Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Reviews of Aquatic Sciences”

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.

94 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2017

Guidance documents: Continued support to improve operations of fish hatcheries and field sites to reduce the impact or prevent establishment of New Zealand Mudsnails and other invasive mollusks

This project tested and revised a risk assessment/management tool authored by Moffitt and Stockton designed to provide hatchery biologists and others a structure to measure risk and provide tools to control, prevent or eliminate invasive New Zealand mudsnails (NZMS) and other invasive mollusks in fish hatcheries and hatchery operations. The document has two parts: the risk assessment tool, and an appendix that summarizes options for control or management. The framework of the guidance document for risk assessment/hatchery tool combines approaches used by the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) process with those developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in the Tri-National Risk Assessment Guidelines for Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. The framework approach for this attached first document assesses risk potential with two activities: probability of infestation and consequences of infestation. Each activity is treated equally to determine the risk potential. These two activities are divided into seven basic elements that utilize scientific, technical, and other relevant information in the process of the risk assessment. To determine the probability of infestation four steps are used that have scores reported or determined and averaged. This assessment follows a familiar HACCP process to assess pathways of entry, entry potential, colonization potential, spread potential. The economic, environmental and social consequences are considered as economic impact, environmental impact, and social and cultural influences. To test this document, the Principal Investigator worked to identify interested hatchery managers through contacts at regional aquaculture meetings, fish health meetings, and through the network of invasive species managers and scientists participating in the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and the 100th Meridian Initiative's Columbia River Basin Team, and the Western New Zealand Mudsnail Conference in Seattle. Targeted hatchery workshops were conducted with staff at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex (ID), Similkameen Pond, Oroville WA, and Ringold Springs State Hatchery (WA). As a result of communications with hatchery staff, invasive species managers, and on site assessments of hatchery facilities, the document was modified and enhanced. Additional resources were added to keep it up to date. The result is a more simplified tool that can lead hatchery or management personnel through the process of risk assessment and provide an introduction to the risk management and communication process. In addition to the typical HACCP processes, this tool adds steps to rate and consider uncertainty and the weight of evidence regarding options and monitoring results . Uncertainty of outcome exists in most tools that can be used to control or prevent NZMS or other invasive mollusks from infesting an area. In additional this document emphasizes that specific control tools and plans must be tailored to each specific setting to consider the economic, environmental and social influences. From the testing and evaluation process, there was a strong recognition that a number of control and prevention tools previously suggested and reported in the literature from laboratory and small scale trials may not be compatible with regional and national regulations, economic constraints, social or cultural constraints, engineering or water chemistry characteristics of each facility. The options for control are summarized in the second document, Review of Control Measures for Hatcheries Infested with NZMS (Appendix A) that provides sources for additional resources and specific tools, and guidance regarding the feasibility and success of each approach. This tool also emphasizes that management plans need to be adaptive and incorporate oversight from professionals familiar with measuring risks of fish diseases, and treatments (e.g. the fish health practitioners and water quality and effluent management teams). Finally, with such a team, the adaptive management approach must be ongoing, and become a regular component of hatchery operations. Although it was the intent that this two part document would be included as part of the revised National Management and Control Plan for the NZMS proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and others, it is provided as a stand-alone document.

Cooperator Science Series↗
USGS2026

Small creatures, big challenge: A review of current knowledge and assessment of research needs to inform water withdrawal management for the Duck River's freshwater mussel fauna

