DOCSLIB.ORG

Toxic Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and Their Possible Biological Effects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toxic Contaminants in the San Francisco Bay-Delta and Their Possible Biological Effects TOXIC CONTAMINANTS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA AND THEIR POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS DAVID J.H. PHILLIPS AQUATIC HABITAT INSTITUTE 180 Richmond Field Station 1301 South 46th Street Richmond, CA 94804 (415) 231-9539 August 26, 1987 CONTENTS Acknowledgments ................ (i) I . INTRODUCTION ................. 1 I1 . TRACE ELEMENTS IN THE BAY-DELTA . 5 A . Silver .................. 7 B . Copper .................. 40 C . Selenium ................. 68 D . Mercury .................111 E . Cadmium .................133 F . Lead ...................148 G . Zinc ................... 163 H . Chromium .................171 I. Nickel ..................183 J . Tin ...................194 K . Other Trace Elements ...........200 111 . ORGANOCHLORINES IN THE BAY-DELTA .......202 A . Polychlorinated Biphenyls ........205 B . DDT and Metabolites ...........232 C . Other Organochlorines ..........257 IV . HYDROCARBONS IN THE BAY-DELTA ........ 274 A . Introduction ..............274 B . Hydrocarbons in the San Francisco Estuary . 281 C . Summary .................304 V . BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF BAY-DELTA CONTAMINANTS . 306 A . The Benthos of the Bay-Delta ...... 307 B . Fisheries of the Bay-Delta ........ 319 C . Bird Populations ............ 351 D . Mammalian Populations. Including Man . 354 E . Bioassay Data ............. 359 VI . CONCLUSIONS ................. 377 Literature Cited .............. 382 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks are due to a large number of people for their contributions to this document. Staff at the Aquatic Habitat Institute have provided their support, encouragement and talent. These include Andy Gunther, Jay Davis, Susan Prather, Don Baumgartner and Doug Segar. Word processing services were provided by Ginny Goodwind, Emilia Martins, Renee Ragucci, Audi Stunkard, Lori Duncan, and Susan Prather. Tat Cheung and Johnson Tang of the County of Alameda Public Works Agency contributed their time and talent to the preparation of figures. Melissa Blanton copy-edited the text, surviving the requirements of the author in respect of Anglicisation of local terminologies. Portions of the text were reviewed and improved by the considerable experience and expertise of Bob Spies (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory), Sam Luoma (U.S. Geological Survey, Palo Alto) and David Young (EPA Laboratory, Newport, OR), as well as by AH1 staff. I am particularly grateful to these technical reviewers who gave their time and talent without complaint. Additional reviewers of the draft report are also acknowledged. Many scientists and non-scientists contributed unpublished data, reprints of material, opinions and ideas. Among these were Ed Long, Don Stevens, Brian Finlayson, Brian Melzian, Chris Foe, Harry Ohlendorf, Jim Arthur, Kris Lindstrom, Jerry Bruns and his staff, Susan Anderson, Mike Carlin, Don Smith, Russ Flegal, Mark Stephenson, Mike Martin, Bob Risebrough, Randy Brown, Del Rasmussen, Greg Cutter, John Calder, Victor DeFlaming, Jeannette Whipple, Bruce MacFarlane, Perry Herrgesell, Mike Josselyn, Jack Linn, Fred Nichols, Don Palawski, Nancy Richard, Greg Karras, Tom Wakeman, Jerry Oglesby and Larry Moritz. Particular thanks are due to Susan Anderson of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, who contributed a great deal of effort and time to discussions of the data, and much patience in her role as contract officer. Leo Winternitz is due appreciation for his belief that the report would be completed, in the face of considerable odds. Members of the AH1 Board of Directors should also be mentioned and thanked for their needed votes of confidence at critical periods. Finally, I wish to again note the extraordinary patience, understanding and support of my wife, Lee Phillips, who not only contributes directly to all my products, but also endures their product ion. (ii) -I. INTRODUCTION The San Francisco Bay-Delta Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI) has been requested under the terms of contract WRCB No. 5-290-120-0 to undertake a variety of tasks for the California State Water Resources Control Board. One of these tasks, termed a IICoordination Element," includes a requirement for the following: I'Prepare a comprehensive report summarizing results of studies that address the effects of pollutants on San Francisco Bay/Delta biota. The report shall include a critical review of the most important research. Whenever possible, summary data shall be presented in an accessible table format and discussed in the text. Conclusions shall address the existing links between pollutant loading and detrimental biological effects with discussion of potential alternative hypotheses." The present report has been prepared in response to this portion of the contract between AH1 and the State Water Resources Control Board. The San Francisco Bay-Delta is the largest estuary on the western coast of the United States, with a surface area of 1,240 2 2 km and a drainage basic of 153,000 km , the latter being about 40% of the area of California. Recent general reviews of the estuary were provided by Conomos & d. (1985) and Nichols a. (1986). The latter authors emphasized the very great historical changes which have occurred in the estuary, particularly since the arrival of white settlers in 1769. These changes include topographic alterations caused by the washdown of debris from hydraulic mining in the Central Valley to the estuary and by the reclamation of land. In addition, much of the natural freshwater inflow to the estuary has been diverted for uses elsewhere, principally in the Central Valley and Southern California. The 1 increasing human population in the