### U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE



# Species at Risk from Selenium Exposure in the San Francisco Estuary

Final Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Inter-Agency Agreement No. DW14922048-01-0

Prepared by

William N. Beckon and Thomas C. Maurer

Sacramento, California

March 2008ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the a ssistance and support of the following people in the preparation of this document: Jenny Pete rson for help in obta ining references; Andy

Hamilton for access to his collection of literature on salmon; Dan Russell for help with bald eagle information; Bart Prose for supplying us eful documents on endangered aquatic species; and Jodi Holm for providing data from her studies of trout. Eugenia McNaughton and Romona Haebler, both with the U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, provided kind and patient support throughout the preparation of this report.

This document was prepared for the U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency under Inter-Agency Agreement No. DW14922048-01-0.

Literature citation should read as follows:

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Species at Risk from Selenium Exposure in the San Francisco Estuary. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serv ice, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,

Environmental Contaminants Division. S acramento, California. March 2008. 81 pp.

## Species at Risk from Selenium E xposure in the San Francisco Estuary

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Species Considered 1

Species Most At Risk Summary Table 6

Species Most At Risk

Bald Eagle 8

California Clapper Rail 12

Greater Scaup 14

Lesser Scaup 16

White-winged Scoter 18

Surf Scoter 19

Black Scoter 21

Chinook Salmon 23

Steelhead 38

Green Sturgeon 51

White Sturgeon 53

Delta Smelt 59

Sacramento Splittail 62

Literature Cited 66BLANK PAGEU. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Rm W-2605

Sacramento, California 95825



### Species at Risk from Selenium Ex posure in the San Francisco Estuary

Prepared by

WILLIAM N. BECKON

Environmental Contaminants Division william_beckon@fws.gov

and

THOMAS C. MAURER Branch Chief, Investigations and Prevention

Environmental Contaminants Division



### INTRODUCTION

Discharges of selenium from Bay Area oil refine ries and in the subsur face drainwater from Central Valley farms eventually reach the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary, where uptake by food chains is particularly efficient (Presser a nd Luoma 2006). Selenium concentrated through food chains may have a variety of adverse effects including reduced growth and embryonic deformities in wildlife species at risk (Eisler 1985). As part of an effort to re vise water quality criteria to be protective of federally listed species in Californi a, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is engaged in an interagency proj ect to determine selenium dietary exposure benchmarks that would be protec tive of wildlife, including aquatic-dependent wildlife, in the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary. This document is the initial contribution of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to this interagency project . The role of the USFWS in this initial task is to review and compile existing pertinent data (diet, body weight, food ingestion rate, natural history) on the species that are most likely to be at risk due to dietary selenium exposure in the San Francisco Bay/Delta.



### SPECIES CONSIDERED

Species considered for evaluation of selenium ex posure risk in the San Francisco Bay/Delta are

listed in Table 1 . To keep this list reasonably manageab le but representative , it was subject to a preliminary screening process that eliminated plants , most invertebrates, a nd most vertebrates that are members of strictly or mainly terrestrial food chains. In compiling this list, species protected by federal legislation were given priority.

1Table 1. List of species considered for evaluation ofselenium exposure risk in the San Francisco Bay/Delta.CommonNameScientific NameFederalStatusCaliforniaState StatusPotential to be adversely affected by selenium in Bay/Delta*Mammalssalt marshharvest mouseReithrodontomysraviventrisendangeredprotectedAs a terrestrial herbivorous mammal, unlikely to be among the mostexposed and sensitive of wildlife species; therefore not likely to be a“species most at risk.”BirdsAmerican whitepelicanPelecanuserythrorhynchosMBTAconcernSF Bay is North end of West Coast distribution of non-breeders. Preys onsome bottom-feeding fish as well as schooling fish, but not likely to be a“species most at risk.”.Californiabrown pelicanPelecanus occidentaliscalifornicusendangeredprotected,endangeredSF Bay is North end of W Coast distribution. Feeds mainly on surfaceschooling fish; therefore, not part of benthic-based food chain and not likelyto be a “species most at risk.”white-faced ibisPlegadis chihiconcernconcernBreeds and winters in San Joaquin Valley. Inhabits mainly freshwaterwetlands, but also estuarine wetlands. Eats aquatic and moist soilinvertebrates. At some risk but not likely to be a “species most at risk.”double-crestedcormorantPhalacrocorax auritusMBTAconcernWinters in Central Valley and SF Bay/Delta. Feeds on bottom-dwelling fishand invertebrates as well as schooling fish. At some risk but not likely to bea “species most at risk.”AmericanbitternBotaurus lentiginosusconcernnoneFeeds mainly in freshwater marshes, eating mainly insects and smallvertebrates; therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”western leastbitternIxobrychus exilis hesperisconcernconcernBreeds in SF Delta. Feeds infresh and brackish water marshes, eatingmainly small fish and insects; therefore not likely to be a “species most atrisk.”.Aleutian CanadagooseBranta canadensisleucopareiadelisted, MBTAnoneWinters in California, feeding primarily in upland crops and fallow fields.Sensitive to selenium but unlikely to be exposed in estuary; therefore notlikely to be a “species most at risk.”greater scaupAythya marilaMBTAnoneSF Bay is one of 2 major wintering areas on W coast of N America. Feedson benthic mollusks that efficiently bioaccumulate selenium in the SFBay/estuary, thereforelikely to be a “species most at risk.”lesser scaupAythya affinisMBTAnoneSF Bay is an important wintering area; feeds on clams; therefore likely to bea “species most at risk.”black scoterMelanitta nigraMBTAnoneWinters along California coast, diving mainly for mollusks; therefore likelyto be a “species most at risk.”white-wingedscoterMelanitta fuscaMBTAnoneWinters along California coast and estuaries, diving mainly for mollusks;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”CommonNameScientific Name FederalStatusCaliforniaState StatusPotential to be adversely affected by selenium in Bay/Delta*surf scoterMelanitta perspicillataMBTAnoneWinters along California coast, diving mainly for mollusks; therefore likelyto be a “species most at risk.”ospreyPandion haliaetusMBTAconcernHigh trophic level piscivore; not at risk overall and exposure wellrepresented by bald eagle. Therefore not treated here as a “species most atrisk.”bald eagleHaliaeetus leucocephalusdelisted,MBTA,BGEPAprotected,endangeredHigh trophic level piscivore; at risk overall and exposed to aquatic foodchain in the SF Bay/Delta; therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”northern harrierCircus cyaneusMBTAconcernHigh trophic level but less exposed to aquatic food chain than bald eagle;therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”white-tailed kiteElanus leucurusconcernprotectedFeeds mainly on terrestrial mammals; minimal exposure to aquaticselenium; therefore not likely tobe a “species most at risk.”Americanperegrine falconFalco peregrinus anatumdelisted, MBTAprotected,concernDelisted but monitored for population status and contaminants. Exposed toselenium in aquatic food chain as predator on piscivorous birds, butexposure generally diluted by terrestrial component of diet; therefore notlikely to be a “species most at risk.”prairie falconFalco mexicanusMBTAconcernWinters along California coast; high trophic level but in mainly terrestrialfood chain; therefore not likely tobe a “species most at risk.”California blackrailLaterallus jamaicensiscoturniculusMBTAprotected,concernInhabits tidal marsh in SF Bay estuary. Feeds on invertebrates, includingsnails, but also seeds; therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”Californiaclapper railRallus longirostrisobsoletusendangeredprotected,endangeredSubspecies endangered and endemic to SF estuary; feeds on benthicinvertebrates, including filter-feeders that bioaccumulate selenium;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”marbledmurreletBrachyramphusmarmoratusthreatenedendangeredForages inbays along Pacific coast in summer, but not recorded in SFBay/Delta. Dives for pelagic food: schooling fish and euphausiids (krill).Therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”California leastternSterna antillarum browniendangeredprotected,endangeredBreeds primarily in Central San Francisco Bay but can nest throughoutestuary. Feeds throughout estuary,mainly on surface fish, not part of thebenthic mollusk-based food chain; therefore not likely to be a “species mostat risk.”black ternChlidonias nigerconcernconcernBreeds in C Valley including SF Delta. Feeds on marine and freshwatersurface fish and insects; therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”Caspian ternSterna caspiaMBTAnonePreys heavily on juvenile salmonids, but not endangered overall; thereforenot likely to be a “species most at risk.”western snowyploverCharadrius alexandrinusthreatenedconcernTerrestrial component of diet likely provides dietary dilution of aquaticsystem selenium exposures; have been shown to be very tolerant ofselenium exposure; therefore not likelyto be a “species most at risk.”3CommonNameScientific Name FederalStatusCaliforniaState StatusPotential to be adversely affected by selenium in Bay/Delta*mountain ploverCharadrius montanusconcernconcernWinters in agricultural fields of Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley. Dietmainly terrestrial; therefore not likelyto be a “species most at risk.”tricoloredblackbirdAgelaius tricolorconcernconcernNests colonially, mainly in freshwater marshes. Feeds on terrestrial as wellas freshwater insects; therefore not likely to be a “species most at risk.”Reptilesgiant gartersnakeThamnophis gigasthreatenedthreatenedAquatic predator, but not known to inhabit the estuary; therefore not likelyto be a “species most at risk” in the estuary.FishChinook salmonOncorhynchustshawytschaendangered/threatenedendangered/threatenedSensitive to selenium; most sensitive life stages occur in rivers and estuary;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”steelheadOncorhynchus mykissthreatenednone (in CentralValley)Sensitive to selenium; most sensitive life stages occur in rivers and estuary;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”delta smeltHypomesus transpacificusthreatenedthreatenedEndemicto the Bay/Delta estuary. Feeds on zooplankton, not a pathway ofgreatest exposure, but threatened overall,so included as a “species most atrisk.”longfin smeltSpirinchus thaleichthysconcernendangeredSF Bay/estuary is S end of distribution. Prefers more saline water than deltasmelt. Overall less threatened and probably less exposed than delta smelt soadequately represented by that species. Therefore not treated here as a“species most at risk.”green sturgeonAcipenser medirostristhreatenedconcern; fishingprohibitedThreatened overall, and vulnerableto selenium as a clam-eating bottomfeeder in the SF estuary;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”Emergency regulations issued by CDFG March 2006--Zero (0) bag limit forgreen sturgeon year-round in all areas.white sturgeonAcipenser transmontanusnonelimited fishingPopulation in the SF estuary not federally listed, but vulnerable to seleniumas a clam-eating bottom feeder. Therefore, treated here as a “species mostat risk.” The daily bag and possession limit established by CDFG is one fishthat must be between 46 inches and 72 inches total length. The yearly limitis three.river lampreyLampetra ayresinonewatch listAnadromous; feeds on young salmon. Recorded from lower Sacramentoand San Joaquin Rivers. Not federally listed; therefore not considered to bea “species most at risk.”SacramentoperchArchoplites interruptusconcernconcernFry feed primarily on bottom-dwelling crustaceans, insect larvae, snails, andfish. One captured in the Delta in1992, not likely to represent anestablished population there. Therefore not considered to be a “speciesmost at risk” in the Delta.SacramentosplittailPogonichthysmacrolepidotusconcernthreatenedVulnerable to selenium as clam-eating bottom feeder in the SF estuary;therefore likely to be a “species most at risk.”4CommonNameScientific Name FederalStatusCaliforniaState StatusPotential to be adversely affected by selenium in Bay/Delta*striped bassMorone saxatilisnonenoneIntroduced sport fish in California. Population in Delta declined sharply inearly 2000s, but species overall not threatened. Therefore not considered tobe a “species most at risk.”threadfin shadDorosoma pretenensenonenoneIntroduced in California as food for game fish. Population in Delta declinedsharply in early 2000s, but species overall not threatened. Therefore notconsidered to be a “species most at risk.”tidewater gobyEucyclogobius newberryiendangeredendangeredBottom-dwelling carnivore.Prefers semi-closed estuaries. Potentiallyexposed, but not found recently (since 1984)in the Bay area; therefore notconsidered to be a “species mostat risk” in the SF Bay/Delta.CaliforniahalibutParalichthys californicusnonenoneBottom dweller inhabiting the SF Bay, but overall not threatened; thereforenot likely to be a “species most at risk.”leopard sharkTriakis semifasciatanonenoneBottom dweller inhabiting the SF Bay, but overall not threatened; thereforenot likely to be a “species most at risk.”starry flounderPlatichthys stellatusnonenoneBottom dweller inhabiting the SF Bay. Population in bay declined sharplysince 1980, but overall notthreatened; therefore notlikely to be a “speciesmost at risk.”InvertebratesDungeness crabCancer magisternonenoneEstuary is nursery for this ocean-breeding bottom feeder, but overall notthreatened; therefore not likely to bea “species most at risk.”Federal Status:Endangered: listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act; Threatened: listed as threatened under the FederalEndangeredSpecies Act; Proposed threatened: proposed as threatened under the FederalEndangered Species Act; Concern: designated a species of concern; Delisted:removed from the list of endangered and threatened species under the Federal ESA; MBTA: protected under Migratory Bird Treaty Act; BGEPA protected underthe Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.California State Status: Endangered: listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act; Threatened: listed as threatened under the CaliforniaEndangered Species Act; Concern: designated by the California Department of Fish and Game as a species of concern;Protected: Fully protected under the Fishand Game Code of California predating the California Endangered Species Act* Assessment based upon population status, dependence upon benthic food web, and sensitivity toselenium. Aquatic dependent species feeding directly in thebenthic food web of the San Francisco Estuary were considered to be at greater risk to selenium exposure than those species feeding in a pelagic/planktonic foodweb. This assumption is based uponthe work of Stewart et al. (2004).5Table 2. Species most at risk from selenium exposure in the SanFrancisco Estuary: summary data.CommonNameScientificNameProbable criticallife stage forselenium effects1Foodingestionrate atcriticallife stage(g wetweight perday)2Foodingestionrate atcriticallife stage(g dryweight perkg bodyweight perday)3Bodyweightatcriticallifestage(g)4DietMainlyclam-basedfoodchain?5Percentof dietthat isclambased(worstcase)bald eagleHaliaeetusleucocephalusAdult female(egg laying)6442495275(female)fish, birds,mammalsno22.86Californiaclapper railRalluslongirostrisobsoletusAdult female(egg laying)17246.8346mussels, spiders,clams, crabs, snails,marsh cordgrassseedsyes64.1greaterscaupAythya marilaAdult male andfemale (migration)31385.81054(male)clams, snails, othermollusks,crustaceans, algaeyes80.7lesserscaupAythya affinisAdult male andfemale (migration)24667.5734(male)clams, othermollusks, aquaticinsects, crustaceans,plantsyes96whitewingedscoterMelanitta fuscaAdult male andfemale (migration)465127.31917(male)clams, othermollusks,crustaceans, aquaticinsectsyes757surf scoterMelanittaperspicillataAdult male andfemale (migration)31486.01059(male)mussels, othermollusks, plants,crustaceansyes868blackscoterMelanitta nigraAdult male andfemale (migration)32589.11117(male)mussels, clams,snails, barnaclesyes80967ChinooksalmonOncorhynchustshawytschaMigrating/rearingjuvenile23.30.5-18insects, crustacea,juvenile fishno010steelheadOncorhynchusmykissMigrating/rearingjuvenile19.931-105insects, annelids,Daphniano010greensturgeonAcipensermedirostrisJuvenile or adultfemale201300(averagecaught)benthic crustacea,mollusks and fishprobablysubstantiallySeewhitesturgeonwhitesturgeonAcipensertransmontanusJuvenile or adultfemale15-206280(mode)benthic mollusksand crustaceasubstantially41.111delta smeltHypomesustranspacificusJuvenile or adultfemale1140.32(averageJunAug)copepods,cladocerans,amphipods, insectlarvaeno0SacramentosplittailPogonichthysmacrolepidotusJuvenile or adultfemale33.7121(mode)benthic detritus,clams, othermollusks, mysidssubstantially341For most species it is premature and speculative to designatea critical life stage at this time. Such designation prejudgesthe outcome of a thorough searchof the toxicology literature.2Food ingestion rates based on wet weightcan be calculated from available parameters(Nagy 2001) for birds, mammals, reptilesand amphibians, but not, in general for fish.3For birds, the food ingestion rate as dry weight is calculated from the regression parametersfor dry matter intake per day from Table 3 in Nagy (2001), using categories of birds used to calculate foodingestion rate in terms of wet weightas described in the text below.4See note 1 above. For anadromous species, a range of body weights is given corresponding to the period spent rearing in theestuary.5We interpret “clam-based” broadly tomean filter-feeding benthic mollusk-based.6For the worst case, we assume that allbirds consumed are those waterfowl (scaups and scoters) that primarily feed on benthicmollusks (clams, etc.).7Percent of mollusks in gizzards of 819 adults and 4 juveniles collectedin coastal Maine and Washington (Cottam C.U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 643) .8Wet weight percents of summer and winter gizzardcontents, British Columbia salt water (Vermeer K. 1981Wildfowl32:107-116; Vermeer and Bourne 1984 assummarized in Appendix 1 of Savardet al. 1998).9Percent mussels, winter, coastal New England (reviewed in Bordage and Savard 1995).10Although the diets of salmon, steelhead and delta smelt are notknown to be clam-based, these species may still be at risk from selenium because of greater sensitivity to selenium. The sensitivity ofsalmon and steelhead is documented below. The sensitivity of delta smelt to selenium is unknown; population numbers are alarmingly low, so this species is particularly vulnerable to any adverseeffect.11Percentage clams by volume, fall, SuisunBay and Carquinez Strait (Table 10 below).

### SPECIES MOST AT RISK

Species were selected from among the species considered ( Table 1 ) representing those species that are both (1) generally endangered, threatened or of concern, and (2) most at risk specifically

for selenium toxic effects in the San Francisc o Bay/Delta estuary. Information on the diet, body weight, and ingestion rate of each of the species most at risk is summarized in Table 2 and outlined in greater detail below.

Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus )

Status : The bald eagle was federally listed as e ndangered on February 14, 1978 (43 FR 6233) in all of the coterminous United States except Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington, where it was classified as threatened. On August 15, 1995 (60 FR 36010), the bald eagle was down-listed to threatened thr oughout its range. On July 6, 1999, the USFWS published a proposed rule to remove the bald eag le from the federal list of threatened and endangered species (64 FR 36454). On July 9, 2007 the species was removed (delisting effective August 8, 2007) from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 37346). The protections provided to th e bald eagle under the Bald an d Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) will continue to rema in in place after the species is delisted. To help provide more clarity on the management of bald eagles after delisting the USFWS published a regulatory definition of ‘‘disturb’’, the final National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and a proposed rule for a new permit that would authorize limited take

under the BGEPA.

