USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “NOAA Technical Report”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2023

Partnering in search of answers: Seabird die-offs in the Bering and Chukchi Seas

Prior to 2015, seabird die-offs in Alaskan waters were rare; they typically occurred in mid-winter, linked to epizootic disease events or above-average ocean temperatures associated with strong El Nino-Southern Oscillation events (Bodenstein et al. 2015, Jones et al. 2019, Romano et al. 2020). Since 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has monitored mortality events that have become annual occurrences in Alaska (Fig. 1). Since 2017, communities on the coasts of the northern Bering and southern Chukchi Seas have annually observed dead and dying seabirds along their coasts, although such die-offs have not been reported from communities north of Point Hope. (Fig. 2). Affected species included planktivorous birds such as auklets ( Aethia spp.) and shearwaters ( Ardenna spp.), piscivorous murres ( Uria spp.), puffins ( Fratercula spp.), and kittiwakes ( Rissa spp.), as well as low numbers of benthic feeding sea ducks ( Somateria spp.). The range of seabird species and the different prey species involved, with localized events throughout summer and over widespread areas, indicate environmental causes at multiple trophic levels. Such wildlife mortality events are a public health concern for coastal communities that rely on ocean resources for their nutritional, cultural, and economic well-being. They have also been seen as a harbinger of concern for the state of the Arctic Ocean itself.

Alaska↗
USGS1982

Freshwater aspects of anadromous salmonid enhancement

Freshwater enhancement of anadromous salmonid populations has been practiced in the United States and Canada since the late 1800's. Reduction of natural spawning habitat and increasing fishing pressure make artificial enhancement a possible alternative to declining populations. Enhancement of anadromous salmonids involved improvement of the natural environment and reducing natural mortality. Methods of enhancement include fishways, spawning and rearing channels, stream rehabilitation, lake fertilization, environmental management, and artificial propagation techniques. Five Pacific salmon species and steelhead trout are commonly enhanced, primarily in watershed entering the Pacific Ocean and Great Lakes. Enhancement efforts contribute heavily to a commercial and sport industry realizing over $1.5 billion.

NOAA Technical Report NMFS Circular↗
USGS2024

Pilot framework for fish habitat assessments across tidal and non tidal waters in the Patuxent River Basin

As part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, all Bay States and the District of Columbia have committed to improving the condition of the Bay, which includes a goal to achieve sustainable fisheries. One outcome under that broad goal is improved effectiveness of fish habitat conservation and preservation efforts. In support of that outcome, the U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center (USGS-EESC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA-NCCOS) are actively developing datasets, methods, and analyses to conduct fish habitat assessments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, guided by recommendations from a regional stakeholder workshop held by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Fish Habitat Action Team (FHAT) in 2018. The joint USGS and NOAA team has been collaborating on methods for conducting inland and estuarine assessments and exploring whether a seamless headwater to estuary assessment could be developed. The goals of this assessment are to benefit both State and Federal fisheries managers, help advance fisheries science, and provide beneficial information for the public. While past national and regional assessments (e.g. the National Fish Habitat Partnership National Assessment) treated inland and estuarine fish habitat conditions separately due to differences in environments, GIS data representation, and data availability, a seamless habitat assessment could be of value for a broad range of stakeholders as many fish species, several of which are invasive or under federal jurisdiction, use habitats across both inland and estuarine waters. This project developed a pilot framework, explored and tested methods necessary for a finer scale, seamless assessment across both inland and estuarine waters, and demonstrated its use. Although there was interest by the CBP FHAT for the generation of a Baywide fish habitat assessment that spanned tidal salt, tidal fresh, warm non-tidal and cold non-tidal waters, there are a myriad of implementation details and considerations around conducting a Baywide assessment across all four of these general habitat areas. Therefore, the practical need to conduct a tributary-specific pilot assessment arose. At the beginning of this pilot process, members of the FHAT were presented with a decision matrix to choose a study basin using factors such as data availability and tributary size. FHAT members chose the Patuxent River basin, which has been relatively well sampled and studied. Several spatial frameworks were considered before selection of an inclusive gridded framework for summary and analysis that represented inland drainage networks and landscape influences as well as estuarine bathymetry. A suite of landscape and in-water stressor variables were summarized into the framework and were largely generalized over time. In order to assess the viability of the framework, we chose to use species distribution modeling for each of the species to test the framework’s ability to predict habitat use of non-tidal resident, estuarine resident, and migratory species. Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white perch (Morone americana) were chosen as illustrative fish species based on data availability, and differences in life history and habitat use. A nested modeling approach, which involved successive model runs at multiple scales (1000m, 100m, and 10m raster grids) was developed to examine differences in variable importance at different spatial scales and to enhance modeling efficiency. For white perch, a complementary modeling analysis was performed for variables available only in estuarine waters. For all testing, an ensemble modeling approach was conducted, using a suite of potential statistical techniques driven by model strength and variable predictive power. The statistical testing that we conducted was intended only to test the framework and modeling approach, and not to definitively predict all habitats where specific fish species might be present. The modeling we conducted to test the framework did have some limitations. For example, the spatial distribution of favorable habitat areas for white perch was likely influenced by the predominance of fish survey locations near the center channel of the river and the use of generalized in-water conditions. For all species, the use of juvenile and adult fish survey data limits the estimation of habitat use to those life stages. Despite such limitations of the data inputs and modeling approach, we found the framework could seamlessly predict fish habitat distribution across freshwater and tidal environments and integrate the influence of landscape stressors with local in-water factors. The developed framework presented to the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team (GIT) and FHAT is informative and could potentially be used for other modeling applications in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and elsewhere. In particular the framework and modeling approach lend themselves to evaluating living resource distributions and underlying habitat conditions in shallow tidal waters and beyond, as recommended by the recent Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) report from the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Maryland↗
USGS2019

