Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Conservation”

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 1,675 records · Page 93Linked to original sources

The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment Version 2017

Partners in Flight (PIF) is a cooperative venture of federal, state, provincial, and territorial agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, researchers, and many others whose common goal is the conservation of North American birds (www.partnersinflight.org). While PIF has focused primarily on landbirds, it works in conjunction with other bird partners to promote coordinated conservation of all birds. PIF follows an iterative, adaptive planning approach that develops a sound scientific basis for decision-making and a logical process for setting, implementing, and evaluating conservation objectives (Pashley et al. 2000, Rich et al. 2004, Berlanga et al. 2010). The steps include: 1. Assessing conservation vulnerability of all bird species; 2. Identifying species most in need of conservation attention at continental and regional scales; 3. Setting of numerical population objectives for species of continental and regional importance; 4. Identifying conservation needs and recommended actions for species and habitats of importance; 5. Implementing strategies for meeting species and habitat objectives at continental and regional scales; 6. Evaluating success, making revisions, and setting new objectives for the future. The 2017 PIF Handbook on Species Assessment (2017 PIF Handbook) documents assessment rules and scores used in the Partners in Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States (Rosenberg et al. 2016) and The State of North America’s Birds 2016 (NABCI 2016). It updates previous versions of the handbook (Panjabi et al. 2012, 2005, 2001) developed to accompany other PIF applications including Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation (Berlanga et al. 2010) and the North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). All current and past scores, data sources, and other related information are contained in databases hosted by the Bird Conservancy of the Rockies. Scores can be viewed online and downloaded as excel files, including archived versions (http://pif.birdconservancy.org/acad). The current accompanying Avian Conservation Assessment Database (ACAD) holds assessment scores and data for all 1585 native and 18 well-established non-native bird species found in mainland North America south to Panama plus adjacent islands and oceans. The taxonomy follows the American Ornithological Society’s 7th Edition Checklist of North and Middle American Birds, including updates though the 57th supplement, published in 2016 (http://checklist.aou.org/). The ACAD builds on archived PIF databases that hosted only data on the 882 landbirds native to Canada, USA and Mexico. This handbook is presented in two principal sections. Part I details the factors and scoring used by PIF to assess the vulnerability of species at continental and regional scales (i.e. step 1 of the planning approach above). Each assessment factor is based on biological criteria that evaluate distinct components of vulnerability throughout the life cycle of each species across its range. Part II describes the process of how the factors and the corresponding scores can be combined to highlight conservation needs (i.e. step 2 of the planning approach above). Both the scores and the process have evolved over time (Hunter et al. 1992, Carter et al. 2000, Panjabi et al. 2001, 2005, 2012) and continue to be updated in response to external review (Beissinger et al. 2000), broad partner expertise, and the emergence of new data and analytical tools.

Report↗

Assessment of recovery potential for the American horseshoe crab (Limulus polyphemus): An application of the IUCN green status process

According to an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List assessment (RLA), the American horseshoe crab ( Limulus polyphemus ), an iconic coastal species, is at risk of extirpation in some regions within its range where small and vulnerable populations occur. However, the RLA does not consider future status beyond viability and does not attempt to identify the conservation necessary to effectively mitigate threats and recover the species to full ecological functionality. To aid in conservation planning for vulnerable species, the IUCN developed the Green Status of Species assessment (GSA) process to complement the RLA. This paper describes the application of the GSA process to assess the recovery potential of the American horseshoe crab. First, specific Limulus populations within spatial units for conservation were delineated, and their statuses were defined based on viability and ecological functionality. Then conservation actions were identified that would promote recovery and affect their near- and long-term population status under different conservation scenarios. Horseshoe crab conservation has relied on, and will continue to depend on, effective harvest regulation. However, as currently conceived, conservation is not expected to mitigate habitat loss at the scale required to restore range-wide ecological functionality, primarily because habitat loss is widespread and affected by climate change. Thus, the GSA results, while indicating that there is potential for near-term recovery gains, reveal that long-term recovery is in doubt owing to expected loss of habitat. To conserve critical habitats for spawning and early life stages and achieve ecological functionality, it is imperative to identify and develop conservation plans at appropriate spatial scales. Unfortunately, such plans do not currently exist and need to be established. The GSA Green Score can then serve as a metric for monitoring recovery and gauging the effectiveness of conservation implementation.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys↗

Monitoring habitat restoration projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.