Size: The bald eagle was a representative species us ed for the derivation of wildlife criteria in

the Great Lakes Initiativ e (GLI) (USEPA 1995). For that effo rt, the bald eagle body weight used in criteria calculations (4.6 kg) was based on the mean of average male and female eagle body weights; although it was noted that female eagle s are approximately 20 percent heavier than males. Because a bald eagle reference dose for selenium should be based on the most sensitive endpoint, which most likely is adverse reproduct ive effects manifested by laying females, it is more appropriate to use average female body we ights in the calculati on of wildlife values.

In the GLI, the USEPA presented an average body weight of 5.2 kg for female bald eagles. This value was based on the weights of 37 birds, taken from Snyder and Wiley (1976). Dunning (1993) presented an average female body weight of 5.35 kg, also based on the weights of 37 birds, taken from Palmer (1988). The average of these two (equally we ighted) averages is 5.275 kg

.

Diet: The bald eagle diet has been extensivel y studied throughout No rth America. Although generally known as a piscivorous species, bald eagles are opp ortunistic predators and carrion scavengers (Buehler 2000). Various birds, ma mmals, reptiles, amphibians, and crustaceans may serve as additional bald eagle prey (Buehler 200 0). In Northern California bald eagle diets commonly consist of (but are not limited to) Sacramento sucker ( Catostomus occidentalis ), hardhead ( Mylopharodon conocephalus ), Sacramento pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus grandis ), brown bullhead ( Ameiurus nebulosus ), common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ), tui chub ( Gila bicolor ),

8rainbow trout ( Onchorhyncus mykiss ), largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ), Sacramento perch ( Archoplites interruptus ), American coot ( Fulica americana ), mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ), western grebe ( Aechmophorus occidentalis ), gulls ( Larus spp.), pied-billed grebe ( Podilymbus podiceps ), common merganser ( Mergus merganser ), and other diving ducks (Hunt

et al . 1992; Jackman et al . 1999).

Food ingestion rate : California supports both wintering a nd resident bald eagles, with a broad array of suitable foraging habitats. Because of th is variety, eagle diets in California span a wide range of possible food types and trophic level co mbinations. Attempting to quantify a specific dietary composition for bald eagles is more diffic ult than for other species with a narrower range of prey types, and is further confounded by the fact that food prefer ences may vary both geographically and temporally. It is not possible in the scope of th is analysis to determine all the potential bald eagle diets in California and evalua te them with regard to the selenium criterion, however, a review of several approaches is prov ided and an average FIR for bald eagles in

northern California is considered.

Since bald eagles are well descri bed as “carnivorous birds”, it is possible to calculate the bald eagle food ingestion rate (FIR) us ing the generic allometric equa tion for carnivorous birds from Nagy (2001). This equation is based on body mass and for the reasons stated above we use the average body mass of females: 5275 g.

FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 5275 0.665
FIR = 911 g/day wet weight

Alternatively, when information is available on the dietary composition a nd free-living metabolic rate (FMR) of a species, USEPA (1 993) recommends that this info rmation be used to calculate an estimate of the food ingestion rate. Several alternative bald eagle di ets are considered below using this method.

The dietary composition of bald eagles was inves tigated as part of the GLI (USEPA 1995). Using information on bald eagles nesting on islands and along the shore of Lake Superior in Wisconsin ( from Kozie and Anderson 1991), and adjustment factors to estimate the relative

number of birds and fish delivered to a nest based on the prey remains found under the nest, the USEPA determined that 92 percent of the di etary biomass comprised fish and 8 percent comprised birds or mammals. The adjustment f actor was developed to ac count for the inherent error in estimating a dietary composition based sole ly on the analysis of prey remains. Using this dietary composition of 92 percent fish and 8 percent birds and mammals, along with information about the energetic needs of adult eagl es and their ability to assimilate the caloric content of these food types, the GLI presente d estimates of the am ount of each food type ingested daily: 464 g fish and 40 g birds/mammals for a total of 504 g/day (USEPA 1995). This analysis depends upon diets of bald eagles in th e Great Lakes area; howev er, there is sufficient dietary data available on bald eagle s in California to calculate a FIR representative of local diets.

The Service’s evaluation of the threatened a nd endangered wildlife prot ectiveness of USEPA’s human health criterion for methylmercury in California (USFWS 2003) includes a detailed

9discussion of the trophic composition of the diet of Northern California bald eagles. This

assessment utilized detailed bald eagle dietary data from Jackman et al . (1999) who studied 56

nests across Northern Californi a. Although the FIR calculated in the Service document (600 g/day) was based upon a diet representative of Northern Califo rnia bald eagles (83 % fish, 17% birds), the assessment was based upon risks and assumptions associated with various trophic level diets relevant to mercury biomagnification. This diet re presented the highest combined percentage of trophic level 4 fish and aquati c-dependent birds from within the Jackman et al

. (1999) dataset and may not be appropriate for assessing selenium exposure in the Bay area.

Based on the dietary analysis presented by Jackman et al . (1999) a generic composition for Northern California bald eagle diet can be esti mated as 71.2 percent fish, 22.8 percent birds, and 6 percent mammals. These figures represent an average dietary composition for all bald eagles in the study area and may be the most appropriate es timate to use for this an alysis in lieu of Bay area specific bald eagle dietary information.

When information is available on the dietar y composition and free-l iving metabolic rate (FMR) of a species, USEPA (1993) recommends th at this information be used to calculate an estimate of the food ingestion rate (FIR) of the species using the equation:

FIR = FMR/ ME avg

Where ME avg is the weighted average metabolizable energy of the items in the diet.

FMR can be calculated using the allometr ic relationship between weight and FMR developed by Nagy (1987) for non-passerine birds:

FMR (kcal/day) = 1.146 Wt 0.749 (g)

= 1.146 x 5275 0.749
= 703.3 kcal/day

The generic bald eagle diet proportions (71.2 % fish, 22.8 % birds, and 6 % mammals)

from Jackman et al . (1999) are then used to calc ulate average metabolizable energy following the method outlined in USEPA (1993):

Dietary

item Proportion

of diet

P Gross Energy (kcal/g wet wt)

GE* Assimilation efficiency AE† Metabolizable energy (kcal/g wet wt)

ME=GE x AE P x ME (kcal/g wet wt)

Fish 0.712 1.2 0.79 0.948 0.675

Birds 0.228 1.9 0.78 1.482 0.338

Mammals 0.06 1.7 0.78 1.326 0.080 * from Table 4-1 in USEPA (1993) † from Table 4-3 in USEPA (1993)

The sum of the right-most column in the table above provides the weighted average metabolizable energy:

10ME avg = Σ (P x ME)

= 0.675 + 0.338 + 0.080 = 1.09 kcal/g wet weight (follo wing procedure on p. 4-17 EPA 1993)

The food ingestion rate is then calculated from the above estimate s of free-living metabolic rate and average metabolizable energy in the diet:

FIR = FMR/ ME avg = 703.3/1.09

= 644 g/day wet weight

General life history : Breeds in coastal and aquatic habitat wi th forested shorelines or cliffs in North America, including the Pacific Northwest and the northern Sierra Nevada Mountains in California (Buehler 2000). More recently breeding pairs occur along reservoirs in the Coast Ranges of central and southern California including the Channel Islands (CDFG 2005). Wintering areas include coastal estuaries and ri ver systems of northern California (Buehler 2000).

Risk of selenium exposure : Lillebo et al . (1988) derived levels of se lenium to protect various species of waterbirds. Based on an analysis of bioaccumulation dynamics and an estimated critical dietary thres hold for toxicity of 3 μ g/g, they concluded that pisc ivorous birds would be at substantially greater risk of toxic exposure than mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ). The calculated water criterion to protect piscivorous birds was 1.4 μ g/L as opposed to 6.5 μ g/L for mallards. It

should also be noted that the 6.5 μ g/L calculated criterion for mallards exceeds the actual threshold point for ducks in the wild which is somewhere below 4 μ g/L (Skorupa 1998). Thus,

the 1.4 μ g/L calculated criterion for pi scivorous birds may be biased high compared to the wild

as well.

Applying an energetics modeling ap proach, modified from the Wisc onsin Department of Natural Resources, Peterson and Nebeker (1992) calculate d a chronic criterion specifically for bald eagles. Peterson and Nebeker’s estim ate of a protective criterion is 1.9 μ g/L. Peterson and Nebeker calculated a mallard criterion (2.1 μ g/L) that was much clos er to their bald eagle

criterion than Lillebo et al. ’s (1988) results would suggest. Peterson and Nebeker’s mallard

criterion is consistent with real-world data (cf. Skorupa 1998) and therefore their bald eagle criterion may also be reliable.

As potential prey for the bald eagles wintering or breeding in th e Bay area, diving ducks such as surf scoter and scaup would pr ovide a significant source of se lenium (see discussion on these species in this document). Surf scoter and sca up are abundant in San Pablo and Suisun Bays in the winter (Goals Project 2000). A pair of bald eagles has begun nesting at San Pablo Reservoir (ESA 2006, The Quail 2006) about 5-6 miles fr om North and Central San Francisco Bay.

11California Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus )

Status : The California clapper rail was federa lly listed as endangere d on October 13, 1970 (35 FR 16047-16048).

Size: In the only literature found for this particular subspecies that provided body weights, nineteen female California clappe r rails from South San Francisco Bay were examined as part of a Master’s Degree thesis (Albertson 1995). Weights ranged from 300 to 400 g, with a mean weight of 346 g.

Diet: The most comprehensive assessment of the California clapper rail diet is presented by Moffitt (1941). Stomach contents from 18 bird s were examined and the food items identified and measured as a volumetric percentage. On average, animal matter accounted for approximately 85 percent of the di et, with the remainder composed of seed and hull fragments of marsh cordgrass. Over half (56.5%) of the overall diet comprised plaited horse mussels ( Modiolus demissus ). Spiders of the family Lycosidae (w olf spiders) accounted for 15 percent of the diet, while the remaining important di etary items were little macoma clams ( Macoma

balthica ) (7.6%), yellow shore crabs ( Hemigrapsis oregonensis ) (3.2%), and worn-out nassa snails ( Ilyanassa obsoletus ) (2.0%). Worms, insects, and ca rrion combined accounted for a total of 1.1 percent of the remaining diet found by Moff itt (1941) in the 18 clapper rail stomachs. The importance of crabs in the clapper rail diet was confirmed by Varoujean (1972), who observed rails eating striped shore crabs ( Pachygrapsus crassipes ).

Although Moffitt (1941) reported that plant matter accounted for approximately 15 percent on average of the clapper rail diets, the author stat ed that this percentage probably represented the maximum of a vegetable diet. This conclusi on was based on the fact that the birds were collected in early February, a time when anim al food items would typically be at lowest abundance. However, it is important to note th at this reported aver age for plant food (~15%) was calculated from a wide range of percenta ges in the 18 birds examined (0% - 58% plant food). As with other omnivorous species, the amount of any particular food item consumed at any given time may vary substant ially depending on a number of f actors. While clapper rails most likely do not eat a set amount of plant matte r daily, it is clear from Moffitt (1941) that vegetation generally constitutes a substantial dietary item over time.

Based on Moffitt’s (1941) assumption that his mi d-winter gut analyses represented a maximum for vegetation in the clapper rail diet, and the knowledge that clapper rails nest during a time when animal foods would be in greater a bundance (mid-March - July) (USFWS 1984), the overall rail diet for is assumed to be 10 per cent vegetation and 90 per cent animal matter.

Food ingestion rate (FIR) : Clapper rails may consume a wide variety of foods. Values for the gross energy content for some of these foods ( e.g. , shell-less bivalves, shelled crabs) and the efficiency at which rails assim ilate them can be found in the Wildlife Exposure Factors

Handbook (USEPA 1993). However, because rails do not consume set amounts of these food types, FIR must be estimated using one of the generic allometric equatio ns from Nagy (2001). Out of the 17 avian categories for predicting FI Rs presented by Nagy (2001), Charadriiformes is the taxonomic order most closely related to ra ils (Gill 1995). In additi on, the rail’s feeding

12ecology most closely resembles that of birds in the Charadriiformes category ( i.e. , shore birds, gulls, auks). Therefore, the FIR for Californi a clapper rails was calcu lated using the following equation:

FIR (wet weight) = 1.914 × (body weight in g) 0.769

FIR = 1.914 × 346 0.769

FIR = 172 g/day wet weight

General life history : The California clapper rail inha bits salt marshes surrounding the San Francisco Bay, California. Principal habitats ar e low portions of coastal wetlands dominated by cordgrass and pickleweed. Nesting habitat in San Francisco Bay is characterized by tidal sloughs, abundant invertebrate populations, pickle weed, gum plant, and wrack in upper zone. Individuals do not migrate far from the br eeding grounds (Eddleman and Conway 1998).

Risk of selenium exposure : California clapper rails feed largely on benthic invertebrates, including filter-feeding mussels and clams, a well-documented pathway for bioaccumulation of selenium (Pease et al . 1992, Stewart et al . 2004). Lonzarich et al . (1992) reported that eggs of California clapper rails collected from the north bay in 1987 contained up to 7.4 μ g/g selenium.

Water data from this time and location are not available. The in ovo threshold for selenium exposure that causes toxic effects on embryos of California clapper rails is unknown. For another benthic-foraging marsh bird, the black-necked stilt, the in ovo threshold for embryotoxicity is 6 μ g/g selenium (Skorupa 1998). The most widely-used hormetic model (Brain and Cousens 1989) applied to Heinz et al . (1989) data from laboratory experiments with mallard reproduction indicates that in malla rds, a selenium concentration of 7.4 μ g/g (dry weight) in the eggs would be asso ciated with a 32 percent reducti on in hatchability of the eggs ( Figure 1 ).

13

# 1 1 0

Selenium concentration in eggs ( μ g/g dry weight) 

# 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Egg hatchability



### SlopeLi n=1.42

ED=1.03 SlopeHi=-1.49

Residual sum of squares: 0.054

Residual standard error: 0.134264 on 3 degrees of freedom y=SlopeLin*x/(1+(ED/x)^SlopeHi) Heinz et al. 1989

Figure 1. The percent hatching success of ma llard eggs as a function of selenium concentration in the eggs, with the Brain-Co usens (1989) hormetic model fitted by least squares regression. Confidence int ervals of 95% and 99% are shown.

In mallard ducks, interactive effects of selenium and mercury can be supe r-toxic with regard to embryotoxic effects (Heinz and Hoffman 1998). Lonzarich et al . (1992) also reported potentially embryotoxic concentrat ions of mercury in eggs of California clapper rails. Abnormally high numbers of nonviable eggs, 13.7- 22.9 percent, poten tially a result of mercury contamination, have also been reported for the California clapper rail (Schwarzbach 1994,

Schwarzbach et al. 2006). Based, in part, on the data for California clapper rails, staff technical reports prepared for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board recommend decreasing selenium loading to the es tuary by 50 percent or more (Taylor et al . 1992; 1993). The California clapper rail is particularly vulnerable to a ny locally elevated effluent

concentrations of selenium as the rail generally occupies sma ll home ranges of only a few acres.

Greater Scaup ( Aythya marila )

Status : The greater scaup is a relatively little -known duck with a circumpolar distribution (Kessel et al . 2002). The San Francisco Bay is one of the two main wintering grounds of this

14species along the west coast of North America. Regulated hunting of these birds is permitted under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Size: The mean body mass of 345 adult male gr eater scaup on Long Island Sound, Connecticut, measured between October 1991 and January 1994, was 1,054 g (range: 850-1,350; standard deviation: 105); the mean body ma ss of 104 adult females at the same location was 959 g (range: 688-1,210; standard deviation: 108) (Kessel et al . 2002).

Diet: Greater scaup dive in waters from one to ten meters deep to feed mainly on benthic invertebrates, especially bivalv es in winter (Bellros e 1980). The stomach contents of 119 greater scaup in Long Island Sound in the winter of 1952-1953 consisted of 93.5% (by volume) animal material, including 56.4% bivalves , 6.1% snails, 24.3% unidentifie d mollusks, 4.4% crustaceans (Cronan 1957). The remaining diet was plant materi al (6.6%) consisting main ly of algae (3.6%). More recent studies sugg est that diets vary substantially among different locations, and the dietary proportion of animal material has d eclined in Long Island Sound (review in Kessel et al

. 2002). During the winters of 1998-1999 a nd 1999-2000, the introduced Asian clam,

Potamocorbula amurensis , was the most important food of greater scaup in San Pablo Bay (Poulton et al. 2002). The Asian clam is an extraordinar ily efficient bioaccumulator of selenium (Stewart et al . 2004).

Food ingestion rate : The most likely limiting effect of se lenium on wintering greater scaup in the San Francisco Bay area is reduction in body mass, or reduction of the rate of increase in body mass, as the birds build up reserves in prepar ation for their migration to breeding grounds in

Alaska and northern Canada. Because winter ing males bioaccumulate selenium to higher concentrations than females (see below), their migrat ion is more likely to be adversely affected. Therefore, for this study, we use the body mass and estimate the food ingestion rate (FIR) of males. Due to the variability of the diets of wintering greater scaup, we use a generic equation to estimate FIR based on body mass (Nagy 2001). No su ch equation is availa ble specifically for clam-eating birds, but because greater scaup are largely carnivorous and mainly marine or estuarine, we use equations for car nivorous and marine birds (Nagy 2001):

For carnivorous birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 1054 0.665
FIR = 312 g/day wet weight

For marine birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.221 × (body weight in g) 0.658

FIR = 3.221 × 1054 0.658
FIR = 314 g/day wet weight

These estimates are in close agreement; we average them to yield an estimated food ingestion

rate of 313 g/day wet weight

General life history : Greater scaup breed mainly on the tundra of Alaska and northern Quebec, with some breeding sites scattered across Canada. They winter mainly along the northeast coast

15of North America. Along the west coast of Nort h America they winter as far south as northern Baja California, but mainly around Vancouver Is land and in the San Francisco Bay (Kessel et al

. 2002).

