Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “National Wildlife”

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 1,261 records · Page 70Linked to original sources
USGS1979

The naming (and misnaming) of America

Jim Jam Ridge winds for several hundred feet a long a spectacular section of the High Sierra, near the heart of northern California's Mother Lode country. According to local historians, its name dates back to a night in the late 1800s when a drunk prospector rolled into a campfire, exploding a handful of rifle shells in his pocket. The fatal incident left his two partners with a severe case of the "jim jams" a common term in those days for the "shakes" and that's how the name took hold.

National Wildlife↗
USGS1990

Synthesis of soil-plant correspondence data from twelve wetland studies throughout the United States

This report synthesizes the information collected for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in a series of 12 studies designed to describe the relation between soils and vegetation in wetlands located in 11 States throughout the United States. Results of the study demonstrated almost complete agreement between hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. However, agreement between nonhydric soils and nonhydric vegetation was not as high because most nonhydric soils lay adjacent to the wetland boundary. There was some evidence that various vegetation layers describe the hydrophytic nature of the vegetation differently than others. Herbaceous species seem to reflect current hydrologic conditions while trees may reflect past hydrologic conditions. Wetland indicator categories for some plants listed in the Fish and Wildlife Service national list of plant species that occur in wetlands may need to be reevaluated as additional data become available. Similarly, soils listed in the Soil Conservation Service hydric soils of the United States list should always be verified in the field prior to assigning them to a hydric category. While wetland hydrology is the critical factor determining wetlands, the use of soils and vegetation are frequently adequate for designating wetland conditions.

Report↗
USGS2014

Making decisions in complex landscapes: Headwater stream management across multiple federal agencies

Headwater stream ecosystems are vulnerable to numerous threats associated with climate and land use change. In the northeastern US, many headwater stream species (e.g., brook trout and stream salamanders) are of special conservation concern and may be vulnerable to climate change influences, such as changes in stream temperature and streamflow. Federal land management agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense) are required to adopt policies that respond to climate change and may have longer-term institutional support to enforce such policies compared to state, local, non-governmental, or private land managers. However, federal agencies largely make management decisions in regards to headwater stream ecosystems independently. This fragmentation of management resources and responsibilities across the landscape may significantly impede the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation actions, and higher degrees of collaboration may be required to achieve conservation goals. This project seeks to provide an example of cooperative landscape decision-making to address the conservation of headwater stream ecosystems. We identified shared and contrasting objectives of each federal agency and potential collaboration opportunities that may increase efficient and effective management of headwater stream ecosystems in two northeastern US watersheds. These workshops provided useful insights into the adaptive capacity of federal institutions to address threats to headwater stream ecosystems. Our ultimate goal is to provide a decision-making framework and analysis that addresses large-scale conservation threats across multiple stakeholders, as a demonstration of cooperative landscape conservation for aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, we aim to provide new scientific knowledge and a regional perspective to resource managers to help inform local management decisions.

Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia↗
USGS1985

Bald eagle mortality from lead poisoning and other causes 1963-1984

In November 1984, the NWHL was assigned the task to: "Prepare a report of bald eagle mortality from lead poisoning and other causes. Determine whether primary causes of lead poisoning are due to ingestion of lead shot pellets. Prepare an appropriate map showing eagle concentrations and location of death. Make management recommendations." This report is the response to that task. Report organization follows a sequence of: background information, findings, discussion, conclusions, recommendations, and references."

Report↗
USGS2013

An overview of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership science and research synthesis

Maintaining and restoring the diverse ecosystems and resources that occur in southern Nevada in the face of rapid socio-economic and ecological change presents numerous challenged to Federal land managers. Rapid population growth since the 1980s, the land uses associated with that growth, and the interactions of those uses with the generally dry and highly variable climate result in numerous stresses to ecosystems, species, and cultural resource. In addition, climate models predict that the rate of temperature increase and, thus, changes in ecological processes, will be highest for ecosystems like the Mojave Desert. The Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http:www.SNAP.gov) was established in 1999 to address common issues pertaining to public lands in southern Nevada. Partners include the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service and they work with each other, the local community, and other partners. SNAP agencies manage more than seven million acres of public lands in southern Nevada (95% of the land area). Federal land includes two national recreation areas, two national conservation area, four national wildlife refuges, 18 congressionally designated wilderness areas, five wilderness study areas, and 22 areas of critical environmental concern. The partnership's activities are mainly centered in Southern Nevada's Clark County (fig. 1.1), but lands managed by SNAP partner agencies also include portions of Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service-managed lands in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada, and all lands and activities managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. These lands encompass nine distinct ecosystem types (fig. 1.2), support multiple species of management concern an 17 listed species, and are rich in cultural and historic resource. This introductory executive summary discusses the Science and Research Strategy developed by the SNAP agencies, the Science and Research Report, and need for science-based management in southern Nevada.

