Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Fisheries Center Research Reports”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2021

A characterization of deep-sea coral and sponge communities along the California and Oregon coast using a remotely operated vehicle on the EXPRESS 2018 expedition

Deep-sea coral and sponge (DSCS) communities serve as essential fish habitats (EFH) by providing shelter and nursery habitat, increasing diversity, and increasing prey availability (Freese and Wing, 2003; Bright, 2007; Baillon et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2020). Threats to these long-lived, fragile organisms from bottom contact fishing gear, potential offshore renewable energy development, and ocean warming and acidification have increased the need for DSCS research along the U.S. West Coast (Gomez et al., 2018; Salgado et al., 2018; Yoklavich, et al., 2018; Gugliotti et al., 2019). The focus of these studies has varied from species distribution and abundance (Yoklavich and Love, 2005; Tissot et al., 2006) to developing and validating predictive distribution models (Huff et al., 2013; Rooper et al., 2017; Kreidler, 2020) to finding medicinal uses for corals and sponges (Essack et al., 2011; Shrestha et al., 2018). Due to the vast area of unexplored seafloor within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ; 200 nautical miles off the coast) and the technological requirements and expanse of deep-sea research, there is still much to learn about the distributions and biology of DSCS. This information is critical to resource managers for effective conservation and management of DSCS habitats. Protections are provided by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) designation of groundfish EFH conservation areas (EFHCA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Areas designated as EFHCA are closed to bottom trawl fishing to protect and preserve seafloor habitats. Recently the PFMC adopted Amendment 28 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (GFMP; Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2019) which modified EFHCAs by closing new areas identified as vulnerable and reopening areas deemed not vulnerable. The NMSA prohibits bottom disturbance from certain activities within areas designated as national marine sanctuaries, such as oil and gas exploration or extraction, cable laying, and other forms of seabed alteration or construction that disturb benthic communities. NOAA’s Deep-Sea Coral and Research Technology Program (DSCRTP) began a 4-yr funding initiative for the U.S. West Coast in 2017. The goals of the West Coast Deep-Sea Coral Initiative (WCDSCI) were to: 1) gather baseline information on areas subject to fishing regulation changes prior to the implementation of Amendment 28; 2) improve our understanding of known DSCS bycatch “hot spots”; and 3) explore and assess DSCS resources within NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries with emphasis on areas of sanctuary resource protection and management concerns. During the first year of the program, a research cruise was developed to survey the West Coast from Oregon to California studying the DSCS ecosystems in priority areas. The 31-day expedition (9 Oct – 8 Nov, 2018) was launched from the NOAA Ship Bell M. Shimada, beginning in Newport, OR and ending in San Diego, CA. The science team assembled for this cruise were members of the EXpanding Pacific Research and Exploration of Submerged Systems (EXPRESS) campaign, which brings together researchers from federal and nonfederal institutions to collaborate on scientific expeditions targeting the deepwater areas off California, Oregon, and Washington. EXPRESS supports researchers leveraging funding, resources, personnel, and expertise to accomplish more science than would have been possible by a single entity alone. The 2018 coastwide expedition included research partners from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), National Ocean Service (Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Research objectives for the cruise were to: 1) Collect DSCS baseline information at 10 of the EFHCA sites undergoing protection modifications by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2) Collect DSCS and fish data at previously unexplored sites within West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 3) Revisit a subset of previously surveyed sites to document if changes in DCSC have occurred over time. 4) Collect information to validate BOEM supported cross-shelf habitat suitability models for DSCS. 5) Collect samples to help in identifying (and understanding) West Coast DSCS and expand use of new technologies (ROV, AUV, and environmental DNA [eDNA]). 6) Collect water samples for coastwide eDNA, nutrient, and carbon chemistry studies.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2026

Agency approach to allocation of human capital and program composition for human-marine mammal interaction management in the United States

