SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources

USGS2020

Louisiana Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring Program: Mapping habitats in beach, dune, and intertidal environments along the Louisiana Gulf of Mexico shoreline, 2008 and 2015–16

Barrier islands, headlands, and coastal shorelines provide numerous valuable ecosystem goods and services, including storm protection and erosion control for the mainland, habitat for fish and wildlife, salinity regulation in estuaries, carbon sequestration in marshes, and areas for recreation and tourism. These coastal features are dynamic environments because of their position at the land-sea interface. Storms, wave energy, tides, currents, and relative sea-level rise are powerful forces that shape local geomorphology and habitat distribution. In order to make more informed decisions, coastal resource managers require insights into how these dynamic systems are changing through time. In 2005, Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, in partnership with the University of New Orleans and the U.S. Geological Survey, developed the Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring (BICM) Program. The goal of the BICM Program is to develop long-term datasets for habitat coverage, shoreline assessments, shoreline position, topobathymetric changes, and sediment characterization to assist with planning, designing, evaluating, and maintaining current and future barrier shorelines. The overall objectives of the study described in this report were to (1) map habitats for 2008 and 2015–16 for BICM coastal reaches and (2) map habitat change between these two time periods. This report highlights the second phase of habitat analyses for the BICM Program. This work builds on a previous habitat analysis conducted by the University of New Orleans, which included the development of habitat maps for 1996/1998, 2001, 2004, and 2005, along with habitat change maps. For this current effort, a new 15-class habitat scheme was developed from the original BICM scheme to further delineate various dune habitats, including meadow habitat found along the backslopes of dunes, to distinguish between marsh and mangrove, and to distinguish between beach and unvegetated barrier flat habitats. Additionally, a geographic object-based image analysis-based mapping framework was used to incorporate relative topography and address elevation uncertainty in light detection and ranging data to assist with mapping dune and intertidal habitats. For the entire BICM region, the area experiencing a change in a land/water category (that is, land gain or land loss) was 3.4 percent, of which, 59.2 percent was land gain and 40.8 percent was land loss. Areal coverages of meadow, mangrove, scrub/shrub, and vegetated dune increased from 2008 to 2015–16, whereas areal coverages of beach, grassland, and intertidal decreased. The decrease in intertidal, however, was largely due to differing water levels in the orthophotography between the two time periods. Regional analyses of habitat coverage and habitat change captured the dynamic nature of these systems and the effects of restoration efforts, most notably in the Late Lafourche Delta, Modern Delta, and Chandeleur Islands regions. For instance, in the Modern Delta region there was a marked increase in unvegetated flat, meadow, mangrove, scrub/shrub, beach, unvegetated dune, and vegetated dune. As a result, this region experienced the highest percent change for land/water classes (6.6 percent) with land gain accounting for much of this change (70.8 percent). In contrast, the Acadiana Bays region had the highest relative percent loss of all regions. The region had a percent change for land/water classes of 2.8 percent, of which, 79.7 percent was land loss. The results of this study provide information about the areal coverage and distribution of habitats for two recent time periods and change over about an 8-year period. These data can be used to evaluate changes along the Louisiana Gulf of Mexico shoreline, including gradual changes caused by coastal processes, restoration actions, and (or) episodic events, such as hurricanes and extreme storms.

Louisiana↗

USGS2020

Local sea level rise information sheets for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida

Two Pagers for Federally Managed Lands The Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative partnered with individuals at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Wetland and Aquatic Research Center and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce customized two-pager information sheets for federal coastal refuges, parks, and reserves across the northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., sea-level rise sensitive federally-managed lands within Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida). The project was funded by the Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, and the project team included Bogdan Chivoiu (Cherokee Nation Technologies at USGS), Michael Osland (USGS), Renee Collini (Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative), Sara Martin (Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative), Benjamin Wilson (NAS Science Policy Fellow at USFWS) and John Tirpak (USFWS). The project team is grateful to the many individuals that provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of these two pagers.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida↗