Nevada↗
USGS2003

The influence of gender on the relationship between wildlife value orientations, beliefs, and the acceptability of lethal deer control in Cuyahoga Valley National Park

This study examines how wildlife value orientations, attitudes, and gender influence acceptance of lethal actions to control deer in Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio. Data were collected from female and male residents (n = 659) in a nine-county area, the primary service area of the park. Females and males demonstrated significant differences in their wildlife value orientations, attitudes toward lethal deer control, beliefs about the outcome of lethal deer control, and perceived personal impacts of lethal deer control. Gender also acted as a moderator of the relationship between values, beliefs and attitudes. Results indicate that a focus on understanding differences between males and females is essential to public participation in decision making concerning this and similar issues.

Society and Natural Resources↗
USGS2022

Ungulate migration in a changing climate—An initial assessment of climate impacts, management priorities, and science needs

Executive Summary Migratory behavior among ungulates in the Western United States occurs in response to changing forage quality and quantity, weather patterns, and predation risk. As snow melts and vegetation green-up begins in late spring and early summer, many migratory ungulates leave their winter range and move to higher elevation summer ranges to access high-quality forage and areas with vegetative cover for protection during fawning. Ungulates remain on these ranges until the fall when increasing snowfall and decreasing temperatures trigger them to migrate back to their lower elevation winter ranges. While researchers have begun to assess the effects of physical barriers such as roads and energy infrastructure on migration, less attention has been paid to understanding how changing climate conditions might affect ungulate movements and range habitats. Does earlier spring green-up make ungulates leave their winter ranges sooner? Do persistent drought conditions reduce the carrying capacity of seasonal range habitats or lead to shifts in migration pathways? These and other questions remain largely unanswered but could have cascading effects on ungulate population dynamics and migratory behavior. In February 2018, the Secretary of the Interior signed Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362 (SO3362), “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors.” The order, which focuses on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn in 11 Western States, directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to partner with State wildlife agencies on their priorities and objectives for identifying and conserving ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat. The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) were established to help managers of the Nation’s fish, wildlife, waters, and lands understand the effects of climate change and adapt to changing conditions. To support the recent Department of the Interior (DOI) emphasis on ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat, this report assesses current information on how climate change could affect elk, mule deer, and pronghorn migration. The report synthesizes the drivers of migration, outlines what is known about how climate change might affect these drivers, and summarizes management priorities and science needs related to ungulate migration corridors and range habitat. A review of the literature on ungulate migration shows that the core drivers of spring migration are the timing of spring green-up and snowmelt, and the core driver of fall migration is winter severity. After exploring what is known about how these drivers affect or could be affected by climate change, several pathways through which ungulate migration could be altered were identified: (1) ungulates alter migration timing to better track plant phenology or in response to changes in winter conditions; (2) ungulates change their migration route or distance traveled during migration to accommodate changes in environmental conditions; and (3) ungulate populations that are currently migratory may begin to demonstrate interannual variability in whether they migrate, depending on environmental conditions and density-dependence, and may remain resident for sets of consecutive years. Through discussions with managers, physical barriers to movement such as roads and fences were identified as a core concern. In addition, the primary research needs of States are the acquisition and analysis of data on ungulate movements, to refine delineation of winter range, summer range, and corridors, and to support a better understanding of how ungulates use these habitats. When it comes to understanding climate effects, managers were more concerned with understanding the vulnerability of winter- and summer-range habitats than the vulnerability of migration corridors because of the influence of summer and winter forage on ungulate condition and reproductive success. Managers were also concerned about how forage quality and quantity might change because of stressors such as drought, wildfire, and invasive species and how they might need to alter habitat-treatment strategies as a result. More baseline data are needed before effective projections of ungulate migration, at a West-wide scale under climate change, can be made. These data needs include (1) more clearly defined corridors and seasonal range habitats; (2) a comprehensive understanding of the ecological drivers of migration across ungulate species and populations; and (3) the identification of environmental thresholds for key variables that influence migration, above which ungulates alter migratory behavior. The CASCs have several opportunities to play a role in addressing these needs. The CASCs could initiate projects to identify past and potential future changes and trends in key variables known to affect ungulate migration, such as plant phenology, forage quality, or winter severity. However, it would be difficult to use this information to determine what those trends mean for ungulate migration due to the lack of knowledge about environmental thresholds for ungulates. Additional projects would be required to compare multiple years of movement data with key variables to define thresholds. Once available, information on environmental thresholds could be integrated with projections of key variables to forecast the likelihood that the migration routes or the distance traveled could change—another area in which the CASCs could contribute. A more immediate role for the CASCs would be to carry out synthesis projects. One such project could summarize the “state of the science” on the drivers of ungulate migration. Although there are dozens of population- and location-specific studies on this topic, collating this information could help highlight trends in migration drivers that span species and geographies: a necessary first step toward determining the extent to which migration drivers could be affected by climate change. A second project could focus on what is known about how climate variability and change affect ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in the Western United States. The goal of this effort could be to identify knowledge clusters and information gaps that require further investigation. Together, these synthesized products could focus future scientific activities on the most pressing issues of ungulate migration and climate change in the Western United States.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗
USGS2005

