San Francisco Bay

Microplastic contamination in the San Francisco Bay, California, USA

Marine Pollution Bulletin (Elsevier) | August 15th, 2015

Despite widespread detection of microplastic pollution in marine environments, data describing microplastic abundance in urban estuaries and microplastic discharge via tr

Despite widespread detection of microplastic pollution in marine environments, data describing microplastic abundance in urban estuaries and microplastic discharge via treated municipal wastewater are limited. This study presents information on abundance, distribution, and composition of microplastic at nine sites in San Francisco Bay, California, USA. Also presented are characterizations of microplastic in final effluent from eight wastewater treatment plants, employing varying treatment technologies, that discharge to the Bay. With an average microplastic abundance of 700,000 particles/km2, Bay surface water appears to have higher microplastic levels than other urban waterbodies sampled in North America. Moreover, treated wastewater from facilities that discharge into the Bay contains considerable microplastic contamination. Facilities employing tertiary filtration did not show lower levels of contamination than those using secondary treatment. As textile-derived fibers were more abundant in wastewater, higher levels of fragments in surface water suggest additional pathways of microplastic pollution, such as stormwaterrunoff.

Microplastic Monitoring and Science Strategy for San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 1st, 2017

Microplastic is commonly defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm. In 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) conducted a

Microplastic is commonly defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm. In 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) conducted a special study to measure microplastic in treated wastewater effluent and Bay surface water. Bay surface water appeared to have higher microplastic levels than other urban water bodies sampled in North America, such as the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Microbeads derived from personal care products and tiny fibers, a portion of which were likely derived from synthetic clothing, were recovered from all nine Bay sites. Tiny particles, primarily fibers, were also detected in treated effluent from Bay Area facilities; not all of these particles are known to be plastic. These findings received considerable media attention and catalyzed state and federal policy shifts. 

Microplastic Monitoring and Science Strategy for the San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | February 7th, 2017

Microplastic is commonly defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm. In 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) conducte

Microplastic is commonly defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 mm. In 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) conducted a special study to measure microplastic in treated wastewater effluent and Bay surface water. Bay surface water appeared to have higher microplastic levels than other urban water bodies sampled in North America, such as the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Microbeads derived from personal care products and tiny fibers, a portion of which were likely derived from synthetic clothing, were recovered from all nine Bay sites. Tiny particles, primarily fibers, were also detected in treated effluent from Bay Area facilities; not all of these particles are known to be plastic. These findings received considerable media attention and catalyzed state and federal policy shifts. In 2016, the RMP authorized a special study to develop a strategy for continued study of microplastic in San Francisco Bay. To form this strategy, the RMP convened stakeholders to articulate management questions specific to microplastic pollution, and then conducted a one-day workshop that brought together stakeholders and microplastic experts to develop an understanding of the state of the science on this emerging contaminant, and determine consensus priorities for future work. The resulting strategy document provides: • an overview of microplastic science relevant to San Francisco Bay, • the management questions that will guide future work, • a summary of available sampling and analysis methods, and • a multi-year plan for studies that would provide answers to the management questions. The monitoring and management of both macro- and microplastic are issues that extend beyond the scope of the RMP. In this document, we seek to identify data gaps, next steps, and strategic partners who can help provide information and resources to inform management decisions. This Microplastic Strategy will be refined and adjusted in years to come based on advances in understanding and changes in the sources and management of plastic pollution.

Microplastic Strategy Update on behalf of the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | December 2nd, 2019

Based on the detection of microplastics in San Francisco Bay surface water and Bay Area wastewater effluent in 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in

Based on the detection of microplastics in San Francisco Bay surface water and Bay Area wastewater effluent in 2015, the Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) convened a Microplastic Workgroup (MPWG) in 2016 to discuss the issue, identify management information needs and management questions (MQs), and prioritize studies to provide information to answer these management questions. The MPWG meets annually to review on-going microplastic projects and to conduct strategic long-term planning in response to new information in this rapidly evolving field.

Microplastics from Tire Particles in San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | March 14th, 2022

Midcoast Groundwater Study Phase III, San Mateo County, California

San Mateo County | June 4th, 2010

San Mateo County ‘Midcoast’ extends from northern Half Moon Bay to Devils Slide along Highway 1. It encompasses the communities of Montara, Moss Beach, Seal Cove, Pri

San Mateo County ‘Midcoast’ extends from northern Half Moon Bay to Devils Slide along Highway 1. It encompasses the communities of Montara, Moss Beach, Seal Cove, Princeton, El Granada, and Miramar. Domestic water is supplied to the southern part of the region by Coastside County Water District (CCWD), providing services from Half Moon Bay to Princeton, and by Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) on the north, servicing Montara and Moss Beach. Private wells are scattered through both service districts and outlying areas. With the exception of CCWD, which meets much of its demand through long-term contractual agreements with San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the source of domestic water is from local surface water and groundwater resources. The carrying capacity of the local resources may be considered as the population that can be sustained using conservation measures during an extended drought without undue stress to valued natural habitats.

Minerals of California Bulletin No. 113

State of California | February 15th, 1938

Missing the Boat on Freshwater Fish Conservation in California

Conservation Letters (Society for Conservation Biology) | March 30th, 2016

Population growth and increasing water‐use pressures threaten California's freshwater ecosystems and have led many native fishes to the brink of extinction. To guide fi

Population growth and increasing water‐use pressures threaten California's freshwater ecosystems and have led many native fishes to the brink of extinction. To guide fish conservation efforts, we provide the first systematic prioritization of river catchments and identify those that disproportionately contribute to fish taxonomic diversity. Using high‐resolution range maps of exceptional quality, we also assess the representation of fish taxa within the state's protected areas and examine the concordance of high‐priority catchments with existing reserves and among distinct taxonomic groups. Although most of the state's native fishes are found within protected areas, only a small proportion of their ranges are represented. Few high‐priority catchments occur within protected areas, suggesting that fish conservation will require active management and targeted river restoration outside of reserves. These results provide the foundation for systematic freshwater conservation planning in California and for prioritizing where limited resources are allocated for fish recovery and protection.

Modeling Barriers and Levee-Break Effects on Delta-Wide Salinity

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | February 18th, 2016

Modeling Functional Flows in California’s Rivers

Frontiers in Environmental Science (Frontiers) | March 11th, 2022