The Duck River is a remarkable national resource, boasting outstanding biodiversity (Ahlstedt et al. 2017). It contains 151 fish species, over 60 mussel species, and 22 snail species, many of which are federally listed (Etnier and Starnes 1993; Johnson et al. 2013; Ahlstedt et al. 2017; Womble and Rosenberger 2025a). The Duck River watershed is at a pivotal time in its management and ecological history due to significant growth in human population and economic activity. The consequent increase in surface water demand presents challenges for sustainable water resource management. The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) has permitted or proposed to permit eight water utilities to withdraw over 77 million gallons per day (mgd) from the Duck River, representing > 40% increase from previously permitted amounts (USFWS 2025). On November 20, 2024, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed Executive Order No 108 to ensure long-term stability of the Duck River watershed through balancing economic growth, water resource management, and environmental conservation. Some primary components of this plan are the creation of a Comprehensive Regional Drought Management Plan, the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan, and the establishment of the Duck River Watershed Planning Partnership (DRWPP). Although the planning partnership is not focused on a sole aspect of the Duck River, but the watershed as a whole, the mussel assemblages of the Duck River have been a particular focus due to their importance in providing ecosystem services, sensitivity to water quality, conservation status, and sensitivity to periodic drought conditions in this system. With multiple state and federal agencies involved in managing the Duck River’s unique water resources, a focused review on how future water management could affect the freshwater mussel communities in the Duck River will contribute to this process. Our objectives of this review are to: 1. Review the effects of changing flow regimes on mussels, with emphasis on the effect of droughts/low flows, highlighting key processes/factors affecting mussels. 2. Highlight critical data gaps that could allow future, evidence-based water management decisions in this system. 3. Propose research topics to address critical data gaps and enable evidence-based water management decisions that consider the needs of freshwater mussels. Freshwater mussels are a critical component of riverine ecosystems, providing ecosystem services including water filtration, nutrient cycling, and habitat provision (Vaughn et al. 2004; Haag 2012) that benefit human communities. Environmental flows, also referred to as ecological or e-flows, refer to the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows necessary to maintain the ecological health of rivers, wetlands, and other aquatic ecosystems (Acreman and Dunbar 2004; Acreman 2016). For freshwater mussels, environmental flows include maintaining a flow regime and associated water quality regimes that are favorable for both juveniles and adults while also seasonally supporting host fish and the survival of settling glochidia (i.e., larval mussels) in suitable environments (Gates et al. 2015). Freshwater mussels are adapted to the natural flow regime of their native streams, including seasonal variability in flows. As sedentary filter feeders, mussels require adequate water flow to provide oxygen and food (Allen and Vaughn 2009); however, they also require periods of low flow to increase access to fish hosts and to ensure juveniles are not displaced (Gates et al 2015). Mussels are sensitive to water quality conditions, including pollutants, sedimentation, and artificial alterations of temperature and pH (Strayer and Malcom 2012). Mussel community characteristics, including presence, abundance, and species richness, generally increase with stream size (e.g., stream order); however, responses to changes in flow conditions are often species-specific, and the magnitude and timing of extreme flow conditions have more predictive power for mussel community response than general changes in flow (Lopez and Vaughn 2021). Complex hydraulic variables, such as relative shear stress and Reynolds number, can be strong predictors of mussel community responses because they combine simple hydraulic variables (e.g., velocity, depth) with stream channel characteristics, such as substrate composition and dynamics. Droughts directly and indirectly affect mussels by influencing their physiology, behavior, reproduction, and ecosystem roles. Mass mussel die-offs during droughts and low water conditions are widely documented (Vaughn et al. 2015; Sousa et al. 2018; Dubose et al. 2019). Droughts can also lead to a shift in mussel community composition, with drought-tolerant species becoming more dominant while more sensitive species experience declines (Galbraith et al, 2010; Lopez et al. 2022; Vaughn and Atkinson 2025). Droughts affect mussels through direct mortality from stranding as well as physiological stress from altered water temperature and quality, reduced habitat and food availability and quality, increased predation and competition, disruption of reproductive cycles, and increased susceptibility to disease and pathogens. Although the effects of droughts, water withdrawals, and low flow conditions on mussels are an increasing area of study, there is a general paucity of data-driven consensus regarding optimal mitigation approaches and strategies (Cushway et al. 2024). Long-term management decisions regarding water withdrawals, particularly during extended or multi-year drought conditions, may consider factors beyond direct mortality such as the sublethal effects of drought and low flow conditions on freshwater mussels for a comprehensive understanding of the effects of prolonged low flows on freshwater mussels and aquatic communities.

Tennessee↗
USGS2024

Analysis and review of fishery-dependent data for Hawaiian nearshore noncommercial fisheries