Introduction: Marine mammals have served important and diverse roles throughout human history. Once exploited to near extinction, many species in the United States (U.S.) have recovered dramatically under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction to administer the MMPA for cetaceans and most pinnipeds. While most take is now prohibited, NMFS still dedicates significant time and resources to protecting and conserving marine mammals. As human populations continue to grow and exploit marine environments, opportunities for human-marine mammal interactions (HMMI) have increased. Resources may fail to keep up with growing needs for conservation investments, so that many agencies struggle to adequately meet social and legal requirements. Methods: This study evaluated NMFS’ approach to addressing HMMI through a mixed-methods (semi-structured interviews, quantitative questionnaire, and facilitated workshops) expert elicitation analysis of resource allocation (i.e., staff time) and priorities of NMFS Science Center (SC) and Regional Office (RO) staff across five geographic regions to understand how employee time is allocated, the degree to which employee time allocation is aligned with self-reported job descriptions, and employee perceptions of actions or investments which would improve their ability to mitigate HMMI. Results and Discussion: SC staff reported spending more time on Biological and Administrative tasks , while RO staff allocated more time to Policy, Social science , and Outreach tasks . SC employees spent less time on Biological tasks than specified by their perceived job descriptions, suggesting resource constraints. Participants identified Biological research and monitoring as top priorities, followed by Policy tasks . Identified actions included increasing research capacity, enhancing enforcement, expanding social science expertise, and improving outreach programs. The study reveals mismatches between mandated activities and available resources, suggesting strategic reallocation or increased funding may benefit the agency in effectively addressing growing HMMI challenges.

Frontiers in Marine Science↗
USGS2014

Structure and vulnerability of Pacific Northwest tidal wetlands – A summary of wetland climate change research by the Western Ecology Division, U.S. EPA

Climate change poses a serious threat to the tidal wetlands of the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the U.S. In response to this threat, scientists at the Western Ecology Division of the U.S. EPA at and the Western Fisheries Research Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with other partners, initiated a series of studies on the structure and vulnerability of tidal wetlands to climate change. One research thrust was to evaluate community structure of PNW marshes, experimentally assess the vulnerability of marsh plants to inundation and salinity stress (as would happen with sea level rise), and evaluate the utility of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) classification system. Another research thrust was to develop tools that provide insights into possible impacts of climate change. This effort included enhancing the Sea Level Affecting Marshes Model (SLAMM) to predict the effects of sea level rise on submerged aquatic vegetation (Zostera marina) distributions, evaluating changes in river flow into coastal estuaries in response to precipitation changes, and synthesizing Pacific Coast estuary, watershed, and climate data in a downloadable tool. Because the research resulting from these efforts was published in multiple venues, we summarized them in this document. We anticipate that future research efforts by the U.S. EPA will continue with a focus on climate change impacts on a regional scale.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2012

Satellite tracking and geospatial analysis of feral swine and their habitat use in Louisiana and Mississippi

Feral swine ( Sus scrofa ) is an invasive species that was first introduced to the continental United States in the 1500s by European explorers. Also known as feral hogs or feral pigs, the animals typically weigh about 200 pounds (up to 400 pounds), have characteristic tusks up to 3 inches long, are territorial, and live in groups, except for the boars, who are solitary and typically interact with sows only to breed. They have an average litter size of 5-6 piglets and occasionally two litters per year, and because they have few natural predators, survival of their young can be nearly 100 percent. Because of the detrimental impacts of this invasive species---including rooting, damaging agricultural lands, competing for food with and destroying the habitats of native animals, and spreading diseases and parasites---many public lands implement feral swine control programs on an annual basis. This activity is not enough to control or prevent an increase in swine populations, however, because of their distribution beyond the boundaries of public lands. Currently, little is known about feral swine populations, their habitat use and movement patterns, and the resulting habitat destruction in Louisiana and Mississippi. To abate this lack of knowledge, researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center (NWRC)---in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and several large landholding companies---are using collars equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers to track feral swine in Louisiana and Mississippi to examine population movement patterns, document destruction of habitat and wildlife, and help increase and facilitate removal. The NWRC researchers are using the "Judas pig" system of attaching GPS-satellite telemetry collars to select feral swine to (1) track movement patterns on the landscape, (2) document habitat destruction and effects on native wildlife, and (3) improve removal rates. Once a collar has been attached to an individual, usually a large boar or sow, it is released and returns to its group. The group's movements and locations can then be tracked through the movement of the collared individual, the "Judas pig," allowing researchers and managers to better target removal efforts. The use of GPS telemetry will allow the NWRC researchers to monitor feral swine movements daily. The results of this research will provide natural resource managers with more information for managing and responding to the impacts of this invasive species.