Techniques and Methods↗

Integrating the resist–accept–direct framework into natural resource decision-making processes for climate adaptation

The resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework for climate adaptation is a useful tool, particularly when conservation practitioners know they need to address climate change but do not know where to start or when they struggle to implement conservation actions that are outside the status quo. Some conservation practitioners may view RAD as a decision process that will lead them through selecting climate adaptation actions to meet their objectives; however, RAD may be better suited for use with existing decision processes. RAD can improve adaptation planning processes by helping conservation practitioners examine a broader portfolio of climate adaptation actions. Choosing the actions that meet organizational objectives and long-term goals relies on a sound decision process through which to select RAD-generated actions to implement across space and time. The good news for conservation practitioners is that RAD can easily be integrated into the decision processes they are already using—that is, a new decision process for RAD is not necessary. We examined 6 commonly used decision frameworks in the context of RAD for climate adaptation: structured decision-making, adaptive management, conservation standards, climate-smart conservation, strategic habitat conservation, and scenario planning. Each decision framework can easily incorporate RAD methodologies to create climate adaptation menus and portfolios within existing structures, allowing conservation practitioners to continue to utilize existing frameworks for their valuable decision-making tools. Integrating the RAD framework can enhance them by explicitly considering future uncertainties and providing a menu of climate adaptation actions for navigating changing ecosystems.

Conservation Biology↗

Wetlands in agricultural landscapes—Significant findings and recent advances from CEAP-Wetlands

The Wetlands Component of the USDA's Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP-Wetlands) is a multi-agency effort advancing science related to quantifying and interpreting effects and effectiveness of conservation practices and programs on ecosystem services provided by wetlands in agricultural landscapes. This special section originated from a symposium held at the 73rd Soil and Water Conservation Society's International Annual Conference in Albuquerque New Mexico, July 29 to August 1, 2018. The symposium was jointly organized by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the US Geological Survey. To facilitate CEAP-Wetlands efforts, several regional assessments were conducted across the United States. These regional assessments were designed to address science gaps hindering wetland conservation and to develop tools facilitating conservation assessments. Conservation decisions affect not just agricultural wetlands, but also the services that these complex ecosystems provide to society. Papers in this special section of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation present key findings and recent advances from several CEAP-Wetlands regional assessments and discuss the significant contributions of each assessment to an ever-increasing understanding of wetland ecosystems and their provisioning of ecosystem services. Modeling efforts using the Agricultural Policy and Environmental eXtender (APEX) and other process-based models are an integral component of CEAP-Wetlands. Results of these modeling efforts are also presented, and conservation implications are discussed.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation↗