Risk of selenium exposure : In San Pablo Bay, greater scaup feed primarily on bivalves, which are efficient selenium bioaccumulators (Stewart et al . 2004). Consequently, greater scaup can bioaccumulate selenium to high concentrations . Bioaccumulation evidently increases through the winter, and is greater in males than in fema les. Two adult males co llected along the coast of California in early winter had liver selenium concentrations of 7.6 and 23.7 μ g/g dry weight (geometric mean: 13.4 μ g/g). In late winter five males ha d a geometric mean liver concentration

of 47.9 μ g/g and two females had liver concentrations of 8.9 and 31 μ g/g (geometric mean: 16.61

μ g/g) (Takekawa et al . 2002). Eighteen greater scaup coll ected from San Francisco Bay in March and April 1982 had liver selenium c oncentrations ranging from 6.7 to 31 μ g/g dry weight (mean: 19.3 μ g/g) (Ohlendorf et al . 1986). Males collected in San Francisco Bay in early winter of 1986-87 had a geometric mean liver selenium concentration of 20.7 μ g/g; in late winter geometric means at two sites in San Francisco Bay were 32.7 and 27.4 μ g/g (Hothem et al

. 1998). Adult males collected from a reference site and a polluted site in San Francisco Bay in March, 1989 had liver selenium con centrations ranging from 7 to 23 μ g/g (geometric mean: 13

μ g/g) at the reference site , and ranging from 21 to 140 μ g/g (geometric mean: 67 μ g/g) at the polluted site (Hoffman et al . 1998). Reproductive impairment is associated with a liver

concentration of 10 μ g/g (dry weight), and concentrations above 33 μ g/g (dry weight) are considered harmful to the health of mallards, Anas platyrhynchos (Heinz et al . 1989).

Lesser Scaup ( Aythya affinis )

Status : The lesser scaup is the most abundant North American diving duck, but declining populations in recent decades (Austin et al . 1998) have raised concerns . Regulated hunting of these birds is permitted under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Size: On average, male lesser scaup are heavier th an females. The mean mass of six adult and hatch-year males migrating thr ough the Klamath Basin in northern California in spring was 734

g (standard deviation: 24); th e mean mass of five females wa s 663 g (standard deviation: 109) (Gammonley and Heitmeyer 1990).

Diet: Wintering lesser scaup feed primarily by divi ng for clams, other mollusks, aquatic insects and crustaceans, but in some places, up to 99 per cent of the diet consists of plant material (review in Austin et al . 1998). During the winters of 1998-1999 and 1999-2000, 96 percent of the dry mass of the esophagus contents of 13 less er scaup in San Pablo Bay consisted of the introduced Asian clam, Potamocorbula amurensis , (Richman and Lovvorn 2004) which is an extraordinarily efficient bioaccu mulator of selenium (Stewart et al . 2004).

Food ingestion rate : The most likely limiting effect of se lenium on wintering lesser scaup in the San Francisco Bay area is reduction in body mass, or reduction of the rate of increase in body mass, as the birds build up reserves in prepar ation for their migration to breeding grounds in

Alaska and northern Canada. It is likely that wintering males bioaccumulate selenium to higher

16concentrations than females because this been clearly shown for the closely related Greater Scaup (see above) and the more meager data for lesser scaup are in agreement (Takekawa et al

. 2002). Therefore, the migration of males is more likely to be a dversely affected by selenium. So, for this study, we use the body mass and estimate the food ingestion rate (FIR) of males. Due to the variability of the diets of wintering lesser scaup, we use a gene ric equation to estimate FIR based on body mass (Nagy 2001). No such equati on is available specifically for clam-eating birds, but because wintering lesser scaup are largely carn ivorous and mainly marine or estuarine, we use equations for carnivorous and marine birds (Nagy 2001):

For carnivorous birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 734 0.665
FIR = 245.3 g/day wet weight

For marine birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.221 × (body weight in g) 0.658

FIR = 3.221 × 734 0.658
FIR = 247.5 g/day wet weight

These estimates are in close agreement; we average them to yield an estimated food ingestion

rate of 246 g/day wet weight

.

General life history : Lesser scaup breed mainly in Alaska and Canada. In the U.S. Pacific Northwest they breed as far south as the Klamat h basin in northern Cali fornia. They winter mainly along the Gulf coast and the Pacific coas t of North and Central America on freshwater bays and wetlands as well as estuar ine and marine habitats (Austin et al . 1998).

Risk of selenium exposure : In San Francisco Bay ducks, cont aminants, including selenium, are associated with reduced body size. This suggests that ducks wintering in the more contaminated areas in the bay might be in poor condition when they reach their breeding grounds in the boreal forest, which may reduce nesti ng success (John Takekawa, USGS, quoted in Martin 2002). In addition, migration success may be reduced by lowered body condition associated with high body burdens of selenium.

In December 1986 one adult male Lesser Scaup in Lake Earl, northern California, had a

selenium liver concentration of 11 μ g/g dry weight; four juvenile males had a liver concentrations ranging from 2.8 to 12.2 μ g/g (geometric mean: 6.3 μ g/g); the liver concentration of one juvenile female was 3.5 μ g/g (Takekawa et al . 2002). In March 1987 six adult males in Morro Bay, central California, had liver sele nium concentrations ranging from 7.1 to 19 μ g/g (geometric mean: 11.13 μ g/g); two juvenile males had live r concentration ranging from 8.9 to 16

μ g/g (geometric mean: 11.92 μ g/g) (Takekawa et al . 2002). In these relatively uncontaminated sites, Takekawa et al . (2002) found a positive correlation betw een selenium and carcass mass, as would be expected for a biphasic (beneficial at low concentrations; toxic at high concentrations)

contaminant such as selenium at the lo wer range of selenium concentrations.

17White-winged Scoter ( Melanitta fusca )

Status : The white-winged scoter is the best known of the world’s three species of scoter. It is the sea duck most commonly taken by hunters, constituting 30 percent of all sea ducks hunted from 1961 to 1986 (USFWS 1988). Despite in creasing hunting pressure (Brown and Fredrickson 1997), success in hunting white-winge d scoters has declined since 1976 (USFWS 1988), an indication of declining populations.

Size: Twenty-one male white-winged scoters alo ng the coast of British Columbia throughout the year had a mean mass of 1,722 g (standard deviatio n: 51); nineteen females had a mean mass of 1,437 g (standard deviation: 46) (Vermeer and Bourne 1984). White-winged scoters exhibit seasonal variation in weight, reaching maxi mum weights before breeding (Brown and Fredrickson 1997). Therefore, weight measurem ents taken in the non-breeding period are most relevant to white-winged scoter s wintering in the San Francisc o Bay area. The averages of weights of non-breeding white-winge d scoters collected from November to April in Kachemak Bay, Alaska, were 1,917 g (28 males) and 1,732 g (10 females).

Diet: In wintering areas, white-winged scoters usua lly dive in water depths of less than five meters to feed on benthic mollusks (especially cl ams), crustaceans, and insects (review in Brown and Fredrickson 1997).

Food ingestion rate : The most likely limiting effect of selenium on wintering white-winged

scoter in the San Francisco Ba y area is reduction in body mass, or reduction of the rate of increase in body mass, as the birds build up re serves in preparation for their migration to breeding grounds in Alaska and nor thern Canada. It is likely that wintering males bioaccumulate selenium to higher concentrations that females, as this has been doc umented in related and ecologically similar diving ducks (see above). Ther efore, the migration of males is more likely to be adversely affected by selenium, so, fo r this study, we use the body mass and estimate the food ingestion rate (FIR) of males. Due to the variability of th e diets of wintering white-winged scoter, we use a generic equation to estimat e FIR based on body mass (Nagy 2001). No such equation is available specifically for clam-ea ting birds, but because wintering white-winged scoters are largely carnivorous and mainly marine or estuarine, we use equations for carnivorous and marine birds (Nagy 2001):

For carnivorous birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 1917 0.665
FIR = 464.5 g/day wet weight

For marine birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.221 × (body weight in g) 0.658

FIR = 3.221 × 1917 0.658
FIR = 465.5 g/day wet weight

18These estimates are in close agreement; we average them to yield an estimated food ingestion

rate of 465 g/day wet weight

.

General life history : North American white-winged scot ers breed in Alaska and western Canada and winter along the east, west, and gulf coasts of the United States (Brown and Fredrickson 1997).

Risk of selenium exposure : The risk to the migration of white-winged scoters due to selenium exposure in their wintering areas is similar to the risks for scaups (see above). In addition, some white-winged scoter females arrive in their nor thern breeding areas with sufficiently high body

burdens of selenium to be a concern for su rvival and reproductive success. Reproductive impairment is associated with a liver concentration of 10 μ g/g (dry weight), and concentrations

above 33 μ g/g (dry weight) are considered ha rmful to the health of mallards, Anas platyrhynchos (Heinz et al . 1989). The liver of a female white-winged scoter found dead at Cape Yakataga, Alaska, in August 1992, had a selenium concentration of 53 μ g/g dry weight (Henny et al . 1995). A pooled sample of livers of 7 female white-winge d scoters collected in the Old Crow/Porcupine River area in the northern Yukon Territory 1988-1994 had a selenium concentration of 20 μ g/g wet weight. This is equivalent to 66.7 μ g/g dry weight (average 70% moisture in the livers analyzed in this study) (Braune and Malone 2006).

Surf Scoter ( Melanitta perspicillata )

Status : Until recently, the surf scoter has been the least known of North American ducks (Belrose 1980), although it is common in winter along the coas t of California (Johnsgard 1975; Cogswell 1977).

Size: As with other scoters and scaup (see above) males are heav ier than females. In May 1996,

21 males collected in the St. Lawr ence estuary had a mean mass of 1059.3 g (standard deviation: 133.7); 16 females had a mean mass of 985.3 g (standard deviation: 118.6) (Savard et al . 1998).

Diet: Surf scoters feed primarily on mussels and other mollusks during all seasons of the year; plants and crustaceans are additional minor co mponents of their diets (review in Savard et al

. 1998).

Food ingestion rate : The most likely limiting effect of sele nium on wintering surf scoter in the San Francisco Bay area is reduction in body mass, or reduction of the rate of increase in body mass, as the birds build up reserves in prepar ation for their migration to breeding grounds in

Alaska and northern Canada. It is likely that wintering males bioaccumulate selenium to higher concentrations that females, as this has been documented in related and ecologically similar diving ducks (see above). Therefore, the migrat ion of males is more likely to be adversely affected by selenium. So, for this study, we use the body mass and estimate the food ingestion rate (FIR) of males. Due to the variability of th e diets of wintering surf scoter, we use a generic equation to estimate FIR based on body mass (Nagy 2001). No such equation is available

19specifically for clam-eating birds, but because wi ntering surf scoters are largely carnivorous and mainly marine or estuarine, we use equations for carnivorous and ma rine birds (Nagy 2001):

For carnivorous birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 1059 0.665
FIR = 313.0 g/day wet weight

For marine birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.221 × (body weight in g) 0.658

FIR = 3.221 × 1059 0.658
FIR = 315.0 g/day wet weight

These estimates are in close agreement; we average them to yield an estimated food ingestion

rate of 314 g/day wet weight

.

General life history : North American surf scoters breed in northern Canada and Alaska and winter along the east, west, and gul f coasts of North America (Savard et al . 1998)( Figure 2 ). The San Francisco Bay estuary supports the sout hernmost large population of wintering surf scoters; this species constitutes more than 99 pe rcent of the scoters in the estuary (Takekawa et
al . 2002).

Risk of selenium exposure : The risk to the migration of surf scoters due to selenium exposure in their wintering areas is simila r to the risks for scaups (see above ). Livers from 22 surf scoters collected in March and April 1982 in south San Francisco Bay had a mean selenium

concentration of 34.4 μ g/g dry weight (Ohlendorf et al . 1986). The average selenium

concentration in the livers of 79 adult male su rf scoters collected in north and south San Francisco Bay in January and March 1985 was about 60 μ g/g dry weight (Ohlendorf et al . 1991).

Livers from ten adult male surf scoter co llected in Suisun Bay in March 1989 had a mean

concentration of 119 μ g/g dry weight (Hoffman et al . 1998).

Selenium is depurated fairly rapidly, with a half life of about 19 days in mallards (Heinz et al

. 1990). Therefore, depuration during migration w ould be expected to mitigate the risk to reproduction caused by elevated loads of selenium carried from wintering ar eas to nesting areas. However, surf scoters bioaccumulate selenium to such high levels in the San Francisco Bay area, and their migration is so rapid (Savard et al . 1998) that some surf scoter females arrive in their northern breeding areas with sufficiently high bo dy burdens of selenium to be a concern for hatching success and embryo toxicity. A pooled sa mple of livers of two female surf scoters

collected at Old Crow in the northern Yukon Te rritory 1988-1994 had a se lenium concentration

of 13 μ g/g wet weight. This is equivalent to 43.3 μ g/g dry weight (average 70% moisture in the livers analyzed in this study). A pooled sample of four male surf scoter livers collected at Fort Good Hope in northern Northwes t Territories, Canada, had a se lenium concentration of 17 μ g/g wet weight, equivalent to 56.7 μ g/g dry weight (Braune and Malone 2006). Reproductive impairment is associated with a liver concentration of 10 μ g/g (dry weight), and concentrations

above 33 μ g/g (dry weight) are considered ha rmful to the health of mallards, Anas platyrhynchos (Heinz et al . 1989).

20Figure 2. Tracking of individual surf scoter s from their wintering grounds in the San Francisco Bay area and coastal North America to their breeding grounds in the north, by the US Geological Survey (http://w ww.werc.usgs.gov/scoter/2005/maps.html)

Black Scoter ( Melanitta nigra )

Status : The Black Scoter is one of the least-known North American ducks (Bordage and Savard 1995). Declining populations of sea-ducks (USFWS 1993; Goudie et al . 1994) and of scoters in particular (Kehoe et al . 1994) have been a matter of concern. A lower ratio of immature to adult

birds has been observed in black scot ers relative to other scoters (Padding et al . 1992; 1993), suggesting that black scoters have been experiencing lower reproductive success.

Size: As with other scoters and scaup (see above) males are heav ier than females. In 1990 in Quebec, 34 males had a mean mass of 1117.0 g (standard deviation: 101.6); 21 females had a mean mass of 987.4 g (standard deviation: 110.1) (Consortium Gauthier & Guillemette— GREBE 1993).

21Diet: Wintering and migrant black scoters feed primarily on mussels and clams; snails and

barnacles are additional minor co mponents of their diets (review in Bordage and Savard 1995).

Food ingestion rate : The most likely limiting effect of se lenium on wintering black scoter in the San Francisco Bay area is reduction in body mass, or reduction of the rate of increase in body mass, as the birds build up reserves in prepar ation for their migration to breeding grounds in

Alaska and northern Canada. It is likely that wintering males bioaccumulate selenium to higher concentrations that females, as this has been documented in related and ecologically similar diving ducks (see above). Therefore, the migrat ion of males is more likely to be adversely affected by selenium, so, for this study, we use the body mass and estimate the food ingestion rate (FIR) of males. Due to the variability of th e diets of wintering black scoter, we use a generic equation to estimate FIR based on body mass (Nagy 2001). No such equation is available specifically for bivalve-eating birds, but because wintering black scoters are largely carnivorous and mainly marine or estuarine, we use equati ons for carnivorous and marine birds (Nagy 2001):

For carnivorous birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.048 × (body weight in g) 0.665

FIR = 3.048 × 1117 0.665
FIR = 324.3 g/day wet weight

For marine birds: FIR (wet weight) = 3.221 × (body weight in g) 0.658

FIR = 3.221 × 1117 0.658
FIR = 326.3 g/day wet weight

These estimates are in close agreement; we average them to yield an estimated food ingestion

rate of 325 g/day wet weight

.

General life history : North American black scoters breed mainly in northern Quebec and Alaska and winter along the east, west, and gulf coasts of Nort h America (Bordage and Savard 1995). Less than one percent of the scoters wintering in the San Francisco Bay estuary are black scoters (Takekawa et al . 2002).

Risk of selenium exposure : The risk to the migration of black scoters due to selenium exposure in their wintering areas is simila r to the risks for scaups (see a bove). In addition, some black scoter females may arrive in their northern br eeding areas with sufficiently high body burdens of selenium to be a concern for hatching success an d embryo toxicity. Reproductive impairment is

associated with a liver concentration of 10 μ g/g (dry weight), and concentrations above 33 μ g/g (dry weight) are considered harm ful to the health of mallards, Anas platyrhynchos (Heinz et al

. 1989). The livers of two weakened black scoter live-captured with a ne t at Cape Yakataga, Alaska, in August 1991, had selenium concentrations of 24 and 32 μ g/g dry weight (Henny et al

. 1995). An adult black scoter from Quebec had th e highest selenium concentration in pectoral muscle (10.1 μ g/g wet weight) among all 3,957 waterfowl a nd game birds collected and analyzed across Canada between 1987 and 1995 (Braune et al . 1999).

22Chinook Salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha )

Status: The National Marine Fisheries Service (NM FS) has identified 17 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Chinook salmon fr om Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California (Myers et al . 1998; 63 FR 11482). Three of these use the San Francisco Estuary: the Sacramento River winter-run ESU, the Centra l Valley spring-run ESU, and the Central Valley fall/late fallrun ESU. The Sacramento River winter-run ESU was listed as endangered on January 4, 1994 (59 FR 440). On September 16, 1999, NMFS liste d the Central Valley spring-run ESU as threatened (64 FR 50394). In the same rule making, NMFS also determined that the Central Valley fall/late fall ESU is not warranted for listing at this time.

Size : Chinook salmon fry remain in the estuarin e nursery areas as they grow from about 0.5 g to about 18 g ( Figure 3 ). They migrate seaward from the estuary when they reach about 70 mm fork length (Healy 1991).

Diet: Young Chinook salmon in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta feed primarily on insects (especially chironomid larvae and dipt erans) and crustacea (especially Neomysids (opossum “shrimp”), amphipods (mud “shrimp”), copepods, and cladocerans (water fleas)) (Sasaki 1966, Kjelson et al . 1982). Chinook salmon fry appear to be opportunistic feeders;

hence their diet varies with lo cale, season, and available prey ( Figure 4

, Figure 5 , Figure 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8). As they grow larger and move to deeper water within the estuary, they evidently shift dietary preference to larval and young fishes (Healey 1991).

Food ingestion rate : The food ingestion rates of wild Chinook salmon are entirely unknown. However, ingestion rates in the wild may be estim ated from ingestion rate s in captivity or from growth rates in the wild combined with food co nversion efficiency (FCE = wet weight gain of fish / dry weight of food) in captivity. Fa ll-run Chinook salmon from the Cowlitz River had conversion rates of 1.32, 1.5, 1.3 and 1.36 in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively (WDFG 2001). The growth rates of marked fry in the wild (Vancouver Island estuaries) range from about 3% to 5% of body we ight per day (Healey 1991, Figure 3 ). Based on the average FCE (1.37) from the Cowlitz, a medium growth rate (4% per day), and weights from Vancouver Island, Chinook salmon entering the estuary at about 1 g body weight consume about 0.055 g (dry weight) of food per day, and when they l eave the estuary at about 18 g body weight they consume about 1.0 g (dry weight) of food per day.