Louisiana;Mississippi↗
USGS2008

Fort Collins Science Center: Fiscal Year 2007 Accomplishments

In Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) continued research vital to U.S. Department of the Interior science and management needs and associated USGS programmatic goals. FORT work also supported the science needs of other government agencies as well as private cooperators. Specifically, FORT scientific research and technical assistance focused on client and partner needs and goals in the areas of biological information management, fisheries and aquatic systems, invasive species, status and trends of biological resources, terrestrial ecosystems, and wildlife resources. In addition, FORT's 5-year strategic plan was refined to incorporate focus areas identified in the USGS strategic science plan, including ecosystem-landscape analysis, global climate change, and energy and mineral resource development. As a consequence, several science projects initiated in FY07 were either entirely new research dor amplifications of existing work. Highlights of FORT project accomplishments are described below under the USGS science program with which each task is most closely associated. The work of FORT's 6 branches (Aquatic Systems and Technology Applications, Ecosystem Dynamics, Information Science, Invasive Species Science, Policy Analysis and Science Assistance, and Species and Habitats of Federal Interest) often involves major partnerships with other agencies or cooperation with other USGS disciplines (Geology, Geography, Water Resources) and the Geospatial Information Office.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Ecosystems science: Genes to landscapes

Bountiful fisheries, healthy and resilient wildlife, flourishing forests and vibrant grasslands are coveted resources that benefit all Americans. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science supports the conservation and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife, and the landscapes they inhabit. Our biological resources—ecosystems and the wild things that live in them—are the foundation of our conservation heritage and an economic asset to current and future generations of Americans. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area, the biological research arm of the Department of the Interior (DOI), provides science to help America achieve sustainable management and conservation of its biological resources. This work is done within the broader mission of the USGS—to serve the Nation with science that advances understanding of our natural resources, informs land and water stewardship, and helps safeguard communities from natural and environmental hazards. The Ecosystems Mission Area provides research, technical assistance, and education conducted by Cooperative Research Units and Science Centers located in nearly every State. The quality of life and economic strength in America hinges on healthy ecosystems that support living things and natural processes. Ecosystem science better enables society to understand how and why ecosystems change and to guide actions that can prevent damage to, and restore and sustain ecosystems. It is through this knowledge that informed decisions are made about natural resources that can enhance our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2017

Vulnerabilities to climate change of Massachusetts animal species of greatest conservation need

Over the last decade, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has addressed the potential and actual impacts of climate change on state flora and fauna. The state’s involvement began in 2007 when, led by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) and assisted by Manomet Center for Con-servation Research, it carried out one of the first habitat vulnerability assessments in North America (Manomet, 2010). The new methods and processes that resulted were later applied to vulnerability assessments in North America and elsewhere. In 2011, the state assisted the North-eastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (NEAFWA) in organizing and leading a pio-neering three-year, thirteen-state research effort to evaluate the vulnerabilities of fish and wild-life habitats to climate change in the northeast, from Maine south to West Virginia (NEAFWA, 2012). This focus on climate change vulnerabilities led to three important early realizations: (1) simply categorizing and scoring vulnerabilities might not lead to better conservation outcomes. It was vital to also understand why some resources were more or less vulnerable to climate change in order to identify potential intervention points on which conservation actions and strategies could be based. (2) simply producing research results was not enough; these results had to be cast as specific conservation actions. Moreover (3), these actions needed to be communicated in a useful form to conservation “actors”, such as state agencies, land trusts, land managers, etc. These real-izations led to the next step on the Commonwealth’s journey to effective conservation in an age of climate change - the Massachusetts Wildlife Climate Action Tool (CAT).

Report↗
USGS2026

Fisheries research and monitoring activities of the Lake Erie Biological Station, 2025