Report of the technical expert workshop: Developing recommendations for field response, captive management, and rehabilitation of sea turtles with fibropapillomatosis

Fibropapillomatosis (FP) is a disease of sea turtles that primarily manifests as tumors of the skin. Strandings of green turtles with this disease have dramatically increased in the Southeast U.S. over the last decade, necessitating a review of various practices related to the capture, handling, and treatment of afflicted turtles. NOAA and USFWS hosted a workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida on September 6, 2017 to seek input on the development of recommendations to address the following key issues regarding green turtles with FP: 1) disposition when encountered under various circumstances (e.g., strandings, research activities, incidental capture, opportunistic observations); 2) rehabilitation and release; 3) response options if rehabilitation capacity is exceeded; and 4) biosecurity measures to prevent anthropogenic spread of the disease. Federal and state resource agency staff and rehabilitation veterinarians were invited to this workshop to provide input for these recommendations. A review of rehabilitation practices and outcome was shared with participants to inform discussions related to rehabilitation and stranding response. Draft recommendations were prepared for the meeting and participants were asked to share their opinions during moderated discussions and via a written feedback instrument. This input was considered and applied to amend the recommendations, which were also peer-reviewed by six additional veterinarians and a stranding biologist with expertise in sea turtles,rehabilitation medicine, and fibropapillomatosis. The intended use for the completed Fibropapillomatosis and Sea Turtles: Recommendations for Field Response, Captive Management, and Rehabilitation is to assist resource agencies with management planning and decisions related to green turtles with FP and to inform relevant aspects of policy, permits, and authorizations under federal and state regulations.

Florida↗
USGS2020

A synthesis of ten years of chemical contaminant monitoring data in National Park Service - Southeast and southwest Alaska networks

With the exception of PAHs and trace metals, which were detected at 100% of the sites, all of the other contaminants were detected at varying frequencies. PBBs, Mirex and Endosulfans were not detected in any of the samples and Chlorpyrifos was only detected in five samples across four sites. Chlordanes were present at 79% of the sites while Butyltins were only detected at 20% of the sites. Overall, the majority of the concentrations can be considered to be at background levels when compared to the long-term NOAA National Status and Trends (NS&T) monitoring data for blue mussels nationwide. The relatively high concentrations of cadmium, copper, and nickel in comparison to the NS&T national groups could be a combination of natural inputs and anthropogenic sources. The natural exposure and weathering of rocks in southern Alaska can contribute to elevated background concentrations of these metals. Sample concentrations, compositions and/or trends for Total DDT, Total Dieldrins and Total HCHs suggest that these contaminants are no longer bioaccumulating at detectable levels. Total Butyltin concentrations were low compared to the NS&T national concentrations, but the presence of tributyltin (TBT) in recent years at Sitka Visitor's Center (SITK) and Skagway Harbor (SKWY) indicates that fresh sources of Butyltin are still entering these environments, probably through vessel traffic at these sites. The PAH profiles and higher concentrations at SITK, SKWY and Nahku Bay East Side (NBES) suggest that these sites are receiving anthropogenic sources of PAH contamination. The results included in this report help to provide a greater understanding of general background contamination in NPS SWAN and SEAN parks, as well as other monitoring sites, including range, trends and variability. Future monitoring should aim to continue analyzing the temporal trends of these contaminants on a regional scale through periodic sampling as well as focusing on areas of interest that could shed further insight on range and variation (see supplemental material).