Coordinated bird monitoring: Technical recommendations for military lands

The Department of Defense (DoD) is subject to several rules and regulations establishing responsibilities for monitoring migratory birds. The Sikes Act requires all military installations with significant natural resources to prepare and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs). These plans guide the conservation and long-term management of natural resources on military lands in a manner that is compatible with and sustains the military mission. An INRMP also supports compliance with all legal requirements and guides the military in fulfilling its obligation to be a good steward of public land.The management and conservation of migratory birds is addressed in installation INRMPs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions. More recently, DoD signed an MOU (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/EO13186_MOU-DoD.pdf) for migratory birds, under Executive Order 13186, with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in July 2006 and a Migratory Bird Rule (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/MigBirdFINALRule_FRFeb2007.pdf) was passed by Congress in February 2007. The Migratory Bird Rule addresses the potential impacts of military readiness activities on populations of migratory birds and establishes a process to implement conservation measures if and when a military readiness activity is expected to have a significant adverse impact on a population of migratory bird species (as determined through the NEPA process). The MOU states that for nonmilitary readiness activities, prior to initiating any activity likely to affect populations of migratory birds DoD shall (1) identify the migratory bird species likely to occur in the area of the proposed action and determine if any species of concern could be affected by the activity, and (2) assess and document, using NEPA when applicable, the effect of the proposed action on species of concern. By following these procedures, DoD will minimize the possibility for a proposed action to unintentionally take migratory birds at a level that would violate any of the migratory bird treaties and potentially impact mission activities. In addition, implementing conservation and monitoring programs for migratory birds supports the ecosystem integrity necessary to sustain DoD's natural resources for the military mission.Non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the MBTA could result in a private party lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). A lawsuit filed under APA involving a Navy bombing range is the basis for a court ruling that unintentional take of migratory birds applies to federal actions. Ensuring the necessary data is available to adequately assess impacts of a proposed action will help avoid lawsuits or help ensure such lawsuits have no grounds. The data gathered in a bird monitoring program will provide the best scientific data available to assess the expected impacts of a proposed action on migratory bird species through the NEPA process. This report presents recommendations developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the Department of Defense (DoD) on establishing a "Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) Plan." The CBM Plan is intended to ensure that DoD meets its conservation and regulatory responsibilities for monitoring birds (Chapter 1). The report relies heavily on recommendations in the report, "Opportunities for improving avian monitoring" (http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/monitoringreportfinal0307.pdf), by the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (U.S. NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee, 2007) and on a review of 358 current DoD bird monitoring programs carried out as part of this project (Chapter 2). This report contains 12 recommendations which, if followed, would result in a comprehensive, efficient, and useful approach to bird monitoring. The recommendations are based on the entire report but are presented together at the end of Chapter 1. DoD has agreed to consider implementing these recommendations; however, final decisions will be based upon such factors as the availability of resources and military mission considerations. These recommendations from USGS can be summarized into 6 major themes: A major report on monitoring was released in 2007 by the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html). DoD can be consistent with this report by establishing policy that monitoring will be explicitly acknowledged as an integral element of bird management and conservation (Recommendation 1). The design of monitoring and assessment programs for birds should include the following steps: Preparation of a document describing the program's goals, objectives, and methods similar to a format we provide (Recommendation 2, Chapter 4). Selection of field methods using an "expert system" developed in this project (Recommendation 3, Chapter 5) or another well-documented system. Preparation and storage of metadata describing the monitoring program in the Natural Resources Monitoring Partnership (NRMP), and other appropriate databases Recommendation 4, Chapter 6). Entry of the survey data using eBird (http://ebird.org/content/dod) or the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Database (CBMD) and long-term storage of the data in the CBMD and the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN; Recommendation 5, Chapter 6; http://www.avianknowledge.net/). Submission of major results from the monitoring program for publication in a peer reviewed journal (Recommendation 6). The DoD Legacy Resource Management Program (Legacy; https://www.dodlegacy.org), Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP; http://www.serdp.org/), and Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP; http://www.serdp.org/) should be encouraged to continue their significant contributions to the foundations of bird monitoring (Recommendation 7, Chapters 1 and 3). Appropriate monitoring should be conducted to identify species of concern on installations. A year-round, one-time survey of birds on installations with habitat for migratory birds would provide the most information to assist compliance with the MOU, the Final Rule, and the NEPA analyses of proposed actions. However, less intensive survey efforts can still be conducted to yield useful information. We describe how various levels of survey effort might be organized and conducted. In addition, continuing surveys, as feasible, would further assist in documenting effects of military readiness and non-readiness activities on species of concern (SOC) (Recommendation 8, Chapter 7). Participation in well-designed, large-scale surveys [(e.g., North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS; http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/), Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS; http://www.birdpop.org/maps.htm)] on land that DoD manages or on lands where the results will be of high interest to DoD, will provide DoD and other NABCI members with information important to bird conservation (Recommendation 9, Chapter 8). Review and implementation of the CBM Plan should involve both higher level management and installation-level natural resources managers (Recommendation 11), be implemented through cooperative partnerships (Recommendation 12), and be followed on U.S territory lands and Army Corps of Engineers projects (Recommendation 10).Additional recommendations that pertain to implementing the DoD CBM Plan are discussed in Chapter 9.