Lake Erie has the most populated watershed of all the Great Lakes and has undergone dramatic anthropogenic changes. Since the 1800s, overexploitation of fish populations, habitat destruction, non-native species proliferation, industrial contamination, and changes in nutrient loading have impacted the fish community including declines in or extirpation of many native species (Regier et al. 1969, Hartman 1973; Leach & Nepszy 1976; Ludsin et al. 2001). Implementation of the Clean Water Act and Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in the 1970s improved habitat conditions (Reutter 2019), which contributed to several strong percid year-classes (Vandergoot et al. 2019). These strong year-classes also benefited from more restrictive management practices that reduced harvest, ultimately rehabilitating Lake Erie percid stocks (Kayle et al. 2015, STC 2020). Historically, Lake Erie supported a cool water fish community dominated by percids and salmonids. Recently updated FCOs set forth a vision that “Lake Erie will consist of diverse fish communities that support ongoing societal benefits, including thriving commercial and recreational fisheries, improved fish habitat and desirable ecosystem performance, and reduced adverse impacts from invasive fish” (Francis et al. 2020). Today, mixed fisheries resulting from seasonally changing cool and warm water habitats have developed in Lake Erie, and the new FCOs reflect a desire to manage both predator and prey fish communities within them. Although Lake Erie management agencies have traditionally focused on numerical indices of a few economically important species, aquatic ecosystem models are typically evaluated in terms of entire fish community biomass. As a result, our understanding of fish community structure and ecosystem dynamics from biomass-based models has been limited to short-term investigations and proxy measurements (e.g., length-weight conversion; FTG 2020). Therefore, many Lake Erie fish community databases are now incorporating biomass-based measurements. In response, USGS revised the Lake Erie trawl program to provide biomass-based measurements for all encountered species (Table 1). The survey design change occurred in 2012, coincident with commissioning of a new research vessel and a change in bottom trawl gear. These modifications already altered the existing time series; therefore, the survey design was also expanded to include greater spatial coverage and increased sample size generating a new time series. The purpose of this report is to develop a comprehensive understanding of the long-term changes and fish community dynamics including population dynamics of key fishes of interest to management agencies, such as native percids and their prey. Here, we summarize survey results for the most recent series of West Basin trawl data from 2013 through 2025. Note that a detailed description of the sampling process along with traditional numericallybased catch data (e.g., fish/ha) for individual species can be downloaded online (DuFour et al. 2026) or obtained for earlier years (https://doi.org/10.5066/F75M63X0; U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center 2019).

western Lake Erie↗
USGS2002

Measurement error associated with surveys of fish abundance in Lake Michigan

In fisheries, imprecise measurements in catch data from surveys add uncertainty to the results of fishery stock assessments. The USGS Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC) began to survey the fall fish community of Lake Michigan in 1962 with bottom trawls. The measurement error was evaluated at the level of individual tows for nine fish species collected in this survey by applying a measurementerror regression model to replicated trawl data. It was found that the estimates of measurement-error variance ranged from 0.37 (deepwater sculpin, Myoxocephalus thompsoni ) to 1.23 (alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus ) on a logarithmic scale corresponding to a coefficient of variation = 66 to 156%. The estimates appeared to increase with the range of temperature occupied by the fish species. This association may be a result of the variability in the fall thermal structure of the lake. The estimates may also be influenced by other factors, such as pelagic behavior and schooling. Measurement error might be reduced by surveying the fish community during other seasons and/or by using additional technologies, such as acoustics. Measurement-error estimates should be considered when interpreting results of assessments that use abundance information from USGS-GLSC surveys of Lake Michigan and could be used if the survey design was altered. This study is the first to report estimates of measurement-error variance associated with this survey.

Lake Michigan↗
USGS2012

Apalachicola Bay interpreted seismic horizons and updated IRIS chirp seismic-reflection data

Apalachicola Bay and St. George Sound contain the largest oyster fishery in Florida, and the growth and distribution of the numerous oyster reefs here are the combined product of modern estuarine conditions and the late Holocene evolution of the bay. A suite of geophysical data and cores were collected during a cooperative study by the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, and the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve to refine the geology of the bay floor as well as the bay's Holocene stratigraphy. Sidescan-sonar imagery, bathymetry, high-resolution seismic profiles, and cores show that oyster reefs occupy the crests of sandy shoals that range from 1 to 7 kilometers in length, while most of the remainder of the bay floor is covered by mud. The sandy shoals are the surficial expression of broader sand deposits associated with deltas that advanced southward into the bay between 6,400 and 4,400 years before present. The seismic and core data indicate that the extent of oyster reefs was greatest between 2,400 and 1,200 years before present and has decreased since then due to the continued input of mud to the bay by the Apalachicola River. The association of oyster reefs with the middle to late Holocene sandy delta deposits indicates that the present distribution of oyster beds is controlled in part by the geologic evolution of the estuary.

