Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Fish and Wildlife Research”

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 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Monitoring of endangered Roanoke logperch ( Percina rex ) in Smith River upstream from the Philpott Reservoir on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers property near Martinsville, Virginia

The purpose of this study was to continue annual monitoring of Roanoke logperch ( Percina rex ), an endangered fish, in the Smith River immediately upstream from Philpott Reservoir. This river reach is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), which must ensure that appropriate actions are undertaken to aid in recovery of logperch. Monitoring of fish abundance and habitat conditions provides a means for assessing the species’ status and its responses to USACE management actions. The Roanoke logperch is a large darter (Percidae: Etheostomatinae) endemic to the Roanoke, Dan, and Nottoway River basins of Virginia and North Carolina, where it occupies third- to sixth-order streams containing relatively silt-free substrate (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Because of its rarity, small range, and vulnerability to siltation, the Roanoke logperch was listed in 1989 as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) (U.S. Federal Register 54:34468-34472). Within the Dan basin, Roanoke logperch have long been known to occupy the Smith River and one of its largest tributaries, Town Creek (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1994). Logperch also recently were discovered in other tributaries of the Dan River, including North Carolina segments of the Mayo River, Cascade Creek, Big Beaver Island Creek, Wolf Island Creek (William Hester, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, personal commun., 2012). Within the Smith River, Roanoke logperch are present both upstream and downstream from Philpott Reservoir, a hydroelectric and water storage project owned and operated by the USACE. Although logperch have not been observed in the reservoir itself, the species is relatively abundant in a free-flowing, ≈ 2.5-km-long segment of Smith River upstream from the reservoir on USACE property (Lahey and Angermeier, 2006). This segment is bounded on the downstream end by the lentic conditions of the reservoir and on the upstream end by White Falls, a natural waterfall that presumably allows fish passage during all but the lowest streamflow (Roberts and Angermeier, 2009). The ESA stipulates that USACE must ensure that its actions do not jeopardize Roanoke logperch and ensure that appropriate actions are taken to aid in the recovery of Roanoke logperch. USACE recognized that additional information was needed to assess compliance with these stipulations, including data on baseline population levels, habitat availability, and potential threats to the species on USACE property. USACE therefore contracted with Virginia Tech (VT) and the U.S. Geological Survey via the Virginia Cooperative Fisheries and Wildlife Research Unit (VCFWRU) to continue ecological monitoring that was initiated in a pilot study in 2005 (Lahey and Angermeier, 2006). The VCFWRU is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia Tech, Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, and Wildlife Management Institute. This final report summarizes results of biological monitoring performed by VT and the VCFWRU in 2011, and compares these data to data collected during 2006–2010 (Roberts and Angermeier, 2011). Where appropriate, a comparison was made to data on Roanoke logperch collected previously in the study reach (Lahey and Angermeier, 2006) and in the upper Roanoke River (Roberts and Angermeier, 2011). This work was performed under the auspices of VT’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) protocol 11-035-FIW. Specifically, the following objectives were addressed: * Estimate population density of Roanoke logperch on USACE property; * Measure and map by suitability class the distribution of habitat suitable for Roanoke logperch in the project area; * Assess water quality relative to Roanoke logperch habitat in the project area; * Use the data on logperch abundance, habitat suitability, and water quality to test the general validity of correlates of logperch abundance from other locations; * Identify opportunities and threats related to protecting and enhancing Roanoke logperch habitat; and * Provide suggestions on the necessity and scale of future studies and monitoring related to logperch in and near USACE waters.

