USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Fish and Wildlife Research”

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

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

At least 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources
USGS2012

A synthesis of aquatic science for management of Lakes Mead and Mohave

Lakes Mead and Mohave, which are the centerpieces of Lake Mead National Recreation Area, provide many significant benefits that have made the modern development of the Southwestern United States possible. Lake Mead is the largest reservoir by volume in the nation and it supplies critical storage of water supplies for more than 25 million people in three Western States (California, Arizona, and Nevada). Storage within Lake Mead supplies drinking water and the hydropower to provide electricity for major cities including Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Diego, and irrigation of more than 2.5 million acres of croplands. Lake Mead is arguably the most important reservoir in the nation because of its size and the services it delivers to the Western United States. This Circular includes seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides a short summary of the overall findings and management implications for Lakes Mead and Mohave that can be used to guide the reader through the rest of the Circular. Chapter 2 introduces the environmental setting and characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave and provides a brief management context of the lakes within the Colorado River system as well as overviews of the geological bedrock and sediment accumulations of the lakes. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the operational and hydrologic characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave. Chapter 4 provides information on water quality, including discussion on the monitoring of contaminants and sediments within the reservoirs. Chapter 5 describes aquatic biota and wildlife, including food-web dynamics, plankton, invertebrates, fish, aquatic birds, and aquatic vegetation. Chapter 6 outlines threats and stressors to the health of Lake Mead aquatic ecosystems that include a range of environmental contaminants, invasive species, and climate change. Chapter 7 provides a more detailed summary of overall findings that are presented in Chapter 1; and it contains a more detailed discussion on associated management implications, additional research, and monitoring needs.

Arizona, Nevada↗
USGS2006

EMMMA: A web-based system for environmental mercury mapping, modeling, and analysis

Mercury in our environment - in our air, water, soil, and especially our food - poses significant hazards to human health, particularly for developing fetuses and young children. Because of the importance of this issue and the length of time it has been studied, large and complex data sets of mercury concentrations in various media and associated ancillary data have been generated by many Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies. To facilitate efficient and effective use of these data in managing and mitigating human and wildlife exposure to mercury, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have developed a website for visualizing and studying the distribution of mercury in our environment. The Environmental Mercury Mapping, Modeling, and Analysis (EMMMA) website (http://emmma.usgs.gov) provides health and environmental researchers, managers, and other decision-makers the ability to: 1) Interactively view and access a nationwide collection of environmental mercury data (fish tissue, atmospheric emissions and deposition, stream sediments, soils, and coal) and mercuryrelated data (mine locations); 2) Interactively view and access predictions of the National Descriptive Model of Mercury in Fish (NDMMF) at 4,976 sites and 6,829 sampling events (events are unique combinations of site and sampling date) across the United States; and 3) Use interactive mapping and graphing capabilities to visualize spatial and temporal trends and study relationships between mercury and other variables.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Human-cougar interactions: A literature review related to common management questions

