Salton Sea Study Status Report

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | January 9th, 2003

The Salton Sea is located in a closed basin in Riverside and Imperial Counties in southern California, south of Indio and north of El Centro. The Sea is situated

The Salton Sea is located in a closed basin in Riverside and Imperial Counties in southern California, south of Indio and north of El Centro. The Sea is situated in a closed basin, more than 200 feet below sea level and has no natural outlet. Although lakes have existed in this basin in the past, the current body of water formed in 1905 when a levee break along the Colorado River caused flows from the Colorado River to enter the basin for about 18 months. Since 1905, the Sea has fluctuated in size with varying inflow, and it recently has had a surface area of 365 square miles. A balance between inflowing water and evaporation sustains the Sea. With no outlet, any salts that are dissolved in the inflow are trapped, although some do precipitate. Salt concentrations are currently about 44,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L), or about 25 percent higher than ocean water. Salinity will continue to rise under current conditions. It is highly likely that in the future, the inflow to the Sea will be less than it has been in the past. A reduction in inflow would cause the Sea to shrink and cause salinity to rise faster than it would have without a reduction in inflow. A gradual increase in salinity and its consequences was recognized soon after the Sea was formed. Formulation of salinity control measures was reported as early as the mid-1950s. Since then, many alternatives have been proposed and analyzed. The alternatives presented in this report were developed to address the goals contained in the Salton Sea Reclamation Act of 1998. The Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to study options for managing the salinity and elevation of the Sea in order to preserve fish and wildlife health and enhance opportunities for recreation use and economic development while continuing the Sea’s use as a reservoir for irrigation drainage. The Act required that certain options be analyzed and required consideration of reduced inflows down to 800,000 acre-feet or less per year. Consideration of any option that included importation of water from the Colorado River was prohibited. Reporting requirements of the Act were met on January 27, 2000, when Secretary Babbit forwarded a draft EIS/EIR and several other reports to Congress. Since then, analyses have continued on options presented in those reports and on new options. The development and transmission of this report is not required by law. This report provides a summary of the current status of the evaluation of alternatives currently under consideration. The primary purpose of the planning study was to evaluate possible methods of controlling the salinity and elevation of the Sea. The study also includes elements that address other issues at the Sea, such as high levels of nutrients. Fourteen alternatives providing a range of salinity and elevation control benefits and costs are presented in this report. For ease of presentation and understanding, alternatives were divided into the following categories: Salinity control alternatives Salinity and elevation control alternatives Causeway/barrier alternatives (the terms causeway and barrier are interchangeable in this report) Specialized diking alternatives Methods to control salinity and elevation include pumping water out of the Sea with discharge to some remote location; pumping water out of the Sea with discharge to local desalting plants or evaporation ponds, possibly in combination with enhanced evaporation systems that would require disposal of salt residues near or within the Sea; and dividing the Sea through the construction of dikes so that one portion serves to concentrate and isolate salts from the remainder of the Sea. Each alternative is discussed briefly below. The present value cost estimates for each alternative are also mentioned below. Present value cost includes the initial construction cost plus funds that would need to be set aside today to fund operation, maintenance, and energy over a 30-year period. This status report makes no recommendation regarding future action relating to restoration of the Salton Sea. In fact, given that all of the alternatives identified to date are extremely expensive, it is difficult, if not impossible, to make any recommendation without a decision by Congress regarding the relative importance of the Sea in light of other pressing national priorities.

Saltwater Intrusion in Los Angeles Area Coastal Aquifers— the Marine Connection

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | August 14th, 2002

Saltwater from the Pacific Ocean is seeping into some Los Angeles Basin coastal aquifers and replacing freshwater. Without treatment, this ground water does not conform t

Saltwater from the Pacific Ocean is seeping into some Los Angeles Basin coastal aquifers and replacing freshwater. Without treatment, this ground water does not conform to drinking-water or agricultural standards. This problem is significant because much of the water used by the nearly 10 million residents of Los Angeles County comes from ground-water sources. Although not all coastal aquifers in the region are at risk, the existing resources are vital and must be protected to maintain adequate supplies of potable water. In the 1950’s, construction began on the first of three “barriers” in an attempt to halt saltwater intrusion. Each barrier consists of a series of injection wells that essentially form a subsurface wall of freshwater designed to keep saltwater from penetrating further into aquifers. The barriers are only partly effective; saltwater continues to infiltrate in some areas. New studies show that the ground-water geohydrology of the coastal aquifers is more complex than previously imagined. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, working in cooperation with the Water Replenishment District of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, are expanding efforts to understand the geologic processes and fluid pathways that control saltwater intrusion.