Open-File Report↗

Ground-Water Flow, 2004-07, and Water Quality, 1992-2007, in McBaine Bottoms, Columbia, Missouri

The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Columbia, Missouri, and the Missouri Department of Conservation, collected ground-water quality data, surface-water quality data, and water-level data in McBaine Bottoms, southwest of Columbia. McBaine Bottoms, adjacent to the Missouri River, is the location of the municipal-supply well field for the city of Columbia, the city of Columbia wastewater-treatment wetlands, and the Missouri Department of Conservation Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. This report describes the ground-water flow and water quality of McBaine Bottoms and provides information to better understand the interaction between treated effluent from the wetlands used on the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area and the water in the alluvial aquifer that is pumped from the city of Columbia municipal-supply well field. Changes in major chemical constituent concentrations have been detected at several sampling sites between pre- and post-effluent application data. Analysis of post-effluent data indicates substantial changes in calcium, potassium, sodium, chloride, and sulfate concentrations in ground water. These changes became apparent shortly after the beginning of the operation of the wastewater-treatment wetland in 1994 and the formation of the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area, which uses the treated effluent as a water source for the management of migratory water fowl. The changes have continued throughout the 15 years of sample collection. The concentrations of these major chemical constituents are on the mixing continuum between pre-effluent ground water as one end member and the treated wastewater effluent as the other end member. For monitoring wells that had changes in major chemical constituent concentrations, the relative percentage of treated effluent in the ground water, assuming chloride is conservative, ranged from 6 to 88 percent. Twenty-two monitoring wells throughout McBaine Bottoms have been affected by effluent based on chloride concentrations larger than 40 milligrams per liter. The chloride concentration of ground water in the alluvial aquifer reflects several sources, including precipitation, water from the Missouri River, water in the aquifer, and the treated effluent. Chloride concentrations from precipitation, the Missouri River, and water in the alluvial aquifer were less than 40 milligrams per liter. These monitoring wells affected by effluent are located in two general areas - adjacent to treatment wetland unit 1 and near the ground-water high on and north of the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. The probable source of the large chloride concentrations in well samples adjacent to treatment wetland unit 1 is leakage from the unit. The source for the large chloride concentrations in the other monitoring well samples is the effluent mixed with ground water and Missouri River water that is used to fill pools on the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. One monitoring well had a single sample with a chloride concentration larger than 40 milligrams per liter. That sample may have been affected by the use of road salt because of the presence of ice and snow immediately before the sample was collected. Lateral ground-water flow was dominated by the presence of a persistent ground-water high beneath the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area and the presence of a cone of depression centered around the city of Columbia well field in the northern part of the study area. Ground-water flow was radially away from the apex of the ground-water high; west and south of the high, flow was toward the Missouri River, east of the high, flow was toward Perche Creek, and north of the high, flow was to the north toward the cone of depression around the city of Columbia well field. Another permanent feature on the water-level maps was a ground-water high beneath treatment wetland unit 1. Although the ground-water high was present throughout the study period, the subsurface expression of the high changed depending on hydrolo

Scientific Investigations Report↗

Water-quality and ground-water hydrology of the Columbia/Eagle Bluffs Wetland Complex, Columbia, Missouri— 1992-99

In an effort to restore riverine wetlands along the Missouri River, the Missouri Department of Conservation constructed the 2,700-acre Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. The primary water source for managing 1,200 wetland acres on the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area is treated effluent received from a 91-acre constructed wastewater-treatment wetland operated by the city of Columbia, Missouri. The combined areas of the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area and the wastewater-treatment wetland are termed the Columbia/Eagle Bluffs Wetland Complex. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Conservation and the city of Columbia, Missouri, collected samples quarterly from August 1992 to March 1999 from a monitoring network that included 33 ground-water sites and 4 surface-water sites to establish a baseline pre-effluent data set and to provide post-effluent data for trend analysis. Changes in major chemical constituent concentrations have been observed at several sampling locations between pre- and post-effluent data. Analysis of post-effluent time-series water-quality data indicates changes occurred in sodium, potassium, calcium, sulfate, and chloride concentrations at 13 sites. These changes can be correlated to the beginning of the operation of the wastewater-treatment wetland. The concentrations of these major chemical constituents plot on the mixing continuum between pre-effluent ground water as one end member and the treated effluent as the other end member. At ground water sites that had changes in concentrations, the relative percentage of treated effluent in the ground water, assuming chloride is conservative, ranged from 11 to more than 100 percent. At ground-water sites, few changes were noted in fecal indicator bacteria, nutrients, trace constituents, total and dissolved organic carbon, and organic constituents. Other than changes in boron concentrations at one ground-water site, these changes could not be directly correlated to the operation of the treatment wetland or the management of the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area. After the treatment wetland began operation, improvement in the water quality in Perche Creek was observed. With respect to fecal indicator bacteria and nutrient concentrations, the water quality of water discharging from the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area was improved relative to the water entering the area. Persistent ground-water highs have been observed beneath the Eagle Bluffs Conservation Area and wastewater-treatment unit 1 following the flooding of the wetland areas. These ground-water highs occur during the fall and winter months when ground- and surface-water levels are high and during the spring and summer months when the water levels are lower. The Missouri River stage had a strong effect on the water levels in the aquifer during pre-effluent conditions, but the effect has been lessened by the ground-water high.