MacFarlane and Norton (2002) estimated the growth rate of Chinook salmon in the San Francisco estuary to be about 0.02 g per day for young averaging about 7 g in weight (about 0.3% body weight per day). However, this esti mate is not based on recaptures of tagged individuals but by comparing aver ages of all fish captured at different locations along the migration route. This method is known to undere stimate growth rate because it does not account for mortality. However, if the fork length gr owth rate (0.47 mm/day fo r fish of about 60 mm fork length) of tagged Delta juveniles ( Figure 9 ) is combined with seemingly good data from MacFarlane and Norton (2002) relating weight to fork length (best fit equation of Figure 10 (A)

differentiated and evaluated at 60 mm fork length yields 0.10 g/mm growth at 2.74 g), the calculated weight growth rate is 0.47 mm/day X 0.10 g/mm = 0.047 g/day. This growth rate

23(1.7% of body weight per day for the 60 mm 2.74 g i ndividual) is well below the growth rate of tagged individuals in Vancouver Island estuaries, but much higher and probably much more realistic than the MacFarlane and Norton (2002) estimate above. This gr owth rate combined with the Cowlitz food conversion efficiency of 1.37 yields a food (dry wei ght) ingestion rate of 2.33% of live body weight per day

.

Figure 3. Growth of Chinook salmon fry in the Namaimo and Nitinat River estuaries, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Closed and open circles designate different tagged groups of fry (Healey 1991).

24Figure 4. Seasonal variation in the diet of juvenile Chinook salmon in Nitinat Lake, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. At the top of the figure, O denotes other diet items (Healey 1982).

25Figure 5. Mean numbers of prey organisms p er juvenile Chinook salmon stomach in the Mattole River estuary and lagoon, California, 1986 and 1987 (Fig. 6 in Busby and Barnhart 1995. Salmon fork lengths ranged from 64 to 103 mm.

Figure 6. Stomach contents of young Chinook sa lmon (322 stomachs containing food out of 469 stomachs examined) caught in the Sa cramento-San Joaquin Delta from September 1963 to August 1964 (Table 3 in Sasaki 1966).

26Figure 7. Stomach contents of juvenile Chinook salmon in the San Francisco estuary and the Gulf of the Farallones (Tab le 2 in MacFarlane and Norton 2002). %N is the numerical percentage; %V is the percent relative volu me; %FO is the frequency of occurrence percentage; and IRI is the index of relative importance, (%N + %V)%FO.

27Figure 8. Stomach contents of juvenile Chinook salmon in the San Francisco estuary and the Gulf of the Farallones (Tab le 2 in MacFarlane and Norton 2002). %N is the numerical percentage; %V is the percent relative volu me; %FO is the frequency of occurrence percentage; and IRI is the index of relative importance, (%N + %V)%FO.

Figure 9. Growth of tagged Chinook salmon fr y from the Coleman Fish Hatchery released and recaptured in the Delta (circles) a nd upper Sacramento River (diamonds) between February 7 and April 28, 1982 (Brandes and McLain 2001).

28Figure 10. Fork lengths, weights, and ages of all juvenile Chinook sa lmon collected from the San Francisco Estuary and Gulf of the Farallones in 1997 (Figure 2 in MacFarlane and Norton 2002).

29General Life History Summary: Chinook salmon are anadromous and semelpar ous. That is, as adults they migrate

from a marine environment into the fresh water streams and rivers of their birth (anadromous) where they spawn only once and die (semelparous). Juvenile Chinook may spend from 3 months to 2 years in freshwater after emergence before migrating to estuarine areas as smolts, and then

into the ocean to feed and mature. The timi ng and duration of the migratory movements of Chinook salmon are important in a ssessing their exposure to seleni um and estimating consequent risks. Natal streams and estuary rearing habitat vary seasonally in selenium concentration and the salmon evidently vary in sensitivity to seleni um across stages in thei r life histories.

Freshwater migration: Once their downstream migration be gins, Chinook salmon fry may stop migrating and take up residence in the stream for a period of two weeks to a year or more (Healey 1991).

Use of estuarine habitat: On their migration downstr eam, many Chinook salmon fry take up residence in the river estuary where they rear to smolt size (about 70 mm fork length) before resuming their migration to the ocean. The propor tion of fry that rear in the estuary is not known. On Vancouver Island, BC, about 30% of th e estimated downstream migrants could be accounted for in the estuary; the fate of th e remaining 70% is unknown, but they probably suffered mortality due to unknown agents (Hea ley 1991). The maximum residence time of Chinook salmon fry in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta was estimated to be 64 days in 1980 and 52 days in 1981 (Kjelson et al . 1981)

Life history types: Chinook salmon exhibit two genera lized freshwater life history types (Healey 1991). “Stream-type” Chinook salmon, enter freshwater months before spawning and reside in freshwater for a y ear or more following emergence, whereas “ocean-type” Chinook salmon spawn soon after entering freshwater and migr ate to the ocean as fr y or parr within their first year. Spring-run Chinook salmon exhibit a str eam-type life history. A dults enter freshwater in the spring, hold over summer, spawn in fall, a nd the juveniles typically spend a year or more in freshwater before emigrating. Winter-run Ch inook salmon are somewhat anomalous in that they have characteristics of both stream- and ocean-type races (Healey 1991). Adults enter

freshwater in winter or early spring, and delay spawning unt il spring or early summer (streamtype). However, juvenile winter-run Chinook sa lmon migrate to sea afte r only four to seven months of river life (ocean-type). Adequate instream flows and cool water temperatures are more critical for the survival of Chinook salmon exhibiting a str eam-type life history due to over summering by adults and/or juveniles.

Runs: Salmon runs (separate ESUs) are designated on the basis of adult migration timing; however, distinct runs also differ in the degree of maturation at the time of river entry, thermal regime and flow characteristics of their spaw ning site, and the actual time of spawning (Myers et
al. 1998). Both spring-run and winter-run Chinook sa lmon tend to enter freshwater as immature fish, migrate far upriver, and delay spawning for weeks or months. For comparison, fall-run

Chinook salmon enter freshwater at an advanced stage of maturity, move rapidly to their spawning areas on the mainstem or lower tributarie s of the rivers, and sp awn within a few days or weeks of freshwater entry (Healey 1991).

30Run-specific downstream migration: Winter-run Chinook salmon fr y begin to emerge from the gravel in late June to ear ly July and continue through Oc tober (Fisher 1994). Spring-run Chinook salmon fry emerge from the gravel from November to March and spend about 3 to 15 months in freshwater habitats prior to emigrating to the ocean (Kjelson et al. 1981). Postemergent fry disperse to the margins of their natal stream, seeking out shallow waters with slower currents, finer sediments, and bank cove r such as overhanging and submerged vegetation, root wads, and fallen woody debris, and begi n feeding on small inse cts and crustaceans.

When juvenile Chinook salmon reach a length of 50 to 57 mm, they move into deeper water with higher current velocities, but still seek shel ter and velocity refugia to minimize energy expenditures. In the mainstems of larger rivers , juveniles tend to migrate along the margins and

avoid the elevated water velocitie s found in the thalweg of the cha nnel. When the channel of the river is greater than 9 to 10 f eet in depth, juvenile salmon tend to inhabit the surface waters (Healey 1982). Emigration of juvenile wint er-run Chinook salmon past RBDD may begin as early as mid-July, typically peaks in September, and can continue through March in dry years (Vogel and Marine 1991; NMFS 1997). From 1995 to 1999, all winter-run Chinook salmon outmigrating as fry passed RBDD by October, a nd all outmigrating pre-smolts and smolts passed RBDD by March (Martin et al. 2001). The emigration timing of Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon is highly variable (CDFG 1998). Some fish may begin emigrating soon after emergence from the gravel, whereas others over summer and emigrate as yearlings with the onset of intense fall storms (CDFG 1998). The emigration period for spring-run Chinook salmon extends from November to early May, with up to 69 percent of the young-of-the-year fish outmigrating through the lower Sacramento Rive r and Delta during this period (CDFG 1998).

As Chinook salmon fry and fingerlings mature, th ey prefer to rear further downstream where ambient salinity is up to 1.5 to 2.5 pa rts per thousand (Healy 1980, 1982; Levings et al. 1986). Juvenile winter-run Chinook salmon occur in the Delta from October through early May based on data collected from trawls, beach seines, a nd salvage records at the Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) pumping facilities (CDFG 1998). The peak of listed juvenile salmon arrivals in the De lta generally occurs from January to April, but may extend into June. Upon arrival in the Delta, winter-run Ch inook salmon spend the first two months rearing in the more upstream, freshwater portions of th e Delta (Kjelson et al. 1981, 1982). Data from the CVP and SWP salvage records indicate that most spring-run Chinook salmon smolts are present in the Delta from mid-March through mid-May depending on flow conditions (CDFG 2000).

Winter-run Chinook salmon fry remain in the estuar y (Delta/Bay) until they reach a fork length of about 118 mm ( i.e. , 5 to 10 months of age) and then begin emigrating to the ocean perhaps as early as November and continui ng through May (Fisher 1994; Myers et al. 1998). Little is

known about estuarine residence time of spring-run Chinook salmon. Juvenile Chinook salmon were found to spend about 40 days migrating th rough the Delta to the mouth of San Francisco Bay and grew little in length or weight until they reached the Gulf of the Farallones (MacFarlane and Norton 2002). Based on the mainly ocean-type life history observed ( i.e. , fall-run Chinook salmon) MacFarlane and Norton (2002) concluded that unlike other salmonid populations in the

31Pacific Northwest, Central Valley Chinook sa lmon show little estuar ine dependence and may benefit from expedited ocean entry. Spring-run yearlings are larger in size than fall-run yearlings and are ready to smolt upon entering the Delta; therefore, they are believed to spend little time rearing in the Delta.

Risk of selenium exposure : California Central Valley Chin ook salmon evidently are among the

most sensitive of fish and wildlife to selenium. They are especially vul nerable during juvenile life stages when they migrate and rear in sele nium-contaminated Central Valley rivers and the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary.

In a laboratory experiment, measurements were made of the selenium bioaccumulation, weight and survival of juvenile (initially swim-up larvae) San Joaquin River fall run Chinook salmon that were exposed for 90 days in fresh water to two parallel graded seri es of dietary selenium treatments (Hamilton et al . 1990). In one series, the food was spiked with seleno-DL-methionine (SeMet); in the other series, the source of seleni um was mosquitofish collected from the San Luis Drain (SLD), which carried seleniferous agricultur al drainwater from a subsurface tile drainage system in the Westlands Water Di strict in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Although the SLD mosquitofish diets may have included other contaminants, such as pesticides, the results of this experiment indicate that, once selenium is incorporated into fi sh tissue, there is no difference in the tissue concentration-respons e relationship due to the different sources of selenium (SLD or SeMet). Therefore, all data from both diet series were combined in the analysis presented here.

The effects of selenium on animals (including fish ) are well known to be biphasic (beneficial at low doses; toxic at high doses; see for example Hilton et al . 1980), and in the Hamilton et al

. (1990) experiment, the 90-day survival data appear to confirm a biphasic dose-response relationship with respect to the survival endpoint ( Figure 11 ). Therefore, we fitted a biphasic model (Brain and Cousens 1989) to the data by least squares regression. This regression provides a weight-of-evidence estimate of the maxi mum survival rate (0.7, or 70 percent) of young salmon under these experimental conditions at the estimated optimal selenium concentration in the fish (about 1 μg/g whole body dry weight). It also provides an estimate of the survival rate at any given se lenium concentration above the op timum. Any such survival rate estimate can be compared to the maximum survival rate to yield an estimate of the mortality (inverse of survival) specifically attributable to selenium. For example, at a fish tissue concentration of 7.9 μg/g (whole body dry weight) the regression cu rve predicts a survival of 0.29 (29 percent). As a proportion of the ma ximum survival this is 0.29/0.7 = 0.41, or 41 percent. Therefore our best weight-of-eviden ce estimate of the mortality due to selenium toxicity at a tissue concentrati on of 7.9 μg/g is the inverse of 0.41, which is 0.59, or 59 percent. Similarly, the model predicts that fish with a selenium concentration of 2.5 μ g/g (whole body dry weight) after 90 days of exposure would experi ence 20 percent mortality due to selenium ( Figure

11 ).

32

### 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 30 

## Selenium concentration in fish ( μ g/g whole body dry wt)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Survival 

### Regression:

y=1.71*x/(1+(x/0.80) 1.67 

### )

n=11

R 2 

### =0.946

59% mortality 

# ⎫

⎬ ⎭ ⎭ ⎬ ⎫

20% mortality

2.5 μ g/g 

## ⎬

7.9 μ g/g

Figure 11. Survival as a function of selenium concentration in tissue of juvenile Chinook salmon after 90 days of exposure to dietar y selenium. A biphasic model (Brain and Cousens 1989) was fitted to the data by least squares regression (see text). Dashed lines indicate 95% confidence bands around the reg ressions in this and following figures.

33

### 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 30 

## Selenium concentration in fish ( μ g/g whole body dry wt) 0 1 2 3 4 5Weight of fish (g)



## 7.9 μ g/g Regression: y=5.24/(1+(17.5/x)- 1.78 

### )



## Max

Figure 12. Juvenile fall run Ch inook salmon weight 90 days a fter swim up, in fresh water with dietary exposure to selenium.

In the Hamilton et al . (1990) experiment, the weight measurements after 90 days of exposure do

not exhibit clear evidence of a bi phasic dose-response relationship ( Figure 12 ). This suggests that none of the dietary treatments in this experiment was low enough in selenium to be substantially deficient with respect to weight gain . This is consistent with the results of an experiment in which rainbow trout juveniles where exposed to diets spiked with sodium selenate for 20 weeks (Hilton et al . 1980). In that experiment, rainbow trout exhibited measurable impairment of growth due to selenium deficiency at tissue selenium concentrations of less than 0.65 μg/g (carcass dry weight). In the Hamilton et al . (1990) experiment, the average selenium

concentration in fish after 90 da ys in the lowest selenium treatment was 0.8 μg/g, above the 0.65 μg/g rainbow trout threshold for the effect of selenium deficiency on growth.

The considerations outlined above suggest that a biphasic model is not necessary for adequately describing the Hamilton et al . (1990) weight data. Therefore, th e weight data were modeled with a log-logistic function, which is commonly used to model m onotonic dose-response data. The log-logistic model provides an estimate of th e most likely maximum we ight (5.24 g), which can be used as the basis of comparison for the pred icted weight corresponding to any given elevated selenium concentration. For example, the mode l projects that a juve nile Chinook salmon tissue

34concentration of 7.9 μg/g (whole body dry weight after 90 days of exposure to dietary selenium) would most likely be associated with a weight of 4.21 g. This is about a 20 percent reduction from the maximum weight of 5.24 g ( Figure 12 ).

We conclude that, 90 days after swimup, Chinook salmon juveniles that bioaccumulate selenium

to a concentration of 7.9 μ g/g will most likely suffer 59 percent mortality due to selenium ( Figure 11 ), and the survivors will most likely be reduced in weight by 20 percent due to selenium ( Figure 12 ).

Hamilton et al . (1990) also reared San Joaquin Rive r fall run Chinook salmon fingerlings in reconstituted brackish water with dietary expos ure to selenium for 120 days, simulating the rearing of young salmon in the San Francisco es tuary. The results of this portion of the experiment indicate that salmon fing erlings with a concentration of 7.9 μ g/g selenium after rearing in brackish water for120 days are likely to experience a 2.3 per cent reduction in growth due to selenium ( Figure 13 ).

After rearing the young salmon in brackish water, Hamilton et al . (1990) simulated the passage of the salmon from the estuary into the ocean by challenging them with 10 days of emersion in

reconstituted seawater. The re sults of this final phase of the experiment suggest that upon entering the ocean, young salmon with a tissue concentration of 7.9 μ g/g are likely to experience 15 percent mortality within 10 days, due to selenium ( Figure 14 ).

35

### 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 30 

## Selenium concentration in fish ( μ g/g whole body dry wt) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Weight (g)



## 7.9 μ g/g Regression: y=20.9/(1+(32.3/x) -2.66 

### )

2.3% reduction from Max } Max

Figure 13. Juvenile fall run Ch inook salmon weight after 120 d ays of rearing in brackish water with dietary exposure to selenium.

36

### 1 1 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20 30 

## Selenium concentration in fish ( μ g/g whole body dry wt) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1Survival after 10 day seawater challenge



## 7.9 μ g/g Regression: y=0.852/(1+(21.2/x) -1.74 

### )

15% reduction from Max 

# } Max

Figure 14. Survival of juvenile fall run Chinook salmon aft er 10 day seawater challenge following rearing for 120 days in brackish water with dietary exposure to selenium.

37Steelhead Trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss )

Status: Steelhead trout are the an adromous form of the rai nbow trout species. Central

California Coast steelhead were listed as thre atened under the ESA on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937). This Evolutionarily Sign ificant Unit (ESU) incl udes steelhead in San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their tributaries ( Figure 15 ). Central Valley steelhead were listed as threatened under the ESA on March 19, 1998 (63 FR 13347). This ESU consists of steelhead populations in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River (inclusive of and downstream of the Merced River) basins in California’s Central Valley ( Figure 15 ).

Figure 15. Status of west coast steelhead ( http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/psd/stlesu.htm ).

The breeding of wild steelhead in the Central Vall ey is mostly confined to the upper Sacramento River and its tributaries, incl uding Antelope, Deer, and Mill Creeks and the Yuba River. Populations may exist in Big Chico and Butte Cree ks and a few wild steelhead are produced in the American and Feather Rivers (McEwan and Jackson 1996).

Until recently, steelhead were thought to be exti rpated from the San Joaquin River system. Recent monitoring has detected small self sustai ning populations of steelhead in the Stanislaus,

38Mokelumne, Calaveras, and other streams pr eviously thought to be devoid of steelhead (McEwan 2001).

Historically, steelhead were abundant in San Fran cisco Bay area streams, such as the Napa River and its tributaries; however, popul ations have declined. The South-Central California Coast

steelhead ESU critical habitat includes all rive r reaches and estuarine areas accessible to listed

steelhead in coastal river basins from the Russi an River to Aptos Creek, California (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Also included are all waters of San Pablo Bay westward of the Carquinez Bridge an d all waters of San Francisco Bay from San Pablo Bay to the Golden Gate Bridge (65 FR 7764).

