Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in California Waters: A Review of Historic Data and Assessment of Impacts on Fishing and Aquatic Life

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | October 24th, 2007

This report was written for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) as a step toward the development of an im

This report was written for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) as a step toward the development of an improved bioaccumulation monitoring program for California. The report provides a review of bioaccumulation monitoring data generated under three historic State Board programs (the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, the State Mussel Watch Program, and the Coastal Fish Contamination Program) and other major bioaccumulation studies since 1970. Future monitoring will be guided by assessment questions developed for the SWAMP.  The objective of this report was to evaluate how well the historic data from the State Board programs and from other major monitoring efforts since 1970 address these questions. This exercise has provided a substantial amount of information about present and historical impacts of pollutant bioaccumulation on shing and aquatic life in California, and has also highlighted areas where improved sampling approaches can better address the assessment questions. Present concentrations of pollutants in many California water bodies are high enough to cause concern for possible effects on human health and to have a significant impact on the fishing beneficial use. Consumption advisories, 303(d) listings, and the bioaccumulation database as a whole provide three indices of the status of this impact. Consumption advisories exist for an increasing number of water bodies, but these represent only a fraction of the areas likely to need them. Lack of suitable data is a major impediment to developing advice for additional water bodies. A US E.P.A. evaluation of the 2002 303(d) List indicated that large portions of the state had not been assessed, especially rivers and coastline. Most of the lake area in the state (61%) had been assessed, and a relatively small percentage of the total area (6%) was classified as impaired. Assessment of lakes, however, has focused primarily on the largest lakes, leaving the vast majority of smaller lakes unsampled. Many of these small lakes are near population centers and are popular for shing. Bays and estuaries had been thoroughly assessed (98% of the area) and 93% of the total area was impaired. Evaluation of the most recent monitoring data (collected from 1998-2003) indicates that, for the locations sampled, 32% had low concentrations of pollutants, 42% had moderate concentrations, 18% had high concentrations, and 8% had very high concentrations (Figure 1). Concentrations in the low category are in a range where consumption is generally encouraged by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (Klasing and Brodberg 2006). OEHHA is the agency responsible for managing health risks due to contaminated sport fish in California. Concentrations in the very high category are in a range where OEHHA discourages consumption (Klasing and Brodberg 2006). Lakes assigned to the moderate, high, or very high concentration categories were primarily affected by mercury, with PCBs also playing a lesser role.

Biological opinion and conference opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 4th, 2009

Biological opinion for the California Water Fix (National Marine Fisheries Service)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 16th, 2017

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued e

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed: • Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley steelhead ( 0. my kiss), • Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and • Endangered Southern Resident killer whales ( Orcinus area). NMFS concludes that the Project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitats of: • Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley steelhead, and • Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon. Southern Resident killer whales critical habitat is outside of the action area. As required by section 7 of the ESA, for the above species, NMFS has included an incidental take statement for activities within the proposed Project that do not require further analysis. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with these activities. The take statement also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including monitoring and reporting requirements, that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as the Federal action agency, must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from activities that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA’s prohibition against the take of listed species. The Project for this consultation is a “mixed programmatic action” because it approves some actions that are not subject to further section 7 consultation as well as provides programmatic review of future actions that would be authorized, at a later time. For actions that are expected to be developed in the future (mitigation/restoration, monitoring, adaptive management), take of listed species would not occur until those future actions were authorized. For other actions (construction and operations), NMFS is providing an incidental take statement with this Opinion. The enclosed Opinion is based on information provided in the Reclamation’s transmittal letter and biological assessment, correspondence and discussions between NMFS, Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources staff, and consultants; a final proposed action issued on June 2, 2017; comments received from Reclamation; peer review reports from the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Science Program; and an extensive literature review completed by NMFS staff. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS California Central Valley Office. NMFS also concurs with Reclamation’s conclusion that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect threatened Central California Coast steelhead (O. mykiss), endangered Central California Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch), or the designated critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead. Designated critical habitat for Central California Coast coho salmon is not included in the action area. NMFS reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the Project would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast salmon, Coastal Pelagic species, and Pacific Coast Groundfish in the action area. We have included these EFH consultation results in Section 3 of this document. The EFH consultation itself includes Conservation Recommendations specific to the adverse effects to EFH identified during our review. Reclamation has a statutory requirement under section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA to submit a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days of receipt of these EFH conservation recommendations, and 10 days in advance of any final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS’ EFH Conservation Recommendations. The written response must include a description of measures adopted by Reclamation for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the impact of the Project on EFH (50 CFR § 600.920(k)). If unable to complete a final response within 30 days, Reclamation should provide an interim written response within 30 days before submitting its final response. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our recommendations, Reclamation must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the Project and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate (also referred to by NMFS as measures that "offset") such effects.

