Mercury Bioaccumulation in the
Cache Creek Watershed, California - A Local, Regional and Global-Scale Problem
Political Ecology: Study of the relationships between coupled human-environment systems, or Socio-Ecological-Systems (SES)
Socio-Ecological-System (SES): Coupled Human-Environmental system that interacts due to the dependence of humans on ecosystems for the services they provide such as fish for food, clean air, clean water, fertile soil for agriculture etc.
Elinor Ostrom's Socio-Ecological-System (SES) Conceptual Framework, 2009.
Application of Ostrom's SES conceptual model reveals important aspects of the Political Ecology of mercury bioaccumulation in the Cache Creek Watershed
The Resource System (RS) is the entire watershed
The Resource Units (RU) are the Ecosystem Services. Impacts of mining on the RU resulting from the Governing System (GS) feedback to impact the Users (U) of the watershed today as the food web is contaminated with mercury. Other Ecosystem Services impacts are shown in red in the framework below and explained on the Ecosystem Services Impacts page.
Socio-Ecological-System for the time period (1846-1981) of Mercury Mining and the use of Mercury for Gold Mining
The Governing System (GS) for the time period of mercury mining and the use of mercury for gold mining was one that emphasized imperial (colonial) expansion and economic gain over environmental protection as exemplified by the implementation of the General Mining Act of 1872.
The Users (U) are simply the users of the watershed. This can get quite complex when considering the different types of "users" of the watershed and how that changed when the General Mining Act increased the demand for mercury.
The influx of miners into the watershed created the many mine sites needing remediation, which are "outcomes" that feedback to the Resource Units (RU) in the form of mercury bioaccumulation.
The "Outcomes" of mercury mining and the use of mercury for gold mining impact Ecosystem Services downstream via watershed connectivity, and globally via the global hydrologic and mercury cycles. These "Outcomes" impact users at local, regional and global scales.
Conceptual model adapted from Ostrom, 2009.
What is Required of the Governing System for Mercury Remediation?
Implementation of the SES Framework for the time period after the Clean Water Act was passed and mercury mining and the use of mercury for gold mining ended to the present time provides insight into what is necessary, or providing support, for remediation and recovery of the holistic health of the watershed ecosystem and the services it provides
The Resource System (RS) is the entire watershed
New (2018) US and California EPA thresholds for mercury in fish for California Inland Waters (Torres, 2018)
New (2018) US and California EPA thresholds for mercury in fish for California Inland Waters (Torres, 2017)
The Resource Units (RU) are the Ecosystem Services. These Ecosystem Services are experiencing long-term impacts of the Governing System of the earlier time period when mercury mining and the use of mercury for gold mining was legal.
Important groups of Users (U) of the Watershed (RS) are at risk considering the neurotoxic nature of mercury and mercury contamination of the food web.
Native Americans living in the Cache Creek Watershed traditionally eat fish.
Low income residents of the watershed may depend on fish as a primary source of protein.
Women and children are at increased risk due to congenital biomagnification of mercury.
Wildlife, such as birds of prey, bears, otters and others are at increased risk as they cannot read the warning signs
Environmental Justice Issues precipitating from the Governing System of the previous time period that lacked environmental regulations and encouraged mercury mining and the use of mercury for gold mining via the General Mining Act of 1872
Conceptual model adapted from Ostrom, 2009.
The Governing System (GS) for the current time period has important goals and structures for protection of water quality which are supported by the Clean Water Act (Glicksman and Zellmer, 2013).
The goals of the Clean Water Act emphasize restoration of biological integrity and include pollution standards and programs to enforce standards, the management of which is assigned to the US EPA (Glicksman and Zellmer, 2013).
Under section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the US EPA works with the state water resources control boards to uphold water pollution standards (US EPA, 1989).
Within the Clean Water Act is a section (40 C.F.R. § 130.7) – Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) – that requires periodic water quality testing and data analysis for compliance and remediation (Cornell Law School, 2001). The TMDL section of the Clean Water Act, as well as the US EPA and California Water Quality Control Boards, provided the safety threshold standards for mercury in fish for wildlife, subsistence and sport fishing.
Communities engaging in the use of mercury may want to consider if the necessary resources will be available to restore water quality and Ecosystem Services integrity. The US EPA, California EPA, California State Water Resources Control Boards as well as federal agencies, such as the USGS, among others, provide a network of support for the Clean Water Act and water quality monitoring. All of this support requires funding, not only to pay the highly skilled employees of these agencies but also for water quality testing and remediation. Will developing countries and/or communities be able to pool those resources if remediation is needed?
References for this page:
Cornell Law School. 2001. “40 CFR 130.7 - Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Individual Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations.” Academic. Legal Information Institute (blog). 2001. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/130.7.
Glicksman, Robert, and Sandra Zellmer. 2013. “Improving Water Quality Antidegradation Policies.” GW Law Faculty Publications and Other Works 4 (1): 25.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2009. “A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems.” Science 325 (5939): 419–22. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.
Torres, Tomas. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. “Re: Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California -Tribal and Subsistence Fishing Beneficial Uses and Mercury Provisions,” 2017.
US EPA. 1989. “Memorandum of Agreement between the US Environmental Protection Agency and California.” Memorandum of Agreement. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-08/documents/ca-moa-npdes_0.pdf.