Bay-Delta has also had considerable impacts on the estuary, which receives not only sewage and industrial wastes, but also agricultural drainage fro. croplands in the upstream catchment and the Delta itself. In view of these dramatic changes to the Bay-Delta environment, it might be anticipated that equally drastic effect would have been documented with respect to the biological resources of the estuary. To some extent, this is indeed the case. Thus, massive losses of wetland areas have occurred since the mid-1800s. Benthic communities in the Bay-Delta have been totally altered from historical populations, mainly because of the introduction of exotic species. The fishery resource in the estuary has also undergone long-term changes, and some fish populations appear to be continuing to decline. It is a popularly-held belief that pollution of the Bay- Delta has contributed (and is contributing) to the changes in biological resources of the estuary. However, incontrovertible evidence of such effects is rare for any ecosystem, and the Sari Francisco Bay-Delta is no exception. If pollutants are exerting detrimental effects on biota of the Bay-Delta, it is most likely that the contaminants of particular toxicity and persistence in the ecosystem are those with the greatest impact. These so- called lltoxicsllinclude trace metals, organochlorines (chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and PCBs), and hydrocarbons. The present report concentrates upon data characterizing these groups of contaminants in the estuary. Published data relating to each of these contaminant types are reviewed, conclusions being reached on the existence or otherwise of elevated 2 concentrations of particular toxicants in components of the Bay- Delta ecosystem. Areas of particular contaminant enrichment are discussed, and where relevant, the estuary is compared to other locations, in order to place local data into a wider context. In the penultimate section of the report, published data concerning biological effects as such are reviewed, a variety of ecosystem resources being considered. Conclusions and recommendations for future study are presented in the final section. The demonstration that contaminants in a given aquatic ecosystem are present at significantly elevated levels and are exerting detrimental effects on biological resources is a challenging task. Toxicants are present in such systems in a bewildering variety of physical and chemical forms, and their toxicological significance is highly dependent upon the precise forms present. For example, contaminants may exist in the water column in solution, in chelates or colloidal forms, or in suspension. Each of these categories includes many types of chemical species, displaying unique bio-availabilities and toxicities to biota. Similarly, toxicants in sediments may be more or less available to biota depending on their exact chemical form and method of binding to sediment particles. Both estuaries themselves and the contaminants residing in these areas are under a continual state of dynamic flux; this interferes with the elucidation of cause-and-effect relationships between toxicants and their biological effects. In most cases, presently-available research and analytical methods provide only a crude picture of the potential for toxic effects of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. So little is 3 known of the incidence or significance of different chemical forms of even the better-characterized pollutants that their adverse effects generally have to be dramatic for these to be recognized. Similarly, the control of environmental concentrations of contaminants through the regulation of their mass emissions, to permit the attainment and maintenance of watex quality standards or objectives, takes little account of the subtleties of toxicant speciation or bio-availability. The understanding of such matters can be improved only through further research and diligent attempts to enhance present methodologies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus Thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened
    LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. PUBLIC DRAFT SOLANO HCP JULY 2012 SOLANO COUNTY WATER AGENCY NATURAL COMMUNITY AND SPECIES ACCOUNTS LONGFIN SMELT Spirinchus thaleichthys USFWS: None CDFG: Threatened Species Account Status and Description. The longfin smelt is listed as a threatened species by the California Fish and Game Commission. Abundance of the longfin smelt has reached record lows in the San Francisco-Delta population, and the species may already be extinct in some northern California estuarine populations, resulting in an overall threat of extinction to the species within California (Federal Register 2008). The longfin smelt was also proposed for federal listing, but on April 8, 2009 the USFWS determined that the San Francisco Bay Estuary population does not qualify for listing as a distinct population segment under federal regulations. Further assessment of the entire population is being conducted, however, and future listing may be considered. Photo courtesy of California Department of Fish and Game Longfin smelt, once mature, are slim, silver fish in the family Osmeridae (true smelts). Moyle (2002) describes the species as being 90-110 mm (standard length) at maturity, with a translucent silver appearance along the sides of the body, and an olive to iridescent pinkish hue on the back. Mature males are often darker than females, with enlarged and stiffened dorsal and anal fins, a dilated lateral line region, and breeding tubercles on paired fins and scares. Longfin smelt can be distinguished from other California smelt by their long pectoral fins (which reach or nearly reach the bases of the pelvic fins), incomplete lateral line, weak or absent striations on the opercular bones, low number of scales in the lateral line (54-65) and long maxillary bones (which in adults extent just short of the posterior margin of the eye).
