Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Technical Review”

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 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
USGS1955

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1954

This report supersedes TEI-400, "U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S> Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1954. If a report, or portion of a report, has been published, the fact is indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also Part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public (this part supersedes Part I of Bulletin 1019-B). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. If a report, or portion of the report, has been published in more than one form, appropriate cross-references are given to indicate the other forms of publication. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II; however, if the abstract of a Trace Elements report has been published in NSA, the fact is indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1954, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects and supersedes Part II of Bulletin 1019-B. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest, Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, area may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also, where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is an author index. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Smith and Brown indicated that Smith is the senior author. A listing of Smith with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; C, Circular; B, Bulletin; P, Professional Paper; MC, Maps and Charts; J, Journal; and NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS1954

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953

This report combines and brings up-to-date the information previously given in Trace Elements Investigations Report 325, "Numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Reports to April 30, 1953," and Trace Elements Investigations Report 301, "Topical index and bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. It supersedes TEI-325. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1953. Reports that have been published are indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public; this part supersedes Part 2 of the TEI-301 (published as Geological survey Circular 281). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II, although certain TEI and TEM reports, the abstracts of which have been published in NSA, are so indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1953, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of a general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest. Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, areas may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is a finding list of authors. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Jones and Brown indicates that Jones is the senior author. A listing of Jones with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following standard abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; P, Professional Paper; B, Bulletin; C, Circular; J, Journal; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts; QM, Quadrangle Map Series; and OM, Oil and Gas map or Mineral Investigations map or report.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

Coastal Circulation and Sediment Dynamics in War-in-the-Pacific National Historical Park, Guam; measurements of waves, currents, temperature, salinity, and turbidity, June 2007-January 2008

Flow in and around coral reefs affects a number of physical, chemical and biologic processes that influence the health and sustainability of coral reef ecosystems. These range from the residence time of sediment and contaminants to nutrient uptake and larval retention and dispersal. As currents approach a coast they diverge to flow around reef structures, causing high horizontal and vertical shear. This can result in either the rapid advection of material in localized jets, or the retention of material in eddies that form in the lee of bathymetric features. The high complexity and diversity both within and between reefs, in conjunction with past technical restrictions, has limited our understanding of the nature of flow and the resulting flux of physical, chemical, and biologic material in these fragile ecosystems. Sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants from a variety of land-based activities adversely impact many coral reef ecosystems in the U.S. and around the world. These pollutants are transported in surface water runoff, groundwater seepage, and atmospheric fallout into coastal waters, and there is compelling evidence that the sources have increased globally as a result of human-induced changes to watersheds. In Guam, and elsewhere on U.S. high islands in the Pacific and Caribbean, significant changes in the drainage basins due to agriculture, feral grazing, fires, and urbanization have in turn altered the character and volume of land-based pollution released to coral reefs. Terrigenous sediment run-off (and the associated nutrients and contaminants often absorbed to it) and deposition on coral reefs are recognized to potentially have significant impact on coral health by blocking light and inhibiting photosynthesis, directly smothering and abrading coral, and triggering increases in macro algae. Studies that combine information on watershed, surface water- and groundwater-flow, transport and fate of sediment and other pollutants in the reef environment, and their impact on reef health and ecology are essential for effective reef management. Two of the main anthropogenic activities along west-central Guam's coastline that may impact the region's coral reef ecosystems include pollution and coastal land use/development, as discussed in the review by Porter and others (2005). The pollution threats include point-sources, such as municipal wastewater (Northern District, Hagatna, Naval Station Guam, and Agat-Santa Rita Waster Water Treatment Plants), cooling water (Tanguisson Steam and Cabras Power Plants), and numerous storm water, ballast water, and tank bottom draw outfalls; nonpoint sources include septic systems, urban runoff, illegal dumping, and groundwater discharges. Poor land-use practices include development without the use of runoff management measures, increased areal extent of impervious surfaces and decreased extent of vegetative barriers, and recreational off-road vehicle use. Furthermore, feral ungulates and illegal wildfires remove protective vegetative cover and generally result in increased soil erosion. While anthropogenic point-sources have been reduced in many areas due to better management practices, nonpoint sources have either stayed constant or increased. Between 1975 and 1999, it is estimated that Guam lost more than a quarter of its tree cover, and more than 750 wildfires each year have resulted in a greater proportion of badlands and other erosion-prone land surfaces with high erosion rates (Forestry and Soil Resources Division, 1999). Approximately 1.8 square kilometers (km2) of Asan Bay, west-central Guam, lies within the National Park Service's (NPS) War-in-the-Pacific National Historical Park's (WAPA) Asan Unit; the bay is the sink for material coming out of the Asan watershed. Anthropogenic modifications of the watersheds adjacent to Asan Bay, which include intentionally-set wildfires, construction, and agriculture (Minton, 2005), are believed to have increased over the past 25