Attitudinal survey component of the study Quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment : Report of methods and frequencies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Climate adaptation Science Centers—Annual report for 2018

2018 marked the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center! With the passage of the fiscal year 2018 budget on March 23, 2018, our program name was changed from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to the National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC). The eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers were renamed Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs). The name changes more clearly align the national and regional centers and emphasize their focus on meeting natural resource adaptation needs. Although the program has a new name, our mission has not changed. We are still hard at work delivering science to help fish, wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a changing climate. During the past 10 years, the NCASC and the eight regional CASCs funded over 425 science projects and built a network of research partners, resource management stakeholders, interdisciplinary staff, fellows, and early career researchers. In celebration of our work and accomplishments over the last 10 years, the NCASC began a monthly web post series on “10 Things You May Not Know” about topics our science has focused on, including drought, glaciers, and wildfire. Additionally, CASCs that had completed their initial hosting agreement with the USGS underwent a formal review and recompetition process. New hosting agreements were awarded to the Southwest and North Central CASCs in 2018. Read the 2018 annual report to learn more about the CASCs' great science, partnerships, capacity building, and more from 2018.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Field surveys of Midwestern and Northeastern Fish and Wildlife Service lands for the presence of abnormal frogs and toads

The national distribution of information on the discovery of malformations in Minnesota frogs in 1995 stimulated collection and examination of newly metamorphosed frogs during 1996. By late summer and early fall of 1996, malformed frogs and toads were reported on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands in Vermont (Northeast, Region 5) and Minnesota (Midwest, Region 3). In response to these reports, biologists in USFWS Regions 3 and 5 conducted a survey, during the summer of 1997 to determine the distribution and type of malformations in frogs and toads on selected federal lands. Region 3 personnel surveyed 38 field stations at National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's) and Wetland Management Districts. Malformed frogs and toads were collected at 23 (61%) of the Region 3 sites. External malformations were detected in 110 of 6632 individuals representing seven of 13 frog species and one of three toad species examined for an overall of 1.7% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 0.4-5.2%). In Region 5, 17 NWR's and one National Park were surveyed. Malformed frogs were collected at 10 (56%) of the Region 5 sites. External malformations were detected in 58 of 2267 individuals representing six of 11 frog species and one of two toad species examined for an overall total of 2.6% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 1.8-15.6%). The majority of malformations observed in frogs and toads collected in Regions 3 and 5 were partially or completely missing hind limbs and digits (50%)or malformed hind limbs and digits (14%). A few individuals had an extra limb or toe, missing or malformed front limb, missing eye, or malformation of the mandible. Despite small sample sizes at some sites, malformations were confirmed to be present in eight species of frogs and two species of toads on Federal lands in USFWS Regions 3 and 5. Further study is needed to determine the extent and distribution of amphibian malformations in these Regions. Data from this study were provided to the national database on distribution of malformed amphibians.

Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesnowta, Missouri, O↗
USGS2002

A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in National Parks: a report to the National Park Service