    [Show full text]
  • About Aquarium of the Bay
    Aquarium of the Bay Bay Ecotarium Press Kit Aquarium of the Bay Press Kit About Aquarium of the Bay Aquarium of the Bay Exhibit Highlights Aquarium of the Bay Fact Sheet Aquarium of the Bay Fun Facts Sustainability at Aquarium of the Bay About Bay Ecotarium Contact About Aquarium of the Bay i and indigenous - offering — Bay Ecotarium has a shared mission Sierra to the Sea™ Exhibit Highlights DISCOVER THE BAY UNDER THE BAY in length Go With The Flow jellies Nearshore Tunnel 0 15 Octopus and Friends Gallery This gallery features the newest aquatic additions to the Aquarium— the Pacific spiny lumpsuckers. Other animals that can be found in this gallery include a giant Pacific octopus, Dungeness crabs, and abalone. Offshore Tunnel (Sharks of Alcatraz) (Sharks of Alcatraz) Exhibit Highlights TOUCH THE BAY Touchpools touch Bay Lab RIVER OTTERS: WATERSHED AMBASSADORS : San Francisco Aquarium of the Bay Fact Sheet Overview: Aquarium of the Bay, located at the world-famous PIER 39, is the only aquarium dedicated to the diverse marine life and distinctive ecosystems of San Francisco Bay. Aquarium of the Bay is home to over 20,000+ marine and indigenous animals that can be found in San Francisco Bay and along the California coast. With more than 500,000 visitors annually, Aquarium of the Bay provides an unmatched window through which to view local marine life. Mission: Aquarium of the Bay is an institution of Bay.org DBA Bay Ecotarium, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with a mission to enable conversations on climate resilience and ocean conservation globally, while inspiring actionable change locally by protection and preservation of the San Francisco Bay and its ecosystems, from Sierra to the Sea™.
    [Show full text]
  • Status and Trends of Indicators of Ecosystem Health
    STATUS AND TRENDS OF INDICATORS OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH THE ESTUARY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA The San Francisco Estuary Partnership collaborates with partners throughout the Bay and Delta on regional, science-based programs to increase the health and resilience of the San Francisco Estuary. Established as part of the National Estuary Program over 25 years ago by the State of California and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Partnership manages multi-benefit projects that improve the well-being of wildlife and human communities from the inland rivers to the Golden Gate. More information can be found at sfestuary.org SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY PARTNERSHIP 375 Beale Street, Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94105 © 2019 San Francisco Estuary Partnership. All rights reserved. Please cite as The State of the Estuary 2019, San Francisco Estuary Partnership. The Delta Stewardship Council was created in 2009 by the California Legislature to advance the state’s coequal goals for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta through the development and enforcement of a long-term sustainable management plan. Informed by the Delta Science Program and Delta Independent Science Board, the Council oversees implementation of this plan through coordination and oversight of state and local agencies proposing to fund, carry out, and approve Delta-related activities. More information can be found at deltacouncil.ca.gov STATUS AND TRENDS OF INDICATORS OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH THE ESTUARY SAN FRANCISCO BAY AND SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY A NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ESTUARY THAT INCLUDES THE SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA, SUISUN BAY, SAN PABLO BAY, AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
    [Show full text]
  • Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site
    Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine Superfund Site January 14, 2020 Presentation Overview • Site Overview & History • Updated Conceptual Site Model • Ongoing Work - Mine • Fish Consumption Advisory – Request for input • Ongoing Work - Clear Lake – Collaboration with USGS • Discussion Site Overview Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine • Operated on and off 1865 to 1957 • Added to the Superfund list in 1990 • Mercury and arsenic in soils; mercury in sediment and fish tissue • Fish consumption advisory for Clear Lake; impacts to Elem Tribe Located on Oaks Arm of Clear Lake, south of Clearlake Oaks, adjacent to the Elem Indian Colony Site Overview Terrestrial Mine Site and Residential Soils Operable Unit 1 Lake Sediments and North Wetlands Operable Unit 2 Mine History • Sulphur Bank Mine operated from 1856 to 1957. • First