Virginia↗
USGS2016

Assessing wildlife benefits and carbon storage from restored and natural coastal marshes in the Nisqually River Delta: Determining marsh net ecosystem carbon balance

Working in partnership since 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nisqually Indian Tribe have restored 902 acres of tidally influenced coastal marsh in the Nisqually River Delta (NRD), making it the largest estuary-restoration project in the Pacific Northwest to date. Marsh restoration increases the capacity of the estuary to support a diversity of wildlife species. Restoration also increases carbon (C) production of marsh plant communities that support food webs for wildlife and can help mitigate climate change through long-term C storage in marsh soils. In 2015, an interdisciplinary team of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers began to study the benefits of carbon for wetland wildlife and storage in the NRD. Our primary goals are (1) to identify the relative importance of the different carbon sources that support juvenile chinook ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) food webs and contribute to current and historic peat formation, (2) to determine the net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) in a reference marsh and a restoration marsh site, and (3) to model the sustainability of the reference and restoration marshes under projected sea-level rise conditions along with historical vegetation change. In this fact sheet, we focus on the main C sources and exchanges to determine NECB, including carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) uptake through plant photosynthesis, the loss of CO 2 through plant and soil respiration, emissions of methane (CH 4 ), and the lateral movement or leaching loss of C in tidal waters.

Washington↗
USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

As a wildlife population ecologist who wants to conduct useful science, I find the Endangered Species Act (ESA), like other federal wildlife statutes, an intriguing read. The topic is in my wheelhouse—fish, wildlife, and plants, with a focus at the population and species levels. There is an emphasis on science, in fact, the “best scientific and commercial data available.” And there are intriguing questions: what threats does a species face? What habitat would be critical for its survival? Could any federal actions put the species or critical habitat in greater peril? I am not alone in this attraction. Hundreds of scientists continue to consider the types of scientific analysis suggested by the ESA. The enthusiasm is palpable. If the first cursory read of the ESA is intriguing to me as a scientist, the second close read is tantalizing—I realize that something very attractive is just out of reach. I know how to estimate the probability of extinction, but I do not know what “in danger of extinction” means. I know how to evaluate the incremental change in status that might arise from some level of proposed take, but I do not know what “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of a species means. The standards expressed in the statute are not stated in purely scientific terms. Thus, ESA decisions cannot be based solely on science, and require additional policy interpretation. Clarity about these policy interpretations—even awareness that they are needed—can be hard to find, leaving a gap between what I can provide as a scientist and what an ESA decision maker needs. This awareness of the interaction between science and policy is also occurring in the larger field of conservation science, where there has been an increasing recognition of a research-implementation gap, the need for actionable science, and the promise of translational ecology. All of these terms emphasize that science alone does not result in action; instead, action arises out of decisions that are informed both by science and by values. At the interface of science and policy, a scientist can deliver relevant knowledge, and a decision maker can explain the policy context in which that science is needed. As a scientist wanting to conduct useful science, I crave this two-way conversation. But how can this conversation be structured in a meaningful and appropriate way? In this chapter, I explore how decision analysis can be used to navigate the science-policy interface for ESA decisions. Decision analysis is a large, well-established field that studies how decisions are made and how they could be made, with explicit attention given to clarifying and separating the values-based and science-based elements of a decision; identifying the impediments that make a decision difficult; and providing tools to overcome those impediments. There have been concerted efforts to apply formal decision analysis to ESA decisions, but the practice is not yet widespread across both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The chapter begins with an introduction to decision analysis and how it seeks to bridge the science-policy interface. In subsequent sections, I explore how a decision analyst might frame listing and reclassification decisions, recovery planning, section 7 consultation, budget allocations, and a few other ESA decisions, with an emphasis on two questions: for each type of decision, what policy clarifications does the decision maker need to make; and knowing the policy context, what type of scientific assessment is needed. In the final discussion, I identify common themes among the types of decisions, and offer thoughts on how decision analysis could be more widely used to integrate science into ESA decisions.

