Through A Fish's Eye Executive Summary

Summary

The United States is home to more than 3,000 fish species and over 322 million people, and they all depend on the same water. Healthy aquatic resources are vital to the integrity of the United States and essential for sustainable fish populations. Unfortunately, in many places around the United States, fish and the habitats on which they depend are degraded or in decline. Almost 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater fish species are considered at risk or vulnerable to extinction. Habitat loss is the most common cause for extinction of freshwater fish in the United States over the past century, and many saltwater fish are also in decline due to habitat degradation. In 1997, Congress declared that one of the greatest long-term threats [...]

Summary

The United States is home to more than 3,000 fish species and over 322 million people, and they all depend on the same water. Healthy aquatic resources are vital to the integrity of the United States and essential for sustainable fish populations. Unfortunately, in many places around the United States, fish and the habitats on which they depend are degraded or in decline. Almost 40 percent of the nation’s freshwater fish species are considered at risk or vulnerable to extinction. Habitat loss is the most common cause for extinction of freshwater fish in the United States over the past century, and many saltwater fish are also in decline due to habitat degradation. In 1997, Congress declared that one of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats.

This report summarizes the results of a continuing unprecedented nationwide assessment of human effects on fish habitat in the rivers and estuaries of the United States and provides a basis for comparing fish habitat condition on a national scale. It should be considered as one diagnostic tool of many, such as fine scale Fish Habitat Partnership assessments of particular waters or river reaches, which should be examined when considering aquatic habitat condition and conservation strategy planning. This national assessment assigns watersheds and estuaries a risk of current habitat degradation score ranging from very low to very high. These results allow comparison of aquatic habitats across the nation and within 14 sub-regions. The results also identify some of the major sources of habitat degradation. Unfortunately, not all sources of habitat degradation or all aquatic resources could be assessed due to resource and data constraints. In particular, key information on water flows (hydrology), grazing intensity, forest management practices, bottom form (geomorphology), and detailed data on habitat-forming processes on individual reaches and waters is not available on a consistent national basis at this time. These gaps should be kept in mind when examining the results of this assessment. We anticipate generating such assessments every 5 years, and future revisions to the assessment will work towards incorporating the missing data to the extent it is available.

Within the United States, aquatic habitats with both high and low risk of degradation occur in landscapes with specific characteristics. Aquatic habitats tend to have a very high risk of degradation in landscapes with urban areas, high intensity agriculture, and heavy industrial use. In landscapes with sparse populations, including Alaska, national parks, and other protected areas, aquatic habitats tend to have a low risk of degradation. While our national map shows landscapes with such patterns of low and high risk of degradation, many locations throughout the United States may be threatened and would benefit from protection to prevent degradation or rehabilitation if they are degraded at this time.

East of the Mississippi River, streams and rivers with the lowest risk of habitat degradation occur principally in northern Maine and the northern Great Lakes area, as well as in sparsely populated parts of the Southeast. Rivers and streams with the highest risk of habitat degradation occur in and around the heavily populated corridor from New York City to Washington D.C., including Long Island Sound, Delaware Bay and the Potomac River. Rivers and streams with a very high or high risk of habitat degradation due to excess nutrients and sedimentation from agriculture occur in the broad zone of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, along the Mississippi River, and scattered throughout the Southeastern States. Mining practices in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia threaten aquatic resources through release of metals and mining by-products into local streams and rivers. The estuaries of the Mid-Atlantic States region are at greater risk than any other region. Urban land use is a major factor in fish habitat degradation in this area, as is pollution, particularly excess nutrients.

Rivers and streams with a low risk of current habitat degradation in the central portion of the country occur principally in northeast Minnesota and the mountain and grassland regions of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. The northern regions of this section of the country are at higher risk than almost any other regions in this assessment. Row crop and cattle farms are responsible for large areas with a very high risk of habitat degradation in northwestern Texas and eastern regions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. Row crop farms contribute to areas with a high and very high risk of habitat degradation in the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and eastern Arkansas. About 36 percent of Texas estuaries assessed have a very high or high risk of current habitat degradation due to polluted runoff from urban areas and low river flows.