borax, then sulfur, then shifting to mercury in 1873 • Shallow underground tunnels and open pit operations • Cinnabar ore processed on-site • Bradley Mining Corp identified as the responsible party 1/24/2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Photo credit: Lake County Historical Society Major Mine Site Features Source Areas – Waste Rock Piles – Ores Piles – Tailings Pile – Disturbed and Native Rock – Northwest Pit – Mining Facilities/Buildings Herman Impoundment (HI) Waste Rock Dam (WRD) Off-Site Residential Soils – Elem Indian Colony – Sulphur Bank Mine Road neighborhood 6 Superfund Remedial Process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Preliminary Placement on Remedial Feasibility Proposed Plan Record of Remedial Remedial Long-Term Assessment / the National Investigation Study (PP) Decision Design Action Operations & Site Inspection Priorities List (RI) (FS) (ROD) (RD) (RA) Maintenance (NPL) (O&M) OU-2 OU-1 Community involvement and planning for a site’s future reuse are integral parts of the entire process.
    [Show full text]
  • Clear Lake Watershed Sanitary Survey Is a Report Made by the Clear Lake Water Utilities to the California Department of Health Services (DHS) On
    PROJECT TEAM PARTICIPATING WATER UTILITIES Buckingham Park Water District Don Bradley Cache Creek Mobile Home Park Steve Grimshaw California Cities Water Company Paul Harris California Water Service Company Tom Fitzgerald City of Lakeport Mark Brannigan Clearlake Oaks County Water District Ellen Pearson Clearwater Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Michael Reust Crescent Bay Improvement Company Roberta Lyons Highlands Water Company Sam Lambert Konocti County Water District William Kochler Konocti Harbor Resort & Spa Jerry Lykkon Lake County Special Districts Steve Brodnansky Nicholas Ring Peggie King Mt. Konocti Mutual Water Company Alan Farr Nice Mutual Water Company Bradley Granger Richmond Park Resort Sharon Ferriera Rivera West Mutual Water Company Don Bradley Westwind Mobile Home Park John Franco Southern California Water Company* David Lancaster CONSULTANT TEAM Archibald & Wallberg Consultants Jeanne Wallberg MWH Americas, Inc. Bonny Starr Robert Zieman Jenni Haas Design Jenni Haas Engelhardt Word Processing Noreen Engelhardt OTHER PARTICIPANTS Department of Health Services – Mendocino District Bruce Burton Leah Walker *For California Cities Water Company TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. ii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1
    [Show full text]
  • The Estuary Project'snon-Profit Partner
    PublicationsPublications TheThe EstuaryEstuary Project’sProject’s Non-ProfitNon-Profit PartnerPartner (PRINT AND ON-LINE) ESTUARY, an eight-page, bi-monthly newsletter that includes fre- The Friends of the San The San Francisco quent, comprehensive inserts about CALFED’s Science Program and the Regional Monitoring Program led by the San Francisco Francisco Estuary is a 501(c)(3) Estuary Project is a federal-state- Estuary Institute non-profit organization associated with local partnership working to restore water Courtesty Delta In-Channel Island Work Group. Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card, March 1999 the Estuary Project. Its goal is to quality and manage the natural resources of Bay-Delta Environmental Report Card, September 2001 increase public awareness of the the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary while Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Estuary and to encourage Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles maintaining the region’s economic vitality. Boater’s Pumpout Map & Guides for San Francisco Bay and the San public involvement in The Estuary Project oversees and tracks Joaquin & Sacramento River Delta decision-making processes implementation of a Comprehensive CCMP Workbook, October 1996 about the Estuary. Conservation and Management Plan— Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual and Guidebook for Construction Projects and videos:“Keep it Clean”;“Hold On To The Friends support the the “CCMP”—for preserving, restoring, and Your Dirt” education programs begun enhancing the Bay-Delta Estuary.The Estuary Introduction to the Ecology of the San Francisco Bay by the Estuary Project by Project disseminates newsletters, fact sheets, SFEP web site: http://sfep.abag.ca.gov sponsoring workshops for videos, and other materials to educate the public SFEP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan State of the Estuary 2002: Science and Strategies for Restoration students and teachers and about Bay-Delta wetlands, wildlife, aquatic State of the Estuary 2000: Restoration Primer by helping community groups conduct resources, and land use issues.