Biological Opinion on Long-term Operation of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | October 21st, 2019

Blurred lines: Multiple freshwater and marine algal toxins at the land-sea interface of San Francisco Bay, California

Harmful Algae (Elsevier) | March 10th, 2018

San Francisco Bay (SFB) is a eutrophic estuary that harbors both freshwater and marine toxigenic organisms that are responsible for harmful algal blooms. While there are

San Francisco Bay (SFB) is a eutrophic estuary that harbors both freshwater and marine toxigenic organisms that are responsible for harmful algal blooms. While there are few commercial fishery harvests within SFB, recreational and subsistence harvesting for shellfish is common. Coastal shellfish are monitored for domoic acid and paralytic shellfish toxins (PSTs), but within SFB there is no routine monitoring for either toxin. Dinophysis shellfish toxins (DSTs) and freshwater microcystins are also present within SFB, but not routinely monitored. Acute exposure to any of these toxin groups has severe consequences for marine organisms and humans, but chronic exposure to sub-lethal doses, or synergistic effects from multiple toxins, are poorly understood and rarely addressed. This study documents the occurrence of domoic acid and microcystins in SFB from 2011 to 2016, and identifies domoic acid, microcystins, DSTs, and PSTs in marine mussels within SFB in 2012, 2014, and 2015. At least one toxin was detected in 99% of mussel samples, and all four toxin suites were identified in 37% of mussels. The presence of these toxins in marine mussels indicates that wildlife and humans who consume them are exposed to toxins at both sub-lethal and acute levels. As such, there are potential deleterious impacts for marine organisms and humans and these effects are unlikely to be documented. These results demonstrate the need for regular monitoring of marine and freshwater toxins in SFB, and suggest that co-occurrence of multiple toxins is a potential threat in other ecosystems where freshwater and seawater mix.

Bring Back the Kern et al vs. the City of Bakersfield

Superior Court of California, County of Kern | February 5th, 2024

Bulletin 250: Fish Passage Improvement: An Element of CALFED’s Ecosystem Restoration Program

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | June 16th, 2005

Since the 1800s, salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in California has declined 95 percent, from 6,000 miles of rivers and streams to 300 miles. With this decline in sp

Since the 1800s, salmon and steelhead spawning habitat in California has declined 95 percent, from 6,000 miles of rivers and streams to 300 miles. With this decline in spawning habitat, there has been a decrease in salmon and steelhead fish populations. Recognizing the importance of saving and restoring the populations of salmon and steelhead, many government and private organizations have responded, working to reopen streams and  rivers to anadromous fish. Initiated by the California Bay-Delta Program agencies in 1999, the Fish Passage Improvement Program, an element of the Ecosystem Restoration Program1 is a partnership-building effort to improve and enhance fish passage in Central Valley and Bay Area rivers and streams. We work under the guidance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Department of Fish and Game through an interagency team that provides oversight for the program. In addition, we work with other local, state, and federal agencies and stakeholders to plan and implement projects to remove barriers that impede migration and spawning of anadromous fish. One purpose of the Fish Passage Improvement Program is to identify potential fish passage projects for implementation by the California Bay-Delta agencies and local interests. In order to do that, it is necessary to determine where fish passage impediments exist and to determine what fish passage improvement projects are already in motion. The inaugural issue of Bulletin 250 identifies potential fish passage impediments and ongoing activities that are addressing fish passage barriers within the Fish Passage Improvement Program geographic scope and beyond (Figure ES-1). Chapter 1 gives a historical perspective of fish passage improvement in California, describing the Fish Passage Improvement Program and the efforts to solve the problem outlined in Chapter 2. Chapter 2 describes the historical and current distribution of salmon and steelhead listed as threatened or endangered and their critical habitat in the Central Valley and Bay Area. It also describes how man-made structures in rivers and streams cause problems for fish passage. Chapter 3 describes fish populations and their habitat in Central Valley and Bay Area streams and rivers where the Fish Passage Improvement Program supports projects. Chapter 4 describes projects supported by the Fish Passage Improvement Program or other agencies on streams listed in Chapter 3.

California Department of Fish and Game Biennial Report 1870-1873

California Fish and Game Commission | April 1st, 1933

California Fish and Game, Volume 15

California Fish and Game Commission | January 1st, 1929

California Fish and Game, Volume 16

California Fish and Game Commission | April 2nd, 1930