USGS1987

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project users guide

Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA, 1980) established the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (TNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge. Before developing a plan for the refuge, the Secretary shall identify and describe--a) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge; b) the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, palentological, scenic, or wilderness value of the refuge; c) areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities… ; d) present the potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge… ; and e) significant problems which may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described... (ANILCA, 1980). Vegetation, water, and terrain (elevation, slope, and aspect) are the components of habitat and can be used in the determination of the above requirements. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the responsibility for collecting the resource information to address the research, management, development and planning requirements identified in Section 304. Because of the brief period provided by the Act for data collection, habitat mapping, and habitat assessment, the USFWS in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Field Office, used digital Landsat multispectral scanner data (MSS) and digital terrain data to produce land cover and terrain maps. A computer assisted digital analysis of Landsat MSS data was used because coverage by aerial photographs was incomplete for much of the refuge and because the level of detail, obtained from the analysis of Landsat data, is adequate to meet most USFWS research, management and planning needs. Relative cost and time requirements were also factors in the decision to use the digital analysis approach.

Alaska↗

USGS2023

Evaluating management alternatives for Wyoming elk feedgrounds in consideration of chronic wasting disease

Executive Summary The authors used decision and modeling analyses to evaluate management alternatives for a decision on whether to permit Cervus canadensis (elk) feeding on two sites on Bridger-Teton National Forest, Dell Creek and Forest Park. Supplemental feeding of elk could increase the transmission of chronic wasting disease (CWD) locally and disease spread regionally, potentially impacting elk populations over time with wider implications for Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) and Odocoileus virginianus (white-tailed deer) populations and hunting, tourism, and regional revenue. Supplemental feeding is thought to improve overwinter elk survival and reduce the commingling of elk with cattle during months when brucellosis transmission risk is highest. We worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service to identify their fundamental objectives and associated performance metrics related to this feedground decision. We then developed disease and habitat selection models to quantify the effect of four management alternatives on select performance metrics. The four alternatives were to continue to permit feeding, phaseout permits to feed in three years, permit feeding on an emergency basis, or stop permitting feeding. In this report, we present methods and summarized results on disease and habitat selection models and summaries of other performance metrics analyzed by BIO-WEST, Inc. and Cirrus Ecological Solutions as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. Data from Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) supported the assumption that supplemental elk feeding allows for larger elk populations in a region. We documented that herd units (HU) without feedgrounds had 23 percent lower densities of elk per area of winter range when compared against HUs with feedgrounds, after accounting for differences in sightability of elk during counts on and off feedgrounds. Thus, throughout our analyses, we assumed feedground closures would reduce elk carrying capacity resulting in an average decline of previously fed elk population segments by 23 percent (5th and 95th percentiles = [11 percent, 35 percent]) by year 20. Most of that decline occurred within the first few years after a feedground ceases to operate. We used a panel of CWD experts to help estimate CWD trans-mission in fed and unfed elk population segments. In aggregate, the expert panel estimated that median values of direct and indirect transmission of CWD are expected to be 1.9 and 4 times higher, respectively, in fed elk populations compared to unfed elk. We used these disease transmission estimates in combination with local elk demographic rates and carrying capacity estimates to project disease and population dynamics. In year 20, we predicted CWD prevalence would increase to 42 percent (5th and 95th percentiles = [29 percent, 55 percent]), and 13 percent (5th and 95th percentiles = [4 percent, 26 percent]) on average for fed and unfed elk population segments, respectively, given a starting prevalence of 1.6 percent. The prevalence estimates for the unfed elk population segments are in the range of previous observations of CWD in elk in the western United States. The average CWD prevalence from 2016 to 2018 in the unfed elk population of Wind Cave National Park in South Dakota was 18 percent overall but up to 30 percent in some regions (Sargeant and others, 2021). Meanwhile, CWD prevalence in the Iron Mountain and Laramie Peak elk herds in Wyoming from 2016 to 2018 was 14 percent and 7 percent, respectively, despite being present since at least 2002 (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2020b). From 2016 to 2020, elk that were fed at Dell Creek and Forest Park constituted on average 12–20 percent of the total elk on their respective HUs. As a