    [Show full text]
  • THB Avterican Mtxeralocist
    THB AvtERICAN MtxERALocIST JOURNAL OF THE MINERALOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA Vol. 49 JUL\'-AUGUST, 1964 Nos. 7 and 8 BUDDINGTONITE, AN AMMONIUM FELDSPAR WITH ZEOLITIC WATER1 Rrcn,lno C. Ent, DoNaro E. Wnrro, Josorn J. Faunv eNo Dower-o E. Lno, U. S. Geol,ogicolSurttey, Menlo Park, Calif ., and' Wash'ington,D' C. Arsrn,q.ct Buddingtonite, the first ammonium aluminosilicate found in nature, occurs in Quater- nary andesite and older rocks hydrothermally altered by ammonia-bearing hot-spring waters below the water table at the Sulphur Bank quicksilver mine, Lake county, cali- fornia. Typicaliy, it occurs as compact masses pseudomorphous after plagioclase, and as crystals as much as 0.05 mm diameter lining cavities. Buddingtonite is biaxial (*), a:1.530,0:1'531, r:1.534 all *0'002,2V not de- terrnined,X/1a:4',2:b,Y Ac:19'. H 5+, G2.32+0.01- Chemical analysis of purest separate gave: SiOz,63.80;A1:Or, 19.16; FezOe, 1'85; MgO' 0.21; CaO,0.04; BaO, 0.26; NarO, 0.06; KzO, 0.62; (NHr)rO, 7.95;TiO2,0.99; HzO-, 0'88; HzO+,3.28; S, 1.59;total 100.69(-O+S):100.10 per cent. Buddingtonite is monoclinic; P21or P21fm;a:8.571,b:13.032,c:7.187,A:ll2o44' !l'; a:b:c:0.658:1:0.551; cell volume, 7+0.42fu;ceil contents4[NHdISirOs'1/2HzO]; calculated density, 2.38s gcm-3. From 370" to 430. c, buddingtonite is the ammonium analogue of monoclinic K-feld- spar; below about 370' C with normal atmospheric moisture, buddingtonite adsorbs zeo- Iitic water.
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Plan
    San Francisco Bay Plan San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission In memory of Senator J. Eugene McAteer, a leader in efforts to plan for the conservation of San Francisco Bay and the development of its shoreline. Photo Credits: Michael Bry: Inside front cover, facing Part I, facing Part II Richard Persoff: Facing Part III Rondal Partridge: Facing Part V, Inside back cover Mike Schweizer: Page 34 Port of Oakland: Page 11 Port of San Francisco: Page 68 Commission Staff: Facing Part IV, Page 59 Map Source: Tidal features, salt ponds, and other diked areas, derived from the EcoAtlas Version 1.0bc, 1996, San Francisco Estuary Institute. STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2600 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 PHONE: (415) 352-3600 January 2008 To the Citizens of the San Francisco Bay Region and Friends of San Francisco Bay Everywhere: The San Francisco Bay Plan was completed and adopted by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1968 and submitted to the California Legislature and Governor in January 1969. The Bay Plan was prepared by the Commission over a three-year period pursuant to the McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 which established the Commission as a temporary agency to prepare an enforceable plan to guide the future protection and use of San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. In 1969, the Legislature acted upon the Commission’s recommendations in the Bay Plan and revised the McAteer-Petris Act by designating the Commission as the agency responsible for maintaining and carrying out the provisions of the Act and the Bay Plan for the protection of the Bay and its great natural resources and the development of the Bay and shore- line to their highest potential with a minimum of Bay fill.