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

Relative abundance and distribution of fishes and crayfish at Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nye County, Nevada, 2010-11

Introduction Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR) was established by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (with the assistance of The Nature Conservancy) in 1984 to protect one of the highest concentrations of endemic flora and fauna in North America (Pister, 1985; Sada, 1990). Prior to federal acquisition, Ash Meadows had been anthropogenically altered, and non-native species had been introduced to the detriment of native species; reports and published literature document the negative effects to the Ash Meadows flora and fauna (Deacon and others, 1964; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1971; Landye, 1973; Pister, 1974; Soltz and Naiman, 1978; Taylor, 1980; Williams and others, 1985; Williams and Sada, 1985; Baugh and others, 1986; Hershler and Sada, 1987; Knight and Clemmer, 1987; Sada, 1990; Deacon and Williams, 1991; Scoppettone and others, 2005; Kennedy and others, 2006). Such activities led to the extinction of the endemic Ash Meadows poolfish ( Empetrichthyes merriami ) (Miller, 1961; Soltz and Naiman, 1978), and subsequently the federal government listed three local endemic fish as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989)—Warm springs pupfish ( Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis ), Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish ( Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes ), and Ash Meadows speckled dace ( Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis ). Public ownership of a large portion of Ash Meadows provided the opportunity to restore the landscape to some semblance of its historical condition. Elimination of invasive aquatic species may be more difficult than landscape restoration, and their persistence can cause additional native fish decline or extirpation (Taylor and others, 1984; Moyle and others, 1986; Miller and others, 1989; Minckley and Deacon, 1991; Olden and Poff, 2005). Chemical treatment to remove invasive fishes is often unsuccessful (Meffe, 1983; Rinne and Turner, 1991; Meronek and others, 1996). In Ash Meadows, there has been some success in chemical eradication of localized populations of largemouth bass ( Micropterus salmoides ) and black bullhead ( Ameiurus melas ) (St. George, 1998, 1999; Weissenfluh, 2008b), as well as convict cichlid (Archocentrus nigrofasciatus) and sailfin molly ( Poecilia latipinna ) (Weissenfluh,2008a). However, there has been less success in removing western mosquitofish ( Gambusia affinis ) from Ash Meadows’s larger spring systems, and sailfin molly maintains strongholds in several spring systems (Scoppettone and others, 2011b). Perhaps the more destructive invasive species are two invertebrates: red swamp crayfish ( Procambarus clarkii ) and red-rim melania ( Melanoides tuberculata ). Following the appearance of red swamp crayfish within the Warm Springs Complex, Warm Springs pupfish was believed to be extirpated from one spring system (St. George, 2000) and near extirpation in two others (Darrick Weissenfluh, Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, oral commun., 2008, 2011). Crayfish also were demonstrated to greatly suppress the Bradford Springs population of Ash Meadows speckled dace population (McShane and others, 2004). Red-rim melania is known to displace native snail populations (Mitchell and others, 2007), and has been implicated as an agent of extinction of native Ash Meadows spring-snails (Donald Sada, Desert Research Institute, oral commun., 2011). Both invasive invertebrates are difficult to control or eradicate (Mitchell and others, 2007; Freeman and others, 2010). Habitat restoration that favors native species can help control non-native species (McShane and others, 2004; Scoppettone and others, 2005; Kennedy and others, 2006). Restoration of Carson Slough and its tributaries present an opportunity to promote habitat types that favor native species over non-natives. Historically, the majority of Ash Meadows spring systems were tributaries to Carson Slough. In 2007 and 2008, a survey of Ash Meadows spring systems was conducted to generate baseline information on the distribution of fishes throughout AMNWR (Scoppettone and others, 2011b). In this study, we conducted a follow-up survey with emphasis on upper Carson Slough. This permitted us to gauge the early effects of spring system restoration on fish populations and to generate further baseline data relevant to future restoration efforts.