result, the differences between management alternatives are modest when considering the closure of only one feedground on a HU. The no feeding alternative for Forest Park resulted in a CWD prevalence of 17 percent (SD = 7 percent) in the Afton HU compared to 20 percent (SD = 7 percent) with continued feeding by year 20. In the Upper Green River HU, no feeding on Dell Creek resulted in a CWD prevalence of 27 percent (SD = 6 percent) compared to 30 percent (SD = 5 percent) with continued feeding. In terms of disease-associated mortality, we predicted the closure of Forest Park and Dell Creek feedgrounds would reduce the total number of CWD mortalities by 9 percent in the Upper Green River HU and 26 percent in the Afton HU during the 20-year timespan. Our spatial analyses predicted that management alternative effects vary by HU as a function of private property and other wildlife winter ranges proximity relative to feedground location. The predicted number of elk abortions on private land, as a proxy for brucellosis risk to cattle, may increase by 8–21 percent in the absence of feeding at Dell Creek and Forest Park. Eight feedgrounds are located on Bridger-Teton National Forest, all of which have permits that have expired or will expire prior to 2028. In addition, WGFD could change their management of feedgrounds given new information; therefore, we also assessed the cumulative effects of continued feeding, phaseout, and no feeding management alternatives across five HUs south of Jackson, Wyoming (Afton HU, Fall Creek HU, Piney HU, Pinedale HU, and Upper Green River HU). These five HUs ranged from about 41 to 85 percent of the elk herd using feedgrounds, which corresponded to a CWD prevalence at year 20 of 23–34 percent if all feedgrounds in those five HUs remained open relative to 12 to 14 percent if all feedgrounds were closed. We predicted feedground closures may result in immediate reductions in population size relative to alternatives that continue feeding (for example, continued feeding and emergency feeding alternatives); however, over longer periods of time, CWD-associated mortality leads to larger population reductions. The no feeding alternative resulted in higher elk population sizes compared to the continued feeding alternative after about 10 years of implementation. Delayed action under a phaseout alternative resulted in increasing the CWD prevalence to 20 percent relative to 12 to 14 percent, on average, without feeding on HUs with a large population of fed elk such as the Upper Green River HU. Summarizing our cumulative results across all five of the analyzed HUs, we predicted continued feeding will lead to fewer elk by year 20 (mean = 8,300, standard deviation [SD] = 740) compared to no feeding at U.S. Department of Agri-culture Forest Service sites (10,700, SD = 890). The closure of all feedgrounds was projected to result in the largest elk populations at year 20 (12,500, SD = 980). No feeding at all sites also resulted in the largest cumulative harvest of 57,700 (SD = 2,600) compared to 51,100 (SD = 3,800) for continued feeding at all current feedground sites on the five HUs. Continued feeding also resulted in the lowest brucellosis costs to producers ($194,600, SD = $11,500) compared to no feeding on all feedgrounds ($243,000, SD = $13,700). Assuming moderate reductions in hunter interest because of increasing CWD prevalence in elk, we predicted that no feeding resulted in regional revenues generated by hunting activities of $190 million (SD = $10 million) compared to $173 million (SD = $10 million) for continued feeding over the 20-year timeframe. Recent CWD detections in mule deer and elk in Grand Teton National Park has elevated the importance of the cur-rent decision on whether, and how, to permit elk feeding on Dell Creek and Forest Park and the management of the other feedgrounds. Aggressive male harvest has slowed, but not stopped, the increasing prevalence of CWD in mule deer (Conner and others, 2021). It is unclear whether harvest management can be an effective tool to slow the spread of CWD in elk. There are also no effective treatments or vaccines for CWD, and it is unlikely that any will be developed that can be easily deployed in the near future. Thus, reducing artificial aggregations is one of the few management approaches suggested by the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Almberg and others, 2017). Future surveillance and monitoring can be designed to resolve uncertainties that can improve future decision-making. If feedgrounds close, research could quantify elk population reductions in the absence of feeding, the redistribution of fed elk to other places, or the consequences of elk movement on private property. If feedgrounds remain open, research could assess how rapidly CWD spreads in artificial aggregations of elk; however, surveillance programs would need to be designed with sufficient power to detect initial changes of CWD prevalence. Delaying action on feedground management was projected to be costly. Results of the phaseout alternative relative to the no feeding alternative suggested a 3-year delay was enough for substantial long-term changes in CWD prevalence. The long-term persistence of infectious CWD prions in the environment suggests that feedground management decisions may have long-lasting consequences. Our results indicated tradeoffs in the ability of a management agency to achieve all their objectives, and all management alternatives resulted in significant reductions in elk population size. This report contains the foundational elements for formal decision analysis methods, which can be implemented to help decision makers transparently evaluate the consequences of decision alternatives and identify the set of actions that best achieve agency and stakeholder priorities.