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Deep subsurface microbial processes

Information on the microbiology of the deep subsurface is necessary in order to understand the factors controlling the rate and extent of the microbially catalyzed redox reactions that influence the geophysical properties of these environments. Furthermore, there is an increasing threat that deep aquifers, an important drinking water resource, may be contaminated by man's activities, and there is a need to predict the extent to which microbial activity may remediate such contamination. Metabolically active microorganisms can be recovered from a diversity of deep subsurface environments. The available evidence suggests that these microorganisms are responsible for catalyzing the oxidation of organic matter coupled to a variety of electron acceptors just as microorganisms do in surface sediments, but at much slower rates. The technical difficulties in aseptically sampling deep subsurface sediments and the fact that microbial processes in laboratory incubations of deep subsurface material often do not mimic in situ processes frequently necessitate that microbial activity in the deep subsurface be inferred through nonmicrobiological analyses of ground water. These approaches include measurements of dissolved H 2 , which can predict the predominant microbially catalyzed redox reactions in aquifers, as well as geochemical and groundwater flow modeling, which can be used to estimate the rates of microbial processes. Microorganisms recovered from the deep subsurface have the potential to affect the fate of toxic organics and inorganic contaminants in groundwater. Microbial activity also greatly influences the chemistry of many pristine groundwaters and contributes to such phenomena as porosity development in carbonate aquifers, accumulation of undesirably high concentrations of dissolved iron, and production of methane and hydrogen sulfide. Although the last decade has seen a dramatic increase in interest in deep subsurface microbiology, in comparison with the study of other habitats, the study of deep subsurface microbiology is still in its infancy.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS2005

High priority needs for range-wide monitoring of North American landbirds

This document is an extension of work done for the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). The Continental Plan reviewed conservation status of the 448 native landbird species that regularly breed in the United States and Canada. Two groups of species were identified as having high conservation importance: the PIF Watch List, made up of species for which there is conservation concern, and Stewardship Spices that are particularly characteristic of regional avifaunas. In addition, continental scale monitoring needs were identified for all species. Here we extend the monitoring needs aspect of the Plan, providing additional detail and suggesting the best means of filling the gaps in broad-scale, long-term trend monitoring. This analysis and report was compiled by the Partners in Flight (PIF) Science Committee as a contribution to current work by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative to assess the status of bird population monitoring in North America and to make recommendations for improvements.

Partners in Flight Technical Series↗
USGS1975

Use of USGS earth science products by city planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, plan implementation devices, and other planning-related activities was completed for the ninety-one cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 85 earth science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). This inventory showed that: (1) three-fourths of the cities had planning staffs who were familiar with SFBRS products, or had made use of such products; (2) over half of the cities had prepared planning documents which contained references to SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies; seismic safety, public safety, conservation, and open-space plan elements; general reference; and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) almost 90 percent of all 85 SFBRS products were used at least once for a city planning activity, and one product was used at least 67 times for various city planning activities; and (5) at least forty-five other other USGS products were also used for various city planning activities. All of the seven SFBRS products that were used 30 or more times for city planning activities were small-scale, large-areal-coverage, hazard-type products. Each product is interpretative and contains additional data which makes it more relevant or more interesting. The planning staffs of each city were also interviewed and asked to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to recommend improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth science data. The responses showed that: (1) the map scales commonly used by cities were much larger than 1:12,000; (2) few cities had planning staffs with training or experience in the earth sciences or engineering; (3) less than one-fourth of the cities failed to use SFBRS products-primarily because their staffs were unaware of the SFBRS, unfamiliar with its products, or lacked adequate capability; (4) almost two-thirds of the cities expressed some problems in using the products-primarily scale and detail; (5) over two-thirds of the cities expressed an interest in continuing to use, or planning to use, the SFBRS products in the future, and a need or desire for additional earth science, engineering or other data; and (6) over one-half of the cities suggested improvements-primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretative products. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the cities in the Bay region have considerable familiarity with, and have made substantial use of, SFBRS products. This use was made by many cities despite their small size, limited staff capability, and the design of the products which was intended primarily for regional planning at a regional scale. Suggestions are made to ensure more familiarity with, and more effective use of, earth science data in the future. These suggestions include: (1) providing engineering interpretations and land-use capability ratings to make earth science data more readily usable; (2) monitoring and analyzing new state laws and regulations to better anticipate and respond to local earth science data needs; (3) including technical assistance with any earth science data designed for planners and decision-makers; (4) providing larger scale and greater detail earth science data on a demonstration basis; (5) giving priority to urban and urbanizing areas so as to conserve limited staff resources; and (6) ensuring product distribution to all potential users.