Size: Barnhart (1986) reported that steelhead smolts in California range in size from 140 to 210 mm (fork length). This corres ponds to a weight range of 31-105 g according to the fork lengthweight regression equation shown in Figure 16 for central California coastal steelhead.

Diet: Juvenile steelhead feed on a wide vari ety of aquatic and terrestrial insects ( Figure 17 and

Table 3 ), and emerging fry are sometimes preyed upon by older juveniles.

Figure 16. Fork length – weight relationshi ps for Central Valley Chinook salmon and

central California coastal steelhead. Chinook were collected in San Francisco Estuary (Fig. 6 in Klimley 2004). Data from MacFarlane (unpublished)

39Figure 17. Diet composition, shown as % mass of invertebrate food categories, of juvenile

steelhead and coho salmon from Novemb er 24, 1990 to April 14, 1991 in two sites along Pudding Creek, California (Fig. 13 in Pert 198 7). Aq. Adults = Aquatic Adults, Ephem = Ephemeroptera, Plec = Plecopt era, Trich = Trichoptera, Chir = Chironomidae, Dip/Col = Diptera (other than Chironomidae) and Coleop tera, Misc. Aq. = Miscellaneous Aquatics,

Terr. Ad. = Terrestrial Adults , Misc. Terr. = Miscellaneou s Terrestrials, and Annelids.

40Table 3. Number (No.), percent abundance (Abund. ), percent weight (Wt.), and percent occurrence frequency (Occur.) of prey items from stomachs of three steelhead, lower Willamette River, 2002-2003 (Appendix Table 2 from Vile et al . 2004). L = larvae; P =

pupae.

Food ingestion rate : The food ingestion rates of wild steelhead trout are unknown. However, ingestion rates in the wild may be estimated from ingestion rates in captivity or from growth

rates in the wild combined with food conversion effi ciencies in captivity.

The growth rates of wild steelh ead can be estimated from measurements of steelhead (Table 4) that were marked and recaptured in the F eather River in 2002 (CDW R 2003). Assuming a constant specific growth rate (g rowth rate as a percentage of b ody weight), growth is modeled by

bta ew +

=

Where w is fish “weight” (mass) in grams, t is time in days, and a and b are fitted parameters representing respectively the intercept and slope of the straight line relationship when weight is log-transformed:

btawln +=

Given two data points, (w 1 , t 1 ) when a fish was marked, and (w 2 , t 2 ) when the fish was recaptured, then

21 2 1

tt wlnwln

b

− −

=

and specific growth rate is given by

b e owthRate SpecificGr −= 1

41Table 4. Measurements of all steelhead marked and recaptured in the Feather River in 2002 (CDWR 2003). Specific locations are BP =Bedrock Park, HD=Hatchery Ditch, SR=Steep Riffle.

42Applying this procedure to the wi ld steelhead weight data in Table 4 yields the specific growth

rates listed in Table 5 , with an average specific growth rate of 2.29%.

Table 5. Specific growth rates calculated from the data in Table 4

.

b exp( b ) Specific growth rate g/day/g body

wt

0.0384 1.0392 3.92%

0.0252 1.0255 2.55%

0.0266 1.027 2.70%

0.0077 1.0077 0.77%

0.0304 1.0308 3.08%

-0.0056 0.9944 -0.56%

0.0767 1.0797 7.97%

0.0239 1.0242 2.42%

0.0147 1.0148 1.48%

0.02 1.0202 2.02%

0.0203 1.0206 2.06%

0.0173 1.0175 1.75%

0.0124 1.0125 1.25%

0.0271 1.0275 2.75%

0.0211 1.0213 2.13%

0.0288 1.0293 2.93%

0.0078 1.0078 0.78%

0.0257 1.026 2.60%

0.0332 1.0337 3.37%

0.0183 1.0185 1.85%

0.0156 1.0157 1.57%

0.0096 1.0097 0.97% Average: 2.29%

43Figure 18. Effects of waterborne and di etary copper exposure on food conversion efficiency in juvenile rai nbow trout obtained from Humber Spring Trout Hatchery, Mono Mills, Ontario, Canada (Fig. 1(B) in Kamunde et al . 2002). Values are means ± S.E.M. on a per tank basis, N=3 per data point. LL, lo w waterborne Cu and lo w dietary Cu; LN, low waterborne Cu and normal dietary Cu; NL, normal waterborne Cu and low dietary Cu; NN, normal waterborne Cu and normal dietar y Cu; NH, normal waterborne Cu and high dietary Cu level. *Significant difference rel ative to group NN on normal water Cu and normal dietary Cu.

Food conversion efficiencies of about 0.8 were repor ted for captive juvenile rainbow trout raised with exposure to low concentrations of copper in ambient water and food (Kamunde et al . 2002, Figure 18 ). This agrees with the food conversion efficiency of 0.80 recorded by Bear (2005) for rainbow trout raised for 60 days in 75 liter aluminum test tanks at 20  ̊ C ( Table 6 ), a water temperature commonly encountered in th e shallow waters of the Delta.

44Table 6. Feed consumption (±SE), and feed conversi on efficiency (±SE) for we stslope cutthroat (WCT) and rainbow trout (RBT). Rainbow trout were raised from eggs obtained from the Ennis National Fish Hatchery in Montana (Bear 2005).

If we use the food conversion efficiency (FCE ) of 0.80 and the average specific growth rate (SGR) of 2.29% ( Table 5 ) to calculate the food ingestion rate (FIR) for steelhead trout:

FIR = SGR/FCE

FIR = 2.29%/0.80 FIR = 2.86% (dry weight percen t of live body weight per day)

This ingestion rate is substant ially higher than the rate of consumption (0.93% of body weight per day at 20  ̊ C) of rainbow trout fed to satiation in the experiment reported by Bear (2005). It is also substantially higher than the rate at which Coos River Winter Steelhead smolts are reported to be fed (1% of body weight per da y) at the Bandon Hatche ry in Oregon (ODFW 2005), and the rate at which rainbow trout are fe d (0.8% of body weight per day) at the Lake Roosevelt Net Pen Program in Washington (LRDA 2000).

If rearing steelhead actively seek out cooler waters that are closer to the temperature of optimal rainbow trout growth (about 13-14  ̊ C, Figure 19 , see Natural History below), then the Bear (2005) experiment indicates that food c onversion efficiency would be about 1.15 ( Table 6 ). This is close to the FCE (1.0) reported to be typical for rainbow trout at the Lake Roosevelt Net Pen Program (LRDA 2000). Using an FCE of 1.15:

FIR = SGR/FCE

FIR = 2.29%/1.15

FIR = 1.99% (dry weight percent of live body weight per day)

This is closer to the FIR actually recorded in the Bear (2005) experiment (1.08 at 14  ̊ C, Table 6 ) and closer to hatchery feeding ra tes, and it may be more likely to represent typical food ingestion rates of steelhead rearing in th e range of water temperatures experienced in the Delta.

45Figure 19. Growth of age-1 rainbow trout over 60 days in relation to temperature (Figure 8 bottom in Bear 2005). Each circle represents the relative growth rate (%) per tank with three tanks tested at each temperature. Dotte d lines indicate the 95% confidence interval of the regression line and dashed lines indica te the 95% confidence interval of the data.

General Life History: Steelhead can be divided into two li fe history types, stream-maturing and ocean-maturing, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and the duration of their spawning migra tion. Stream-maturing steelhead enter freshwater in a sexually immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn, whereas ocean-maturing steelhead enter freshwater with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly after river entry. These two life history types are more commonly re ferred to by their season of freshwater entry ( i.e. summer [stream-maturing] and winter [ocean-mat uring] steelhead). Only winter steelhead currently are found in the rivers and streams of Central Valley and San Francisco Bay area (McEwan and Jackson 1996).

Winter steelhead generally leave the ocean from August through April, and spawn between December and May (Busby et al. 1996). Timing of upstream migr ation is correla ted with higher flow events, such as freshets or sand bar breach es, and associated lower water temperatures. In general, the preferred water temperatur e for adult steelhead migration is 46 o F to 52 o F (McEwan and Jackson 1996; Myrick 1998; a nd Myrick and Cech 2000).

Unlike Pacific salmon, steelhead are iteroparous, or capable of spawning more than once before death (Busby et al. 1996). However, it is rare for steelh ead to spawn more than twice before dying; most that do so are females (Nickleson et al. 1992; Busby et al. 1996). Iteroparity is more common among southern steelhead populati ons than northern populations (Busby et al. 1996).

46Although one-time spawners are the great majorit y, Shapovalov and Taft (1954) reported that repeat spawners are relatively numerous (17.2 percent) in California streams. Most steelhead spawning takes place from late December through April, with peaks from January though March (Hallock et al. 1961). Steelhead spawn in cool, clear streams featuring suitable gravel size, depth, and current velocity, and may spawn in intermittent streams as well (Everest 1973; Barnhart 1986).

The length of the incubation period for steelhead eggs is dependent on water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and substrate co mposition. In late spring and following yolk sac absorption, fry emerge from the gravel a nd actively begin feeding in shallow water along stream banks (Nickelson et al. 1992).

Steelhead rearing during the summer takes place primarily in higher velo city areas in pools, although young-of-the-year also are abundant in glides and riffles. Winter rearing occurs more uniformly at lower densities across a wide range of fast and slow habitat types. Productive steelhead habitat is characterized by complexity, primarily in the form of large and small woody debris. Cover is an important habitat component for juvenile steelhead both as velocity refugia and as a means of avoiding predation (Shirve ll 1990; Meehan and Bjornn 1991). Some older juveniles move downstream to rear in large tributaries and mainstem rivers (Nickelson et al. 1992). Juveniles feed on a wide variety of aqua tic and terrestrial inse cts (Chapman and Bjornn 1969), and older juveniles some times prey upon emerging fry.

Steelhead generally spend two years in freshwater before emigrating downstream (Hallock et al. 1961; Hallock 1989). Rearing steelhead juve niles prefer water temperatures of 45  ̊ F to 58  ̊ F and have an upper lethal limit of 75  ̊ F. They can survive up to 81  ̊ F with saturated dissolved oxygen conditions and a plentiful food supply.

Juvenile steelhead emigrate episodically from natal streams during fall, winter, and spring high flows. Emigrating Central Valley steelhead use the lower reaches of the Sacramento River and the Delta for rearing and as a migration corrido r to the ocean. Some may utilize tidal marsh areas, non-tidal freshwater marshes, and other sh allow water areas in the Delta as rearing areas for short periods prior to their final emigrati on to the sea. Barnha rt (1986) reported that steelhead smolts in California range in si ze from 140 to 210 mm (fork length). Hallock et al. (1961) found that juvenile steelhe ad in the Sacramento River Basin migrate downstream during most months of the year, but the peak period of emigration occurred in the spring, with a much smaller peak in the fall.

Risk of selenium exposure : Because steelhead are regarded as a life-history variant or “form” of the rainbow trout species, st udies of the non-anadromous form of rainbow trout may provide a good indication of the risks of the exposure of stee lhead to selenium. Such studies indicate that rainbow trout are among the more sensitive of fish to selenium. One of these studies examined the effects of selenium on fry of rainbow and br ook trout exposed in streams in Alberta, Canada (Holm 2002, Holm et al . 2003). In summary, this study indica tes that maternal selenium would result in 20 percent mortality of fry if female rainbow trout have a tissue selenium concentration of 2.93 μg/g wholebody dry weight ( Figure 20 ). Among the swimup survivors, various

deformities were also associated with elevated sele nium in the eggs from which the fry hatched.

47For example, both edema ( Figure 21 ) craniofacial deformities ( Figure 22 ) increase sharply above an egg selenium concentration of about 10 μg/g (wet weight), correspondi ng to a maternal tissue concentration of about 6.6 μg/g (whole body dry weight; for details, see USFWS 2005).

igure 20. Relationship between selenium in ra inbow trout eggs and mortality of eggs and

981). 

### 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8

1 10 100 

## [Se] in eggs (μg/g wet weight)Mortalitypre-swimup (arcsine transformation)

3.51 μg/g egg ww ~ 2.93 μg/g wholebody dw Regression: asin(sqrt(Mortality))=0.2024+0.479*log 10 (EggSe)

R 2 = 0.167

20% mortality

F fry by swimup stage. The arcsine transforma tion is applied to mortality data, as appropriate for linear regressions with percen ts or proportions (Sokol and Rohlf 1 Data are from the years 2000-2002.

48

## 0 20 40 60 80 100

1 10 100 

# Selenium concentration in eggs

(μg/g wet weight)Edema(percent incidence in swimup fry) Regression:

y = Min + (100-Min)/(1+(ED 50 /x) Slope )

Min=9.5

ED 50 =10.67

Slope=19.8

Figure 21. Relationship between selenium in rainbow trout eggs and edema in surviving swimup fry. The eggs were from rainbow trou t collected in the McLeod River drainage, Alberta, Canada, 2000-2002 (Jodi Holm pers. com.).

49

## 0 20 40 60 80 100

1 1 0 

## Selenium concentration in eggs

(μg/g wet weight)Edema(percent incidence in swimup fry



## 1 0 0) Regression:

y = Min + (100-Min)/(1+(ED 50 /x) Slope )

Min=9.5

ED 50 =10.67

Slope=19.8

Figure 22. Relationship between selenium in rainbow trout eggs and craniofacial deformities in surviving swimup fry. The eggs were from rainbow trout collected in the McLeod River drainage, Alberta, Canad a, 2000-2002 (Jodi Holm pers. com.).

Another laboratory experiment monitored the gr owth of juvenile rainbow trout exposed for 20 weeks to a diet spiked with selenium in the form of sodium selenite (Hilton et al . 1980). This experiment indicates that, rela tive to optimal selenium expos ure, a weight reduction of 20 percent would be associated with a tissue se lenium concentration of 2.15 μg/g (carcass dry weight) ( Figure 23 ).

5051 

# 0 10 20 30 40

0.1 1 10 [Se] in fish tissue (μg/g carcass dry wt.)Weight of fish (g) 

# }

20% reduction in growth

2.15 y=1.28+62.9/(1+(0.299/x) 0.742 )/(1+(2.71/x) -2.32 ) Regression:

Figure 23. Average weights of juvenile rainbo w trout after 20 weeks of exposure to diets spiked with sodium selenite (Hilton et al . 1980). The data were fitted with a biphasic model (Beckon et al . in prep.). In the model it was assume d that at extremely high and extremely low selenium concentrations, the fish would have failed to grow at all, i.e. they would have remained at the initial average weight of 1.28 g. Carcass concentrations are from Fig. 2 of

Hilton et al . 1980.

Green Sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris )

Status : The southern distinct population segment, or DPS, of north American green sturgeon was federally listed as threat ened under the Endangered Species Act on Apr. 7, 2006 (71 FR 17757). The range of the southern DPS extends southward from the Eel River, in northern alifornia, and includes the green sturgeon inhabiting the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary.

Size: Green sturgeon caught in the commercial fishery has declined in size over the years. In the 1960s, mean size of green sturgeon lande d ranged between 17 and 19 kg (37-42 pounds), while since 1980, mean weight has usually b een between 12 and 14 kg (26-31 pounds) (USFWS 1996). Here we use the midpoint ( 13 kg ) of this more recent range of means.

Diet: Sturgeon feed primarily on benthic (bottom) organisms such as worms, mollusks, and

crustaceans. Juveniles in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Delta feed on opossum shrimp( Neomysis inercedis ) and amphipods ( Corophium sp.) ( Table 7 , Radtke 1966).

Table 7. Stomach contents of 74 green sturgeon caug ht in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with gill nets and otter trawl from September 1963 through August 1964 (Radtke 1966).

Food ingestion rate : The food ingestion rate of green sturgeon in the wild is unknown, but 24 green sturgeon (average weight: 150 g) th at were reared in captivity at 19  ̊ C and fed to satiation on a diet of commercial Silvercup trout pellets ingested food at a rate of 2% of live fish body weight per day (Mayfield and Cech 2004)

General life history : The ecology and life history of green sturgeon have received comparatively little study, evidently because of their generally low abundance and their low commercial and sport-fishing value in the past. The adults are mo re marine than white sturgeon, spending limited time in estuaries or fresh water.

Green sturgeon migrate up the Klamath River between late February and la te July. The spawning period is March-July, with a peak from mid-April to mid-June (Emmett et al. 1991). Spawning times in the Sacramento River are probably simi lar, based on times when adult sturgeon have been caught there. Spawning takes place in dee p, fast water. Female green sturgeon produce 60,000-140,000 eggs (Moyle 1976). Based on their presum ed similarity to white sturgeon, green sturgeon eggs probably hatch around 196 hours (at 12.7 degrees Celsius [54.9 degrees Fahrenheit]) after spawning, and larvae should be 8-19 millimeters (0.3-0.7 inch) long. Juveniles likely range in size from 2.0-150 centimeters (1-59 inches) (Emmett et al. 1991). Juveniles migrate out to sea before 2 years of age, primarily during summer-fall (Emmett et al. 1991). Length-frequency analyses of sturgeon caught in the Klamath Estuary by beach seine indicate that most green sturgeon leave the system at lengths of 30-70 centimeters (12-28 inches), when they are to 4 years old, although a majority leave as yearlings (U SFWS 1996). They remain near estuaries at first, but can migrate considerab le distances as they grow larger (Emmett et al. 1991). Individuals tagged by DFG in San Pablo Bay (part of th e San Francisco Bay system) have been recaptured off Santa Cruz, California, in Wi nchester Bay on the southern Oregon coast, at the mouth of the Columbia River and in Gray ’s Harbor, Washington (Chadwick 1959; Miller 1972). Most tags for green sturgeon in the San Fr ancisco Bay system have been returned from outside that estuary (D. Kohlhorst, DEG, personal communication, cited in USFWS 1996).

Risk of selenium exposure : Little is known of the risk of se lenium to green sturgeon, but white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ), a representative surrogate species for the green sturgeon, have been the subject of detail ed studies within the San Fran cisco Bay estuary (e.g., Kohlhorst et

52al . 1991, Linares et al . 2004, Linville 2006). See the “Risk to selenium exposure” section for white sturgeon below.

White Sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus )

Status : According to the World Conservation Union (Duke et al . 2004), in general the white sturgeon species is not threaten ed, but some subpopulations are endangered (Kootenai River and Upper Fraiser River) or critic ally endangered (Nechako River, Upper Columbia River). The Kootenai River population of the white sturgeon in Montana and Idaho was federally listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Ac t on September 6, 1994 (59 FR 45989). The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) established a daily bag and possession limit of one fish, which must be between 46 and 72 inch es total length (CDFG 2007). Temporary (120 days) emergency regulations issued by the CDFG in March 2006 restricted fishing in California to individuals between 46 and 56 inches total length.