Interactions between humans and cougars ( Puma concolor ) present unique challenges for wildlife managers; reducing occurrences that lead to conflict is a priority for state and provincial wildlife agencies throughout western North America, including Washington. With an increase in management emphasis of human-wildlife conflict resolution, a growing body of scientific literature related to cougar wildland-urban ecology and the factors that contribute to interactions between cougars and people has developed. Based on discussions with the Fish and Wildlife Commission, our 10-member Human-Cougar Interaction Science Review Team assessed both the analytical and ecological merits of current literature, focusing on data and methods, to summarize the current state of knowledge on human-cougar interactions and factors affecting these interactions. We did not use our review findings to provide management recommendations or evaluate/suggest policy alternatives, but we did highlight important information gaps, research needs, and proposed strategies for conducting scientific investigations to benefit managers and policy makers in the future. We used bibliographic lists, keyword searches in research databases, and new literature encountered as citations within papers we reviewed to identify 96 potential studies for review. We evaluated 41 studies that aligned with eight commonly asked questions regarding how various factors contribute to cougar proximity to, and interactions with people. Our review concluded that the roles of cougar removals (Question 1), cougar population size or trajectory (Question 2), the abundance or diversity of prey (Question 3), human population size, distribution, or recreation levels (Question 6), human attitudes (Question 7), and competition with other large carnivores (Question 8) in cougar interactions with people remain uncertain. We found the studies evaluating the efficacy of nonlethal deterrents (Question 4) provided some evidence that these methods reduce conflict, most notably that flashing lights can reduce interactions in specific situations. Our review of papers investigating the role of landscape characteristics (Question 5) revealed spatial ecology to be the most reliably studied and best understood facet of cougar wildland-urban ecology; study designs in these investigations were also the most rigorous. Most cougar use, and subsequent interactions with people, occur at the wildland-urban interface or in exurban and rural residential settings immediately adjacent because these habitats provide both abundant native prey (deer) and stalking cover, or they retain enough native landcover, connectivity, and prey to support cougar use, but with a human presence at a level that does not substantially deter cougars. We identified only a limited number of informative studies in our review, primarily because many studies did not collect data to specifically address relevant management questions after developing testable hypotheses. Much of the literature we reviewed was derived from ad hoc mining of pre-existing data that had been collected for other routine reasons, data were often not assessed for accuracy, and confounding factors were inadequately addressed. Consequently, many factors theorized to contribute to cougar interactions with people require more rigorous investigation. Because wildland-urban systems are complex, and interactions encompass both human and cougar behavior, we recommend the use of long-term studies that incorporate both ecological and anthropogenic factors within a control-treatment design with replicate study sites to address questions with direct management relevance.

Report↗
USGS2024

The Metzger marsh restoration: A vegetation-centric look after 27 years

We investigated wetland vegetation before, during, and after dike construction at the Metzger Marsh project in western Lake Erie, which was designed to restore a 300-ha wetland that had been degraded following the loss of a protective barrier beach. A dike was constructed in 1995 to replace the function of the eroded barrier beach, but it contained a water-control structure to allow managed hydrologic connection to the lake. The control structure contained a fish passageway to allow movement of fish across the dike, while restricting entry of large common carp. Color-infrared aerial photos from project start in 1994 through 2010 (and 2022) were analyzed to track vegetation changes, and major vegetation types were sampled quantitatively. Drawdown of water levels in 1996 after dike construction elicited a response of mudflat species from the seed bank, as well as tree seedlings. Over half of the marsh was vegetated then and in subsequent years. The water-control structure was opened in 1998, and by 2000, invasive Phragmites australis had gained dominance. Most trees were eventually eliminated by herbicide treatment and flooding, and extent of Phragmites was reduced by management actions. Typha spp. and emergents Sagittaria latifolia and Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani became dominant by 2022. This restoration project increased habitat values for fish and wildlife; it also provided lessons for future projects on lands managed by multiple agencies with differing missions. More importantly, it showed that long-term monitoring data are critical for assessing wetland restoration projects and guiding management decisions.

Ohio↗
USGS1999

Sand lance: A review of biology and predator relations and annotated bibliography

Six species of sand lance ( Ammodytes ) in temperate and boreal regions are currently recognized. Sand lance can occupy a wide range of environmental conditions, but all appear to be dormant predominantly in winter, and one species is in summer also. They lack a swim bladder and spend much of their time buried in specific substrates. Copepods are the primary food. Spawning usually occurs in fall or winter (although some species also spawn in spring), eggs are demersal, and larvae may hatch at times of low food abundance. Sand lance usually occur in schools and are regarded as a relatively high-quality forage fish. Sand lance constitute a major prey for at least some populations of over 100 species of consumer, including 40 species of birds, 12 species of marine mammals, 45 species of fishes, and some invertebrates. Variation in the availability of sand lance (and other forage fishes) can have major effects on the breeding success and survival of their predators. Commercial fishing and other pressures on sand lance populations potentially have ramifying effects on many species of wildlife. The bibliography contains over 1,700 references on the family Ammodytidae, with an emphasis on the genus Ammodytes . Keywords are provided for each reference and have been further organized into taxonomic, geographic, subject, and predator indexes.

