The NOAA NCEI marine microplastics database

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | October 20th, 2023

Microplastics (<5 mm) pollution is a growing problem affecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, aquatic life, and human health. The widespread occurrence of m

Microplastics (<5 mm) pollution is a growing problem affecting coastal communities, marine ecosystems, aquatic life, and human health. The widespread occurrence of marine microplastics, and the need to curb its threats, require expansive, and continuous monitoring. While microplastic research has increased in recent years and generated significant volumes of data, there is a lack of a robust, open access, and long-term aggregation of this data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) now provides a global open access to marine microplastics data on an easily discoverable and accessible GIS web map and data portal. The objective of this data portal is to develop a repository where microplastics data are aggregated, archived, and served in a user friendly, consistent, and reliable manner. This work contributes to NCEI’s efforts towards data standardization, integration, harmonization, and interoperability among national and international collaborators for monitoring global marine microplastics. This paper describes the NOAA NCEI global marine microplastics database, its creation, quality control procedures, and future directions.

The Perennial Streams Assessment (PSA): An Assessment of Biological Condition using the New California Stream Condition Index (CSCI)

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | June 1st, 2015

PSA stream surveys found that the majority of stream length in the Sierra Nevada and North Coast is in good biological condition, while the majority of stream len

PSA stream surveys found that the majority of stream length in the Sierra Nevada and North Coast is in good biological condition, while the majority of stream length in the South Coast, Chaparral and Central Valley is in poor or very poor condition. Similarly, most of the stream length draining forested watersheds is in good condition, while most of the stream length draining watersheds dominated by agricultural and urban land use is in poor or very poor condition. On average, stream condition showed no directional change over time, either for better or for worse. Streams where phosphorous concentration or riparian disturbance exceeded thresholds had the greatest relative risk of biological impairment.  

The Pulse of the Bay 2019: Pollutant Pathways

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | September 26th, 2019

Pollutants make their way to San Francisco Bay from near and far. Some pollutants come from the other side of the world, such as the mercury that is emitted into the atmo

Pollutants make their way to San Francisco Bay from near and far. Some pollutants come from the other side of the world, such as the mercury that is emitted into the atmosphere by coal-fired power plants in Asia, transported across the Pacific Ocean by the wind, and deposited on the surface of the Bay and in the Bay watershed. Some pollutants come from the far corners of the Bay’s watershed, which encompasses 40% of the land surface of California. Mercury used in historic gold mining regions in the Sierra Nevada is still flowing downstream into Central Valley rivers, through the Delta, and into the Bay.  Most pollutants, however, originate from activities closer to home in the small, local watersheds that surround the Bay. Rain that falls onto yards, roofs, parking lots, streets, farms, pastures, and other surfaces in the watersheds picks up pollutants and carries them to the Bay through an intricate network of thousands of miles of storm drain pipes, culverts, and creeks. Most of this stormwater flows to the Bay without any form of pollutant removal.  Another parallel and intricate network of thousands of miles of pipes carries wastewater from homes, business, and industries through sewage collection systems to municipal wastewater treatment plants. These treatment plants are highly effective at removing most pollutants from the wastewater stream, but some are not effectively treated and pass through to the Bay.  Some industrial operations, such as the Bay Area’s petroleum refineries, are large enough to warrant having their own wastewater treatment facilities that remove pollutants so the effluent can be safely discharged into the Bay, reused in plant operations, or applied to land.  Disposal of dredged material at designated sites within the Bay is another activity that introduces pollutants to specific areas in the Bay, but in this case the pollutants are simply transferred from one part of the Bay to another. Much of the pollutant mass in dredged material is also removed from the Bay via disposal in the ocean or beneficial reuse in wetlands and upland sites. This edition of the Pulse of the Bay features articles on the four major pollutant pathways that are the primary focus of Bay water quality managers: municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater, stormwater, and dredging and dredged material disposal.

The Pulse of the Bay 2022: 50 Years after the Clean Water Act

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | October 13th, 2022

This August an algal bloom of historic proportions blanketed San Francisco Bay. The most concerning aspect of the bloom was the death of thousands of fish across wide are

This August an algal bloom of historic proportions blanketed San Francisco Bay. The most concerning aspect of the bloom was the death of thousands of fish across wide areas of the Bay, including 10,000 yellowfin goby, hundreds of striped bass and white sturgeon, and other species like green sturgeon, bat rays, and sharks. This is the most widespread and deadliest fish kill in the Bay in recent memory.

The Pulse of the Bay: The 25th Anniversary of the RMP

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

San Francisco Bay is the defining feature of our region and a world-class ecosystem. The Bay Area is also known world-wide as a cradle of innovation, excellence, and succ

San Francisco Bay is the defining feature of our region and a world-class ecosystem. The Bay Area is also known world-wide as a cradle of innovation, excellence, and success, especially in the technology sector. Less well known is the fact that over the past 25 years the Bay Area has been a world leader in water quality monitoring, supporting a pioneering program for the Bay that demonstrates how regional collaboration can provide the science needed to protect and improve water quality in a treasured ecosystem. The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) was established in 1993 and, with sustained local funding and continuous improvement, is going stronger than ever a quarter century later.