Nevada↗
USGS2020

Using thermal infrared cameras to detect avian chicks at various distances and vegetative coverages

Population monitoring of nesting waterbirds often involves frequent entries into the colony, but alternative methods such as local remotely sensed thermal imaging may help reduce disturbance while providing a cost-effective way to survey breeding populations. Such an approach can have high initial costs, however, which may have reduced the number of studies investigating functionality of paired thermal infrared camera and small unmanned aerial systems. Here, we take the first step of exploring the ability of two thermal infrared cameras to detect an avian chick under varying vegetative cover and distances, preceding field-mounting applications on a small unmanned aerial system. We created seven “bioboxes” to simulate a range of natural vegetation types and densities for a globally important colonial ground-nesting waterbird species, the common tern Sterna hirundo . We placed a juvenile chicken Gallus gallus (surrogate for the locally endangered common tern) in each box, and we tested two market-accessible infrared cameras (produced by FLIR Systems and Infrared Cameras, Inc.) at five elevations using a stationary boom (maximum height = 12 m). We applied computer-based digital thresholding to collected images, identifying pixels meeting one of seven threshold values. The chick was visible from at least one threshold value in 19 and 31 of 35 processed by the FLIR Systems and Infrared Cameras, respectively. Percentage of the chick identified across thresholds was generally highest at lower threshold values and elevations and decreased as elevation and threshold increased; however, the relative importance of each variable changed dramatically across bioboxes and camera types. Ability to detect a chick from processed images generally decreased with increasing elevation, and although we made no quantitative comparisons among boxes, detectability appeared greatest in images from both cameras when little or no vegetation was present. Interestingly, no single threshold value was best for all bioboxes. We observed notable differences between cameras including visual resolution of detected temperature differentials and image processing speed. Results of this controlled study show promise for the use of thermal infrared systems for detecting cryptic species in vegetation. Future research should work to combine thermal infrared and visual sensors with small unmanned aerial systems to test applicability in a mobile field application.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗
USGS2016

Wind energy development: Methods for assessing risks to birds and bats pre-construction

Wind power generation is rapidly expanding. Although wind power is a low-carbon source of energy, it can impact negatively birds and bats, either directly through fatality or indirectly by displacement or habitat loss. Pre-construction risk assessment at wind facilities within the United States is usually required only on public lands. When conducted, it generally involves a 3-tier process, with each step leading to more detailed and rigorous surveys. Preliminary site assessment (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tier 1) is usually conducted remotely and involves evaluation of existing databases and published materials. If potentially at-risk wildlife are present and the developer wishes to continue the development process, then on-site surveys are conducted (Tier 2) to verify the presence of those species and to assess site-specific features (e.g., topography, land cover) that may influence risk from turbines. The next step in the process (Tier 3) involves quantitative or scientific studies to assess the potential risk of the proposed project to wildlife. Typical Tier-3 research may involve acoustic, aural, observational, radar, capture, tracking, or modeling studies, all designed to understand details of risk to specific species or groups of species at the given site. Our review highlights several features lacking from many risk assessments, particularly the paucity of before-and-after-control- impact (BACI) studies involving modeling and a lack of understanding of cumulative effects of wind facilities on wildlife. Both are essential to understand effective designs for pre-construction monitoring and both would help expand risk assessment beyond eagles.

Human-Wildlife Interactions↗
USGS1999

Herpetology in the federal government: a personal view

In late 1976, I received a phone call from an ichthyological colleague who asked if I would be willing to take a temporary position in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Office of Endangered Species (OES) in Washington. They had a backlog of proposed and final rules that needed to be finished, and they thought that a 30-day stint by a temporary herpetologist would clear the slate. Thus began a 23-year odyssey through the sometimes bizarre, sometimes rewarding, sometimes discouraging, but always different federal government. Fortunately, I have been able to stay involved with herpetology, both as a science and in terms of conservation policy. In my career, I have worked both in an administrative and in a research capacity. Many individuals with an interest in herpetology enter the federal government as field biologists and drift into administration as they become older and removed from the dynamically changing nature of their science. I moved in the other direction.

Herpetologists' League Communications↗
USGS2011

Delivering climate science for the nation's fish, wildlife, and ecosystems: The U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

Changes to the Earth's climate-temperature, precipitation, and other important aspects of climate-pose significant challenges to our Nation's natural resources now and will continue to do so. Managers of land, water, and living resources need to understand the impacts of climate change-which will exacerbate ongoing stresses such as habitat fragmentation and invasive species-so they can design effective response strategies. In 2008 Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); this center was formed to address challenges resulting from climate change and to empower natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision-making. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Virginia, the NCCWSC has invested over $20M in cutting-edge climate change research and is now leading the effort to establish eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs).