California↗
USGS2016

Accuracy assessment/validation methodology and results of 2010–11 land-cover/land-use data for Pools 13, 26, La Grange, and Open River South, Upper Mississippi River System

Introduction/Background The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) was responsible for development of several land cover/land use (LCU) systemic datasets of the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS). These efforts (1989 and 2000) were funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program (UMRR) Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) element. Development of systemic datasets includes the acquisition, processing, and serving of high-resolution aerial photography and land cover/land use spatial datasets ( http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/data_library/land_cover_use/land_cover_use_data.html ). In 2008, the UMRR reached a collaborative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Region 3 to collect high-resolution digital imagery of the entire UMRS floodplain during 2010–11 for LTRM. The UMESC helped acquire, process, and serve this imagery, as well as produce and serve the 2010–11 LCU systemic dataset of the UMRS floodplain. Digital imagery for Pools 13, 26, La Grange, and Open River South was collected using an Applanix DSS 439 digital sensor system with a 40 millimeter lens and Color Infrared (CIR) filter. The imagery was collected at a resolution of 20 centimeters/pixel (8 inches/pixel) for Pool 13 and 40 centimeters/pixel (16 inches/pixel) for Pools 26, Open River South, and La Grange. All imagery was projected to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 15, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83). The General Wetland Vegetation Classification (GWVC) system used for mapping is hierarchical, and its 31 classes can be collapsed into broader categories using either a 15- or 7-class level. While the 1989 and 2000 LCU systemic datasets have not gone through a traditional thematic accuracy assessment (AA) in the past, nor have they undergone a validation analysis, the end products are of high quality. For each systemic dataset produced (1989, 2000, 2010–11), extensive field reconnaissance is performed before photointerpretation. The intent of this field reconnaissance is to learn, test, and verify image signatures as they relate to vegetation types. Questionable areas on the imagery are visited, and the plants or land features observed in the area are recorded for reference. This procedure verifies vegetation signatures on the imagery with those on the ground. In addition, once the photointerpretation is complete, the final LCU dataset undergoes extensive quality assurance/quality control to ensure the imagery is mapped correctly. Since the 2000 LCU systemic dataset was developed, there has been a growing interest in completing thematic AAs for the LTRM LCU spatial datasets. The objective of an AA is to measure the probability that a particular location has been assigned its correct vegetation class. An AA estimates thematic (map class) errors in the data, giving users information needed to determine data suitability for a particular application. At the same time, data producers are able to learn more about the nature of errors in the data. Thus, the two attributes of an AA are “producers’ accuracy,” which is the probability that an AA point has been mapped correctly (also referred to as an error of omission); and “users’ accuracy,” which is the probability that the map actually represents what was found on the ground (also referred to as error of commission). Producers’ and users’ accuracies can be obtained from the same set of data by using different analyses. Accuracy assessment is an extensive effort that requires seasonal field personnel and equipment, data entry, analyses, and post processing—tasks that are costly and time consuming. The geospatial team at the UMESC has suggested a validation process for understanding the accuracy of the spatial datasets, which will be tested on at least some areas of the UMRS. Validation is not a true verification of map-class type in the field; however, it can provide the user of the map with useful information that is similar to a field AA. Similar to an AA, validation involves generating random points based on the total area for each map class. However, instead of collecting field data, two or three individuals not involved with the photo-interpretative mapping separately review each of the points onscreen and record a best-fit vegetation type(s) for each site. Once the individual analyses are complete, results are joined together and a comparative analysis is performed. The objective of this initial analysis is to identify areas where the validation results were in agreement (matches) and areas where validation results were in disagreement (mismatches). The two or three individuals then perform an analysis, looking at each mismatched site, and agree upon a final validation class. (If two vegetation types at a specific site appear to be equally prevalent, the validation team is permitted to assign the site two best-fit vegetation types.) Following the validation team’s comparative analysis of vegetation assignments, the data are entered into a database and compared to the mappers’ vegetation assignments. Agreements and disagreements between the map and validation classes are identified, and a contingency table is produced. This document presents the AA processes/results for Pools 13 and La Grange, as well as the validation process/results for Pools 13 and 26 and Open River South.

Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin↗
USGS2013

A review of fire effects on vegetation and soils in the Great Basin region: response and ecological site characteristics

This review synthesizes the state of knowledge on fire effects on vegetation and soils in semi-arid ecosystems in the Great Basin Region, including the central and northern Great Basin and Range, Columbia River Basin, and the Snake River Plain. We summarize available literature related to: (1) the effects of environmental gradients, ecological site, and vegetation characteristics on resilience to disturbance and resistance to invasive species; (2) the effects of fire on individual plant species and communities, biological soil crusts, seed banks, soil nutrients, and hydrology; and (3) the role of fire severity, fire versus fire surrogate treatments, and post-fire grazing in determining ecosystem response. From this, we identify knowledge gaps and present a framework for predicting plant successional trajectories following wild and prescribed fires and fire surrogate treatments. Possibly the three most important ecological site characteristics that influence a site’s resilience (ability of the ecological site to recover from disturbance) and resistance to invasive species are soil temperature/moisture regimes and the composition and structure of vegetation on the ecological site just prior to the disturbance event.

Columbia River Basin;Great Basin↗
USGS2023

Sustainable aquifer management for food security

In aquifer-dependent regions, balancing aquifer protection, desalination, economic development, agricultural irrigation, and food security can be better managed through discovery and development of sources of sustainable groundwater pumping. Aquifer desalination for irrigation to protect food security can mitigate pressure on local freshwater aquifers. Despite its importance, little peer reviewed work to date has identified the economic capacity to pay for aquifer desalination for irrigation to mitigate freshwater aquifer drawdown. The novel contribution of this work is the development and application of an innovative method to assess the economic capacity to pay for aquifer desalination for irrigation for a recently discovered large saline aquifer. It develops an original framework to assess the capacity to pay for aquifer desalination, the results of which can help guide policymakers on efficient and sustainable pumping approaches across users, aquifers, and time periods. A mathematical programming model is developed to economically analyze the 200 billion cubic meter Lotikipi Aquifer, discovered in 2013 in northern Kenya using modern remote sensing methods. While initial pumping of the Lotikipi Aquifer was halted due to high groundwater salinity levels, interest remains strong in assessing the economic capacity to pay for groundwater desalination because of its potential role in protecting regional food security generated by aquifer pumping for irrigation. The model is formulated by calibrating optimized pumping patterns in two existing freshwater aquifers to replicate observed historical pumping levels. Based on that exercise, a second model is developed to identify a least cost set of pumping restrictions that return each of three regional aquifers to starting conditions over a seven-year time period. A third model extends the second by adding a constraint of a minimum required level of food grain security supported by irrigation pumping from the aquifer system. Results show that the economic capacity to pay for aquifer desalination for irrigated agriculture lies in the range of $0.08 - $0.18 USD per cubic meter under current economic conditions and desalination technologies available. While this economic capacity to pay is lower than its current cost in most places, the future could be more optimistic. Advances in desalination technology, higher crop prices, technical advance in agriculture, and development of drought-resistant crops can all contribute to a future capacity to economically justify the expense of desalination.

Agricultural Systems Journal↗
USGS2020

Council monitoring and assessment program (CMAP): Common monitoring program attributes and methodologies for the Gulf of Mexico Region

Executive Summary Under the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council or Council) is required to report on the progress of funded projects and programs. Systematic monitoring of restoration at the project-specific and programmatic-levels (i.e., watershed and Gulf of Mexico) enables consistent reporting and gives the public confidence that the restoration investments selected by the RESTORE Council will be evaluated and adaptively managed accordingly. Monitoring information that has been collected at different spatial and temporal scales can be used as the foundation to illustrate progress towards comprehensive ecosystem restoration goals and objectives that promote holistic Gulf of Mexico recovery (see ‘RESTORE Council Background’ at the beginning of this report for additional Council information). Federal, state and local agencies, universities, private industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have conducted and are conducting extensive monitoring activities around the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, each RESTORE Council-funded project will, at a minimum, perform project-specific monitoring. This collection of monitoring activities was inventoried and compiled into a framework of tools and resources by the Council-funded RESTORE Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP). CMAP was designed and funded to inventory and integrate existing water quality and habitat monitoring and mapping efforts to support discovery and accessibility of existing monitoring data and ensure the collected information is made available to support management decisions. Results of CMAP Inventory queries can be used to identify opportunities for efficiencies and support crossprogram review of performance across Gulf of Mexico ecosystem recovery efforts. The fundamental approach being used to inform the build out of the CMAP Gulf of Mexico water quality monitoring, habitat monitoring, and mapping framework includes: 1. Adopt, or construct as needed, a comprehensive inventory of existing habitat and water quality observation, monitoring, and mapping programs in the Gulf of Mexico (hereafter referred to as the “Inventory”; NOAA and USGS, 2019a); 2. Evaluate the suitability/applicability of each program and its existing and prospective data for use in restoration activities; 3. Develop a process to use the Inventory to conduct gap assessments; 4. Develop a catalog of baseline assessments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA and USGS, 2019b); and 5. Develop a searchable monitoring information portal/database to enable access to collected information and products.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,↗
USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative-2010 Annual Report