Missouri↗

Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved

The 196 parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will soon agree to a post-2020 global framework for conserving the three elements of biodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem diversity) while ensuring sustainable development and benefit sharing. As the most significant global conservation policy mechanism, the new CBD framework has far-reaching consequences- it will guide conservation actions and reporting for each member country until 2050. In previous CBD strategies, as well as other major conservation policy mechanisms, targets and indicators for genetic diversity (variation at the DNA level within species, which facilitates species adaptation and ecosystem function) were undeveloped and focused on species of agricultural relevance. We assert that, to meet global conservation goals, genetic diversity within all species, not just domesticated species and their wild relatives, must be conserved and monitored using appropriate metrics . Building on suggestions in a recent Letter in Science (Laikre et al., 2020) we expand argumentation for three new, pragmatic genetic indicators and modifications to two current indicators for maintaining genetic diversity and adaptive capacity of all species, and provide guidance on their practical use. The indicators are: 1) the number of populations with effective population size above versus below 500, 2) the proportion of populations maintained within species, 3) the number of species and populations in which genetic diversity is monitored using DNA-based methods. We also present and discuss Goals and Action Targets for post-2020 biodiversity conservation which are connected to these indicators and underlying data. These pragmatic indicators and goals have utility beyond the CBD; they should benefit conservation and monitoring of genetic diversity via national and global policy for decades to come.

Biological Conservation↗

Wildlife connectivity approaches and best practices in U.S. state wildlife action plans

As habitat loss and fragmentation threaten biodiversity on large geographic scales, creating and maintaining connectivity of wildlife populations is an increasingly common conservation objective. To assess the progress and success of large-scale connectivity planning, conservation researchers need a set of plans that cover large geographic areas and can be analyzed as a single data set. The state wildlife action plans (SWAPs) fulfill these requirements. We examined 50 SWAPs to determine the extent to which wildlife connectivity planning, via linkages, is emphasized nationally. We defined linkage as connective land that enables wildlife movement. For our content analysis, we identified and quantified 6 keywords and 7 content criteria that ranged in specificity and were related to linkages for wide-ranging terrestrial vertebrates and examined relations between content criteria and statewide data on focal wide-ranging species, spending, revenue, and conserved land. Our results reflect nationwide disparities in linkage conservation priorities and highlight the continued need for wildlife linkage planning. Only 30% or less of the 50 SWAPs fulfilled highly specific content criteria (e.g., identifying geographic areas for linkage placement or management). We found positive correlations between our content criteria and statewide data on percent conserved land, total focal species, and spending on parks and recreation. We supplemented our content analysis with interviews with 17 conservation professionals to gain specific information about state-specific context and future directions of linkage conservation. Based on our results, relevant literature, and interview responses, we suggest the following best practices for wildlife linkage conservation plans: collect ecologically meaningful background data; be specific; establish community-wide partnerships; and incorporate sociopolitical and socioeconomic information.

Conservation Biology↗

U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change. The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI resources. Secretarial Order 3289 "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources," established the foundation of two partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