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2019

Environmental and biological factors influence migratory Sea Lamprey catchability: Implications for tracking abundance in the Laurentian Great Lakes

Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus population trends in the Great Lakes are tracked by trapping migratory adults in tributaries and using mark and recapture techniques to estimate abundance. Understanding what environmental and biological factors influence Sea Lamprey capture in tributaries is crucial to developing efficient trapping methods and reliable abundance estimates. We analyzed data from trapping sites located on eight Great Lakes tributaries using Cormack-Jolly-Seber models and examined how water temperature, discharge, sex, and length influenced Sea Lamprey apparent survival and capture probability. Sea Lamprey apparent survival was negatively associated with water temperature in all tributaries. Additionally, the odds of small Sea Lamprey (≤45 cm) remaining available to capture were 39% less (95% CI: 63% decrease – 1% increase) than large (>45 cm) lamprey odds. These observed relationships were used to investigate if bias in abundance estimates using the pooled-Petersen estimator and Jolly-Seber models was expected to be similar across trapping locations or influenced by variable environmental conditions and biological traits. Pooled-Petersen abundance estimates had a positive bias when datasets were generated from simulated populations with empirical relationships between environmental characteristics and catchability. The degree of bias depended upon changes in stream warming patterns and was not consistent among trapping locations. Jolly-Seber models using data from either weekly-batch-marked or uniquely-marked individuals generated abundance estimate with low bias when data quality was high, but performed poorly in scenarios with few recaptured Sea Lamprey. This research can promote improved Sea Lamprey monitoring efforts by providing insight into the reliability of the pooled-Petersen abundance estimator as a tool for tracking Sea Lamprey populations and demonstrating the limitations of adopting more robust methods when data are sparse.

Laurentian Great lakes↗
USGS1988

Applications of a simulation model to decisions in mallard management

A system comprising simulation models and data bases for habitat availability and nest success rates was used to predict results from a mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) management plan and to compare six management methods with a control. Individual treatments in the applications included land purchase for waterfowl production, wetland easement purchase, lease of uplands for waterfowl management, cropland retirement, use of no-till winter wheat, delayed cutting of alfalfa, installation of nest baskets, nesting island construction, and use of predator-resistant fencing.The simulations predicted that implementation of the management plan would increase recruits by 24%. Nest baskets were the most effective treatment, accounting for 20.4% of the recruits. No-till winter wheat was the second most effective, accounting for 5.9% of the recruits. Wetland loss due to drainage would cause an 11% loss of breeding population in 10 years.The models were modified to account for migrational homing. The modification indicated that migrational homing would enhance the effects of management. Nest success rates were critical contributions to individual management methods. The most effective treatments, such as nest baskets, had high success rates and affected a large portion of the breeding population.Economic analyses indicated that nest baskets would be the most economical of the three techniques tested. The applications indicated that the system is a useful tool to aid management decisions, but data are scarce for several important variables. Basic research will be required to adequately model the effect of migrational homing and density dependence on production. The comprehensive nature of predictions desired by managers will also require that production models like the one described here be extended to encompass the entire annual cycle of waterfowl.

Fish and Wildlife Technical Report↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Species of conservation concern

