Anthropogenic debris in seafood: Plastic debris and fibers from textiles in fish and bivalves sold for human consumption

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | September 24th, 2015

The ubiquity of anthropogenic debris in hundreds of species of wildlife and the toxicity of chemicals associated with it has begun to raise concerns regarding the presenc

The ubiquity of anthropogenic debris in hundreds of species of wildlife and the toxicity of chemicals associated with it has begun to raise concerns regarding the presence of anthropogenic debris in seafood. We assessed the presence of anthropogenic debris in fishes and shellfish on sale for human consumption. We sampled from markets in Makassar, Indonesia and from California, USA. All fish and shellfish were identified to species where possible. Anthropogenic debris was extracted from the digestive tracts of fish and whole shellfish using a 10% KOH solution and quantified under a dissecting microscope. In Indonesia, anthropogenic debris was found in 28% of individual fish and in 55% of all species. Similarly, in the USA, anthropogenic debris was found in 25% of individual fish and in 67% of all species. Anthropogenic debris was also found in 33% of individual shellfish sampled. All of the anthropogenic debris recovered from fish in Indonesia was plastic, whereas anthropogenic debris recovered from fish in the USA was primarily fibers. Variations in debris types likely reflect different sources and waste management strategies between countries. We report some of the first findings of plastic debris in fishes directly sold for human consumption raising concerns regarding human health.

Anticipating responses to climate change and planning for resilience in California’s freshwater ecosystems

National Academy of Sciences (NAS) | July 29th, 2024

Assessing the Impact of Periodic Dredging on Macroinvertebrate Prey Availability for Benthic Foraging Fishes

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | July 1st, 2017

Due to its importance for special status fish, the San Francisco Bay (SFB) estuary has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery

Due to its importance for special status fish, the San Francisco Bay (SFB) estuary has been designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ([MSA; 16 U.S.C. 18559b)]. Within this estuary, benthic macroinvertebrate communities provide important prey resources for many economically significant fish species that rely on EFH. Periodic maintenance dredging can impact these infaunal communities; however, there is a lack of scientific information specific to SFB on the degree of benthic community disruption caused by dredging. In addition, rates of benthic community recolonization and recovery following dredging and subsequent effects on foraging fish are unknown. For this reason, it is difficult for regulatory and resource agencies to determine the impacts of maintenance dredging. Thus, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the consortium of agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)) comprising the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy for Dredging (LTMS) effort identified a study of dredging impacts on SFB fish foraging habitat as one of their highest priorities in their 2011 Programmatic EFH Agreement. 

Bay Delta Plan Phase 2 Workshop Summary Report

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | January 1st, 2013

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Boa

The California State Water Resources Control Board (Board) is tasked with updating the 2006 Water Quality Control Plan for the Bay-Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). The Board planning activities for this process have four phases. Phase 1 focused on San Joaquin River flow requirements and southern Delta water quality objectives. The current phase (Phase 2) focuses on fish and wildlife beneficial uses. Phase 3 will focus on modifications to water rights and Phase 4 will focus on the development and implementation of flow requirements for priority Delta tributaries. Phase 2 workshops were held to conduct discussions and generate information regarding the scientific and technical basis for considering potential changes to the Bay-Delta Plan. The workshops were informal; the Board did not take any official action and there was no sworn testimony. Information provided during the workshops will augment information developed through earlier reviews and will inform the Board members and staff on what, if any, changes should be made to the Bay-Delta Plan. Three workshops were held. Full workshop agendas are provided in Appendix A. 1. Ecosystem Changes and the Low Salinity Zone, September 5–6, 2012 – including the effects of the low salinity zone on various estuarine species, the interaction of salinity with non-flow related factors, and the identification of modeling or other tools that can be used to measure and reasonably protect estuarine habitat. 2. Bay-Delta Fishery Resources, October 1–2, 2012 – including flow, cold water pool, habitat, and water project operational constraints needed to reasonably protect Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River winter-run, Central Valley late fall–run Chinook salmon, and pelagic species (including Delta smelt and longfin smelt); and the interaction of these issues with non-flow related factors. 3. Analytical Tools for Evaluating the Water Supply, Hydrodynamic, and Hydropower Effects of the Bay-Delta Plan, November 13–14, 2012 – including the CalSim II water supply model, DSM2 and RMA2 hydrodynamic models, Plexus hydropower model, and others as  applicable, together with results from applying these models to various scenarios.