Size: The white sturgeon is the largest Nort h American fish. A white sturgeon weighing approximately 682 kg was taken from the Snak e River, Idaho in 1898. Individuals from landlocked subpopulations tend to be smaller (Duke et al . 2004). The average length of 390 white sturgeon captured in the Snake River in 2001 was 107 cm (range 42 to 307 cm; Everett and Tuell 2003). This corresponds to an average weight of 5.9 kg according to a weight-length regression equation (W=6.5x10 -7 L 3.43 where W is weight in kg and L is total length in cm) for 278 white sturgeon from the Middle Snake River 1982-1984 (Lukens 1985 as reported in Beamesderfer 1993). The modal length of 2203 white sturgeon collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary in 1965-1970 and 1973-1976 was 102 cm ( Figure 24 ; Kohlhorst et al. 1980). This corresponds to a weight of 6.28 kg according to a weight-length regression equation for 209 white sturgeon collected in the Sacram ento-San Joaquin Estuary in 1965-1970 ( Figure 25 ; Kohlhorst et al. 1980)

53Figure 24. Age (A) and length frequency (B) dist ributions of white sturgeon collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary in 1965- 1970 and 1973-1976 (Kohlhorst et al. 1980).

54Figure 25. Length-weight relationship of whit e sturgeon collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary from 1965 to 1970 (Kohlhorst et al. 1980).

Diet: Sturgeon feed primarily on benthic (bottom) organisms such as worms, mollusks, and crustaceans. Larger individuals are said to eat a greater propor tion of fish (Scott and Crossman 1973). Mysid shrimp ( Neomysis awatschensis ) and amphipods ( Corophium sp.) predominated in the stomach contents of 105 white sturgeon (ranging from 19 to 102 cm in total length) collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in 1963-1964 ( Table 8 ; Radtke 1966).

Table 8. Stomach contents of 105 white sturgeon caug ht in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with gill nets and otter trawl from September 1963 through August 1964 (Radtke 1966).

55Clams predominated in the esophageal and stomac h contents of white st urgeon caught by anglers in San Pablo Bay (213 fish) and Suisun Ba y/Carquinez Strait (142 fish) in 1965-1967 ( Table 9

and Table 1 ; McKechnie and Fenner 1971). More recently with the change in the benthic food structure of the estuary (Feyrer et al . 2003) white sturgeon may de pend more on the introduced Asian clam, Potamocorbula amurensis

, which is an extraordinarily efficient bioaccumulator of selenium (Stewart et al . 2004).

Table 9. Esophageal and stomach contents of white sturgeon caught by anglers in San Pablo Bay from April 1965 to November 1967 (Mc Kechnie and Fenner 1971).

56Table 10. Esophageal and stomach contents of white sturgeon caught by anglers in Suisun Bay and Carquinez Strait from April 1965 to No vember 1967 (McKechnie and Fenner 1971).

Food ingestion rate : The food ingestion rate of white sturgeon in the wild is unknown, but feeding experiments in captivity may provide some indication of food inges tion rates. A feeding experiment with 240 sub-yearling white sturgeon (initial average weight: 250.5 g) that were reared in captivity at 18  ̊ C suggested that the optimal feed ing rate for growth is between 1.5 and

2 % ( dry weight) of live fish body weight per day (Hung et al . 1989). In another experiment, 30-g-size white sturgeon maintained at 20  ̊ C also showed maximum growth when fed between

1.5 and 2 % ( dry weight) of live fish body weight per day (Hung and Lutes 1987). Hung et al

. (1993) found that 30-g-size white sturgeon maintained at 23  ̊ C and 26  ̊ C grew optimally when fed 2.0-2.5% and 2.5-3.0%, respectively, of wet wei ght of fish per day, but temperatures of 18  ̊ C

and 20  ̊ C are probably closer to temp eratures generally experience d by white sturgeon in their

natural habitats.

57General life history : Like green sturgeon, white sturgeon are anadromous, but the adults are less marine than green sturgeon, spending more time in estuaries or fresh water. At sea, white sturgeon have been found from Ensenada, Baja Calif ornia (Mexico) to the Gulf of Alaska (Fry 1973). The majority of white sturgeon rear in the Columbia-Snake River and Sacramento-San Joaquin basins (Duke et al . 2004). White sturgeon have been the subject of detailed studies within the San Francisco Bay estuary (e.g., Kohlhorst et al . 1991, Linares et al . 2004, Linville 2006). White sturgeon are long-lived, large-bodied, and demersal (bottom-dwelling) fish. For most species of sturgeon, females require severa l years for eggs to ma ture between spawnings (Conte et al . 1988). White sturgeon in the San Francisc o Bay estuary congregate in Suisun and San Pablo Bays where they remain year-round except for a small fraction of the population that moves up the Sacramento River, and to a lesser extent the San Joaquin River, to spawn in late winter and early spring (Kohlhorst et al . 1991).

Risk of selenium exposure : Many individuals of this spec ies remain year-round in San Pablo Bay, the part of the San Francisco Bay estuary w ith the highest selenium concentrations (up to 2.7 μg/L). Stewart et al . (2004) found the median concentrat ion of selenium in Asian clams ( Potamocorbula amurensis ) from San Pablo Bay to be above 10 μ g Se/g. Based on histopathological alterations in the kidney, Tashjian et al. (2006) estimated that for juvenile white sturgeon a threshold dietary selenium toxicity concentration lies between 10 and

20 μ g Se/g. It is uncertain at what point in their life white sturgeon begin feeding on Asian

clams. Linares et al . (2004) found concentrations of seleni um as high as 46.7 μg/g in gonads of 39 white sturgeon captured in the San Francisco Bay. Kroll and Doroshov (1991) reported that developing ovaries of white sturgeon from San Francisco Bay contained as much as 71.8 μ g/g selenium or 7-times the threshold for reproduc tive toxicity in fish (Lemly 1996a, 1996b) of 10

μ g/g. The threshold specifically in white sturge on has been confirmed to be between 9 μg/g and about 16 μg/g in experiments in which seleno-L-me thionine was injected in to yolk sac larvae of white sturgeon (Linares et al . 2004). Linville (2006) showed that significant developmental defects and mortality occurred in white stur geon eggs at a threshold of around 11–15 μg/g selenium. A hazard threshold of around 3–8 μg/g in developing white sturgeon was suggested by Linville (2006). Sampling of pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus al bus) in the Missouri River system suggests that normal selenium levels in sturgeon eggs are 2-3 μ g/g (Ruelle and Keenlyne 1993) as has been found for many other fi sh species (see review in Skorupa et al . 1996 and in USDI-BOR/FWS/GS/BIA 1998). Thus, white stur geon in the San Franci sco Bay estuary are producing eggs with as much as 35-times normal selenium content. Based on studies regarding toxicity response functions fo r avian and fish eggs (e.g., Lemly 1996a, 1996b; Skorupa et al. 1996; USDI-BOR/FWS/GS/BIA 1998) and assuming th at sturgeon are as sensitive to selenium as birds and other fish, it is hi ghly probable that these fish ar e reproductively impaired due to selenium exposure. For example, bluegill embryos resulting from ovaries containing 38.6 μ g/g selenium exhibited 65 percent mort ality (Gillespie and Bauman 1986).

58Delta Smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus )

Status: Delta smelt were federally listed as a threatened species on March 5, 1993, (58 FR 12854). In recent years the population of delta sme lt has declined dramatically, dropping to the lowest levels on record, and placing the species at increased risk of extinction.

Size: Delta smelt are slender-bodied fish that typically reach 60-70 mm standard length (measured from tip of the snout to origin of the caudal fin), although a few may reach 120 mm standard length. The median fork length of 113 delta smelt was about 62 mm (Kimmerer et al

. 2005). This corresponds to a weight of 2.1 g, using the regression in Kimmerer et al . (2005): W

= 0.0000018 L 3.38 where W is weight in grams and L is fork length in mm. In tow-net surveys in June-August 2000 (Figure 26) 785 Delta smelt young- of-the-year had an average length of 35.7 mm (Gartz 2001) corresponding to an average weight of 0.32 g , using the above regression. Young-of-the-year were defined as less than 69 mm fork length; only six Delta smelt larger than this were caught.

Figure 26. Length-frequency plots for young-of-th e-year delta smelt for townet surveys in 2000 in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and Bay/Delta system (Figure 2 in Gartz 2001).

Diet: Delta smelt feed primarily on planktonic copepods, cladocerans, and amphipods. To a lesser extent, they feed on insect larvae. La rger fish may also feed on the opossum shrimp, Neomysis mercedis . The most important food organism for all sizes seems to be the euryhaline

59copepod, Eurytemora affinis , although by 1992 the exotic species, Pseudodiaptomus forbesi , had become a major part of the diet (Moyle et al. 1992).

Food ingestion rate : Food ingestion rate for wild delta smelt in the estuary may be estimated using measured growth rates in the estuary combined with an estimate of food conversion efficiency. By tracking the leng th-frequency distributions of delta smelt in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and Bay/Delta system, Gartz (2001) calcul ated growth rates to be 0.11 mm/day from late June to early July, 0.56 mm/d ay from early to late June, and 0.07 mm/day from late June to early August. The averag e of these growth rates is 0.247 mm/day, which corresponds to mass growth rate of 0.0075 g/day, calculated by differentiating the regression W

= 0.0000018 L 3.38 where W is weight in grams and L is fork length in mm (Kimmerer et al

. 2005). The closest (in size and taxonomic relatio nship) available food conversion efficiency (growth in weight / weight of food ingested) is 0.202 for 3 g sea trout ( Salmo trutta trutta ) in Norway (Neveu 1980, as seen in Worldfish Cent er 2000). Dividing mass growth rate by this food conversion efficiency yields an estimated food ingestion rate of 0.037 g /day (dry weight) or

11.4 % of body wet weight per day for Delta smelt w ith a fork length of 36 mm weighing 0.32 g.

Distribution: Delta smelt are endemic to the upper S acramento-San Joaquin estuary. They occur in the Delta primarily below Isleton on th e Sacramento River, below Mossdale on the San Joaquin River, and in Suisun Bay. They move into freshwater when spawning (ranging from January to July) and can occur in: (1) the Sacr amento River as high as Sacramento, (2) the Mokelumne River system, (3) the Cache Sl ough region, (4) the Delta, and, (5) Montezuma Slough, (6) Suisun Bay, (7) Suisun Marsh, (8) Carqui nez Strait, (9) Napa River, and (10) San Pablo Bay. It is not known if delta smelt in Sa n Pablo Bay are a permanent population or if they are washed into the Bay duri ng high outflow periods. Since 1982, the center of delta smelt

abundance has been the northwester n Delta in the channel of the Sacramento River. In any month, two or more life stages (adult, larvae, and juveniles) of delta sme lt have the potential to be present in Suisun Bay (DWR and USDI 1994; Moyle 1976; and Wang 1991).

Life History: Delta smelt of all sizes are found in the main channels of the Delta and Suisun Marsh and the open waters of Suisun Bay where the waters are well oxygenated and temperatures relatively c ool, usually less than 20  ̊ -22  ̊ C in summer. When not spawning, they

tend to be concentrated near the zone wher e incoming salt water mixes with out flowing freshwater (mixing zone). This area has th e highest primary productivity and is where zooplankton populations (on which delta smelt feed) are usually most dense (Knutson and Orsi 1983; Orsi and Mecum 1986). At all life stages delta smelt are found in greatest abundance in the top two meters of the water column and usually not in close association with the shoreline.

Delta smelt inhabit open, surface waters of the Delta and Suisun Bay. In most years, spawning

occurs in shallow water habita ts in the Delta. Shortly befo re spawning, adult smelt migrate upstream from the brackish-water habitat associated with the mixing zone to disperse widely into river channels and tidally-influenced back water sloughs (Radtke 1966; Moyle 1976, 2002; Wang 1991). Some spawning probably occurs in sha llow water habitats in Suisun Bay and Suisun Marsh during wetter years (Sweetnam 1999 and Wa ng 1991). Spawning has also been recorded in Montezuma Slough near Suisun Bay (Wang 1 986) and also may occur in Suisun Slough in Suisun Marsh (P. Moyle, UCD, unpublished data).

60The spawning season varies from year to year, and may occur from late winter (December) to early summer (July). Pre-spawning adults are found in Suisun Bay and the western delta as early as September (DWR and USDI 1994). Moyl e (1976, 2002) collected gravid adults from December to April, although ripe delta smelt we re common in February and March. In 1989 and 1990, Wang (1991) estimated that spawning had taken place from mid-February to late June or early July, with peak sp awning occurring in late April and early May.

Delta smelt spawn in shallow, fresh, or sligh tly brackish water upstream of the mixing zone (Wang 1991). Most spawning occurs in tidal ly-influenced backwate r sloughs and channel edgewaters (Moyle 1976, 2002; Wang 1986, 1991; Moyle et al . 1992). Laboratory observations

have indicated that delta smelt are broadcas t spawners (DWR and USDI 1994) and eggs are demersal (sink to the bottom) and adhesive, sticking to hard substrates such as: rock, gravel, tree roots or submerged branches, and submer ged vegetation (Moyle 1976, 2002; Wang 1986). Growth of newly-hatched delta smelt is rapi d and juvenile fish are 40-50 mm long by early August (Erkkila et al. 1950; Ganssle 1966; Radtke 1966). By this time, young-of-year fish dominate trawl catches of delta smelt, and adults become rare. Delta smelt reach 55-70 mm standard length in 7-9 months (Moyle 1976, 2002) . Growth during the next 3 months slows down considerably (only 3-9 mm tota l), presumably because most of the energy ingested is being directed towards gonadal development (Erkkila et al . 1950; Radtke 1966). There is no correlation between size and fecundity, and fe males between 59-70 mm standard lengths lay 1,200 to 2,600 eggs (Moyle et al. 1992). The abrupt change fr om a single-age, adult cohort during spawning in spring to a population dominat ed by juveniles in summer suggests strongly that most adults die after they spawn (Rad tke 1966 and Moyle 1976, 2002). However, in El Nino years when temperatures rise above 18  ̊ C before all adults have spawned, some fraction of the unspawned population may also hold over as tw o-year-old fish and spawn in the subsequent year. These two-year-old adults may enhan ce reproductive success in years following El Nino

events.

In a near-annual fish like delta smelt, a strong relationship would be expe cted between number of spawners present in one year and number of recruits to th e population the following year. Instead, the stock-recruit relati onship for delta smelt is weak, accounting for about a quarter of the variability in recruitment (Sweetnam and St evens 1993). This relationship does indicate, however, that factors affecting numbers of spawning adults ( e.g. , entrainment, toxics, and predation) can have an effect on de lta smelt numbers the following year.

Risk of selenium exposure : The Recovery Plan for the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes (USFWS 1996) states that delta smelt are ecologically similar to larval and juvenile striped bass ( Morone saxitilis ). Saiki and Palawski (1990) samp led juvenile striped bass in the San Joaquin River system includi ng three sites in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Striped bass from the estuary contained up to 3.3 μ g/g whole-body selenium, a value just below Lemly’s 4

μ g/g toxicity threshold, even though water borne selenium typically averages <1 μ g/L (ppb) and has been measured no higher than 2.7 μ g/L (ppb) within the estuary (Pease et al . 1992). Striped bass collected from Mud Slough in 1986, when th e annual median selenium concentration in

water was 8 μ g/L (ppb) (Steensen et al . 1997), contained up to 7.9 μ g/g whole-body selenium and averaged 6.9 μ g/g whole-body selenium.

61Delta smelt spawning sites are almost entirely rest ricted to the north-Delta channels associated

with the selenium-normal Sacramento River and ar e nearly absent from the south-delta channels

associated with the selenium-contaminated Sa n Joaquin River (USFWS 1996). Delta smelt (n=41) salvaged from CDFG annual abundance su rveys primarily around Chipps Island in 1993

and 1994 had a mean of 1.5 μ g/g whole-body selenium dry weight (range, 0.7-2.3 μ g/g) (Bennet

et al. 2001). Three composite samples of de lta smelt eggs also had less than 2 μ g/g selenium dry weight (USFWS unpublished data).

Sacramento splittail ( Pogonichthys macrolepidotus )

Status : The Sacramento splittail was listed as threatened on February 8, 1999 (FR 64:5963). The listing was challenged in Federal District Court, and rescinded on September 22, 2003 (FR 68:55139); however, they remain a species of concern.

Sacramento splittail are endemic to certain waterw ays in California's Central Valley, where they were once widely distributed (Moyle 1976, Moyle 2002). Sacramento splittail currently occur in Suisun Bay, Suisun Marsh, the San Francisco Ba y-Sacramento-San Joaquin River Estuary (Estuary), the Estuary's tributaries (primarily the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers), the Cosumnes River, the Napa River and Ma rsh, and the Petaluma River and Marsh.

Size: The average fork length of 14 adult Sacramento splittail captured in a fyke trap on their upstream migration in the Yolo Bypass Toe Drai n in February 2001 was 320 mm with a standard deviation of 31 mm (Sommer et al . 2002). Fork lengths of 83 juvenile and adult splittail collected in newly-restored tid al and flood plain habitats in the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Control Project area in 2001-2002 ranged from about 25 to 250 mm with a modal fork length of 200-224 mm (Dietl et al . 2003) ( Figure 27 ). The center of this modal range is 212 mm. Using the length-weight regression of W = 0.000003 L 3.27

, where W is weight in grams and L is fork length in mm (Kimmerer et al . 2005), a modal Sacramento split tail with a fork length of 212 mm would be expected to ha ve a weight of 0.000003 x 212 3.27 = 121 g

.

62Figure 27. Lengths of captured Sacramento split tail in newly-restored tidal and flood plain habitats in the Napa River/Napa Creek Fl ood Control Project area in 2001-2002 (Dietl et
al . 2003).

Diet: Splittail are benthic (bottom) feeders. St omach contents from 70 splittail collected in Suisun Marsh between March 1998 and January 1999 i ndicate that their diet consisted mainly (43%) of unidentified material, probably detr itus. The overbite clam (Asian clam),

Potamocorbula amurensis , and other mollusks constituted 34% of the diet (Feyrer and Matern 2000, Feyrer et al . 2003).