    [Show full text]
  • Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment
    Scotts Creek Watershed Assessment A Document of the Scotts Creek Watershed Council Prepared for: West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd Lakeport, CA 95453 (707) 263-4180 Funded by Proposition 50 through the CALFED Watershed Program Administered by the California Department of Water Resources Prepared by: County of Lake Department of Public Works Water Resources Division 255 North Forbes Street Lakeport, CA 95453 Tel. 707-263-2341 and West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts 889 Lakeport Blvd. Lakeport, California 95453 Tel. 707-263-4180 February 2010 Acknowledgements Author Erica Lundquist, Lake County Water Resources Division Plates by Greg Dills, West Lake and East Lake Resource Conservation Districts Glossary by Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Project Partners Lake County Division of Water Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service Bureau of Land Management Upper Lake Habematolel Pomo Indians Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Big Valley Watershed Council Middle Creek Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Group Scotts Creek Watershed Council Technical Advisors and Reviewers Frank Arriaza, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Pardee Bardwell, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Voris Brumfield, Lake County Code Enforcement Division Mark Brannigan, City of Lakeport Richard Burns, Bureau of Land Management Ukiah Office Alisa Carlson, Scotts Creek Watershed Council Caroline Chavez, Lake County Public Services Department Kim Clymire, Lake County Public
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region July 2009 Executive Summary Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1855(b)), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as the federal lead and co-lead agencies, respectively, submit this Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. This document provides an assessment of the potential effects of the on-going dredging and dredged material placement activities of all federal and non-federal maintenance dredging projects in the action area (see Figure 1.1 located on page 3). The SF Bay LTMS program area spans 11 counties, including: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. It does not include the mountainous or inland areas far removed from navigable waters. The geographic scope of potential impacts included in this consultation (action area) comprises the estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay region, portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) west of Sherman Island and the western portion of the Port of Sacramento and Port of Stockton deep water ship channels. It also includes the wetlands and shallow intertidal areas that form a margin around the Estuary and the tidal portions of its tributaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Sulphur Bank Mine, California: an Example of a Magmatic Rather Than Metamorphic Hydrothermal System?
    Goff et SULPHUR BANK MINE, CALIFORNIA: AN EXAMPLE OF A MAGMATIC RATHER THAN METAMORPHIC HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM? Fraser Goff’, Cathy J. and James A. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA Keywords: magmatic, metamorphic, geothermal, isotopes, Sulphur Bank ABSTRACT REGIME Sulphur Bank mine hydrothermal system (218°C) is Sulphur Bank mine is surrounded by the youngest basaltic to surrounded by the youngest eruptions in the Clear Lake volcanic rhyolitic eruptions (90 to -10 ka) in the Clear Lake volcanic field. field, and nearby conductive thermal gradients exceed 1 at Although Clear Lake volcanism has occurred within the San Andreas 1-3 km depth. values for He in Sulphur Bank gases are 7.5. transform zone instead of within an arc, the volcanic rocks are Hydrothermal fluids are highly enriched in deuterium as well as distinctly calc-alkaline and most units display classic mixed-magma oxygen-18 relative to local meteoric waters and resemble magmatic features (Stimac and Pearce, 1992). Practically all magmas of this waters discharged from many arc volcanoes. However, we show volcanic field, including basalts, also show evidence of contamination herein that magmatic, connate, and metamorphic fluids are with crustal rocks (Stimac et al., submitt.). Although the volume of indistinguishable based on and plots. Sulphur Bank the youngest extrusive rocks near Sulphur Bank is relatively small waters have and ratios of metamorphic fluids and nearby conductive gradients and heat flow are high, Sulphur Bank gases are strongly influenced by marine, organic-rich exceeding 1 and 170 at depths of 1-3 km (Walters source rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Lake County CEDS 2014
    COUNTY OF LAKE COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF LAKE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ADOPTED BY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: NOVEMBER 5, 2013 APPROVED BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION: MARCH 7, 2014 Lake County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy - 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................2 SECTION ONE: ANALYSIS...............................................................................................3 I. BACKGROUND: THE AREA AND ITS ECONOMY...........................................................3 A. General Description of the Area ..................................................................................................... 3 B. Economy........................................................................................................................................... 4 C. Natural Resources............................................................................................................................ 9 D. Environmental Issues .................................................................................................................... 12 E. Political Geography....................................................................................................................... 17 F. Employment in Lake County........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]