Coagulant and Sorbent Efficacy in Removing Mercury from Surface Waters in the Cache Creek Watershed, California

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | February 25th, 2019

Cache Creek drains part of northern California’s Coast Ranges and is an important source of mercury (Hg) to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Cache Creek is c

Cache Creek drains part of northern California’s Coast Ranges and is an important source of mercury (Hg) to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta. Cache Creek is contaminated with Hg from several sources, including historical Hg and gold mines, native Hg in the soils, and active mineral springs. In laboratory experiments in a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the use of coagulants and sorbents to immobilize Hg in water samples from high- concentration sources in the Cache Creek watershed was investigated. Three sites were selected for the collection of surface-water samples containing high and low concentrations of particulate-associated Hg. The high-particulate Hg samples were collected from Cache Creek Settling Basin duringstormflow conditions. The low-particulate Hg samples werecollected from two geochemically contrasting sites duringbase-flow conditions (downstream from a geothermal springand at the emergence point of a connate-water spring). Three coagulants were chosen for laboratory testing with the high-particulate sample— (1) ChitoVanTM HV 1.5 percent (shell based), (2) FerralyteTM 8131 (ferric sulfate based), and (3) UltrionTM 8186 (aluminum based). Each coagulant was tested at various dose amounts to determine the optimum dose rate for the high-particulate sample. The low-particulate source samples were passed through three sorbents— (1) chitosan flakes, (2) coconut shell-based activated carbon,and (3) coal-based activated carbon. In-line columns were packed with each material, and the untreated sample waspassed through each column at three different flow rates (0.1,0.5, and 1.0 liter per minute, L/min). For dose rates used in this study, ChitoVanTM reduced turbidity of the particulate sample by 85–91 percent, FerralyteTM reduced turbidity by 54–93 percent, and UltrionTMreduced turbidity by greater than 90 percent. At the lowest dose rate, ChitoVanTM achieved a 59- to 61-percent reduction in whole-water methylmercury (MeHg) concentrations and a 71- to 75-percent decrease in whole-water total mercury  (THg) concentrations. FerralyteTM achieved a 37- to 48-percent decrease in whole-water MeHg concentrations and a 37- to 48-percent reduction in whole-water THg concentrations. UltrionTM achieved a greater than 90-percent decrease in whole-water MeHg and THg concentrations. Mercury removal from the low-particulate samples was less efficient for the sorbent materials compared to the coagulants; less than 30 percent of THg was removed from any 500-milliliter aliquot using sorbent materials. The coal-based sorbent was the most versatile of the sorbents, removing THg to a similar extent from both low-particulatesource waters. The chitosan sorbent was the most effective atremoving THg from the low-particulate stream sample, but less effective for the low-particulate connate-spring sample. The Hg removal efficiency of the coconut sorbent decreasedquickly compared to the other two sorbents, indicating that sorption may be limited by the short contact times evaluated in this study.

Collateral Damage: A citizen’s guide to fish kills and habitat degradation at the state and federal water project pumps in the Delta

Bay Institute | March 1st, 2012

Large-scale fish kills and habitat destruction aren’t an unusual occurrence at the giant federal and state pumps that export water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Large-scale fish kills and habitat destruction aren’t an unusual occurrence at the giant federal and state pumps that export water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to agribusinesses and cities in the southern half of the state. These events are business as usual. • Every day, between 870 and 61,000 fish – including from 200 to 42,000 native and endangered fishes – are “salvaged” at the pumps. Most die in the process. • On average, over 9 million fish – representing the twenty fish species considered in this report – are “salvaged” each year at the pumps. As many as 15 million fish of all species encountered are “salvaged” each year. • Up to 40% of the total population of the endangered delta smelt and 15% of the endangered winter-run population of Chinook salmon are killed at the pumps in some years. In the first half of 2011, over 8.6 million splittail were salvaged. • Salvage estimates drastically underestimate the problem. The numbers do not factor in the results of “indirect” mortality, as high levels of export pumping disrupt fish migration, shrink the amount of non-lethal habitat available to fish species, and remove vast amounts of biomass, including fish eggs and larvae too small to be screened at the pumps. • Export pumping causes the lower San Joaquin River to flow backwards most of the year and removes the equivalent of 170 railroad boxcars of water – and the accompanying fish, other organisms, and nutrients – from the Delta ecosystem every minute. • Large numbers of fish being entrained is a problem even for species that are not currently listed as “endangered.” Killing large numbers of fish year after year cuts off population growth in response to favorable conditions and can start the species on a downward path to extinction. As the species declines, the population impacts of entrainment become proportionately larger. • Entrainment is a real problem. But the same interests in the Delta export community who claim that it isn’t also back constructing expensive new conveyance facilities such as a peripheral canal or tunnel to solve the problem that they say doesn’t exist.

Comments of San Francisco Baykeeper et al re: Draft Staff Report on Sacramento/Delta Updates

San Francisco Baykeeper | January 19th, 2024

In the face of a growing and severe ecological crisis, the Board has spent the better part of two decades crafting updates to the Bay-Delta Plan to reasonably protect fi

In the face of a growing and severe ecological crisis, the Board has spent the better part of two decades crafting updates to the Bay-Delta Plan to reasonably protect fish and wildlife beneficial uses. These delayed and too often meager efforts have so far done nothing to reverse the catastrophic path we are on, despite the potential permanent loss of these beneficial uses. The Draft Staff Report’s proposed project and the Voluntary Agreement alternatives will not change our course.

Comments on and Protest of Temporary Urgency Change Petition Regarding Delta Water Quality

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | February 17th, 2023

Comments on the Delta Conveyance Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 15th, 2023

Comments on the Draft Pyrethroid Control Program and Research Plan

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | September 18th, 2023

Comments on the Scientific Basis for Implementation of Voluntary Agreements for the Sacramento River, Delta, and Tributaries

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | March 8th, 2023

Committee for Delta Resources Improvement Working Paper Regarding the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta/San Francisco Bay Estuary

Committee for Delta Resources Improvement | December 1st, 1986

Comparing and integrating fish surveys in the San Francisco Estuary: Why diverse long-term surveys are important

UnIversity of California, Davis (UC Davis) | June 30th, 2020

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta

Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) | July 16th, 2008

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Del

For over 50 years, California has been pumping water through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta for extensive urban and agricultural uses around the state. Today, the Delta is ailing and in urgent need of a new management strategy. This report concludes that building a peripheral canal to carry water around the Delta is the most promising way to balance two critical policy goals: reviving a threatened ecosystem and ensuring a reliable, high-quality water supply for California. More information can be found in the following supporting appendices: Appendix A. Policy and Regulatory Challenges for the Delta of the Future Appendix B. Levee Decisions and Sustainability for the Delta Appendix C. Delta Hydrodynamics and Water Salinity with Future Conditions Appendix D. The Future of the Delta Ecosystem and Its Fish Appendix E. Expert Survey on the Viability of Delta Fish Populations Appendix F. The Economic Costs and Adaptations for Alternative Delta Regulations Appendix G. Peripheral Canal Design and Implementation Options Appendix H. Delta Drinking Water Quality and Treatment Costs Appendix I. The Economic Effects on Agriculture of Water Export Salinity South of the Delta Appendix J. Decision Analysis of Delta Strategies Interactive Map: Voting Patterns on Proposition 9 (Peripheral Canal), June 1982 Interactive Map: A Multi-Purpose, Eco-Friendly Delta Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (With Repairs) Interactive Feature: Delta Island Flooding (No Repairs)