Food ingestion rate : Food ingestion rate for wild splitta il in the estuary may be estimated using measured growth rates in the estuary combined w ith an estimate of food conversion efficiency. A cohort of 2100 splittail with a median standa rd length of about 134 mm grew at an average rate of about 0.281 mm/day (sta ndard length) from February to September 1980 (Figure 28) (Moyle et al. 2004). These data correspond to a me dian fork length of 15 4 mm, weight of 42.6 g and mass growth rate of 0.292 g/day using th e relationship L = (SL+ 0.2657)/ 0.8722 where L is fork length in mm and SL is standard length inmm (Randall Baxter pers. com.), and the lengthweight regression of W = 0.000003 L 3.27

, where W is weight in grams and L is fork length in mm (Kimmerer et al . 2005). The closest (in size and ta xonomic relationship) available food conversion efficiency (growth in weight / weig ht of food ingested) is 0.202 for 3 g sea trout ( Salmo trutta trutta ) in Norway (Neveu 1980, as seen in Worldfish Center 2000). Dividing mass growth rate by this food convers ion efficiency yields an estim ated food ingestion rate of 1.45 g/day (dry weight) or 3.37 % of body wet weight per day for sp littail with a fork length of 154 mm weighing 42.6 g.

63Figure 28. Mean lengths of monthly samples of three splittail cohorts in Suisun Marsh (Figure 11 in Moyle et al. 2004).

General life history : Splittail are relativel y long-lived (about 5-7 years) and are highly fecund (up to 100,000 eggs per female). Their populations fluctuate on an annual basis depending on spawning success and strength of the year class (Daniels and Moyle 1983). Both male and female splittail mature by the end of their second year (Daniels and Moyle 1983), although occasionally males may mature by the end of their first year and females by the end of their third year (Caywood 1974). Fish are a bout 180-200 millimeters (7-8 inches) standard length when they attain sexual maturity (Dan iels and Moyle 1983), and the sex ratio among mature individuals is 1:1 (Caywood 1974).

There is some variability in the reproductive peri od, with older fish reproducing first, followed by younger fish that tend to reproduce later in the season (Caywood 1974). Generally, gonadal development is initiated by fall, with a concom itant decrease in somatic growth (Daniels and Moyle 1983). By April, ovaries reach peak matur ity and account for approximately 18 percent of the body weight. The onset of spawning seems to be associated with increasing water temperature and day length and occurs betw een early March and May in the upper Delta (Caywood 1974). However, Wang (1986) found that in the tidal freshwater and euryhaline habitats of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuar y, spawning occurs by late January and early February and continues through July. Spawning time s are also indicated by the salvage records from the State Water Project pumps. Adults are captured most frequent ly in January through April, when they are presumably engaged in spawning movements, while young-of-year are captured most abundantly in May through July (Meng 1993). These records indicate most spawning takes place from February through April.

64Splittail spawn on submerged vege tation in flooded areas. Spawni ng occurs in the lower reaches of rivers (Caywood 1974), dead-end sloughs (Moyle 1976) and in the larger sloughs such as Montezuma Slough (Wang 1986). Larvae remain in th e shallow, weedy areas inshore in close proximity to the spawning sites and move into the deeper offshor e habitat as they mature (Wang 1986).

Strong year classes have been pr oduced even when adult numbers ar e low, if outflow is high in early spring (e.g., 1982, 1986). Sinc e 1988, recruitment has been consistently lower than expected, suggesting this relationship may be breaking down (Meng 1993). For example, both 1978 and 1993 were wet years following drought years, yet the young-of-year abundance in 1993 was only 2 percent of the abundance in 1978.

Risk of selenium exposure : Splittail are likely to be re latively vulnerable to selenium

contamination because of their estuarine habi tat and bottom-feeding ha bits. Splittail feed primarily on bivalves in cluding the overbite clam, Potamocorbula amurensis , which are efficient selenium bioaccumulators (Stewart et al . 2004). Teh et al . (2004) found that j uvenile splittail are adversely affected (liver lesions) by chroni c exposure (nine mont hs) to a diet of 6.6 μ g/g selenium. Deformities typical of Se exposure have been seen in splittail collected from Suisun Bay (Stewart et al . 2004).

65

### Literature Cited

Albertson JD. 1995. Ecology of the California cl apper rail in South San Francisco Bay. M.A. Thesis, San Francisco State University.

Austin JE, Custer CM, Afton AD. 1998. Lesser scaup ( Aythya affinis ). In The Birds of North America, No. 338 (Poole A and Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Barnhart RA. 1986. Species profiles: life hist ories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest), steelhead. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 82 (11.60), 21 pages.

Baxter, Randall, Senior Biologist (Fisheries), California Dept . of Fish and Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch, 4001 North Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205. 209-942-6081. rbaxter@delta.dfg.ca.gov . Personal communication by email March 8, 2006.

Beamesderfer RC. 1993. A standard weight (W

s ) equation for white sturgeon. California Fish &

Game 79:63-69.

Bear EA. 2005. Effects of temperature on survival and growth of Westslope cutthroat trout and rainbow trout: implications for conservation and restoration. Mast er’s thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

Beckon WN, Parkins C, Maximovich A, Beckon AV. In review. A general dose-effect model encompassing hormesis.

Bellrose FC. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North America. Third ed. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA 540 pp.

Bennett J, Hofius J, Johnson C, Maurer T. 2001. Tissue Residues and Hazards of Water-Borne Pesticides for Federally Listed and Candidate Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, California: 1993-1995. U. S. Fish and Wild life Service internal report. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.

Bordage D, Savard J-PL. 1995. Black scoter ( Melanitta nigra ). In The Birds of North America, No. 177 (Poole A and Gill F, eds.). The Acad emy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Brain P, Cousens R. 1989. An equation to descri be dose responses where there is stimulation of growth at low doses. Weed Res 29:93-96.

Brandes PL, McLain JS. 2001. Juvenile Chinoo k salmon abundance, distribution, and survival in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Page s 39-136 in Brown RL (ed.), Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids, Fish Bulletin 179, Volume 2, State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

66Braune BM, Malone BJ, Burgess NM, Elliott JE, Garrity N, Hawkings J,Hines J, Marshall H, Marshall WK, Rodrique J, Wakeford B, Wa yland M, Weseloh DV, Whitehead PE. 1999. Chemical residues in waterfowl and gamebi rds harvested in Canada, 1987-95. TechnicalReport Series No. 326, Canadian Wildlife Service. http://dsppsd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/CW69-5-326E-1.pdf

Braune BM, Malone BJ. 2006. Mercury and sele nium in livers of waterfowl harvested in

northern Canada. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 50:284-289.

Brown GJ. 1994. Cost analysis of trout production in the North Central states. Master’s thesis. Ohio State University, Columbus.

Brown PW, Fredrickson LH. 1997. White-winged scoter ( Melanitta fusca ). In The Birds of North America, No. 274 (Poole A and Gill F, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Or nithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Buehler DA. 2000. Bald Eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus ). In The Birds of North America, No. 506 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Bird s of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 40 pp.

Busby MS, Barnhart RA. 1995. Potential food sources and feeding ecology of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in California's Mattole River lagoon. Calif. Fish and Game 81(4):133- 146. http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/mattole_cdfg_busbyetal_1995.pdf

Busby PJ, Wainright TC, Bryant GJ, Lierheimer L, Waples RS, Waknitz FW, Lagomarsino IV.

1996. Status review of west coast steel head from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27, 261 pages.

Caywood ML. 1974. Contributions to the life history of the splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (Ayres). M.S. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento. 77 pp.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. Report to the Fish and Game

Commission. A status review of the spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento River Draina ge. Candidate species status report 98-01. Sacramento, 394 pages.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Spring-run Chinook salmon annual report. Prepared for the California Fish and Game Commission. Habitat Conservation Division, Native Anadromous Fish and Wate rshed Branch. Sacramento, 19 pages.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game ). 2005. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/sp ecies/t_e_spp/t_ebirds.pdf

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game ). 2007. California Ocean Recreational Fishing Regulations. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mapregs2.html#sturgeon_open

67CDWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2003. Growth investigations of wild juvenile steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) in the Feather River using mark and recapture techniques. Interim Report SP-F10, Task 3B. Division of Environmental Services, Sacramento, CA.

Chapman DW, Bjornn TC. 1969. Distribution of sa lmon in streams, with special reference to food and feeding. In T. G. Northcote (editor) , Symposium on salmon and trout in streams, pages 153-176. University of British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries, Vancouver.

Chadwick, H.K. 1959. Californi a sturgeon tagging studies. Calif. Fish Game 45:297-301.

Cogswell HL. 1977. Water birds of California. University of Califor nia Press, Berkeley,

California.

Consortium Gauthier & Guillemette—GREBE. 1993. Complexe Grande-Baleine. Avant-projet phase II. Étude de l’avifaune et du castor: fréq uentation et descripti on des habitats de prénidification des macreuse, 1990. Report for Hydro-Quebec, vice-présidence Environnement, Montréal.

Conte FS, Doroshov SI, Lutes PB, Strange EM. 1988. Hatchery manual for the white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus (Richardson) with applica tion of other North American Acipenseridae. Cooperative Extension Pub 3322. University of Calif ornia, Oakland, CA. 104 p.

Cronan JM. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaups in Connecticut waters. Auk 74:459-

468.

Daniels RA, Moyle PB. 1983. Life history of splittail ( Cyprinidae:Pogonichthys macrolepidotus ) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Fish. Bull . 84:105-117.

Dietl ML, Dusek L, Kramer SH, Wilcox SD. 2003. Fish assemblages in newly-restored tidal and flood plain habitats in the Napa River/Napa Creek Flood Control Project. Presentation at CALFED Science Conference, January 16, 2003, Sacramento, CA. http://www.napariverfishmonitoring.org/reports/docs/CalF ed-presentation.pdf

Duke S, Down T, Ptolemy J, Hammond J, Spence C. 2004. Acipenser transmontanus . In: IUCN 2006. 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Speci es. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 16 April 2007.

Dunning JB. 1993. CRC handbook of avian body ma sses. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 371pp.

DWR and USDI (Department of Water Resources and United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Paci fic Region). 1994. Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on delta smelt and Sacramento splittail. 230 pp.

68Eddleman WR, Conway CJ. 1998. Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris ). In The Birds of North America, No. 340 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. ). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Eisler R. 1985. Selenium Hazards to Fish, Wildlif e, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washingt on, DC. Biological Report No 85(1.5).

Emmett RL, Stone SL, Hinton SA, Monaco ME. 1991. Distribution and a bundances of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Vo lume 2: Species life histories summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOS/NOAA Stra tegic Environmental Assessment Division, Rockyille, MD, 329 pp.

Erkkila LF, Moffett JF, Cope OB, Smith BR, Ne lson RS. 1950. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta fishery resources: effects of Tracy pumping pl ant and delta cross channel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Special Re port. Fisheries 56. 109 pp.

ESA. 2006. Final EIR for the EBMUD San Pablo Dam Seismic Upgrade. EIR Text Revisions Chapter 3. ESA / 205153. September 2006.

Everest FH. 1973. Ecology and management of su mmer steelhead in the Rogue River. Oregon State Game Commission. Fishery Research Report 7. 48 pages.

Everett S, Tuell M. 2003. Evaluate Potential Means of Rebuilding Stur geon Populations in the Snake River between Lower Granite and Hells Canyon Dams. 2001 Annual Report, Project No. 199700900 (et al.), 68 electronic pages, (BPA Report DOE/BP-00004046-1).

Feyrer F, Matern SA. 2000. Changes in diet s in the San Francisco Estuary following the

invasion of the clam Potamocorbula amurensis

. IEP Newsletter 13:21-27.

Feyrer F, Herbold B, Matern SA, Moyle PB. 2003. Dietary shifts in a stressed fish assemblage: consequences of a bivalve invasion in the San Francisco Estuary. Environmental Biology of Fishes 67:277-288.

Fisher FW. 1994. Past and present st atus of Central Valley Chinook salmon. Conservation Biology 8:870-873.

Fry DH Jr. 1973. Anadromous Fishes of California. Department of Fish and Game. 112 p. (Rev. 1979). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs/anadfish.pdf (2 Mb)

Gammonley JH, Heitmeyer ME. 1990. Behavior , body condition, and foods of Buffleheads and Lesser Scaups during spring migration th rough the Klamath Basin, California. Wilson Bull

. 102:672-683.

Ganssle D. 1966. Fishes and decapods of San Pablo and Suisun bays. Pp.64-94 in D.W. Kelley, ed.: Ecological studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Part 1. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin No. 133.

69Gartz R. 2001. Townet survey. IEP Newsletter 14(1):10-12. http://sfbay.wr.usgs.gov/publicati ons/pdf/schemel_2001_conversions.pdf

Gill FB. 1995. Ornithology. W.H. Freem an and Company. 615 pp+ appendix.

Gillespie RB, Bauman PC. 1986. Effects of high tissue con centrations of selenium on reproduction by bluegills. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 115:208-213.

Goals Project. 2000. Baylands Ecosystem Species and Community Profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of key plants, fish and wildlife. Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. P.R. Olofson, editor. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, Calif.

Goudie RI, Brault S, Conant B, Kondratyev AV, Petersen MR, Vermeer K. 1994. The status of

sea ducks in the north Pacific rim: to ward their conservation and management. Trans. 59th N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf .: 27–49.

Hallock RJ. 1989. Upper Sacramento River steelhead ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) 1952-1988. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Hallock RJ, Van Woert WF, Shapavalov L. 1961. An evaluation of stocking hatchery-reared steelhead rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri gairdneri ) in the Sacramento River system.

California Fish and Game 114:73.

Hamilton SJ, Buhl KJ, Faerber NL, Wiedmeyer RH, Bullard FA. 1990. Toxicity of organic

selenium in the diet to chinook salmon. Environ Toxicol Chem 9:347-358.

Healey MC. 1980. Utilization of the Nanaim o River estuary by juvenile Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). Fishery Bulletin 77:653-668.

Healey MC. 1982. Juvenile Pacific salmon in es tuaries: the life support system, pp. 315-341 in V. S Kennedy (ed.). Estuarine Comparisons. Academic Press, New York, NY.

Healey MC. 1991. The life history of Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). Pages 

### 3 11- 393 in C. Groot and L. Margolis (eds.), Life History of Pacific Salmon. University B.C. Press, Vancouver, B.C.

Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ, Gold LG. 1989. Impaired reproduction of mallards fed an organic form

of selenium. J. Wildl. Manage . 53:418–428.

Heinz GH, Pendleton GW, Krynitsky AJ, Gold LG. 1990. Selenium accumulation and

elimination in mallards. Arch. Environ. Contam . 19:374-379.

Heinz GH, Hoffman DJ. 1998. Methylmercury chloride and selenomethionine interactions on health and reproduction in mallards. Environ. Toxicol. Chem ., 17:139-145.

70Henny CJ, Rudis DD, Roffe TJ, Robinson-Wilson E. 1995. Contaminants and sea ducks in Alaska and the circumpolar region. Environ Health Perspect 103(Suppl 4):41–49.

Hilton JW, Hodson PV, Slinger SJ. 1980. The requireme nt and toxicity of selenium in rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri ). J. Nutr . 110:2527-2535.

Hoffman DJ, Ohlendorf HM, Marn CM, Pendlet on GW. 1998. Association of mercury and selenium with altered glutathione metabolism and oxidative stress in diving ducks from the San Francisco Bay region, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 17:167-172.

Holm J. 2002. Sublethal effects of selenium on rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) and brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ). Masters Thesis. Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB.

Holm J, Palace VP, Wautier K, Evans RE, Baron CL, Podemski C, Siwik P, Sterling G. 2003. An assessment of the development and survival of wild rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) and brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis ) exposed to elevated se lenium in an area of active coal mining. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Larval Fish Conference 2003, Bergen Norway. ISBN 82-7461-059-B.

Holm Jodi. 2005. Biologist, North/South Consul tants, 83 Scurfield Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba

R3Y 1G4. Personal comm unications via email 2005.

Hothem RL, Lonzarich DG, Takekawa KE, Oh lendorf HM. 1998. Contaminants in wintering canvasbacks and scaups from Sa n Francisco Bay, California. Environ. Monit. Assess

. 50:67-84.

Hunt WG, Jenkins JM, Jackman RE, Thelander CG, Gerstell AT. 1992. Foraging ecology of bald eagles on a re gulated river. Journal of Raptor Research 26(4):243-256.

Hung SSO, Lutes PB. 1987. Optimal feeding rate of hatchery-produced juvenile white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ) at 20  ̊ C. Aquaculture 65:307-317..

Hung SSO, Lutes PB, Conte FS, Storebakken T. 1989. Growth and feed efficiency of white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ) sub-yearlings at different feeding rates. Aquaculture

80:147-153.

Hung SSO, Lutes PB, Shqueir AA, Conte FS. 1993. Eff ect of feeding rate and water temperature on growth of juvenile white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ). Aquaculture 115:297-

303.

Jackman RE, Hunt WG, Jenkins JM, Detrich PJ. 1999. Prey of ne sting bald eagles in northern

California. Journal of Raptor Research 33(2):87-96.

71Johnsgard PA. 1975. Waterfowl of North Ameri ca. Indiana Universi ty Press, Bloomington,

Indiana.

Kamunde C, Grosell M, Higgs D, Wood, CM. 2002. Copper metabolism in actively growing rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): interact ions between dietary and waterborne copper uptake. The Journal of Ex perimental Biology 205:279-290.

Kehoe FP, Caithamer D, Myers J, Burrell R, Alle n B. 1994. Status of sea ducks in the Atlantic Flyway with strategies towards improved management. Ad Hoc Sea Duck Committee, Atlantic Flyway Technical Section.

Kessel B, Rocque DA, Barcla y JS. 2002. Greater scaup ( Aythya marila ). In The Birds of North America, No. 650 (Poole A and Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Kimmerer W, Avent SR, Bollens SM, Feyrer F, Grimaldo LF, Moyle PB, Nobriga M, Visintainer T. 2005. Variability in length-weight relationsips used to estimate biomass of estuarine fish from survey data. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:481-

495.

Kjelson MA, Raquel PF, Fisher FW. 1981. Influe nces of freshwater inflow on Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary. Pages 88-102 in Cross RD and Williams DL (eds.), Proceedings of the National Symposium on Freshwater

Inflow to Estuaries. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Serv. Pr og. FWS/OBS-81/04(2).

Kjelson MA, Raquel PF, Fisher FW. 1982. Life history of fall-run juvenile Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary, California. In V.S. Kennedy (editor), Estuarine comparisons, pa ges 393-411. Academic Press, New York,

NY.

Klimley AP. 2004. Survival and migratory patter ns of Central Valley juvenile salmonids. CalFed Science Program project proposal. https://solicitation.calwate r.ca.gov/solicitations/2 004.01/reports/public _proposal_compilati on?proposal_id=0313.