The ecosystems of the Williston Basin provide direct and indirect benefits to society. These benefits include carbon sequestration, flood control, nutrient rich soils for agricultural productivity, and habitat for wildlife. This chapter’s main focus is on the effects of energy development on species that occupy the ecosystems in the Williston Basin. We compiled a list of documented species of conservation concern that are of most interest to Federal regulators and resource managers. Species of concern were either listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act or listed by States as species of concern in Natural Heritage Program checklists or State Wildlife Action Plans. All told, we determined that 357 species of concern likely occupy the Williston Basin. These species represented seven different taxonomic groups: plants (native and nonnative), terrestrial invertebrates, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and fish and mussels. We reviewed the existing scientific information pertaining to potential effects of energy development on these taxonomic groups. Currently, little is known about the abundance and distribution of many of these species. But some information exists that may be useful in predicting the potential effects of energy development on certain taxonomic groups. Most of this information has been developed through scientific research focused on effects to mammal and bird populations. Effects to other taxonomic groups seems to be understudied. In general, it seems that disturbances and modifications associated with development have the potential to negatively affect a wide range of species; however, many studies produce uncertain results because they are not designed to compare populations before and after energy development takes place. Most of these studies also do not monitor resources over multiple years and thus cannot detect population trends. Likewise, there are few examples of landscape-scale assessments of the cumulative effects of energy development that could be used for species or habitat management purposes. We suggest that more research needs to be completed to measure potential effects to a broad range of species in multiple taxonomic groups. This may require also developing some understanding about the basic ecology of many of the species covered in this report. In concert with this more basic research, we also suggest that more comprehensive assessments of potential negative cumulative effects across the Williston Basin should be developed in an effort to guide more strategic management of biological resources.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS1983

Evaluating environmental and economic consequences of alternative pest management strategies: results of modeling workshops

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs a comprehensive method to evaluate the human health and environmental effects of alternative agricultural pest management strategies. This project explored the utility of Adaptive Environmental Assessment (AEA) techniques for meeting this need. The project objectives were to produce models for environmental impact analysis, improve communications, identify research needs and data requirements, and demonstrate a process for resolving conflicts. The project was structured around the construction (in an initial 2 1/2-day workshop) and examination (in a second 2 1/2-day workshop) of a simulation model of a corn agroecosystem. The model conceptualized at the first workshop simulates the effect of corn agrecosystem decisions on crop production, economic returns, and environmental indicators. The model is composed of five interacting submodels: 1) a Production Strategies submodel which makes decisions concerning tillage, planting, fertilizer and pesticide applications, and harvest; 2) a Hydrology/Chemical Transport submodel which represents soil hydrology, erosion, and concentrations of fertilizers and pesticides in the soil, runoff, surface waters, and percolation; 3) a Vegetation submodel which simulates growth of agricultural crops (corns and soybeans) and weeds; 4) a Pests submodel which calculates pest population levels and resulting crop damage; and 5) an Environmental Effects submodel which calculates indicators of potential fish kills, human health effects, and wildlife habitat. The most persistent data gaps encountered in quantifying the model were coefficients to relate environmental consequences to alternative pest management strategies. While the model developed in the project is not yet accurate enough to be used for real-world decisions about the use of pesticides on corn, it does contain the basic structure upon which such a model could be built. More importantly at this stage of development, the project has shown that very complex systems can be modeled in short periods of time and that the process of building such models increases understanding among disciplinary specialists and between diverse institutional interests. This process can be useful to EPA as the agency cooperates with other institutions to meet its responsibilities in less costly ways. Activities at the second 2 1/2-day workshop included a review of the model, incorporation of necessary corrections, simulation of policy scenarios, and examination of techniques to address remaining institutional conflicts. Participants were divided into three groups representing environmental, production or industry, and regulatory interests. Each group developed scenarios that would be most appealing to their particular interest and the scenarios were simulated by the agroecosystem computer model. Negotiators from each of the interest groups decided whether a hypothetical herbicide should be relabeled and if certain restrictions should be imposed on its use. Other participants functioned as experts and consultants on caucus teams. A solution to the hypothetical problem was successfully negotiated. Workshop participants and project staff agreed that the model and processes developed during the project should be used in training students, extension specialists, farmers, researchers, and chemical producers in collaborative problem solving methods. More productive research can be planned, and more realistic models of complex systems can be built in this way. More importantly, greater trust of decisionmakers in computer models, better understanding by technical experts about disciplines other than their own, and improved cooperation between institutional interests can be achieved. This trust, understanding, and cooperation are critical ingredients in solving problems that are too complex to be resolved by independent disciplinary activity and unilateral decision authority.