Sampling and Analysis Plan for 2016 RMP Status and Trends Bird Egg Monitoring

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 1st, 2016

The samples will be collected by staff at the USGS Western Ecological Research Center [USGS-WERC] who will procure all necessary egg collection permits. Eggs will then be

The samples will be collected by staff at the USGS Western Ecological Research Center [USGS-WERC] who will procure all necessary egg collection permits. Eggs will then be analyzed for: ● Total mercury (THg) (cormorant eggs at Moss Landing Marine Laboratory-Marine Pollution Studies Lab [MLML-MPSL]; tern eggs at USGS-WERC),  ● Selenium (cormorant and tern eggs at MLML-MPSL),  ● PCBs (cormorant eggs at the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Water Pollution Control Laboratory [DFW-WPCL]),  ● PBDEs (cormorant eggs at DFW-WPCL) (NOTE: PBDE analysis in tern eggs was discontinued due to increased USGS costs),  ● PFCs and precursors (cormorant eggs at AXYS Analytical Laboratories), and  ● Halogenated carbazoles (cormorant eggs at Southern Illinois University) NOTE: Carbazole analyses will be done pro bono by SIU for research purposes. Carbazoles are not part of the RMP Status and Trends design. SIU will not measure percent moisture in its samples. Therefore, it is important to make sure that sample weights, prior to analysis, are accurately measured since we will be applying the percent moisture values from other laboratories to their samples. Available data will be used to back-calculate fresh wet weight values for these samples. 

Sampling and Analysis Plan for Microplastic Monitoring in San Francisco Bay and Adjacent National Marine Sanctuaries

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | May 31st, 2017

Plastic in the ocean, and more specifically microplastic (particles <5 mm), has been gaining global attention as a pervasive and preventable threat to the health of m

Plastic in the ocean, and more specifically microplastic (particles <5 mm), has been gaining global attention as a pervasive and preventable threat to the health of marine ecosystems. Microplastic is ingested by marine organisms (Wright et al. 2013), and may impact their physiological processes (von Moos et al. 2012; Cole et al. 2013, 2015; Rochman et al. 2013, 2014b; Wright et al. 2013; Watts et al. 2015; Lu et al. 2016; Sussarellu et al. 2016). Microplastic may also contain harmful chemicals such as flame retardants, plasticizers, or dyes (Browne et al. 2013; Fries et al. 2013; Rochman et al. 2013, 2014 a,b), and may provide a substrate for the adsorption of other harmful chemicals in the ocean, like PCBs and DDT (Teuten et al. 2007), which then may be transferred up the food chain (e.g., Farrell and Nelson 2013; Rochman et al. 2014a; Setala et al. 2014). Many scientific questions remain, however, and there is a need for research on the patterns of distribution and uptake of microplastic by organisms in their ocean ecosystems.

Sampling for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Priority Basin Project

Publisher not available | May 25th, 2021

San Fernando Groundwater Basin Remediation Program

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) | January 1st, 2018

San Francisco Bay California Toxics Rule Priority Pollutant Ambient Water Monitoring Report

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | March 2nd, 2017

In 2000, the USEPA published Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Objectives for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, commonly known as the