Open-File Report↗

Landscape and climate science and scenarios for Florida

The Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative (PFLCC) is part of a network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that extend from Alaska to the Caribbean. LCCs are regional-applied conservation-science partnerships among Federal agencies, regional organizations, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private stakeholders, universities, and other entities within a geographic area. The goal of these conservation-science partnerships is to help inform managers and decision makers at a landscape scale to further the principles of adaptive management and strategic habitat conservation. A major focus for LCCs is to help conservation managers and decision makers respond to large-scale ecosystem and habitat stressors, such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and water scarcity. The purpose of the PFLCC is to facilitate planning, design, and implementation of conservation strategies for fish and wildlife species at the landscape level using the adaptive management framework of strategic habitat conservation—integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation. Florida faces a set of unique challenges when responding to regional and global stressors because of its unique ecosystems and assemblages of species, its geographic location at the crossroads of temperate and tropical climates, and its exposure to both rapid urbanization and rising sea levels as the climate warms. In response to these challenges, several landscape-scale science projects were initiated with the goal of informing decision makers about how potential changes in climate and the built environment could impact habitats and ecosystems of concern in Florida and the Southeast United States. In June 2012, the PFLCC, North Carolina State University, convened a workshop at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Science Center in St. Petersburg to assess the results of these integrated assessments and to foster an open dialogue about science gaps and future research needs.

Florida↗

Wyoming Basin Rapid Ecoregional Assessment

The Wyoming Basin Rapid Ecoregional Assessment was conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The overall goals of the BLM Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) are to identify important ecosystems and wildlife habitats at broad spatial scales; identify where these resources are at risk from Change Agents, including development, wildfire, invasive species, disease and climate change; quantify cumulative effects of anthropogenic stressors; and assess current levels of risk to ecological resources across a range of spatial scales and jurisdictional boundaries by assessing all lands within an ecoregion. There are several components of the REAs. Management Questions, developed by the BLM and stakeholders for the ecoregion, identify the regionally significant information needed for addressing land-management responsibilities. Conservation Elements represent regionally significant species and ecological communities that are of management concern. Change Agents that currently affect or are likely to affect the condition of species and communities in the future are identified and assessed. REAs also identify areas that have high conservation potential that are referred to as “large intact areas.” At the ecoregion level, the ecological value of large intact areas is based on the assumption that because these areas have not been greatly altered by human activities (such as development), they are more likely to contain a variety of plant and animal communities and to be resilient and resistant to changes resulting from natural disturbances such as fire, insect outbreaks, and disease. The Wyoming Basin Ecoregion encompasses approximately 133,656 square kilometers (51,604.87 square miles), including portions of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Montana. The Wyoming Basin has some of the highest quality wildlife habitats remaining in the Intermountain West. The wide variety of habitats includes intermountain basins dominated by sagebrush shrublands interspersed with deciduous and conifer woodlands and montane or subalpine forests at higher elevations. The Wyoming Basin also supports ranching and agricultural operations that are important to the region’s economy and vital to conserving habitats for wildlife. The region also contains abundant energy resources, including large natural gas reserves and areas of high wind-energy potential. Combined with increased residential and industrial development, fast-paced energy development is resulting in notable land-use changes, including habitat loss and fragmentation. In the Wyoming Basin REA, we evaluated the following seven communities as Conservation Elements: streams and rivers, wetlands, riparian forests and shrublands, sagebrush steppe, desert shrublands, foothill shrublands and woodlands, and mountain forests and alpine zones. We evaluated a total of 14 species and species assemblages as Conservation Elements: aspen forests and woodlands, five-needle pine forests and woodlands, juniper woodlands, cutthroat trout, three-species fish assemblage, northern leatherside chub, sauger, spadefoot assemblage, greater sage-grouse, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, sagebrush-obligate birds, pygmy rabbit, and mule deer. We evaluated Management Questions (Core and Integrated) for each species and community for the Wyoming Basin REA. Core Management Questions address primary management issues, including (1) where is the Conservation Element, and what are its key ecological attributes (characteristics of species and communities that may affect their long-term persistence or viability); (2) what and where are the Change Agents; and (3) how do the Change Agents affect the key ecological attributes? Integrated Management Questions synthesize the Core Management Questions as follows: (1) where are the areas with high landscape-level ecological values; (2) where are the areas with high landscape-level risks; and (3) where are the potential areas for conservation, restoration, and development? The associated maps and key findings for each Management Question are summarized for each Conservation Element in individual chapters. Additional chapters on landscape intactness and an REA synthesis are included.