Report↗
USGS2025

A summary of grizzly bear distribution in the lower-48 US states in 2024

Understanding the distribution of grizzly bear populations in the lower-48 states, is important for their conservation and management, and for public safety. Previously, our research teams working in grizzly bear ecosystems in the lower-48 states used varying methods to estimate distribution of grizzly bear populations. In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), zonal analysis and ordinary kriging were applied to an array of grid cells with or without verified presence of grizzly bears, however the parameters of the methods varied between the two ecosystems. In the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) and the Selkirk Ecosystem (SE), population distribution was mapped as the Recovery Zone plus “bears outside of Recovery Zone” areas (Allen 2011). Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a method for estimating areas where grizzly bears “may be present” to help agencies or prospective applicants evaluate whether or not proposed actions may affect grizzly bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020). Since the mid 2010s, cooperating agencies have collaborated in documenting and maintaining a database of verified outlier observations that occur between or well outside of grizzly bear Recovery Zones and these data inform the “may be present” mapping.

lower 48 states↗
USGS2012

Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin

As wolf conservation transitions away from federally sponsored protection and recovery toward sustainable management under state fish and game agencies, researchers and policymakers are interested to know what role hunters will play. Based upon hunters' responses to three recent surveys in Wisconsin and the northern Rockies, Treves and Martin question the assumption that hunters will steward wolves, noting that the majority of hunters that responded were unsupportive of wolf conservation. However, this conclusion largely depends upon what is meant by stewardship and what actions are required for wolves to be conserved. This article discusses the meaning of three concepts either explicitly or implicitly discussed by Treves and Martin—tolerance, acceptance, and stewardship—and offers a conceptual model of wildlife conservation behavior that clarifies the relationship among these concepts.

Society & Natural Resources: An International Jour↗
USGS2016

An international borderland of concern: Conservation of biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley

The Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) of southern Texas is located on the United States-Mexico borderland and represents a 240-kilometer (150-mile) linear stretch that ends at the Gulf of Mexico. The LRGV represents a unique transition between temperate and tropical conditions and, as such, sustains an exceptionally high diversity of plants and animals—some of them found in few, or no other, places in the United States. Examples include Leopardus pardalis albescens (northern ocelot) and Falco femoralis septentrionalis (northern aplomado falcon)—both endangered in the United States and emblematic of the LRGV. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages three national wildlife refuges (Santa Ana, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Laguna Atascosa) that together make up the South Texas Refuge Complex, which actively conserves biodiversity in about 76,006 hectares (187,815.5 acres) of native riparian and upland habitats in the LRGV. These diminished habitats harbor many rare, threatened, and endangered species. This report updates the widely used 1988 USFWS biological report titled “Tamaulipan Brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of South Texas: Description, Human Impacts, and Management Options” by synthesizing nearly 400 peer-reviewed scientific publications that have resulted from biological and sociological research conducted specifically in the four Texas counties of the LRGV in the past nearly 30 years. This report has three goals: (1) synthesize scientific insights gained since 1988 related to the biology and management of the LRGV and its unique biota, focusing on flora and fauna of greatest conservation concern; (2) update ongoing challenges facing Federal and State agencies and organizations that focus on conservation or key natural resources in the LRGV; and (3) redefine conservation opportunities and land-acquisition strategies that are feasible and appropriate today, given the many new and expanding constraints that challenge conservation activities in the LRGV. The LRGV faces every contemporary conservation challenge of the 21st century, but ongoing human population growth and its associated demands, international border issues, and oil, gas, and alternative energy development dominate impacts that affect conservation in the LRGV. Continued careful syntheses of existing and future information collected in the LRGV are needed on many biological and sociological topics to guide conservation activities. Quick response will no doubt be necessary to face contemporary and difficult-to-predict challenges such as climate change, diminished water availability and quality, spread of invasive species, and habitat loss and fragmentation. Complexities of a guarded international borderland add pressure to small patches of native habitat that remain in many places of the LRGV, particularly along the Rio Grande. Large connected corridors of restored native habitat could be the best option to maintain, and even enhance, the exceptional biodiversity of the LRGV in the face of exceptional human demand.