In 2000, the USEPA published Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Objectives for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, commonly known as the California Toxics Rule (CTR), which established numeric water quality standards for 126 priority pollutants. Under the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (also known as the State Implementation Policy, SIP) the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) is required to establish water quality-based effluent limitations in order to achieve priority pollutant standards. For the purposes of this document “water quality criteria” (WQCs) will be used to refer both to the CTR established numeric criteria for 126 priority pollutants as well as to numeric objectives for 12 of these priority pollutants and tributyltin previously established in the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and/or the National Toxics Rule. A number of these pollutants previously were or continue to be regularly monitored as part of the Regional Monitoring Program Status and Trends (RMP S&T). The priority pollutants not routinely included in RMP S&T were previously monitored in wet and dry season ambient water sampling in 2002 and 2003. Results of that effort are detailed in a previously issued report: http://www.sfei.org/documents/san-francisco-bay-ambient-monitoring-interim-report Most of the priority pollutants were not detected in that study, or detected at concentrations below their WQC. Among the pollutants that were detected, a number of them were also found at similar concentrations in lab blanks, suggesting they might not have been present (or at least were at lower concentrations) in the ambient environment. Since over a decade had passed since that previous monitoring effort, the RMP embarked on an effort to repeat measurement of these seldom analyzed (non- S&T) contaminants, to ensure conditions have not changed appreciably to present greater risk for any of them.

San Francisco Bay California Toxics Rule Priority Pollutant Ambient Water Monitoring Report

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 1st, 2017

In 2000, the USEPA published Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Objectives for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, commonly known as t

In 2000, the USEPA published Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Objectives for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California, commonly known as the California Toxics Rule (CTR), which established numeric water quality standards for 126 priority pollutants. Under the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (also known as the State Implementation Policy, SIP) the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) is required to establish water quality-based effluent limitations in order to achieve priority pollutant standards. For the purposes of this document “water quality criteria” (WQCs) will be used to refer both to the CTR established numeric criteria for 126 priority pollutants as well as to numeric objectives for 12 of these priority pollutants and tributyltin previously established in the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) and/or the National Toxics Rule. A number of these pollutants previously were or continue to be regularly monitored as part of the Regional Monitoring Program Status and Trends (RMP S&T). The priority pollutants not routinely included in RMP S&T were previously monitored in wet and dry season ambient water sampling in 2002 and 2003. Results of that effort are detailed in a previously issued : Most of the priority pollutants were not detected in that study, or detected at concentrations below their WQC. Among the pollutants that were detected, a number of them were also found at similar concentrations in lab blanks, suggesting they might not have been present (or at least were at lower concentrations) in the ambient environment. Since over a decade had passed since that previous monitoring effort, the RMP embarked on an effort to repeat measurement of these seldom analyzed (non- S&T) contaminants, to ensure conditions have not changed appreciably to present greater risk for any of them.

San Francisco Bay Interim Model Validation Report

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | December 1st, 2017

As part of the Nutrient Management Strategy, a coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model of San Francisco Bay is being developed. The process-based, numerical model will

As part of the Nutrient Management Strategy, a coupled hydrodynamic-biogeochemical model of San Francisco Bay is being developed. The process-based, numerical model will be used to inform nutrient management decisions, by: • improving quantitative understanding of processes that shape current conditions, • forecasting ecosystem response under future scenarios, and • evaluating potential effectiveness of management actions. This report describes the model in its present configuration and the status of its validation. Model development is necessarily an iterative process, with early stages focused on refining the model’s representation of hydrodynamics and transport, and later stages of the effort including increasingly complex representations of biogeochemistry. Present validation efforts focus on assessing model skill with respect to hydrodynamics, salinity and transport. The final report will additionally consider model validation of water quality and biogeochemical processes.

San Francisco Bay Microplastics Project: Science-Supported Solutions and Policy Recommendations

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | September 2nd, 2019

Plastics in our waterways and in the ocean, and more specifically microplastics (plastic particles less than 5 mm in size), have gained global attention as a pervasive an

Plastics in our waterways and in the ocean, and more specifically microplastics (plastic particles less than 5 mm in size), have gained global attention as a pervasive and preventable threat to marine ecosystem health. The San Francisco Bay Microplastics Project was designed to provide critical data on microplastics in the Bay Area. The project also engaged multiple stakeholders in both science and policy discussions. Finally, the project was designed to generate scientifically supported regional and statewide policy recommendations for solutions to plastic pollution.