Alaska↗
USGS2017

Deep-sea coral research and technology program: Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative final report

Deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems are widespread throughout most of Alaska’s marine waters. In some places, such as the central and western Aleutian Islands, deep-sea coral and sponge resources can be extremely diverse and may rank among the most abundant deep-sea coral and sponge communities in the world. Many different species of fishes and invertebrates are associated with deep-sea coral and sponge communities in Alaska. Because of their biology, these benthic invertebrates are potentially impacted by climate change and ocean acidification. Deepsea coral and sponge ecosystems are also vulnerable to the effects of commercial fishing activities. Because of the size and scope of Alaska’s continental shelf and slope, the vast majority of the area has not been visually surveyed for deep-sea corals and sponges. NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program (DSCRTP) sponsored a field research program in the Alaska region between 2012–2015, referred to hereafter as the Alaska Initiative. The priorities for Alaska were derived from ongoing data needs and objectives identified by the DSCRTP, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and Essential Fish Habitat-Environmental Impact Statement (EFH-EIS) process. This report presents the results of 15 projects conducted using DSCRTP funds from 2012-2015. Three of the projects conducted as part of the Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative included dedicated at-sea cruises and fieldwork spread across multiple years. These projects were the eastern Gulf of Alaska Primnoa pacifica study, the Aleutian Islands mapping study, and the Gulf of Alaska fish productivity study. In all, there were nine separate research cruises carried out with a total of 109 at-sea days conducting research. The remaining projects either used data and samples collected by the three major fieldwork projects or were piggy-backed onto existing research programs at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2019

Council monitoring and assessment program (CMAP) compilation of existing habitat and water quality monitoring and mapping assessments for the Gulf of Mexico Region

This report is a deliverable to the RESTORE Council for Task 7: Document the existing baseline habitat and water quality conditions prior to implementation of the restoration projects; these baseline conditions will serve as a basis for measuring change/progress after restoration. It is the second in a series of CMAP reports. The first report describes the process and development of the CMAP monitoring program inventory, herein the Inventory (NOAA and USGS, 2019). The goals and objectives for the Inventory were to identify and document existing habitat and water quality monitoring, and mapping programs, data, and protocols in the GoM. The Inventory built upon existing databases, such as the Ocean Conservancy (Love, 2015), Global Change Monitoring Portal (GCMP; GCMP, 2017), and Gulf of Mexico Alliance (GOMA) databases (GOMA, 2013), including habitat and water quality monitoring programs at national, regional, State and local scales. This second report identifies and catalogs existing water quality, habitat and mapping assessments within the Gulf of Mexico. This assessment catalog, herein the Catalog, was intended to supplement the Inventory to identify the best available science necessary for restoration, conservation or management activities. Both the Inventory and the Catalog databases will be accessible to the Council and the greater GoM restoration, monitoring, management, and academic communities through a searchable web-based tool.

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

Biological review of 82 species of coral petitioned to be included in the Endangered Species Act

list 83 coral species as threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The petition was based on a predicted decline in available habitat for the species, citing anthropogenic climate change and ocean acidification as the lead factors among the various stressors responsible for the potential decline. The NMFS identified 82 of the corals as candidate species, finding that the petition provided substantive information for a potential listing of these species. The NMFS established a Biological Review Team (BRT) to prepare this Status Review Report that examines the status of these 82 candidate coral species and evaluates extinction risk for each of them. This document makes no recommendations for listing, as that is a separate evaluation to be conducted by the NMFS. The BRT considered two major factors in conducting this review. The first factor was the interaction of natural phenomena and anthropogenic stressors that could potentially contribute to coral extinction. After extensive review of available scientific information, the BRT considers ocean warming, disease, and ocean acidification to be the most influential threats in posing extinction risks to the 82 candidate coral species between now and the year 2100. Threats of local origin but having widespread impact, such as sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, and fishing, were considered of medium importance in determining extinction risks. It is acknowledged that many other threats (e.g., physical damage from storms or ship groundings, invasive species or predator outbreaks, collection and trade) also negatively affect corals, often acutely and dramatically, but generally at relatively small local scales. These local threats were considered to be of limited scope and not deemed to contribute appreciably to the risk of species extinction, except in those special cases where species have restricted geographic or habitat ranges or species have already undergone precipitous population declines such that these local threats further contribute to depensatory processes that can magnify extinction risks (e.g., feedback-loops whereby individual survival decreases with smaller population size). The BRT acknowledges that local and global threats operate on different time scales and, though there is high confidence in the general progression of some key global threats, such as ocean warming and ocean acidification, there is much less certainty in the timing and spatial patterns of these threats. There is also substantial uncertainty in the abilities of the 82 candidate coral species to tolerate or adapt to each of the threats examined, as well as uncertainty in the dynamics of multiple simultaneous stresses. The BRT specifically identified increasing human population levels and the intensity of their collective human consumption as the root drivers of almost all global and local threats to coral species. In evaluating future threat impacts, the BRT attempted to project current trends, without assumptions of future policy changes or technological advances that could potentially alter the projections used in this analysis.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2023