There are large areas with a low risk of current habitat degradation in the mountains, deserts, high plains, and coastal areas of western United States. These results should be viewed with some caution as some key drivers of habitat condition, such as water flow (hydrology), forestry practices, and grazing intensity, could not be fully examined in this assessment. As a result, this assessment likely underestimates the risk of habitat degradation, particularly in the arid West. This portion of the country is interspersed with areas of high degradation risk due to urban land use (California, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, the Denver, Portland, and Seattle areas, Anchorage, and the island of Oahu), intensive row crop agriculture and ranching (northern Montana, western Utah, Idaho, California’s Central Valley, southeast Washington, and the northwestern portion of the island of Hawaii), and alterations to water flow on the area’s rivers such as the San Joaquin, Sacramento, Columbia, Snake, and Colorado Rivers. Estuaries in southern California and some parts of Hawaii have a high risk of current habitat degradation due to pollution from fast-growing coastal urban areas. Alaska has the largest areas with a very low risk of current habitat degradation as a result of low human population density and land ownership that leads to habitat protection, but urbanization, forestry, and road crossings are responsible for localized areas in developing areas with an elevated risk of habitat degradation.

This report provides an important picture of the challenges and opportunities facing fish and those engaged in fish habitat conservation efforts. Urban land use, agriculture, dams, culverts, pollution, and other human development have resulted in specific areas of degraded habitat where rehabilitation is most likely needed to bring back the healthy habitats and fishing opportunities that once existed. Addressing degraded habitat also requires reducing or eliminating the sources of degradation mentioned in this report, through best management practices, land use planning, and engaging landowners, businesses, and local communities in the effort. This report identifies areas where those efforts are most needed.

The report also documents areas where fish habitat is most likely still unaffected by human development and likely intact with the largest amount in Alaska. It is critical that these areas be protected to maintain their value for aquatic organisms and for the recreation of the people that use those waterways. Moreover, it is far more cost effective to protect a pristine area, at minimum a 10:1 return on dollars invested, rather than allow it to become degraded and then have to fund expensive rehabilitation efforts.

Furthermore, our efforts to measure habitat condition and to use this information to conserve fish habitats are limited by the available information. It is critical to have data collected in a consistent, comparable manner across the United States to allow a national assessment to be properly developed and to be fully used in conservation planning. There are a number of geographic areas and key habitat types that could not be evaluated by this assessment due to the lack of available national resources and information including the nation’s lakes, reservoirs, Great Lakes, Alaskan estuaries, and inshore and offshore marine areas. There is a critical need for the collection, standardization, and analysis of data to assess fish habitat in these areas. New sources of information and data are also essential to allow the detailed analysis of water flow patterns (hydrology), grazing intensity, forestry practices, small dams and culverts, sedimentation, riparian management, channel and bottom morphology, water quality (in particular temperature and dissolved oxygen), and the effects of organisms on their environment on fish habitat. This information is crucial to communicating threats to these fish habitats, prioritizing fish habitat conservation efforts, and determining the best strategies to maximize limited resources.

Resources for fish habitat conservation are limited. This report illustrates the need for and the value of the strategic use of those existing resources through partnerships - such as the Fish Habitat Partnerships established under the National Fish Habitat Action Plan - that can identify the most effective use of funds and help the nation as a whole make progress in fish habitat conservation. Examples of how collaborative fish habitat action can bring change are included in each regional section.

Contacts

Author :: Steve Crawford, Gary Whelan, Susan M. Stedman
Curator :: Daniel J Wieferich, Ricardo McClees-Funinan

Attached Files

sorting

Metadata First

Recent First

Alphabetical

Purpose

The U.S Geological Survey (USGS) is partnering with the National Fish Habitat Partnership (NFHP) to produce the 2015 report entitled, "Through a Fish's Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats in the United States 2015". The information contained within this item is a product of NFHP. The Bureau is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy or the use of the scientific content within this item. This content is considered preliminary pending subsequent review and approval.

Through A Fish's Eye Executive Summary

Summary

Summary

Contacts

Attached Files

sorting

Metadata First

Recent First

Alphabetical

Purpose

Tags

Provenance

Additional Information

Alternate Titles

Item Actions

View Item as ...

Save Item as ...

View Item...

Summary

Summary

Contacts

Attached Files sorting Metadata First Recent First Alphabetical

Purpose

Tags

Provenance

Additional Information

Alternate Titles

Item Actions

View Item as ...

Save Item as ...

View Item...

Attached Files

sorting

Metadata First

Recent First

Alphabetical