Florida↗
USGS2012

A standard operating procedure for the surgical implantation of transmitters in juvenile salmonids

Biotelemetry is a useful tool to monitor the movements of animals and is widely applied in fisheries research. Radio or acoustic technology can be used, depending on the study design and the environmental conditions in the study area. A broad definition of telemetry also includes the use of Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, either separately or with a radio or acoustic transmitter. To use telemetry, fish must be equipped with a transmitter. Although there are several attachment procedures available, surgical implantation of transmitters in the abdominal cavity is recognized as the best technique for long-term telemetry studies in general (Stasko and Pincock, 1977; Winter, 1996; Jepsen, 2003), and specifically for juvenile salmonids, Oncorhynchus spp. (Adams and others, 1998a, 1998b; Martinelli and others, 1998; Hall and others, 2009). Studies that use telemetry assume that the processes by which the animals are captured, handled, and tagged, as well as the act of carrying the transmitter, will have minimal effect on their behavior and performance. This assumption, commonly stated as a lack of transmitter effects, must be valid if telemetry studies are to describe accurately the movements and behavior of an entire population of interest, rather than the subset of that population that carries transmitters. This document describes a standard operating procedure (SOP) for surgical implantation of radio or acoustic transmitters in juvenile salmonids. The procedures were developed from a broad base of published information, laboratory experiments, and practical experience in tagging thousands of fish for numerous studies of juvenile salmon movements near Columbia River and Snake River hydroelectric dams. Staff from the Western Fisheries Research Center's Columbia River Research Laboratory (CRRL) frequently have used telemetry studies to evaluate new structures or operations at hydroelectric dams in the Columbia River Basin, and these evaluations typically require large numbers of tagged fish. For example, a study conducted at the dams on the Columbia River and funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers required tagging and monitoring of 40,000 juvenile salmon during a 3-month migration period (Counihan and others, 2006a, 2006b; Perry and others, 2006). To meet the demands of such a large study, the authors and CRRL staff refined the SOP to increase efficiency in the tagging process while maintaining high standards of fish care. The SOP has been used in laboratory and field settings for more than 15 years, and consistently has produced low mortality rates (<1 percent) and transmitter loss rates (<0.01 percent) in the 24-36 hours after tagging. In addition to describing the detailed surgical procedures required for transmitter implantation, this document provides guidance on fish collection, handling and holding, and the release of tagged fish. Although often overlooked, or at least underemphasized, these processes can have a large impact on the outcome of the tagging procedure. Stress associated with the individual steps in handling and tagging can be cumulative and lethal (Maule and others, 1988; Wedemeyer and others, 1990; Portz and others, 2006), so the goal is to provide the best possible fish care at every step in order to manage the overall effect on study fish.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Seasonal and spatial distribution patterns of finfish and selected invertebrates in coastal lagoons of northeastern Florida, 2002-2004

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a survey of juvenile fisheries resources, in cooperation with the St. Johns River Water Management District and Volusia County, to establish baseline data on spatial and temporal distribution patterns of estuarine fish. The survey was conducted from November 2001 to March 2005 and the baseline data established for the survey in the Northern Coastal Basins were collected from January 2002 to December 2004. The study area included the bar-built estuaries ranging from just north of St. Augustine, Florida, south to Ponce de Leon Inlet. Sampling protocols developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute for their statewide Fisheries Independent Monitoring (FIM) program were replicated to allow for comparability with FIM program results. Samples were collected monthly from randomly selected stations based on a geographically stratified design. Finfish and selected invertebrates were collected using a 21.3-meter center-bag seine with a 3-millimeter mesh, and a 6.1-meter otter trawl with a 3-millimeter mesh liner. Total estimated fish and selected invertebrate densities were similar to estimates from FIM projects in adjacent areas and were characterized by similar dominant species. Preliminary analysis indicates that observed species distribution patterns were mainly a function of proximity to the three inlets within the study area. The two regions encompassing the northern Tolomato River and the Tomoka River and Basin are farthest from inlets and appear to function as oligohaline nursery areas. Those two areas had the greatest estimated densities of shellfish and juvenile sciaenid (drum) species associated with oligohaline waters (for example, Micropogonias undulatus, Sciaenops ocellatus and Cynoscion nebulosus). Samples near inlets, and between the two northern inlets, had greater estimated densities of species limited to euhaline waters, including juvenile clupeids collected at relatively high abundance and species of marine strays collected in low abundance. Based on correspondence analysis, seasonal variation dominated the ordination of seine samples and spatial variation dominated the ordination of trawl samples; this was due to differences in the number and timing of taxa found near inlets versus oligohaline regions. The absence of seagrass habitat in the Northern Coastal Basins is reflected by the absence of a seagrass-fish assemblage.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1989