Wyoming↗

USGS2024

The impact of future changes in climate on breeding waterfowl pairs in the US Prairie Pothole Region

Millions of small (< 10 ha) waterbodies embedded in grassland and agroecosystems in midcontinental North America provide breeding habitat to an estimated 50–80% of North America’s migratory ducks. Tens of millions of dollars are invested annually to conserve and enhance upland and wetland habitats for breeding ducks by prioritizing locations predicted to have high densities of breeding pairs under average precipitation conditions. An implicit assumption of this approach is that the distribution of breeding habitat remains relatively static. Climate change is an identified risk to this strategy. To assess this assumption and plan for potential forthcoming conditions, we estimated changes in potential breeding duck pairs under different climate scenarios by combining results of 1) a mechanistic hydrology model that simulates ecosystem processes for a subset of wetlands distributed across the U.S. Prairie Pothole Region (USPPR); 2) four downscaled climate model projections at mid- and late-century time horizons; and 3) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service multi-decadal datasets and predictive breeding waterfowl pair statistical models. We conducted virtual and in-person informational sessions with partners to inform them on the best practices of using downscaled global circulation models and approaches for climate scenario planning. This close coordination led to a joint presentation at a monthly North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center seminar. We are also co-developing simulated wetland- waterfowl responses under different climate futures for wetlands. Information from these robust predictions of waterfowl habitat and settling patterns in this region provides land-management agencies insights in prioritizing current conservation actions given uncertainty. In addition, understanding how many breeding pairs the USPPR might support in coming decades will likely influence overall breeding population sizes and sustainable harvest objectives across North America.

Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dak↗

USGS2016

LANDFIRE 2010—Updates to the national dataset to support improved fire and natural resource management

The Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) 2010 data release provides updated and enhanced vegetation, fuel, and fire regime layers consistently across the United States. The data represent landscape conditions from approximately 2010 and are the latest release in a series of planned updates to maintain currency of LANDFIRE data products. Enhancements to the data products included refinement of urban areas by incorporating the National Land Cover Database 2006 land cover product, refinement of agricultural lands by integrating the National Agriculture Statistics Service 2011 cropland data layer, and improved wetlands delineations using the National Land Cover Database 2006 land cover and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory data. Disturbance layers were generated for years 2008 through 2010 using remotely sensed imagery, polygons representing disturbance events submitted by local organizations, and fire mapping program data such as the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity perimeters produced by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Forest Service. Existing vegetation data were updated to account for transitions in disturbed areas and to account for vegetation growth and succession in undisturbed areas. Surface and canopy fuel data were computed from the updated vegetation type, cover, and height and occasionally from potential vegetation. Historical fire frequency and succession classes were also updated. Revised topographic layers were created based on updated elevation data from the National Elevation Dataset. The LANDFIRE program also released a new Web site offering updated content, enhanced usability, and more efficient navigation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Species accounts for the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex

As part of an interagency agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex requested help with the synthesis of scientific information for 10 focal species and their habitat requirements in response to common Refuge management activities in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. This information will be instrumental in developing the Service's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which is required by law for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. After consultation with Refuge managers and USGS staff, the 10 species chosen for detailed literature reviews and synthesis of information were the following: (1) American Avocet ( Recurvirostra americana ); (2) Wilson's Phalarope ( Phalaropus tricolor Porzana carolina ); (4) White-faced Ibis ( Plegadis chihi ); (5) Black Tern ( Chlidonias niger ); (6) Short-eared Owl ( Asio flammeus ); (7) Brewer's Sparrow ( Spizella breweri ); (8) Savannah Sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ); (9) Northern Leopard Frog [ Lithobates (=Rana) pipiens ]; and, (10) Tadpole Shrimp ( Triops longicaudatus ).