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay, California, USA: Science in support of managing water quality

Regional Studies in Marine Science (Elsevier) | October 22nd, 2015

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) is a novel partnership between regulatory agencies and the regulated community to provide the

The Regional Monitoring Program for Water Quality in San Francisco Bay (RMP) is a novel partnership between regulatory agencies and the regulated community to provide the scientific foundation to manage water quality in the largest Pacific estuary in the Americas. The RMP monitors water quality, sediment quality and bioaccumulation of priority pollutants in fish, bivalves and birds. To improve monitoring measurements or the interpretation of data, the RMP also regularly funds special studies. The success of the RMP stems from collaborative governance, clear objectives, and long-term institutional and monetary commitments. Over the past 22 years, high quality data and special studies from the RMP have guided dozens of important decisions about Bay water quality management. Moreover, the governing structure and the collaborative nature of the RMP have created an environment that allowed it to stay relevant as new issues emerged. With diverse participation, a foundation in scientific principles and a continual commitment to adaptation, the RMP is a model water qualitymonitoring program. This paper describes the characteristics of the RMP that have allowed it to grow and adapt over two decades and some of the ways in which it has influenced water quality management decisions for this important ecosystem.

The RMP Emerging Contaminants Program - Fact Sheet

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | May 2nd, 2016

 RMP stakeholders believe that preventing a pollution problem is safer and more cost-effective than cleaning one up. For this reason, the RMP focuses on monitoring emerg

 RMP stakeholders believe that preventing a pollution problem is safer and more cost-effective than cleaning one up. For this reason, the RMP focuses on monitoring emerging contaminants, or CECs. Early identification of problem CECs and quick action to prevent their spread is the best way to protect water quality in San Francisco Bay. 

The Status of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Stanislaus River Summary report of 2015 snorkel surveys

Delta Stewardship Council (Delta Council) | August 1st, 2016

The Use of Smolt Survival Estimates to Quantify the Effects of Habitat Changes on Salmonid Stocks in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, California

Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) | July 1st, 1989

Tools for managing hydrologic alteration on a regional scale II: Setting targets to protect stream health

Freshwater Biology (Wiley) | January 15th, 2018

1. Widespread hydrologic alteration creates a need for tools to assess ecological impacts to streams that can be applied across large geographic scales. A regional framew

1. Widespread hydrologic alteration creates a need for tools to assess ecological impacts to streams that can be applied across large geographic scales. A regional framework for biologically based flow management can help catchment managers prioritise streams for protection, evaluate impacts of disturbance or interventions and provide a starting point for causal assessment in degraded streams. However, lack of flow data limit the ability to assess hydrologic conditions across a region. 2. Hydrologic models can address this problem. Regionally calibrated hydrologic models were used to estimate current and reference flows at 572 bioassessment sites in southern and central coastal California. Flow alteration was characterised as the difference in 39 flow metrics calculated from simulations of present‐day and reference flow time‐series, calculated under up to four precipitation conditions. 3. Biological condition was assessed with the California Stream Condition Index (CSCI) and its components. Logistic regressions were used to predict the likelihood of high scores (i.e. ≥10th percentile of the CSCI reference calibration data). Statistically significant relationships between increasing severity of hydrologic alteration and decreasing biological condition were used to set thresholds that reflected tolerance for risk of a stakeholder advisory group. 4. An index of hydrologic alteration was created by selecting flow metrics based on their importance for predicting biological response variables in boosted regression tree models. Metrics were selected in the order of decreasing importance, and no more than two metrics per metric class were selected (i.e. duration, frequency, magnitude, timing and variability). Seven metrics were selected: HighDur (duration of high‐flow events), HighNum (# of high‐flow events), NoDisturb (duration between high‐ or low‐flow events), MaxMonthQ (maximum monthly discharge), Q99 (99th percentile of daily streamflow), QmaxIDR (interdecile range of annual maxima) and RBI (Richards–Baker Index). 5. Applying the index to data from a probabilistic survey, 34% of stream‐miles in southern California were estimated to be hydrologically altered. One of four management priorities were assigned to each site based on biological condition and hydrologic status: protection (healthy and unaltered, 52% of stream‐miles), monitoring (healthy but altered 4%), evaluation of flow management (unhealthy and altered, 30%) and evaluation of other management (unhealthy but unaltered, 14%). 6. Regionally derived biologically based targets for flow alteration allow catchment managers to prioritise activities and conduct screenings for causal assessments across large spatial scales. Furthermore, regional tools pave the way for incorporation of hydrologic management in policies and catchment planning designed to support biological integrity in streams. Development of regional tools should be a priority where hydrologic alteration is pervasive or expected to increase in response to climate change or urbanisation.