Assessing the relationship between Section 404 and wetland losses: a feasibility study

The primary objective of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251) is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 404 of the Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands and represents the primary Federal authority for regulation of wetland alterations. Since its inception, the Section 404 program has been controversial in regard to the extent to which it was intended to provide wetlands regulation. Section 404 requires those who wish to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include many wetlands, to first obtain a Federal permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overall responsibility for administration of the Section 404 program and promulgates guidelines that must be followed in issuing permits. In addition, EPA has the final authority to prohibit specific discharges if the environmental impacts are unacceptable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues Section 404 permits, which can be of two types. Individual Permits are issued following case-by-case reviews of proposed discharges. General Permits, which can be either nationwide or regional in scope, are authorized by the Corps for categories of activities that are similar in nature and that have only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts. EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and State natural resource agencies review and comment on permit applications and offer recommendations on appropriate mitigation measures. Although comments from the Service and other natural resource agencies are advisory in nature (EPA's veto authority excepted), they can serve as the basis for modifying, conditioning, or denying a Section 404 permit. In 1986, in a survey conducted by the National Ecology Research Center, Service personnel indicated interest in additional information concerning both wetland trends and the impacts of activities authorized by the Corps under Section 404 (Roelle 1986). Although there is some information concerning wetland losses for certain geographic areas and for the Nation as a whole (Frayer et al. 1983; Tiner 1984), there appears to be little information on how these losses relate to the Section 404 permitting process. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of estimating wetland losses in relationship to Individual and General Permits issued under Section 404. A secondary objective was to assemble data on acceptance and implementation of specific mitigation recommendations offered by the Service and other natural resource agencies in connection with development activities on wetlands examined. At present, 26 categories of Nationwide permits have been authorized by the Corps. Nationwide permit 26 was of particular interest in this study because it specifically authorizes discharges into wetlands under certain circumstances (see Figure 1 and related text for a more complete discussion of circumstances under which Nationwide Permit 26 is applicable). All subsequent references to Nationwide or General permits pertain to Nationwide Permit 26.

Report↗
USGS2020

Impacts of periodic dredging on macroinvertebrate prey availability for benthic foraging fishes in central San Francisco Bay, California

Background Because of its importance for species covered under Federal Fishery Management Plans (FMPs), 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 United States Code §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 benthic communities; however, there is a lack of scientific information specific to SFB regarding dredging effects on macroinvertebrates in fish foraging areas. 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 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], U.S. Army Corp of Engineers [USACE], San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board [SFRWQCB], and San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC]) that make up the San Francisco Bay Long Term Management Strategy for Dredging (LTMS) identified a study of dredging impacts on SFB fish foraging habitat as one of their highest priorities in their 2011 Programmatic EFH Agreement (U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011). The LTMS agencies identified the region of interest as shallow (<13 feet [<4 meters (m)] mean lower low water [MLLW]), soft-bottom (silt/clay soil texture) areas in the Central Bay of SFB that were periodically dredged (every 1–3 years). Fish species of interest were compiled by NMFS and included those managed by the Pacific Groundfish, Pacific Salmon, and Coastal Pelagic FMPs (pursuant to the MSA) as well as those listed under the California State or Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. §1531–1544) as threatened or endangered. Target species included leopard shark ( Triakis semifasciata ), big skate ( Raja binoculata ), English sole ( Parophrys vetulus ), starry flounder ( Platichthys stellatus) , brown rockfish ( Sebastes auriculatus ), green sturgeon ( Acipenser medirostris ; threatened species under Federal ESA), northern anchovy ( Engraulis mordax ), longfin smelt ( Spirinchus thaleichthys, threatened under California ESA), and Pacific sardine ( Sardinops sagax ). In addition, Dungeness crab ( Cancer magister ), California halibut ( Paralichthys californicus ), and white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ) also were included because they are substantial contributors to the California State fishery. To address LTMS priorities, U.S. Geological Survey, Western Ecological Research Center, San Francisco Bay Estuary Field Station (hereafter USGS) conducted a multi-phased project including an initial literature review, study design, pilot study, and implementation of a full study. The overarching goal was to assess the effects of periodic dredge operations (every 1–3 years) on benthic habitat for foraging fish in the Central Bay, with emphasis on the foraging requirements of target fish species and analyses of benthic macroinvertebrates in dredged areas compared to adjacent undredged reference areas. The USGS partnered with University of California, Davis, fisheries expert James Hobbs to synthesize existing knowledge of fish foraging ecology and review benthic infauna community composition in SFB with a focus on the Central Bay. The literature review (Phase I; De La Cruz and others, 2016) addressed key questions identified by the LTMS on benthic foraging fish in the study area, including the following: (1) What are target fish eating? (2) What are the seasonal differences in prey items and macroinvertebrate assemblages? (3) What are the annual differences in prey items and macroinvertebrate assemblages? (4) What are the predominant macroinvertebrate functional groups from the perspective of fish foraging? Phase II consisted of creating a framework for a functional assessment of maintenance dredging effects on foraging fish and drafting a full study design (De La Cruz and others, 2017), which was then tested in the Phase III pilot study. The Phase IV full study incorporated lessons learned from the pilot study. Here we focus on the results of the full study and implications for benthic foraging fishes.