A management-focused population viability analysis for North Atlantic right whales

The North Atlantic right whale ( Eubalaena glacialis ) is among the most endangered whale species in the world and has been in decline since 2010. Considerable effort is directed toward its recovery by striving to remove threats. In this report, we describe the development of a population viability analysis for right whales that is designed to assess the current status, evaluate the contributions of various threats, and explore the management interventions needed to achieve recovery. The individual-based model that underlies this analysis accounts for age- and stagespecific survival and reproductive rates, the effects of severe injury from entanglement or vessel strike, and future changes in prey availability and accessibility. Several new or updated empirical analyses supplied parameter estimates, and parametric uncertainty was carefully incorporated into the model results. We find that under the status quo conditions of 2019, prior to the enactment of new regulations by the U.S. and Canada after 2020, the North Atlantic right whale population would be expected to continue to fall, with a median decline of 75% in 100 years (95% projection interval, –98% to +9% change) and a probability of falling below 50 proven females of 0.934 in 100 years. If the recently enacted regulations reduce entanglement risk by 25%, however, the population would be expected to decrease by 42% over 100 years (95% projection interval –92% to +154% change), with a risk of falling below 50 proven females in 100 years of 0.705. If, instead, the recently enacted regulations reduce entanglement risk by 50%, the population would be expected to increase by 52% in 100 years (95% projection interval –83% to +497% change), with a probability of falling below 50 proven females of 0.349. Of the 3 primary threats explored in this analysis, the risk of entanglement contributes the most to the long-term risk of quasi-extinction, followed closely by the risk of vessel strike, and much more distantly by a decrease in prey availability. In hypothetical scenarios that fully remove one threat at a time, removal of the entanglement threat alone reduces the probability of falling below 50 proven females in 100 years from 0.934 to 0.053; removal of the vessel strike threat alone reduces it to 0.343; and a return to higher prey conditions, but with both human-related threats still in place, reduces it to 0.875. We explored a wide range of management intervention scenarios that changed the rate of entanglement risk (e.g., endline reductions, closures, implementation of ropeless/on-demand gear); the effect of entanglement (through use of weak rope technology); the rate of vessel traffic increase over time; and the severity of vessel strike risk through speed restrictions. We found, for example, that reducing entanglement risk alone by 25% reduces the risk of quasi-extinction from 0.934 to 0.705; reducing vessel strike risk alone by 25% reduces the risk of quasi-extinction from 0.934 to 0.846; but the combination of reducing both entanglement risk and vessel strike risk by 25% reduces the risk of quasi-extinction to 0.528. This model and the results it produced are meant to represent an assessment of the current status of North Atlantic right whales using the best available scientific and commercial data and state-of-the-art analytical tools. Our knowledge of the future of the right whale population, however, has limitations. We have endeavored to fully incorporate uncertainty into this model, but there are many areas for continued improvement. We view this model as a living tool that can be improved, adapted, and extended as new data, new methods, and new questions arise.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
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↗
USGS2025

Update to a management-focused population viability analysis for North Atlantic right whales

We provide an update to the recently published population viability analysis for North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ). The update includes improvements to the reproduction modeling and also shares additional context given evidence of reduced mortality indicated by recent population monitoring. Projections from the analysis are used to quantify simulated population sizes across 100 years and resulting quasi-extinction probabilities (falling below 50 mature females that have proven ability to reproduce) to compare hypothetical scenarios related to management of threats and changing environmental conditions. Under a status quo scenario reflecting conditions of 2019, prior to the enactment of new regulations by the U.S. and Canada, the North Atlantic right whale population would be expected to continue to fall, with a median decline of 88 percent (95% projection interval, –98 percent to –45 percent change) and a probability of falling below 50 proven females (i.e., quasi-extinction) of 0.988 at 100 years. In hypothetical scenarios that fully remove each of the three primary threats to right whales one at a time, removal of the entanglement threat alone reduces the probability of falling below 50 proven females in 100 years to 0.070; removal of the vessel strike threat alone reduces it to 0.522; and a return to historical prey abundance patterns (pre-2010), but with both human-related threats still in place, reduces it to 0.524. Although additional baseline scenarios were explored to examine the potential effects of recent regulations, we found that the most up-to-date mortality rates (2020–2022) are similar to those simulated under a 70% reduction in severe entanglement injury compared to rates estimated during 2013–2019. If management measures implemented in the U.S. and Canada continue to reduce mortality, the estimated probability of falling below 50 proven females in 100 years is 0.234. Our model continues to provide a tool for assessing North Atlantic right whale recovery.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes spatial priorities study

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

Great Lakes↗
USGS2021

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

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

California, Oregon↗