Because of the naturalness of National Parks and because of the public’s strong interest in the parks, the National Park Service (NPS) must gather as much information as needed to help understand and preserve the natural functioning of its ecosystems, and especially of its wildlife. The most useful technique for studying wildlife is radio-tracking, or wildlife telemetry. Radio-tracking is the technique of determining information about an animal through the use of radio signals from or to a device carried by the animal. The basic components of a traditional radio-tracking system are (1) a transmitting subsystem consisting of a radio transmitter, a power source and a propagating antenna, and (2) a receiving subsystem including a “pick-up” antenna, a signal receiver with reception indicator (speaker and/or display) and a power source. Most radio tracking systems involve transmitters tuned to different frequencies (analogous to different AM/FM radio stations) that allow individual identification. Three distinct types of radio-tracking are in use today: (1)conventional, very-high-frequency (VHF) radio tracking, (2) satellite tracking, and (3) Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking. VHF radio-tracking is the standard technique that has been in use since 1963. However, radio-tracking can be considered intrusive in that it requires live-capturing animals and attaching a collar or other device to them. A person must then monitor signals from the device, thus usually requiring people in the field in vehicles, aircraft, and on foot. Nevertheless, most national parks have recognized the benefits of radio-tracking and have hosted radio-tracking studies for many years; in some parks, hundreds of animals have been, or are being, so studied. As a result, some NPS staff are concerned about actual or potential intrusiveness of radio-tracking. Ideally, wildlife studies would still be done but with no intrusion on animals or conflict with park visitors. Thus the NPS has decided to closely examine the technique and use of radio-tracking to determine (1) if any less-intrusive method could supply the same information, (2) what the full range of radio-tracking technology is, to determine if the least-intrusive techniques are being used, and (3) whether future technological improvements might lead to less-intrusive techniques. The present review is the result. We first present a simple overview of radio-tracking technology, its benefits, variety, cost, and availability, advantages and disadvantages, and recent refinements that, if used, could reduce research intrusiveness. Then we consider whether any less-intrusive, non-radio-tracking techniques could supply the same information. Next we discuss possible future improvements and suggest some that would help reduce intrusion during wildlife research in national parks. Last, we review radio-tracking technology in detail for readers who want a more complete understanding. This review should also allow administrators and scientists to determine whether the least-intrusive radio-tracking techniques are currently being used. We conclude that no substitute for radio-tracking appears to be on the horizon but that a few recent improvements in the technology can reduce some of its intrusiveness. Further, we recommend that the NPS (1) formally assess the extent of park visitors’ perceptions and concerns about any intrusiveness caused by wildlife radio-tracking studies (2) help minimize visitor concern about the technique by educating the public about radio-tracking and some of its findings in the parks, (3) promote use of the most up-to-date refinements and improvements in radio-tracking technology, and (4) encourage funding projects using such technology.

Report↗
USGS2021

Greater Yellowstone climate assessment: Past, present, and future climate change in the greater Yellowstone watersheds

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is one of the last remaining large and nearly intact temperate ecosystems on Earth. GYA was originally defined in the 1970s as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which encompassed the minimum range of the grizzly bear. The boundary now includes about 22 million acres (8.9 million ha) in northwestern Wyoming, south central Montana, and eastern Idaho (Figure ES-1). Two national parks, five national forests, three wildlife refuges, 20 counties, and state and private lands lie within the GYA boundary (Figure ES-1). The Tribal Nations of the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, Apsa´alooke/Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, and Bannock have reservations in and near the Greater Yellowstone Area, and 27 Tribes are formally recognized to have historical connections to the lands and resources of the region. Natural resources sensitive to climate change connect many of the major economic activities of the GYA, including tourism and recreation, agriculture, and energy development.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS1986

Wildlife in some areas of New Mexico and Texas accumulate elevated DDE residues, 1983

Over the last decade, data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program have identified an area of elevated DDE contamination in portions of New Mexico and Texas. Extensive wildlife sampling in 1983 confirmed that DDE, the major metabolite of the insecticide DDT, was present at high concentrations in wildlife at selected sites in the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages. DDE in carcasses ranged up to 47 ppm (wet weight) in western kingbirds ( Tyrannus verticalis ), 35 ppm in house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), 46 ppm in Brazilian free-tailed bats ( Tadarida brasiliensis ), and 104 ppm in whiptail lizards ( Cnemidophorus spp.). DDE was also detected in gut contents from western kingbirds at some of the highest concentrations ever reported, ranging up to 21 ppm in proventricular samples. An average of 40% of the eggs of black-crowned night-herons ( Nycticorax nycticorax ) from two sites along the Pecos River in New Mexico had DDE levels (≥8 ppm) that have been associated in other studies with impaired reproduction. In contrast, wintering mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and American coots ( Fulica americana ) from the study area did not accumulate elevated DDE levels. DDE in wildlife samples at control sites (nonagricultural areas) was either absent or averaged less than 0.35 ppm. Collectively, these data provide evidence that there is major DDE contamination of several vertebrate species in portions of the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages, but whether the contamination is recent or residual was not determined. Apparently, the source was not DDE contamination present in dicofol (4-chloro- a -(4-chlorophenyl)- a -(trichloromethyl) benzenemethanol); neither dicofol nor its metabolite, p,p' -dichlorobenzophenone, were detected in wildlife carcasses (0.1 ppm detection limit) or proventricular contents (0.01 ppm detection limit) of western kingbirds.

New Mexico, Texas↗