California↗
USGS2001

Biology and conservation of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia: Vol. 1, Natural history and population trends

Over the past 30 years, the common murre ( Uria aalge californica ) has been recognized as a prominent indicator of marine conservation issues in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, especially regarding oil pollution, certain fisheries, and human disturbance. To assist the effective management of the common murre and the marine environments in which they live, this summary of available information on the biology and regional status of the common murre has been sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Division of Migratory Bird Management). In Volume 1 (Chapter 1), the natural history of the common murre is summarized, drawing heavily on breeding studies from the South Farallon Islands, California, plus a host of detailed breeding studies from the North Atlantic Ocean. Population trends of the common murre are summarized in Volume 1 (Chapter 2), focusing on changes in whole-colony counts determined from aerial photographs between the late 1970s and 1995 in California, Oregon and Washington. Historical data and human impacts to murre colonies since the early nineteenth century are also summarized. Volume 2 will summarize population threats, conservation, and management. Information presented in Volume 1 has been obtained and recorded by a large number of researchers and natural historians over two centuries. From the 1960s to 1995, most work in California, Oregon, and Washington was sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. Important breeding biology studies were conducted at the South Farallon Islands (Farallon National Wildlife Refuge) by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge). Colony surveys in California were conducted mainly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge), U.S. Geological Survey (Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station), Humboldt State University, and University of California (Santa Cruz). Colony surveys in Oregon and Washington were conducted mainly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge and Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuges). In British Columbia, most work from the 1960s to 1995 was sponsored and conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Royal British Columbia Museum.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2013

Seventy-five years of science—The U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Fisheries Research Center

As of January 2010, 75 years have elapsed since Dr. Frederic Fish initiated the pioneering research program that would evolve into today’s Western Fisheries Research Center (WFRC). Fish began his research working alone in the basement of the recently opened Fisheries Biological Laboratory on Lake Union in Seattle, Washington. WFRC’s research began under the aegis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and ends its first 75 years as part of the U.S. Geological Survey with a staff of more than 150 biologists and support personnel and a heritage of fundamental research that has made important contributions to our understanding of the biology and ecology of the economically important fish and fish populations of the Nation. Although the current staff may rarely stop to think about it, WFRC’s antecedents extend many years into the past and are intimately involved with the history of fisheries conservation in the Western United States. Thus, WFRC Director Lyman Thorsteinson asked me to write the story of this laboratory “while there are still a few of you around who were here for some of the earlier years” to document the rich history and culture of WFRC by recognizing its many famous scientists and their achievements. This historyalso would help document WFRC’s research ‘footprint’ in the Western United States and its strategic directions. Center Director Thorsteinson concluded that WFRC’s heritage told by an emeritus scientist also would add a texture of legitimacy based on personal knowledge that will all-to-soon be lost to the WFRC and to the USGS. The WFRC story is important for the future as well as for historical reasons. It describes how we got to the place we are today by documenting the origin, original mission, and our evolving role in response to the constantly changing technical information requirements of new environmental legislation and organizational decision-making. The WFRC research program owes its existence to the policy requirements of Federal conservation legislation originating with the construction of Grand Coulee Dam in 1933. The research program was shaped by laws enacted in subsequent years such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), National Environmental Policy Act (1973), Endangered Species Act (1974), and Northwest Power Planning Act (1980), to name only a few. The WFRC has not been constrained by direct management or regulatory responsibility for a particular fishery (such as providing sustainable catch limits data to a resource management structure). Thus, WFRC has been able to concentrate on scientific pursuits and information needs required by contemporary environmental legislation. Over the years, we have pioneered in several important areas of fisheries research including the diagnoses and control of diseases in economically important fish, effects of environmental alterations on the physiological quality and survival of Pacific salmon released from federal mitigation hatcheries, applications in biotelemetry, and the bioenergetics of predator-prey interactions in the Columbia River. The WFRC of today is a widely distributed organization in the Western United States. Knowledge of the historical connections and accomplishments of our predecessors is important beyond the sense of pride and unity it instills in the WFRC family of today. For example, a discerning reader will note the evolution of WFRC’s research from a single disciplinary focus (early era—hatchery disease problems), to multiple disciplines (middle to late era—species, populations, habitats; threatened and endangered species), to the present era (multidisciplinary and with increasing process focus). For the benefit of the current WFRC staff, more emphasis has been placed on the early years rather than on the present day because people are quite naturally more familiar with the recent past than with the research done during the first decades of WFRC’s existence. By every rational measure, the WFRC has evolved into a fisheries research organization well positioned to provide the biological information needed to support the continued conservation and management of our Nation’s living aquatic natural resources. The high standard of excellence that connects WFRC’s past to our present research program provides a firm foundation on which to base the work yet to be done. In another 75 years, WFRC will undoubtedly be a very different place than it is today, but its evolution will be forever rooted in the story of the research and of the people related here. More about the diverse fisheries research projects WFRC scientists are conducting today is available at WFRC’s website: http://wfrc.usgs.gov/.