Biennial Report of the Fish and Game Commission of California 1924-26

California Fish and Game Commission | June 30th, 1926

Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California for the Years 1886-1888

State of California | October 1st, 1888

Biennial Report of the State Board of Fish Commissioners of the State of California for the Years 1888-1890

State of California | October 1st, 1890

Bioaccumulation of Pollutants in California Waters: A Review of Historic Data and Assessment of Impacts on Fishing and Aquatic Life

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI) | October 24th, 2007

This report was written for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) as a step toward the development of an im

This report was written for the State Water Resources Control Board’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) as a step toward the development of an improved bioaccumulation monitoring program for California. The report provides a review of bioaccumulation monitoring data generated under three historic State Board programs (the Toxic Substances Monitoring Program, the State Mussel Watch Program, and the Coastal Fish Contamination Program) and other major bioaccumulation studies since 1970. Future monitoring will be guided by assessment questions developed for the SWAMP.  The objective of this report was to evaluate how well the historic data from the State Board programs and from other major monitoring efforts since 1970 address these questions. This exercise has provided a substantial amount of information about present and historical impacts of pollutant bioaccumulation on shing and aquatic life in California, and has also highlighted areas where improved sampling approaches can better address the assessment questions. Present concentrations of pollutants in many California water bodies are high enough to cause concern for possible effects on human health and to have a significant impact on the fishing beneficial use. Consumption advisories, 303(d) listings, and the bioaccumulation database as a whole provide three indices of the status of this impact. Consumption advisories exist for an increasing number of water bodies, but these represent only a fraction of the areas likely to need them. Lack of suitable data is a major impediment to developing advice for additional water bodies. A US E.P.A. evaluation of the 2002 303(d) List indicated that large portions of the state had not been assessed, especially rivers and coastline. Most of the lake area in the state (61%) had been assessed, and a relatively small percentage of the total area (6%) was classified as impaired. Assessment of lakes, however, has focused primarily on the largest lakes, leaving the vast majority of smaller lakes unsampled. Many of these small lakes are near population centers and are popular for shing. Bays and estuaries had been thoroughly assessed (98% of the area) and 93% of the total area was impaired. Evaluation of the most recent monitoring data (collected from 1998-2003) indicates that, for the locations sampled, 32% had low concentrations of pollutants, 42% had moderate concentrations, 18% had high concentrations, and 8% had very high concentrations (Figure 1). Concentrations in the low category are in a range where consumption is generally encouraged by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) (Klasing and Brodberg 2006). OEHHA is the agency responsible for managing health risks due to contaminated sport fish in California. Concentrations in the very high category are in a range where OEHHA discourages consumption (Klasing and Brodberg 2006). Lakes assigned to the moderate, high, or very high concentration categories were primarily affected by mercury, with PCBs also playing a lesser role.

Biological opinion and conference opinion on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 4th, 2009

Biological opinion for the California Water Fix (National Marine Fisheries Service)

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) | June 16th, 2017

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued e

Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, the Biological Opinion (Opinion) concludes that the Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of federally listed: • Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (0. tshawytscha), • Threatened Central Valley steelhead ( 0. my kiss), • Threatened Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and • Endangered Southern Resident killer whales ( Orcinus area). NMFS concludes that the Project is not likely to destroy or adversely modify the designated critical habitats of: • Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, • Central Valley steelhead, and • Southern DPS of North American green sturgeon. Southern Resident killer whales critical habitat is outside of the action area. As required by section 7 of the ESA, for the above species, NMFS has included an incidental take statement for activities within the proposed Project that do not require further analysis. The incidental take statement describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary or appropriate to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with these activities. The take statement also sets forth nondiscretionary terms and conditions, including monitoring and reporting requirements, that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) as the Federal action agency, must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Incidental take from activities that meet these terms and conditions will be exempt from the ESA’s prohibition against the take of listed species. The Project for this consultation is a “mixed programmatic action” because it approves some actions that are not subject to further section 7 consultation as well as provides programmatic review of future actions that would be authorized, at a later time. For actions that are expected to be developed in the future (mitigation/restoration, monitoring, adaptive management), take of listed species would not occur until those future actions were authorized. For other actions (construction and operations), NMFS is providing an incidental take statement with this Opinion. The enclosed Opinion is based on information provided in the Reclamation’s transmittal letter and biological assessment, correspondence and discussions between NMFS, Reclamation, and California Department of Water Resources staff, and consultants; a final proposed action issued on June 2, 2017; comments received from Reclamation; peer review reports from the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Science Program; and an extensive literature review completed by NMFS staff. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NMFS California Central Valley Office. NMFS also concurs with Reclamation’s conclusion that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect threatened Central California Coast steelhead (O. mykiss), endangered Central California Coast coho salmon (O. kisutch), or the designated critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead. Designated critical habitat for Central California Coast coho salmon is not included in the action area. NMFS reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the Project would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific Coast salmon, Coastal Pelagic species, and Pacific Coast Groundfish in the action area. We have included these EFH consultation results in Section 3 of this document. The EFH consultation itself includes Conservation Recommendations specific to the adverse effects to EFH identified during our review. Reclamation has a statutory requirement under section 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA to submit a detailed written response to NMFS within 30 days of receipt of these EFH conservation recommendations, and 10 days in advance of any final approval of the action if the response is inconsistent with any of NMFS’ EFH Conservation Recommendations. The written response must include a description of measures adopted by Reclamation for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating the impact of the Project on EFH (50 CFR § 600.920(k)). If unable to complete a final response within 30 days, Reclamation should provide an interim written response within 30 days before submitting its final response. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with our recommendations, Reclamation must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements with NMFS over the anticipated effects of the Project and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate (also referred to by NMFS as measures that "offset") such effects.