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Wyoming↗

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional assessment—Volume I. Ecological communities

The Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment was conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative . The overall goal of the Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) is to compile and synthesize regional datasets to facilitate evaluation of the cumulative effects of change agents on priority ecological communities and species. In particular, the REAs identify and map the distribution of communities and wildlife habitats at broad spatial extents and provide assessments of ecological conditions. The REAs also identify where and to what degree ecological resources are currently at risk from change agents, such as development, fire, invasive species, and climate change. The REAs can help managers identify and prioritize potential areas for conservation or restoration, assess cumulative effects as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and inform landscape-level planning and management decisions for multiple uses of public lands. Management questions form the basis for the REA framework and were developed in conjunction with the BLM and other stakeholders. Conservation elements are communities and species that are of regional management concern. Core management questions relate to the key ecological attributes and change agents associated with each conservation element. Integrated management questions synthesize the results of the primary core management questions into overall landscape-level ranks for each conservation element. The ecological communities evaluated as conservation elements are shortgrass, mixed-grass, and sand prairies; all grasslands; riparian and nonplaya wetlands; playa wetlands and saline lakes; and prairie streams and rivers. Species and species assemblages evaluated are the freshwater mussel assemblage, Arkansas River shiner ( Notropis girardi ), ferruginous hawk ( Buteo regalis ), lesser prairie chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ), snowy plover ( Charadrius nivosus ), mountain plover ( Charadrius montanus ), long-billed curlew ( Numenius americanus ), interior least tern ( Sternula antillarum athalassos ), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ), black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus ), bat assemblage, swift fox ( Vulpes velox ), and mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ). The Southern Great Plains REA is summarized in a series of three reports and associated datasets. The pre-assessment report (available online at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1003/ ) summarizes the process used by the REA stakeholders to select management questions, conservation elements, and change agents. It also provides background information for each conservation element. Volume I of the Southern Great Plains REA report (this volume) addresses the ecological communities. Volume II will address the species and species assemblages. All source and derived datasets used to produce the maps and graphs for REAs are available online at the BLM Landscape Approach Data Portal ( https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/REAs/REAs.page ).

Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, ↗

Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment—Volume II. Species and assemblages

The Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment was conducted in partnership with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative. The overall goal of the Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs) is to compile and synthesize regional datasets to facilitate evaluation of the cumulative effects of change agents on priority ecological communities and species. In particular, the REAs identify and map the distribution of communities and wildlife habitats at broad spatial extents and provide assessments of ecological conditions. The REAs also identify where and to what degree ecological resources are currently at risk from change agents, such as development, fire, invasive species, and climate change. The REAs can help managers identify and prioritize potential areas for conservation or restoration, assess cumulative effects as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and inform landscape-level planning and management decisions for multiple uses of public lands. Management questions form the basis for the REA framework and were developed in conjunction with the BLM and other stakeholders. Conservation elements are communities and species that are of regional management concern. Core management questions relate to the key ecological attributes and change agents associated with each conservation element. Integrated management questions synthesize the results of the primary core management questions into overall landscape-level ranks for each conservation element. The ecological communities evaluated as conservation elements are shortgrass, mixed-grass, and sand prairies; all grasslands; riparian and nonplaya wetlands; playa wetlands and saline lakes; and prairie streams and rivers. Species and species assemblages evaluated are the freshwater mussel assemblage, Arkansas River shiner ( Notropis girardi ), ferruginous hawk ( Buteo regalis ), lesser prairie chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ), snowy plover ( Charadrius nivosus ), mountain plover ( Charadrius montanus ), long-billed curlew ( Numenius americanus ), interior least tern ( Sternula antillarum athalassos ), burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia ), black-tailed prairie dog ( Cynomys ludovicianus ), bat assemblage, swift fox ( Vulpes velox ), and mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ). The Southern Great Plains REA is summarized in a series of three reports and associated datasets. The pre-assessment report (available online at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20151003 ) summarizes the process used by the REA stakeholders to select management questions, conservation elements, and change agents. It also provides background information for each conservation element. Volume I of the Southern Great Plains REA report addresses the ecological communities (available online at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20171100 ). Volume II (this volume) addresses the species and species assemblages. All source and derived datasets used to produce the maps and graphs for REAs are available online at the BLM Landscape Approach Data Portal ( https://landscape.blm.gov/geoportal/catalog/REAs/REAs.page ).

Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, ↗

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region↗

The desperate dozen: Fishes on the brink

IT IS NO SECRET THAT OUR NATIVE AQUATIC ANIMALS ARE IN DECLINE. There are currently 582 species of animals on the Federal list of endangered and threatened species, 268 of these (46%) are found in freshwater habitats. Of the amazing assemblage of 675 fishes found in southeastern waters, more than a quarter are considered imperiled. While all of the Earth’s ecosystems are in trouble, freshwater habitats are recognized to be at severe risk because of their scarcity and the high demands placed on them by humans. The combined effects of agriculture, damming, dredging, construction, logging, overharvest, and pollution are destroying this critical resource for animals, plants, and even ourselves. This major conservation crisis calls for immediate action to conserve and protect the remaining populations and their habitats. The Southeastern Fishes Council (SFC), a nonprofit scientific organization dedicated to the study and conservation of freshwater and coastal fishes of the southeastern United States, is one of the many organizations attempting to reverse the decline of our southeast aquatic habitats and their rich biodiversity. One of the most important steps in conservation is prioritization. The SFC sought to determine where conservation actions would have the largest impact on preventing loss of our freshwater diversity. We decided to focus our efforts on the Desperate Dozen, the 12 fish species we identified as most likely to become extinct in the Southeast. We chose this list in order to reverse their precipitous decline and assist in putting them on the path to recovery. These twelve species are not currently economically important to humans, and their extinction could easily go unnoticed by all but conservation biologists and ichthyologists. Even so, their conservation matters. These species are the canaries in the coal mine, alerting us to the problem that something is very, very wrong in our backyards. Fishes that were once widespread in larger rivers, such as the diamond darter, are now suffering from the same water quality issues that cause harm to humans. Fishes that were once used for commercial gain, such as the Alabama sturgeon, are now too rare for harvest. We have ignored our freshwater to the point where we no longer remember that rivers used to be more common than reservoirs in the Southeast, and our diversity was a resource worth protecting. It is SFC’s goal to use this list to raise awareness of the plight of our freshwater habitats in the Southeast, which include rivers, creeks, wetlands, springs, and caves. The current crisis requires education, communication, and coordination among our neighbors. We have to learn how to prevent harm to our watersheds and develop new collaborations between private and public entities to promote wise development. By highlighting these twelve species, ranging from the spring pygmy sunfish to the Alabama sturgeon, we hope to encourage these partnerships to address the needs of our freshwater animals and hopefully prevent them from slipping quietly into extinction. SFC created a list of the most imperiled southeastern fishes by considering species with the highest risk of extinction. Criteria used, in order of importance, was distribution (a single population ranked highest), low abundance, and severity of threats. After the ranking based on level of imperilment, species were arranged in phylogenetic order so that all would receive equal attention. Experts on each species provided brief accounts on the Desperate Dozen, which include background, distribution, abundance, threats, and proposed conservation actions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was not consulted in SFC’s identification of the Desperate Dozen fishes, as we intentionally chose to work as an independent scientific panel under the criteria stated above.

Report↗

Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for sagebrush-associated vertebrates

Widespread degradation of the sagebrush ecosystem in the western United States, including the invasion of cheatgrass, has prompted resource managers to consider a variety of approaches to restore and conserve habitats for sagebrush-associated species. One such approach involves the use of greater sage-grouse, a species of prominent conservation interest, as an umbrella species. This shortcut approach assumes that managing habitats to conserve sage-grouse will simultaneously benefit other species of conservation concern. The efficacy of using sage-grouse as an umbrella species for conservation management, however, has not been fully evaluated. We tested that concept by comparing: (1) commonality in land-cover associations, and (2) spatial overlap in habitats between sage-grouse and 39 other sagebrush-associated vertebrate species of conservation concern in the Great Basin ecoregion. Overlap in species' land-cover associations with those of sage-grouse, based on the ?? (phi) correlation coefficient, was substantially greater for sagebrush obligates (x??=0.40) than non-obligates (x??=0.21). Spatial overlap between habitats of target species and those associated with sage-grouse was low (mean ?? = 0.23), but somewhat greater for habitats at high risk of displacement by cheatgrass (mean ?? = 0.33). Based on our criteria, management of sage-grouse habitats likely would offer relatively high conservation coverage for sagebrush obligates such as pygmy rabbit (mean ?? = 0.84), but far less for other species we addressed, such as lark sparrow (mean ?? = 0.09), largely due to lack of commonality in land-cover affinity and geographic ranges of these species and sage-grouse.

Biological Conservation↗