This is the third report produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) to detail annual work activities. The first report described activities for 2007 and 2008, and the second report covered work activities for FY09. This third report covers work activities conducted in FY2010, and it continues the 2009 approach of reporting on all the individual activities to help give WLCI partners and other readers the full scope of what has been accomplished. New in this year's report is an additional section for each work activity that outlines the work planned for the following fiscal year. In FY2010, there were 35 ongoing/expanded, completed, or new projects conducted under the five major multi-disciplinary science and technical-assistance activities: (1) Baseline Synthesis; (2) Targeted Monitoring and Research; (3) Data and Information Management; (4) Integration and Coordination; and (5) Decisionmaking and Evaluation. The three new work activities were to (1) compile existing water data for the entire WLCI region and (2) develop regional curves (statistical models) for relating bankfull-channel geometry and discharge to drainages in the WLCI region, both of which will help guide long-term monitoring of water resources; and (3) initiate a groundwater-monitoring network to evaluate potential effects of energy-development activities on groundwater quality where groundwater is an important source of public/private water supplies. Results of the FY2009 work to develop methods for assessing soil organic matter and mercury indicated that selenium and arsenic levels may be elevated in the Muddy Creek Basin; thus, the focus of that activity was shifted in FY2010 to evaluate biogeochemical cycling of elements in the basin. In FY2010, two ongoing activities were expanded with the addition of more sampling plots: (a) the study of how greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) use vegetation-treatment areas (sites added to the Moxa Arch Natural Gas Development area) and (2) the study of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) occurrence in burn treatments of the Little Mountain Ecosystem. The activity that entails evaluating relationships between ungulate herbivory and fire on aspen (Populus tremuloides) recruitment also was expanded to include relationships between stand characteristics of and herbivory on aspen in various ecohydrological settings. The USGS continued compiling data and developing geospatial products from all of its WLCI activities to support (1) ranking and prioritizing of proposed conservation projects, (2) developing the WLCI Integrated Assessment, and (3) developing the WLCI 5-year Conservation Action Plan. Two activities were completed in FY2010: (1) the conceptual modeling and indicator selection for monitoring resource conditions across the WLCI region, and (2) the literature review on effects of oil and gas development in western regions of the United States, both of which are in the last stages of publication.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Prevention, early detection and containment of invasive, nonnative plants in the Hawaiian Islands: current efforts and needs