Colorado↗

USGS1979

Conservation of marine birds of northern North America: Papers from the international symposium held at the Seattle Hyatt House, Seattle, Washington, 13-15 May 1975

The international symposium "Conservation of Marine Birds of Northern North America" was convened because of a growing awareness that not all was well with our marine birds. The symposium provided a forum for scientists, governmental administrators, conservationists, and laypeople to discuss the diverse topics and issues that we must all understand if we are to act both responsively and responsibly to assure that marine birds will not be lost through our neglect. The symposium was cosponsored by the Natural Resources Council of America, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and the U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; additional support was provided by the Canadian Wildlife Service, the International Association of Game, Fish, and Conservation Commissioners, the Pacific Seabird Group, the Sierra Club, the Smithsonian Institution, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the Wildlife Society. Persons interested and knowledgeable in the many and varied aspects of marine bird conservation were invited to participate in this symposium. There were 139 registered and several score of unregistered participants in attendance. Major topics treated were: (1) socioeconomic considerations and conservation of marine birds; (2) the marine environment of birds; (3) status of marine bird populations on land and sea; (4) the biology and ecology of marine birds in the North; (5) conflicts between the conservation of marine birds and uses of other resources; (6) programs and authorities related to the conservation of marine birds; and (7) conservation of marine birds in other lands.

Wildlife Research Report↗

USGS1988

Results of a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species and Ecological Services Field Offices, Refuges, Hatcheries, and Research Centers

The National Ecology Research Center (Center), as part of an ongoing research study on the effects of low altitude aircraft operations on fish and wildlife, conducted a survey in January 1987 of all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regional directors, research center directors, Ecological Services and Endangered Species field offices supervisors, refuge manager, and hatchery manager. The objective of the survey was to determine the nature and extent of aircraft-induced impacts on fish and wildlife species, populations, and habitat utilization. The field installation managers and biologists were asked to provide background information or data on fish and wildlife reactions to low-altitude aircraft disturbances, including physiological, behavioral, and reproductive/population effects. Specifically, the survey asked for information such as: (1) observations of animal reaction(s) to aircraft operations, e.g., desert bighorn sheep scare behavior in response to aircraft overflights and hatchery fish seizures and death following intense sonic booms; and instances of areas where aircraft noise is known or believed to be responsible for reduced population size, e.g. areas along heavily used aircraft flight corridors where breeding waterfowl densities are lower than in similar habitat away from the noise area.

Report↗

USGS2021

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2020 research abstracts

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves as the research arm of the U.S. Department of the Interior and has established a series of strategic goals that focus its efforts on serving the American people. Within the USGS, the Ecosystems Mission Area is responsible for conducting and sponsoring research that addresses the following thematic objectives under the overarching strategic goal of “Science that Supports Our Resources in Wild and Urban Spaces, and the Landscapes In-Between”: Science supporting a legacy of sustainable fish and wildlife, Social science and human components in land, water, and wildlife conservation, Trusted science supporting hard decisions on at-risk species, Science to battle costly biological threats, Providing science for managing risks and responding to extreme events, Science for preservation and restoration of iconic landscapes, and Science to support adaptation and address impacts of climate and land change. This report provides abstracts of most of the ongoing and recently completed research investigations of the USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program. The report is organized by the following major science themes that contribute to the objectives of the USGS: Advanced Technologies Climate Science Decision Science Ecological Flows Ecosystem Services Energy Fish and Wildlife Health and Disease Human Dimensions Invasive Species Landscape Ecology Species and Habitat Management Species of Greatest Conservation Need Threatened and Endangered Species

Circular↗

USGS2018

An integrated population model for greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the bi-state distinct population segment, California and Nevada, 2003–17

The Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus , hereinafter “sage-grouse”) occupies parts of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo Counties in California, and parts of Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, Carson City, and Mineral Counties in Nevada and was proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in October 2013. In April 2015, the USFWS determined that the Bi-State DPS did not warrant listing under the ESA, but monitoring continued for assessment of long-term population stability (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015a). Threats to this population include geographic isolation, expansion of single-leaf pinyon ( Pinus monophylla ) and Utah juniper ( Juniperus osteosperma ), anthropogenic activities, changes in historical wildfire cycles and the conversion of native shrubs to invasive annual grasslands, and recent changes in predator communities. As part of a broad long-term monitoring program, we used an integrated population model to estimate finite rate of population change (λ) of each subpopulation within the Bi-State DPS from 2003 to 2017. Since 2012, the Bi-State DPS experienced multiple years of drought conditions associated with periods of population decline across multiple populations. The 14-year average (λ) for the Bi-State DPS is 0.98 (95 percent CRI=0.70–1.31). Three subpopulations (Mount Grant, Fales, Bodie Hills) showed continued evidence of stability and growth as the average λ exceeded 1.0. Moreover, we implemented the first year of an experimental pre-nesting female and brood translocation program to bolster a critically low population of sage-grouse in Parker Meadows, California. Finally, we report summary statistics describing sage-grouse movements and relative abundance of avian predators across all years of the study.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

Potential effects of chronic wasting disease and supplemental feeding on elk populations in Wyoming

Introduction In 2023, the U.S. Geological Survey, in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, evaluated the costs and benefits of supplemental elk ( Cervus elaphus canadensis ) feeding in western Wyoming. Elk supplemental feeding is intended to maintain elk populations in the winter and limit elk damage to private property. Supplemental feeding is also used to minimize the transmission of brucellosis ( Brucella abortus ) from elk to cattle. If brucellosis is detected in cattle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires that the entire herd be euthanized or placed in quarantine until the herd passes several negative tests for the disease. However, supplemental feeding may enhance the transmission and effects of chronic wasting disease (CWD), which has no treatment or vaccine, is always fatal, and can remain infectious in the environment for many years. Key findings from the U.S. Geological Survey evaluation help assess the costs and benefits of four supplemental elk feeding alternatives and their potential implications for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

Wyoming↗

USGS2016

Characterization of sediment and measurement of groundwater levels and temperatures, Camas National Wildlife Refuge, eastern Idaho

The Camas National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in eastern Idaho, established in 1937, contains wetlands, ponds, and wet meadows that are essential resting and feeding habitat for migratory birds and nesting habitat for waterfowl. Initially, natural sources of water supported these habitats. However, during the past few decades, climate change and changes in surrounding land use have altered and reduced natural groundwater and surface water inflows such that the wetlands, ponds, and wet meadows are now maintained through water management and groundwater pumping. These water management activities have proven to be inefficient and costly, prompting the Refuge to develop alternative water management options that are more efficient and less expensive. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is studying the hydrogeology at the Refuge to provide information for developing alternative water management options. The hydrogeologic studies at the Refuge included characterizing the type, distribution, and hydraulic conductivity of surficial sediments and measuring water levels and temperatures in monitoring wells. Four monitoring wells and seven soil probe coreholes were drilled at the Refuge. Seven water level and temperature data loggers were installed in the wells and water levels and temperatures were continuously recorded from November 2014 to June 2016. Sediment cores were collected from the coreholes and sediment type and distribution were characterized from drillers’ notes, geophysical logs, corehole samples, and particle grain-size analysis. The hydraulic conductivities of sediments were estimated using the measured average grain size and the assumed textural maturity of the sediment, and ranged from about 20 to 290 feet per day.

