 MB)
 (14.6 MB)
 (3.08 MB)
 (17.57 MB)
Yee, D.; Gilbreath, A. N.; McKee, L. J. .; Davis, J. A. 2019. Conceptual Model to Support PCB Management and Monitoring in the San Leandro Bay Priority Margin Unit - Final Report. SFEI Contribution No. 928. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.

The goal of RMP PCB special studies over the next few years is to inform the review and possible revision of the PCB TMDL and the reissuance of the Municipal Regional Permit for Stormwater, both of which are tentatively scheduled to occur in 2020. Conceptual model development for a set of four representative priority margin units will provide a foundation for establishing an effective and efficient monitoring plan to track responses to load reductions, and will also help guide planning of management actions. The Emeryville Crescent was the first PMU to be studied in 2015-2016. The San Leandro Bay PMU is second (2016-2018), Steinberger Slough in San Carlos is third (2018), and Richmond Harbor will be fourth (2018-2019).

This document is Phase Three of a report on the conceptual model for San Leandro Bay. A Phase One report (Yee et al. 2017) presented analyses of watershed loading, initial retention, and long-term fate, including results of sediment sampling in 2016. A Phase Two data report (Davis et al. 2017) documented the methods, quality assurance, and all of the results of the 2016 field study. This Phase Three report is the final report that incorporates all of the results of the 2016 field study, and includes additional discussion of the potential influence of contaminated sites in the
watershed, the results of passive sampling by Stanford researchers and a comparative analysis of long-term fate in San Leandro Bay and the Emeryville Crescent, a section on bioaccumulation, and a concluding section with answers to the management questions that were the impetus for the work.

 (12.81 MB)
McKnight, K.; Braud, A.; Dusterhoff, S.; Grenier, L.; Shaw, S.; Lowe, J.; Foley, M.; McKee, L. 2023. Conceptual Understanding of Fine Sediment Transport in San Francisco Bay. SFEI Contribution No. 1114. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.

Sediment is a lifeblood of San Francisco Bay (Bay). It serves three key functions: (1) create and maintain tidal marshes and mudflats, (2) transport nutrients and contaminants, and (3) reduce impacts from excessive human-derived nutrients in the Bay. Because of these important roles, we need a detailed understanding of sediment processes in the Bay.


This report offers a conceptual understanding of how fine-grained sediment (i.e. silt and finer, henceforth called fine sediment) moves around at different scales within the Bay, now and into the future, to synthesize current knowledge and identify critical knowledge gaps. This information can be used to support Bay sediment management efforts and help prioritize funding for research and monitoring. In particular, this conceptual understanding is designed to inform future San Francisco Bay Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) work under the guidance of the Sediment Workgroup of the RMP for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay, which brings together experts who have worked on many different components of the landscape, including watersheds and tributaries, marshes and mudflats, beaches, and the open Bay. This report describes sediment at two scales: a conceptual understanding of open-Bay sediment processes at the Bay and subembayment scale (Chapter 2); and a conceptual understanding of sediment processes at the baylands scale (Chapter 3). Chapter 4 summarizes the key knowledge gaps and provides recommendations for future studies.

 (46.2 MB)
McKee, L. J. .; Hoenicke, R.; Leatherbarrow, J. E. 2001. Contaminant contributions from the Guadalupe River and Coyote Creek watersheds to the lower South San Francisco Bay. Abstracts of the 5th Biannual State of the Estuary Conference – San Francisco Estuary: Achievements, trends and the future.
 (4.87 MB) (2.58 MB)
 (1.02 MB)
 (233.43 KB)
 (188.33 MB) (27.61 MB) (27.49 MB)
E
 (1.15 MB)
 (12.87 MB)
 (497.13 KB)
 (1.16 MB)
 (9.5 MB)
 (996.04 KB)
David, N.; Gluchowski, D. C.; Leatherbarrow, J. E.; Yee, D.; McKee, L. J. . 2015. Estimation of Contaminant Loads from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to San Francisco Bay. Water Environment Research 87 (4), 334-346.