Knutson AC Jr, Orsi JJ. 1983. Factors regulating abundance a nd distribution of the shrimp Neomysis mercedis in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:476-485.

Kohlhorst DW, Miller LW, Orsi JJ. 1980. Age and growth of white sturgeon collected in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California: 1965-1970 and 1973-1976. California Fish

and Game 66:83-95.

72Kohlhorst DW, Botsford LW, Brennan JS, Cail liet GM. 1991. Aspects of the structure and dynamics of an exploited Central Calif ornia population of white sturgeon ( Acipenser

transmontanus ). Pp. 277-293 in: Williot P (ed.), Acipenser: Proceedings of the 1st International Sturgeon Conference, October 3-6, 1989, Bordeaux, France. Centre National du Machinisme Agricole du Genie Rural de s Eaux et des Forets, Bordeaux, France.

Kozie KD, Anderson RK. 1991. Productivity, diet, and environmental contaminants in bald eagles nesting near the Wisconsin shoreline of Lake Superior. Arch. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol . 20:41-48.

Kroll KJ, Doroshov SI. 1991. Vitellogenin: pote ntial vehicle for selenium bioaccumulation in oocytes of the white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ). Pp. 99-106 in: Williot P (ed.), Acipenser: Proceedings of the 1st Interna tional Sturgeon Conference, October 3-6, 1989, Bordeaux, France. Centre National du Machinis me Agricole du Genie Rural des Eaux et des Forets, Bordeaux, France.

Lemly AD. 1996a. Assessing the toxic threat of selenium to fish and aquatic birds. Environ.

Monit. Assess ., 43:19-35.

Lemly AD. 1996b. Selenium in aquatic orga nisms. Pp.427-445 in: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmon AW (eds.), Interpreting Environmental Contaminants in Animal Tissues. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Levings CD, McAllister CD, Cha ng BD. 1986. Differential use of the Campbell River estuary, British Columbia, by wild and hatchery-reared juvenile Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 43:1386-1397.

Lillebo HP, Shaner S, Carlson D, Richard N, DuBowy P. 1988. Water quality criteria for

selenium and other trace elemen ts for protection of aquatic li fe and its uses in the San Joaquin Valley. SWRCB Order No. W.Q. 85-1 Technical Committee Report, Appendix D. California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

Linares J, Linville R, Eenennaam JV, Doros hov S. 2004. Selenium effects on health and reproduction of white sturgeon in the Sacramen to-San Joaquin estuary. Final Report for Project No. ERP-02-P35.

Linville RG, Luoma SN, Cutter L, Cutter GA. 2002. Increased selenium threat as a result of

invasion of the exotic bivalve Potamocorbula amurensis into the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Aquatic Toxicology 57:1-2.

Linville RG. 2006. Effects of excess selenium on the health and reproduction of white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ): Implications for San Francisco Bay-Delta. Ph.D dissertation, University of California, Davis, CA. 232 pp.

73Lonzarich DG, Harvey TE, Takekawa JE. 1992. Trace element and organochlorine

concentrations in Ca lifornia Clapper Rail ( Rallus longirostris obsoletus ) eggs. Arch.

Environ. Contam. Toxicol ., 23:147-153.

LRDA (Lake Roosevelt Net Pen Program). 2000. Hatchery and genetic management plan:

resident fish version. Lake Roosevelt Fi sheries Restoration and Enhancement Program, Davenport, WA. http://www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewC ycle/fy2001im/workplan/Roosevelt_rbt.doc

Lukens JR. 1985. Hells Canyon wh ite sturgeon investigations. Contrib., Fed. Aid Proj . F-73-R7, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise. 33 p.

MacFarlane RB, Norton EC. 2002. Physiological ecology of juvenile chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) at the southern end of thei r distribution, the San Francisco Estuary and Gulf of the Farallones, California. Fish. Bull. 100:244–257.

Martin G. 2002. The case of the disappearing ducks. National Wildlife 40(3). http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/ar ticle.cfm?articleId=470&issueId=42

Martin CD, Gaines PD, Johnson RR. 2001. Estimating the abundance of Sacramento River juvenile winter Chinook salmon with compar isons to adult escapement. Red Bluff Research Pumping Plant Report Series, Volume 5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Red Bluff, CA.

Mayfield RB. Cech JJ, Jr. 2004. Temperature effects on green sturgeon bioenergetics. Trans. Am.

Fish. Soc . 133:961-970.

McEwan, D. 2001. Central Valley steelhead. In Brown RL (editor), Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids, Volume 1, pages 1-44. Califor nia Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 179.

McEwan D, Jackson TA. 1996. Steelhead Restor ation and Management Plan for California. California. Department of Fish and Ga me, Sacramento, California, 234 pages. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/pubs/swshplan.pdf

McKechnie RJ, Fenner RB. 1971. Food habits of white sturgeon, Acipenser transmontanus , in San Pablo and Suisun bays, California. Calif. Fish Game 57:209-212

Meehan WR, Bjornn TC. 1991. Salmonid distribu tions and life histories. In Meehan WR (editor), Influences of forest and rangel and management on salmonid fishes and their habitats, pages 47-82. American Fisheries So ciety Special Publication 19. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Meng L. 1993. Status report on Sacramento split tail and longfin smelt. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Field Office, Sacramento,

California.

74Miller, L.W. 1972. Migrations of sturgeon tagg ed in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Calif.

Fish Game 58: 102-106.

Moffitt J. 1941. Notes on the food of the California clapper rail. Condor 43:270-273.

Moyle PB. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 405pp.

Moyle PB. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 576 pp.

Moyle PB, Herbold B, Stevens DE, Miller LW. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc . 121:67-77.

Moyle PB, Baxter RD, Sommer T, Foin TC , Matern SA. 2004. Biology and population dynamics of Sacramento splittail (Pogonicht hys macrolepidotus) in the San Francisco Estuary: a review. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science [online serial]. Vol. 2, Issue 2 (May 2004), Article 3. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/sfews/vol2/iss2/art3

Myers JM, Kope RG, Bryant GL, Teel D, Lier heimer LJ, Wainwright TC, Grant WS, Waknitz FW, Neely K, Lindley ST, Waples RS. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department Of Commerce, NOAA Tech Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35, 443p.

Myrick CA. 1998. Temperature, genetic, a nd ration effects on juve nile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) bioenergetics. Ph.D. dissert ation. University of California. Davis. 165 pages.

Myrick CA, Cech JJ. 2000. Growth and thermal biology of Feather River steelhead under constant and cyclical temperatures. Depa rtment of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California. Davis, California.

Nagy KA. 1987. Field metabolic rate and food requirement scaling in mammals and birds. Ecol. Monogr . 57:111-128.

Nagy KA. 2001. Food requirements of wild an imals: predictive equations for free-living mammals, reptiles, and birds. Nutriti on Abstracts and Reviews, Series B: Livestock Feeds and Feeding 71(10):21R-31R.

Neveu A. 1980. Relations entre le benthos, la dé rive, le rythme alimentaire et le taux de consommation de truites communes (S. trutta L.) en canal expérimental.. Hydrobiologia

76:217-228.

75Nickelson TE, Nicholas JW, McGie AM, Lindsay RB, Bottom DL, Kaiser RJ, Jacobs SE. 1992. Status of anadromous salmonids in Oregon co astal basins. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Research Development Section and Ocean Salmon Management, 83 pages.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1997. National Mari ne Fisheries Service Proposed Recovery Plan for the Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon. NMFS, Southwest Region, Long Beach, California, 217 pages with goals and appendices.

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) . 2005. Hatchery and genetic management plan. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/HGMP/05_coos_wnt.pdf

Ohlendorf HM, Lowe RW, Kelly PR, Harvey TE. 1986. Selenium and heavy metals in San Francisco Bay diving ducks. J. Wildl. Manage . 50:64-71.

Ohlendorf HM, Marois KC, Lowe RW, Harv ey TE, Kelly PR. 1991. Trace elements and organochlorines in Surf Scoter s from San Francisco Bay, 1985. Environ. Monit. Assess . 18:

105–122.

Orsi JJ, Mecum WL. 1986. Z ooplankton distribution and abunda nce in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in relation to cer tain environmental factors. Estuaries 9(4B):326-339.

Padding PI, Martin EM, Powell BH. 1993. Estimates of age and sex compositions of harvested ducks and geese. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Laurel, MD.

Padding PI, Powell BH, Martin EM , Geissler PH. 1992. Estimates of age and sex compositions of harvested ducks and geese. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Laurel, MD.

Palmer RS. (ed.). 1988. Handbook of North American Birds. Vols. 4 & 5. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Pease W, Taylor K, Lacy J, Carlin M. 1992. Deri vation of site-specific wa ter quality criteria for

selenium in San Francisco Ba y. Staff Report, California Re gional Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region, Oakland, CA. 37 p.

Pert HA. 1987. Winter Food Habits of Coasta l Juvenile Steelhead and Coho Salmon in Pudding Creek, Northern California. M.S. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/4351/PertMS.pdf

Peterson JA, Nebeker AV. 1992. Estimation of wa terborne selenium con centrations that are toxicity thresholds for wildlife. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

23:154-162.

Poulton VK, Lovvorn JR, Takekawa JY. 2002. Cl am Density and Scaup Feeding Behavior in San Pablo Bay, California. The Condor , Vol. 104, No. 3. pp. 518-527.

76Presser, T.S. and Luoma, S.N. 2006. Forecasting se lenium discharges to the San Francisco BayDelta Estuary: Ecological eff ects of a proposed San Luis Drain extension. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1646, 196 p.

Radtke LD. 1966. Distribution of smelt, j uvenile sturgeon, and starry flounder in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with observati ons on food of sturgeon. Pp. 115-119 in J. L. Turner and D. W. Kelley, eds.: Ecological st udies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Part 2. California Department of Fish and Game Fish Bulletin No. 136.

Richman SE, Lovvorn JR. 2004. Relative foragi ng value to lesser scaup ducks of native and exotic clams from San Francisco Bay. Ecological Applications 14:1217-1231.

Ruelle R, Keenlyne KD. 1993. Contaminan ts in Missouri River pallid sturgeon. Bull. Environ.

Contam. Toxicol. , 50:898-906.

Saiki MK, Palawski DU. 1990. Selenium and othe r elements in juvenile striped bass from the San Joaquin Valley and San Fran cisco Estuary, California. Arch. Environ. Contam.

Toxicol. , 19:717-730.

Sasaki S. 1966. Distribution and food habits of king salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha , and rainbow trout, Salmo gairdnerii , in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta. Pages 108-114 in Turner JL and Kelley DW (comp.) Ecologica l studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin

Delta. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 136. http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?doc Id=kt8h4nb2t8&chunk.id=d0e3023&brand=oac&doc. view=entire_text

Savard J-PL, Bordage D, Reed A. 1998. Surf Scoter ( Melanitta perspicillata ). In The Birds of North America, No. 363 (Poole A and Gill F, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Schwarzbach SE. 1994. Hard scien ce: fail to hatch. Estuary, 3( 3):4. Newsletter of the San Francisco Estuary Project, Oakland, CA.

Schwarzbach SE, Albertson JD, Thomas CM. 2006. Effects of predation, flooding, and contamination on reproductive succe ss of California clapper rails ( Rallus longirostris

obsoletus ) in San Francisco Bay. Auk 123:45-60.

Scott WB, Crossman EJ. 1973. Freshw ater fishes of Canada. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can . 184:1-

966.

Shapovalov L, Taft AC. 1954. The life hi stories of the steelh ead rainbow trout ( Salmo gairdneri gairdneri ) and silver salmon ( Oncorhynchus kisutch ) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin 98, 375 pages.

77Shirvell CS. 1990. Role of instream root wads as juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ) and steelhead trout ( O. mykiss ) cover habitat under va rying streamflows. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 47:852-860.

Skorupa JP. 1998. Selenium poisoning of fish and wildlife in nature: Lessons from twelve realworld examples. Pp. 315-354 in: W.T. Fr ankenberger and R.A. Engberg (eds.), Environmental Chemistry of Selenium . Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.

Skorupa JP, Morman SP, Sefchick-Edwards JS. 1996. Guidelines for interpreting selenium exposures of biota associated with nonmarine aquatic habitats. Repor t to U.S. Department of Interior, National Irrigation Water Quality Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Division of Environmental Contam inants, Sacramento, CA. 74 p.

Snyder NF, Wiley JW. 1976. Sexual size dimorphism in hawks and owls of North America. Orni. Monogr . 20.

Sokol RR, Rohlf FJ. 1981. Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.

Sommer TR, Conrad L, O’Leary G, Feyrer F, Harrell WC. 2002. Spawning and rearing of splittail in a model floodplain wetland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:966-974. http://www.iep.ca .gov/AES/Sommer_et_al_2002.pdf

Steensen RA, Chilcott JE, Grober LF, Jensen LD, Eppinger JL, Burns T. 1997. Compilation of electrical conductivity, boron, a nd selenium water quality data for the Grassland Watershed and San Joaquin River, May 1985-September 1995. Staff Report. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Va lley Region, Sacramento, CA. 59 p.

Stewart AR, Luoma SN, Schlekat CE, Dob lin MA, Hieb KA. 2004. Food web pathway determines how selenium affects aquatic eco systems: a San Francisco Bay case study.

Environ. Sci. Technol . 38:4519-4526.

Sweetnam DA. 1999. Status of delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. California

Fish and Game 85(1):22-27.

Sweetnam DA, Stevens DE. 1993. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A status review of the delta smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus ) in California. Candidate Species Status Report 93-DS. Sacramento, Californi a. 98 pages plus appendices.

Takekawa JY, Wainwright-De La Cruz SE, Ho them RL, Yee J. 2002. Relating body condition to inorganic contaminant concentrations of diving ducks wintering in coastal California.

Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol . 42:60-70.

Takekawa JY, De La Cruz SW, Miles AK. 2002. Conserving the southern most concentration of surf scoters in the pacific flyway: threats to open water habitats in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Abstract in North American S ea Duck Conference and Workshop, Victoria, British Columbia, 6 – 10 November, 2002. http://www.seaduckjv.or g/AbstractBook.pdf

78Tashjian DH, Teh S, Sogomonyan A, Hung SSO. 2006. Bioaccumulation and chronic toxicity of dietary l-selenomethionine in juvenile white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ). Aquatic Toxicology Volume 79, Issue 4, 12 October 2006, Pages 401-409.

Taylor K, Pease W, Lacy J, Carlin M. 1992. Mass emissions reduction strategy for selenium. Staff Report. Basin Planning and Protecti on Unit. California Regional Water Quality

Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region, Oakland, CA. 53 p.

Taylor K, Lacy J, Carlin M. 1993. Mass emissions reduction strategy for selenium. Supplemental Staff Report. Basin Planning and Protection Unit. California Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Fr ancisco Bay Region, Oakland, CA. 61 p.

Teh SJ, Deng X, Deng D-F, Teh F-C, Hung SSO , Fan TW-CM, Liu J, Higashi RM. 2004. Chronic Effects Of Dietary Selenium on Juvenile Sacramento Splittail ( Pogonichthys Macrolepidotus ). Proceedings of the 2004 CALFED Bay-Delta Program Science

Conference. http://cain.nbii.gov/regi onal/calfed/calfedabstracts/viewR esource?resource=http://cain.nbii. gov%2Fcalfed%2Fcalfedconf.owl% 23calfedconf_Individual_1772

The Quail. 2006. July Observations. Mount Diablo Audubon Society. Vol. 52, No. 1. September

2006.

Turner JL, Kelly DW. 1966. Ecological studies of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Bulletin No. 136.

USDI-BOR/FWS/GS/BIA (United States Depa rtment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation/Fish and Wildlife Service/Geological Survey/Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1998. Guidelines for Interpretation of the Biol ogical Effects of Selected Constituents in Biota, Water, and Sediment. National Ir rigation Water Quality Program Information Report No. 3. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO. 198 p.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook,

Volume I. EPA/600/R-93/187a. Office of Res earch and Development. Washington, DC

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1995. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Technical Support Document for Wildlife Crit eria. EPA-820-B-95-009. Office of Water. Washington, DC

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1984. The salt marsh harvest mouse/California clapper rail recovery plan. U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 122 pp.+ appendices.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1988. Final supplemental environmental impact

statement: issuance of annual regulations permitting the sport hunting of migratory birds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

79USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1993. Status of sea ducks in eastern North America.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Migratory Bird Management, Laurel, MD.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1996. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1996/961126.pdf

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2003. Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 304(a) human health criterion for methylmerc ury: protectiveness for threatened and endangered wildlife in California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Environmental Contaminants Division. Sacramento, California. 96 pp + appendix.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2005. Comment on Draft Aquatic Life Criteria Document for Selenium, submitted by Everett F. Wilson Chief Division of Environmental Quality, United States Department of th e Interior (USFWS). EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0019- 0208. http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main

Van Woert W. 1964. Mill Creek counting sta tion. Office memorandum to Eldon Hughes, May 25, 1964. California Department of Fish and Game, Water Projects Branch, Contract

Services Section.

Varoujean DH. 1972. A study of the California clapper rail in Elkho rn Slough, 1972. Report to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. 9 pp.

Vermeer K, Bourne N. 1984. The white-winged scoter diet in British Columbia waters: resource partitioning with other scoters. P p. 30-38 in Marine Bird s: their feeding ecology and commercial fisheries relationships (Net tleship DA, Sanger GA, Springer PF, eds). Proc. of the Pacific Seabird Group Sympos ium, Seattle, Washington 608 Jan, 1982. Can. Wildl. Serv., Ottawa, ON.

Vile JS, Friesen TA, Reesman MJ. 2004. Diets of juvenile salmonids and introduced fishes of

the lower Willamette River. Columbia River Investigations. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Clackamas, Oregon. http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=76765

Vogel DA, Marine KR. 1991. Guide to upper S acramento River Chinook salmon life history. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclam ation, Central Valley Project, 55 pages.

Wang JCS. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Jo aquin estuary and adjacen t waters, California: A guide to the early life histories. In teragency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Sacram ento, California. Technical Report 9.

80Wang JCS. 1991. Early life stages and ear ly life history of the delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus , in the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary, with comparison of early life stages of the longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys . Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Tech. Rept. 28.

WDFG (Washington Department of Fish and Ga me). 2001. Hatchery and genetic management plan. http://www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/Revie wCycle/fy2003lc/workplan/CowlitzAppB.pdf

Worldfish Center. 2000. FishBase: a global information system on fishes. http://www.fishbase.org/home.htm

81