Idaho↗

USGS2006

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI): 5-year report

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) is an innovative, multidisciplinary program that began in 2000 in response to a congressional directive for the Department of the Interior to address the issue of amphibian declines in the United States. ARMI’s formulation was cross-disciplinary, integrating U.S. Geological Survey scientists from Biology, Water, and Geography to develop a course of action (Corn and others, 2005a). The result has been an effective program with diverse, yet complementary, expertise. ARMI’s approach to research and monitoring is multiscale. Detailed investigations focus on a few species at selected local sites throughout the country; monitoring addresses a larger number of species over broader areas (typically, National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges); and inventories to document species occurrence are conducted more extensively across the landscape. Where monitoring is conducted, the emphasis is on an ability to draw statistically defensible conclusions about the status of amphibians. To achieve this objective, ARMI has instituted a monitoring response variable that has nationwide applicability. At research sites, ARMI focuses on studying species/environment interactions, determining causes of observed declines, and developing new techniques to sample populations and analyze data. Results from activities at all scales are provided to scientists, land managers, and policymakers, as appropriate. The ARMI program and the scientists involved contribute significantly to understanding amphibian declines at local, regional, national, and international levels. Within National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, findings help land managers make decisions applicable to amphibian conservation. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) selected amphibians as a vital sign for several of their monitoring networks, and ARMI scientists provide information and assistance in developing monitoring methods for this NPS effort. At the national level, ARMI has had major exposure at a variety of meetings, including a dedicated symposium at the 2004 joint meetings of the Herpetologists’ League, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Several principal investigators have brought international exposure to ARMI through venues such as the World Congress of Herpetology in South Africa in 2005 (invited presentation by Dr. Gary Fellers), the Global Amphibian Summit, sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wildlife Conservation International, in Washington, D.C., 2005 (invited participation by Dr. P.S. Corn), and a special issue of the international herpetological journal Alytes focused on ARMI in 2004 (edited by Dr. C.K. Dodd, Jr.). ARMI research and monitoring efforts have addressed at least 7 of the 21 Threatened and Endangered Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], Chiricahua leopard frog [R. chiricahuensis], arroyo toad [Bufo californicus], dusky gopher frog [Rana sevosa], mountain yellow-legged frog [R. muscosa], flatwoods salamander [Ambystoma cingulatum], and the golden coqui [Eleutherodactylus jasperi]), and 9 additional species of concern recognized by the IUCN. ARMI investigations have addressed time-sensitive research, such as emerging infectious diseases and effects on amphibians related to natural disasters like wildfire, hurricanes, and debris flows, and the effects of more constant, environmental change, like urban expansion, road development, and the use of pesticides. Over the last 5 years, ARMI has partnered with an extensive list of government, academic, and private entities. These partnerships have been fruitful and have assisted ARMI in developing new field protocols and analytic tools, in using and refining emerging technologies to improve accuracy and efficiency of data handling, in conducting amphibian disease, malformation, and environmental effects research, and in implementing a network of monitoring and research sites. Accomplishments from these endeavors include more than 40 publications on amphibian status and trends, nearly 100 publications on amphibian ecology and causes of declines, and over 30 methodological publications. Several databases have emerged as a result of ARMI and its partnerships; one, a digital atlas of ranges for all U.S. amphibian species, was used by the IUCN to display amphibian distribution maps in the Global Amphibian Assessment Project. Given the scope of ARMI and the panoply of projects, findings have had implications for policy. Investigations that demonstrate amphibian declines or illuminate causes of declines provide valuable information about habitat management, environmental effects, mechanisms for the spread of disease, and human/amphibian interfaces. This information has been made available to land managers, scientists, educators, Congress and other policymakers, and the public. The support afforded ARMI by Congress has been influential in the program’s development and success. The value of ARMI’s efforts will continue to increase as we are able to extend our studies spatially and temporally to answer critical questions with more confidence. We are using ARMI’s resources efficiently and continuing to develop innovative mechanisms for leveraging resources for maximum effectiveness during challenging financial times. This report is a 5-year retrospective of the structure, methodology, progress, and contributions to the broader scientific community that have resulted from this national USGS program. We evaluate ARMI’s success to date, with regard to the challenges faced by the program and the strengths that have emerged. We chart objectives for the next 5 years that build on current accomplishments, highlight areas meriting further research, and direct efforts to overcome existing weaknesses.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tile 2, Northeast United States: NLCD01_2

This 30-meter data set represents land use and land cover for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System (see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/browse/nlcd01-partition.jpg). The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004), (see: http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp). The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping zones. A total of 68 mapping zones (see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/browse/nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg), were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Data Series↗

USGS2008

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tile 1, Northwest United States: NLCD01_1

Data Series↗

USGS2008

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tile 3, Southwest United States: NLCD01_3

This 30-meter data set represents land use and land cover for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System (see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/browse/nlcd01-partition.jpg).The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (http://www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004), (see: http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp). The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping zones. A total of 68 mapping zones (see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/browse/nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg), were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Data Series↗

USGS2008

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tile 4, Southeast United States: NLCD01_4

Data Series↗