Contaminant concentrations from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River watershed were determined in water samples mainly during flood flows in an ongoing effort to describe contaminant loads entering San Francisco Bay, CA, USA. Calculated PCB and total mercury loads during the 6-year observation period ranged between 3.9 and 19 kg/yr and 61 and 410 kg/yr, respectively. Long-term average PCB loads were estimated at 7.7 kg/yr and total mercury loads were estimated at 200 kg/yr. Also monitored were PAHs, PBDEs (two years of data), and dioxins/furans (one year of data) with average loads of 392, 11, and 0.15/0.014 (OCDD/OCDF) kg/yr, respectively. Organochlorine pesticide loads were estimated at 9.9 kg/yr (DDT), 1.6 kg/yr (chlordane), and 2.2 kg/yr (dieldrin). Selenium loads were estimated at 16 300 kg/yr. With the exception of selenium, all average contaminant loads described in the present study were close to or below regulatory load allocations established for North San Francisco Bay.

 (1.26 MB)
 (1.26 MB)
 (1007.25 KB)
 (1.66 MB)
 (273.88 KB)
 (381.81 KB)
 (4.14 MB)
F
 (181.72 KB)
 (4.27 MB) (84.28 KB) (157.74 KB) (156.77 KB) (5.18 MB) (9.62 MB) (4.68 MB) (218.87 KB) (3.38 MB) (88.2 KB) (71.37 KB) (19.65 MB) (5.32 MB) (159.61 KB)
 (31.54 MB) (4.68 MB) (62.4 KB)
G
 (3.17 MB)
David, N.; McKee, L. J. . 2009. Going Organic Project. SFEI Contribution No. 588. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Oakland, Ca.
 (3.09 MB)
 (12.67 MB)
Wu, J.; Kauhanen, P.; Hunt, J.; McKee, L. 2018. Green Infrastructure Planning for North Richmond Pump Station Watershed with GreenPlan-IT. SFEI Contribution No. 882. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.
 (1.39 MB)
Wu, J.; Kauhanen, P.; Hunt, J.; McKee, L. 2018. Green Infrastructure Planning for the City of Oakland with GreenPlan-IT. SFEI Contribution No. 884. San Francisco Estuary Institute : Richmond, CA.
 (1.98 MB)
Wu, J.; Kauhanen, P.; Hunt, J.; McKee, L. 2018. Green Infrastructure Planning for the City of Richmond with GreenPlan-IT. SFEI Contribution No. 883. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.
 (1.82 MB)
Wu, J.; Kauhanen, P.; Hunt, J.; McKee, L. 2018. Green Infrastructure Planning for the City of Sunnyvale with GreenPlan-IT. SFEI Contribution No. 881. San Francisco Estuary Institute : Richmond, CA.
 (2.21 MB)
Kauhanen, P.; Wu, J.; Hunt, J.; McKee, L. 2018. Green Plan-IT Application Report for the East Bay Corridors Initiative. SFEI Contribution No. 887. San Francisco Estuary Institute: Richmond, CA.
 (1.26 MB)
 (5.26 MB)
Hale, T.; Sim, L.; McKee, L. J. 2018. GreenPlan-IT Tracker.

This technical memo describes the purpose, functions, and structure associated with the newest addition to the GreenPlan-IT Toolset, the GreenPlan-IT Tracker. It also shares the opportunities for further enhancement and how the tool can operate in concert with existing resources. Furthermore, this memo describes a licensing plan that would permit municipalities to use the tool in an ongoing way that scales to their needs. The memo concludes with a provisional roadmap for the development of future features and technical details describing the tool’s platform and data structures.

 (1.43 MB)
 (2.53 MB)
 (1.29 MB)
 (11.54 MB)
 (1.53 MB)
 (8.15 MB)
 (4.64 MB)
M
 (2.1 MB)
 (708.37 KB)
 (8.07 MB)
 (657.31 KB)
 (1.02 MB)
 (1.45 MB)
 (640.34 KB)
 (725.12 KB)
 (1.21 MB)
 (2.79 MB)