Introduction: Invasive, non-native plants (or environmental weeds) have long been recognized as a major threat to the native biodiversity of oceanic islands (Cronk & Fuller, 1995; Denslow, 2003). Globally, several hundred non-native plant species have been reported to have major impacts on natural areas on oceanic islands (Kueffer et al ., 2009). In Hawaii, at least some 50 non-native plant species reach dominance in natural areas (Kueffer et al ., 2009) and many of them are known to impact ecosystem processes or biodiversity. One example is the invasive Australian tree fern ( Cyathea cooperi ), which has been shown to be very efficient at utilizing soil nitrogen and can grow six times as rapidly in height, maintain four times more fronds, and produce significantly more fertile fronds per month than the native Hawaiian endemic tree ferns, Cibotium spp. (Durand & Goldstein, 2001a, b). Additionally, while native tree ferns provide an ideal substrate for epiphytic growth of many understory ferns and flowering plants, the Australian tree fern has the effect of impoverishing the understory and failing to support an abundance of native epiphytes (Medeiros & Loope, 1993). Other notorious examples of invasive plant species problematic for biodiversity and ecosystem processes in Hawaii include miconia ( Miconia calvescens ), strawberry guava ( Psidium cattleianum ), albizia ( Falcataria moluccana ), firetree ( Morella faya ), clidemia ( Clidemia hirta ), kahili ginger ( Hedychium gardnerianum ), and fountain grass ( Pennisetum setaceum ), to name just a few. Fireweed ( Senecio madagascariensis ) is a recent example of a seriously problematic invasive species for Hawaii’s agriculture and is damaging certain high-elevations native ecosystems as well. The threat of invasive plants has long been recognized in Hawaii and is well documented (e.g. Cox, 1999; Loope & Kraus, 2009 in press; Loope et al ., 2004; Mooney & Drake, 1986; Stone & Scott, 1985; Stone et al. , 1992). In many respects, Hawaii may be near the forefront among national and international efforts to address the burgeoning threat of invasive plants, perhaps especially in the field of outreach and education (Holt, 1996; Van Driesche & Van Driesche, 2000). However, given the scale of the problem many challenges still need to be addressed and gaps in the existing management system need to be identified. In particular, it appears that new non-native plant species are still introduced to the Hawaiian Islands at a high rate with little or no regard for their potential invasiveness. In fact, a Pacific-wide and a global survey of non-native plants on oceanic islands have both shown that on Hawaii among all archipelagos by far the highest number of problematic invasive species known from other areas in the world is already present (Denslow et al . 2009, Kueffer et al . 2009). Hawaii lacks an effective mechanism for tracking what species are present or incoming. For instance, early detection nursery surveys conducted on Maui in 2008 found over 300 species of cultivated vascular plants that have not previously been recorded in Hawaii (Starr et al. , in prep.). In spite of an innovative Hawaii Biological Survey (e.g. Eldredge & Evenhuis, 2003), there is no mechanism for recording presence of a species until it becomes naturalized. Some of these new introductions may quickly become serious pests. Fireweed, first recorded in Hawaii on the Big Island in the early 1980s, is now considered one of the Kueffer & Loope 2009 5/48 worst weeds of pastures and is also invading natural areas from near sea level to above 10,000 feet. Although the cultivated and as yet non-invasive Cortaderia selloana has been present in Hawaii for 50 years or more, the morphologically similar Cortaderia jubata was simultaneously found to be present on Maui and invading on a large scale in 1989. It played an important role in inspiring the establishment of the Maui Invasive Species Committee (MISC) in 1997, and MISC now spends roughly $200,000 per year removing and containing C. jubata to keep it from becoming widespread in high elevation conservation lands of East and West Maui. The existence of many similar examples shows that to date regulatory action to prevent new invasive plant species from establishing and spreading in Hawaii has not yet been as successful as it needs to be. In particular, because some problematic invasive species known from other areas in the world (Kueffer et al ., 2009; Weber, 2003) have not yet been recorded from Hawaii, preventive measures against the introduction and spread of such likely invasive species is therefore an urgent need for Hawaii. Indeed, regulation of importation and early detection and eradication of introduced species before they become abundant and widespread are widely considered the most cost-efficient and often only effective measures against the threat of new invasive species (Kueffer & Hirsch Hadorn, 2008; Wittenberg & Cock, 2001). Timing seems favorable for Hawaii to achieve effective protection against the threat of new invasive species through prevention, early detection, and eradication/containment. Through the establishment and evolution of Invasive Species Committees (ISCs) on each major Hawaiian island, the institutional capacity has been built up for prevention, early detection, containment, and outreach at an island scale. Weed risk assessment (Daehler et al ., 2004) and early detection methodologies (Starr et al. , in review-a, b) have been developed and tested specifically for Hawaii. Containment strategies have been successful (e.g., Special Ecological Areas in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park), and so have eradications of particular species on an island scale (e.g. mullein ( Verbascum thapsus ) and other species on Maui, fireweed ( Senecio madagascariensis ) on Kauai). These successful management strategies may be further strengthened through recently developed novel approaches in research (e.g. remote sensing, species distribution modelling, and molecular genetics tools). Another major recent achievement is the gained support of the plant industry for preventive measures against invasive species (see p. 13ff). Last but not least, regulatory action is also moving forward. Passage of House Bill 2517 by the 2008 Hawaii House and Senate and prompt signing of the bill into law by the Governor provides hope that action to ban the sale of a meaningful suite of restricted weeds can quickly proceed through the rulemaking phase into the implementation phase. This report documents these achievements and experiences and provides a range of perspectives on how to further develop prevention, early detection and containment of invasive species in Hawaii. The report is based on a symposium and workshop held at the 2008 Hawaii Conservation Conference in Honolulu on 31 July 2008.