Washington↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes spatial priorities study

Spatial data about the bathymetry, habitat characteristics, underlying geology, and other features of the ocean and inland seas are essential for decision-making. Marine research and management organizations use these data to help ensure safe navigation, promote sustainable fisheries, extract energy, and protect marine habitats in the coastal and ocean waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Laurentian Great Lakes. Many of these organizations may have overlapping or shared mapping interests without knowing it. In a multi-jurisdictional planning environment, it can be challenging and cumbersome to determine where other entities have shared or overlapping mapping interests, especially across a transnational region such as the Great Lakes. State and provincial governments, federal governments, academia, tribes and First Nations, and other stakeholders from both the U.S. and Canada all have mapping interests across Great Lakes waters. Identifying and communicating target geographies for new data collection that are shared among multiple organizations can both help to avoid redundancy of new mapping efforts, and create opportunities for greater efficiency through collaboration. To address this issue, a spatial priorities study was conducted using a geospatial tool developed by the National Ocean Services National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science (NCCOS). The tool provided an easy-to-use online interface in which programs can identify their priorities in a simple and straightforward way. This study asked representatives of Great Lakes management and science organizations to identify the areas for which they needed maps of lakebed features on a near-term, mid-term, and long-term timeframe, and why. Then, the responses were analyzed and overlaid to determine areas of shared mapping need and opportunity and to determine the types of map products needed. The analysis revealed high interest among multiple organizations in discrete geographies including the Minnesota and Wisconsin shoreline from Duluth to the eastern extent of the Bayfield Peninsula, Green Bay in Lake Michigan, and the southern coastlines of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the St. Marys River, and the northern Lake Superior coastal waters near Grand Portage, MN. Lower priority mapping interest were distributed widely across all lakes, but tended to be concentrated in nearshore areas (<30 m depth). The analysis also indicated that the top mapping justifications were Habitat/biota/natural area, Benthic exploration, Commercial and recreational fishing, and Scientific research. The top desired map product types were Elevation, Substrate/sub-bottom geologic characterization, and Habitat map/characterization, although participants on some lakes noted other less prevalent product types. Following from previously conducted NOAA and non-NOAA Federal spatial prioritization exercises, the results of this regional focus can help mapping organizations better understand how their priorities align with the needs of regional organizations, allow for more efficient coordination and funding, and enable partners to leverage assets and resources to fill their most pressing data and information gaps across Great Lakes waters. The U.S. Mapping Coordination Site hosts the results of this study and other spatial prioritization studies. Through this website, one can interact with the study results along with recent and planned mapping efforts. NOAA intends to update their spatial priorities on a three- to five-year basis. Future studies should strive to expand participation of federal agencies, state and local governments, federally-recognized tribes, academia, and private industry (among other stakeholders) to seek out ocean mapping partnerships in conjunction with the National Ocean Mapping, Exploration and Characterization (NOMEC) goals map once, use many times.”

Great Lakes↗