Texas↗
USGS2014

Delivering climate science about the Nation's fish, wildlife, and ecosystems: the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

Changes to the Earth’s climate—temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables—pose significant challenges to our Nation’s natural resources. Managers of land, water, and living resources require an understanding of the impacts of climate change—which exacerbate ongoing stresses such as habitat alteration and invasive species—in order to design effective response strategies. In 2008, Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The center was formed to address environmental challenges resulting from climate and land-use change and to provide natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision making. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Virginia, the NCCWSC has established eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and has invested over $93 million (through fiscal year 2013) in cutting-edge climate change research.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

Can reliable sage-grouse lek counts be obtained using aerial infrared technology

More effective methods for counting greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) are needed to better assess population trends through enumeration or location of new leks. We describe an aerial infrared technique for conducting sage-grouse lek counts and compare this method with conventional ground-based lek count methods. During the breeding period in 2010 and 2011, we surveyed leks from fixed-winged aircraft using cryogenically cooled mid-wave infrared cameras and surveyed the same leks on the same day from the ground following a standard lek count protocol. We did not detect significant differences in lek counts between surveying techniques. These findings suggest that using a cryogenically cooled mid-wave infrared camera from an aerial platform to conduct lek surveys is an effective alternative technique to conventional ground-based methods, but further research is needed. We discuss multiple advantages to aerial infrared surveys, including counting in remote areas, representing greater spatial variation, and increasing the number of counted leks per season. Aerial infrared lek counts may be a valuable wildlife management tool that releases time and resources for other conservation efforts. Opportunities exist for wildlife professionals to refine and apply aerial infrared techniques to wildlife monitoring programs because of the increasing reliability and affordability of this technology.

Nevada;Wyoming↗
USGS2003

USGS Alaska Tissue Archival Projects: An update on FY02 activities

The banking of environmental specimens under cryogenic conditions for future retrospective analysis has been recognized for many years as an important part of environmental monitoring programs. Since 1987, the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP) has been collecting tissue samples from marine mammals for archival in the National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank (NBSB) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA. The USGS, Alaska Biological Science Center (ABSC), the NOAA Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources (NMFS), and the NIST conduct this partnership project, which began under the Mineral Management Service (MMS) Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program. MMS remains the primary client agency for the AMMTAP providing programmatic guidance and review. The purpose of the project is to collect tissue samples from Alaska marine mammals and to store these specimens under the best conditions so that they can be analyzed for environmental contaminants and other constituents. A substantial part of the sample collection is from Arctic species and, since most of the animals sampled are from Alaska Native subsistence harvests, the project relies on cooperation and collaboration with several Alaska Native organizations and local governmental agencies. Although a substantial amount of recent research has been conducted on contaminants in Alaskan marine mammals, few data exists on colonial seabirds nesting in Alaska. Like marine mammals, seabirds are an important group of upper trophic level marine organisms with a potential for accumulating lipophilic contaminants and are identified by MMS as species of interest for monitoring activities. More than 95% of the seabirds breeding in the continental United States nest at colonies in the Bering and Chukchi seas and Gulf of Alaska (see USFWS 1992). Realizing the value of colonial seabirds in environmental monitoring and the lack of recent data from Alaskan seabird colonies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS-AMNWR), the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) in 1998. The project was designed as a 100-year-long program to monitor long-term trends in environmental quality by collecting eggs at nesting colonies using standardized protocols, banking the egg contents under conditions that ensure chemical stability during long-term (decadal) storage, and analyzing subsamples of the stored material to establish baseline levels for persistent bioaccumulative contaminants (e.g., chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, mercury).

Conference Paper↗