Hawaii↗
USGS2013

Species of conservation concern and environmental stressors: Local regional and global effects

Species conservation has traditionally been based on individual species within the context of their requisite habitat, which is generally defined as the communities and ecosystems deemed necessary for their presence. Conservation decisions are hampered by the fact that environmental stressors that poetically threaten the persistence of species can operate at organizational levels larger than the habitat or home range of a focal species. Resource managers must therefore simultaneously consider local, regional, and/or global scale stressors for effective conservation and management of species of concern. The wide ranging effects associated with global stressors such as climate change may exceed or exacerbate the effects of local or regional stressors, they still need to understand the direct and interactive effects of global stressors and ultimately how they affect the lands they manage. Conservation of species in southern Nevada is further complication by the fact that the region includes one of the largest and fastest growing urban centers in North America. To accomplish the goal of species conservation, resource managers must identify actionable management options that mitigate the effects of local and regional stressor in the context of the effects of global stressors that are beyond their control. Species conservation is typically focused on a subset often referred to as species of conservation concern that have either demonstrated considerable decline or are naturally rare or have limited distributions. Stressors can directly and indirectly impact species in a variety of ways and through a diversity of mechanisms. Some stressors have been more intense in the past (e.g., livestock grazing) whereas other are now only emerging as new stressors (e.g., solar energy development, climate change). The primary stressors affecting southern Nevada ecosystems are listed in table 2.1 and reviewed in detail in Chapter 2. This chapter addresses Dub-goal 1.4 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy which is to sustain and enhance southern Nevada's biotic communities to preserve biodiversity wand maintain viable populations (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). We provide numerous examples of how stressors affect the range and/or habitat of select species of conservation concern. It is important to note that the species or groups discussed in this chapter by no means represent a comprehensive treatment of all species of conservation concern listed in Table 1.2 (Chapter 1). Rather, several species were chosen as examples for each southern Nevada ecosystem type to illustrate how stressors and linkages among them can affect species of conservation concern, keeping in mind that many of the species considered here are found in more than one ecosystem type. In addition, the stressors that may impact a species in one ecosystem may not be those that affect it in another ecosystem and different species in the same ecosystem may not be affected by the same suite of stressors. Finally, at the start of each ecosystem section we summarize key resource concerns, species used as examples, key stressors, and potential synergistic effects of those stressors relative to the species example.

Nevada↗
USGS2005

Coral disease and health workshop: Coral histopathology II, July 12-14, 2005

The health and continued existence of coral reef ecosystems are threatened by an increasing array of environmental and anthropogenic impacts. Coral disease is one of the prominent causes of increased mortality among reefs globally, particularly in the Caribbean. Although over 40 different coral diseases and syndromes have been reported worldwide, only a few etiological agents have been confirmed; most pathogens remain unknown and the dynamics of disease transmission, pathogenicity and mortality are not understood. Causal relationships have been documented for only a few of the coral diseases, while new syndromes continue to emerge. Extensive field observations by coral biologists have provided substantial documentation of a plethora of new pathologies, but our understanding, however, has been limited to descriptions of gross lesions with names reflecting these observations (e.g., black band, white band, dark spot). To determine etiology, we must equip coral diseases scientists with basic biomedical knowledge and specialized training in areas such as histology, cell biology and pathology. Only through combining descriptive science with mechanistic science and employing the synthesis epizootiology provides will we be able to gain insight into causation and become equipped to handle the pending crisis. One of the critical challenges faced by coral disease researchers is to establish a framework to systematically study coral pathologies drawing from the field of diagnostic medicine and pathology and using generally accepted nomenclature. This process began in April 2004, with a workshop titled Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Developing Diagnostic Criteria co-convened by the Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC), a working group organized under the auspices of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, and the International Registry for Coral Pathology (IRCP). The workshop was hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, Wisconsin and was focused on gross morphology and disease signs observed in the field. A resounding recommendation from the histopathologists participating in the workshop was the urgent need to develop diagnostic criteria that are suitable to move from gross observations to morphological diagnoses based on evaluation of microscopic anatomy. As a continuation of building the foundation and framework for coral disease diagnostics, the CDHC convened the Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Coral Histopathology II in Charleston, South Carolina, July 11-14, 2005. The workshop was hosted by the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC which provided expertise, facilities and equipment in support of the workshop. All of the histological slides and related photographs used in the discussions were prepared and supplied by the IRCP. This workshop brought together 15 experts in veterinary and medical pathology and coral biology from national and international research institutes and government laboratories. The mission was to devise a standardized approach to examining microscopic anatomy and pathology of corals and a standardized nomenclature to facilitate accurate descriptions of the microscopic morphology of corals and enhance communication among specialists investigating causes of coral death. 2 The participants of this workshop deliberated for 3 days to refine the nomenclature for gross and microscopic anatomy of corals and systematically described microscopic changes associated with selected coral diseases. The findings and recommendations from the deliberations will be submitted to the research community for peer review. The standardized nomenclature and descriptions produced at this workshop will ultimately be made available to the scientific community through a variety of media including the World Wide Web. An exciting highlight of this meeting was provided by Professor Robert Ogilvie (MUSC Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy) when he introduced participants to a new digital technology that is revolutionizing histology and histopathology in the medical field. The Virtual Slide technology creates digital images of histological tissue sections by computer scanning actual slides in high definition and storing the images for retrieval and viewing. Virtual slides now allow any investigator with access to a computer and the web to view, search, annotate and comment on the same tissue sections in real time. Medical and veterinary slide libraries across the country are being converted into virtual slides to enhance biomedical education, research and diagnosis. The coral health and disease researchers at this workshop deem virtual slides as a significant way to increase capabilities in coral histology and a means for pathology consultations on coral disease cases on a global scale.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2020