Noncommercial, shore-based fisheries provide economic, social, and cultural services to communities throughout the Hawaiian Islands. The State of Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) routinely conducts surveys to monitor noncommercial fisheries such that estimates of fishing effort and catch by gear type can be generated and used to implement more sustainable management practices. DAR executes both the Hawai‘i Marine Recreational Fishery Survey (HMRFS), a nationally standardized survey that focuses on intercepting fishers at access points (i.e., boat ramps) across the main Hawaiian Islands, and a set of roving creel surveys on O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i that observe and intercept fishers at locations along the shoreline outside of those targeted by HMRFS. The latter set of creel surveys were designed to complement HMRFS by expanding its geographic coverage and thus providing a more representative picture of noncommercial fishing in Hawai‘i. Sustainable management priorities set by DAR rely on the availability of statewide, fishery- dependent data. Thus, we collate information from island-based roving creel surveys into a cohesive Statewide Creel Survey Database. Further, we provide preliminary analyses and describe ways that surveys could be streamlined to improve future data collection, analysis, and utility. In so doing, we synthesize the most detailed information to-date about noncommercial shore-based fisheries of Hawai‘i. The unprecedented spatial and temporal coverage of DAR’s dataset reveals the value of their survey efforts over the last decade to address fishery management needs. Our primary objectives, results, and conclusions are summarized below: 1) Integrate DAR roving creel survey data from different islands into a single Statewide Creel Survey Dataset (Chapter II). We describe the collation of creel survey data from O‘ahu, Maui Nui, and Kaua‘i into a statewide dataset. We also offer ways in which these surveys could be streamlined to meet the needs of managers and decision makers. Briefly, these are to create a statewide strategic plan, standardize the execution of standard operating procedures, centralize the creel survey database and associated metadata, and consider using technology that improves the data pipeline, including transitioning from paper-based to electronic systems for data entry and processing. 2) Assess whether the new Statewide Creel Survey Dataset can provide inputs for length-based stock assessments (Chapter III). Only on Maui were interviews conducted with associated catch data. There was reasonably high taxonomic coverage (42 species from 186 interviews with 310 fishers), but low sample sizes for nearly all species precluded the development of length-based stock assessments. We provide summary statistics from the existing data and briefly discuss how technologies could be used to automate analysis of images of noncommercial catch. 3) Analyze the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset for spatial and temporal patterns in fishing effort (Chapter IV): a. Visualizing noncommercial fishing pressure . We found that fishing effort (mean number of fishers observed per survey event at a site) on O'ahu was over three times greater than that recorded during similar surveys conducted on Maui or Kaua'i. We create maps that display the distribution of angling and spearfishing effort around each of the three islands. b. Factors that predict fishing “hotspots” around Maui . Fishing effort on Maui was associated with areas with more wave power and less parking availability. There were half as many fishers in areas with parking lots than in areas with parking on the road shoulder only. c. Changes in fishing effort during the COVID-19 pandemic . There was no change in fishing effort on O‘ahu during the first year of the pandemic, but there was a 20% decline in year 2 and a 33% decline in year 3, both in comparison to pre-pandemic levels. Pre-pandemic creel survey data were unavailable for Maui and Kaua‘i, but fishing effort on these islands also declined as the pandemic progressed at similar or greater rates than those observed on O‘ahu. 4) Quantify potential bias in survey methods by experimentally deriving fisher detection probabilities of shore-based and drone-based surveys (Chapter V): a. Shore-based surveys . We conducted roving creel surveys for four months at three locations around Hilo Bay, designed to emulate and estimate the efficacy of DAR standard operating procedures. There was high agreement between paired observers in counting fishers, leading to near-perfect detection probabilities of both anglers (94%) and spearfishers (97%), but relatively low agreement and detection probabilities of other fishers (throw net, ‘opihi picking, etc.) (52%). b. Drone-based surveys . We used an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV; operated by DAR staff) to collect imagery of fishers along the Hilo Bay shoreline. We used still images and video clips (with known fishing activity) to build an online survey that was distributed to DAR and HCFRU personnel, asking them to count and categorize resource users as a snorkeler, spearfisher, angler, or other fisher. Only 40.0% of the responses correctly counted and categorized resource users in the image. Anglers were correctly identified and enumerated in 90.0% of the responses, but the correct response rates of the other three user categories ranged from 67.8% – 79.4%. Snorkelers and anglers tended to be undercounted while spearfishers and other fishers were overcounted. 5) Review the potential for incorporating emerging technologies that will improve, augment, and evolve creel survey data collection, especially for spearfishing (Chapter VI). Within the context of monitoring shore-based noncommercial fishing, we review the use of electronic data entry/processing systems with geospatial and image capabilities, field cameras, drones, smart buoys, citizen science apps, data mining social media, artificial intelligence and machine learning. We highlight several of the challenges and considerations when implementing these technologies into creel surveys and provide a synthesis of options that could be used to better estimate spearfishing. The general conclusion of this assessment is that the DAR roving creel survey program is collecting valuable data that supplement the existing HMRFS efforts. However, there are a number of areas that could be improved to make these efforts a more effective tool for decision-making processes in resource management and conservation: 1) Establishment of clear statewide and island objectives for the Statewide Creel Survey Dataset. Currently, data collection efforts are focused towards addressing a very broad purpose – supplementing the HMRFS data collection efforts. However, the results of the preliminary analyses conducted as part of this project suggest that the data could be used to address other areas of need if these objectives were clearly defined. Further, the design of the creel survey would benefit from greater standardization of survey protocols between islands and an effort to define a) the acceptable margins of error associated with the estimates generated by these data and b) the minimum level of change that the surveys would need to detect to be useful to managers. 2) Centralization of data entry, data quality assessment, and data accessibility. Currently, each DAR office manages data entry, checks the data for errors, and is responsible for managing and storing the data. Instituting a centralized data entry system, particularly an online database that can receive survey data from tablets or smartphones running a standardized data collection application would improve efficiency, reduce data entry errors, and accelerate the availability of data to managers. A substantial amount of time and effort from the project described in this report was devoted to checking the dataset for errors. The development and application of data quality assurance protocols would ensure that the data are reliable and available in a timely fashion to support management decisions. 3) Address lingering questions regarding the efficacy of current survey protocols to capture and characterize the spearfishing component of the noncommercial fishery. The results presented in the report suggest that the current creel survey protocols do a good job detecting spearfishers when present but are not capturing sufficient data about their catch or total effort. There are also questions remaining as to whether the survey times and sites are sufficiently capturing the behavior of spearfishers in Hawai‘i. A more thorough assessment – whether through additional research, alteration of survey design, or review of data by representatives of the spearfishing community – would provide insight on how to use the Statewide Creel Survey Database to inform management of spearfishing. 4) Investigate the integration of technological advancements into the creel survey methods. As priorities and needs are developed and formalized, it would be valuable to consider how various technological advancements might enhance and streamline data collection or open new avenues of inquiry.

Hawaii↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