Council monitoring and assessment program (CMAP): A framework for using the monitoring program inventory to conduct gap assessments for the Gulf of Mexico Region

Executive Summary Under the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council or Council) is required to report on the progress of funded projects and programs. Systematic monitoring of restoration at the project-specific and programmatic-levels (watershed and Gulf of Mexico) enables consistent reporting and gives the public confidence that the restoration investments selected by the RESTORE Council will be evaluated and adaptively managed accordingly. Monitoring information that has been collected at different spatial and temporal scales can be used as the foundation to illustrate progress towards comprehensive ecosystem restoration goals and objectives that promote holistic Gulf of Mexico recovery (see ‘RESTORE Council Background’ at the beginning of this report for additional Council information). Currently, federal, state and local agencies, universities, private industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are conducting monitoring activities at various scales around the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, each RESTORE Council-funded project will, at a minimum, perform project-specific monitoring. This collection of monitoring activities was inventoried and coordinated into a network of existing programs by the Council-funded RESTORE Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP), which will suggest opportunities for efficiencies and collaborative cross-program review of performance with other Gulf ecosystem recovery efforts. CMAP was designed and funded to inventory and integrate existing monitoring efforts, improve discovery and accessibility of existing monitoring data, and ensure the collected information supports management decisions. The fundamental approach to building the CMAP Gulf of Mexico water quality monitoring, habitat monitoring, and mapping network was to: 1. Adopt, or construct as needed, a comprehensive inventory of existing habitat and water quality observation, monitoring, and mapping programs in the Gulf of Mexico (hereafter referred to as the “Inventory”; NOAA and USGS, 2019a); 2. Evaluate the suitability/applicability of each program and its existing and prospective data for use in restoration activities; 3. Develop a process to use the Inventory to conduct gap assessments; 4. Develop a catalog of baseline assessments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA and USGS, 2019b); and 5. Develop a searchable monitoring information portal/database to enable access to collected information and products.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,↗
USGS2008

Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants

This state-of-knowledge review of information on relationships between wildland fire and nonnative invasive plants can assist fire managers and other land managers concerned with prevention, detection, and eradication or control of nonnative invasive plants. The 16 chapters in this volume synthesize ecological and botanical principles regarding relationships between wildland fire and nonnative invasive plants, identify the nonnative invasive species currently of greatest concern in major bioregions of the United States, and describe emerging fire-invasive issues in each bioregion and throughout the nation. This volume can help increase understanding of plant invasions and fire and can be used in fire management and ecosystem-based management planning. The volume’s first part summarizes fundamental concepts regarding fire effects on invasions by nonnative plants, effects of plant invasions on fuels and fire regimes, and use of fire to control plant invasions. The second part identifies the nonnative invasive species of greatest concern and synthesizes information on the three topics covered in part one for nonnative invasives in seven major bioregions of the United States: Northeast, Southeast, Central, Interior West, Southwest Coastal, Northwest Coastal (including Alaska), and Hawaiian Islands. The third part analyzes knowledge gaps regarding fire and nonnative invasive plants, synthesizes information on management questions (nonfire fuel treatments, postfire rehabilitation, and postfire monitoring), summarizes key concepts described throughout the volume, and discusses urgent management issues and research questions.

General Technical Report↗
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↗