Research Paper↗
USGS2021

Science needs of southeastern grassland species of conservation concern: A framework for species status assessments

The unglaciated southeastern United States is a biodiversity hotspot, with a disproportionate amount of this biodiversity concentrated in grasslands. Like most hotspots, the Southeast is also threatened by human activities, with the total reduction of southeastern grasslands estimated as 90 percent (upwards to 100 percent for some types) and with many threats escalating today. This report summarizes the results of a multistakeholder workshop organized by the Southeastern Grasslands Initiative and the U.S. Geological Survey, held in January 2020 to provide a scientific needs assessment to help inform the Species Status Assessment (SSA) process under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, with a focus on grassland species and communities of conservation concern in the southeastern United States. This report reviews the ecology of southeastern grasslands, including influences on their origin, maintenance, and high species richness and endemism; presents findings from the workshop; and discusses science questions, hypotheses, and possibilities for future research projects to help fill key knowledge gaps. Participants in the January 2020 workshop, representing diverse expertise in various topics in southeastern grassland ecology, were tasked with identifying major threats to grassland species in the Southeast as well as potential ways to make the SSA process more efficient and effective. An underlying assumption and starting place for workshop discussion was that an ecosystem-based approach to the SSA process is more cost-efficient than a species-by-species approach, in large part because many species with similar biological requirements can be addressed by the same actions. Nevertheless, one partner in this effort, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, does require specific attention be given to taxa that have been petitioned for Federal listing, though as often as possible these taxa are considered alongside a larger group of priority taxa with an ecosystem approach. For group discussions, workshop participants followed a modified “World Café” method, a structured conversational approach for knowledge sharing. Group discussions focused on five categories of threats to grassland communities and species: (1) habitat loss, fragmentation, and disruption of functional population connectivity; (2) climate change, especially changes in temperature and precipitation, including intensity and seasonality, and impacts on soil moisture, groundwater levels, and other ecosystem parameters; (3) changes to disturbance regimes, as influenced by climate and land-use change, extinctions, and human attitudes and behaviors; (4) invasive species (not limited to nonnative species); and (5) localized or subregional impacts such as sea-level rise. In addition to group discussions, workshop participants—as well as other grassland experts who were unable to attend the workshop—completed a preworkshop survey concerning challenges and opportunities for grassland conservation. Findings reported here under each of these topics represent ideas, problems, hypotheses, and questions identified by a diverse community of grassland managers and researchers which may be addressed by future research and monitoring in southeastern grassland ecosystems to help guide science-based conservation of grassland-dependent species.

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Lou↗
USGS1988

Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control

Drainage and clearing of bottomland hardwoods have long been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as important impacts of Federal water projects in the lower Mississippi River Valley. More recently, the water quality impacts of such projects (e.g., increases in sediments, nutrients, and pesticides) have also become of concern. In 1984, in an effort to better define problems concerning wetland losses and water degradation, EPA initiated a cooperative project with the Western Energy and Land Use Team (now the National Ecology Research Center) of the Service. Three phases of the project were identified: 1. To collect existing literature and data; 2. To select, develop, and test the utility of methods to quantify the relationships between land use, cover types, soils, hydrology, and water quality (as represented by sediment); and 3. To apply selected methodologies to several sites within the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi to determine the, potential effectiveness of various management alternatives to reduce sediment yield, increase sediment deposition, and improve water quality. Methods development focused on linking a simulation of water and sediment movement to a computerized geographic information system. We had several objectives for the resulting model. We desired that it should: 1. Estimate the importance of bottomland and hardwoods as a cover type that performs the functions of erosion and sediment control, 2. Simulate effects of proportions of ' various cover types and their specific spatial configurations, 3. Be applicable to moderately large spatial areas with minimal site-specific calibration, 4. Simulate spatial patterns of sediment loss-gain over time, and 5. Represent both sediment detachment and transport. While it was recognized that impacts and management alternatives could be sorted roughly into landscape measures and channel measures, the decision was made to focus study efforts mainly on landscape measures. Landscape measures include altered drainage and flooding patterns, altered cover types (e.g., conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agricultural crops, reforestation of cropland to bottomland hardwoods, and creation of riparian buffer strips), altered cropping and tillage patterns, altered routing of water, and creation of buffer strips along wetlands and channel margins. Channel measures include vegetative bank stabilization, grade control structures, and regulation of channel water volume and velocity. During the first year of the study, EPA decided not to fund the third phase of the project. This required considerable rescoping of the project with the result that application of the sediment mobilization, routing, and deposition models to various management alternatives and portions of the Yazoo Basin was somewhat restricted. We believe, however, that this report will provide a good understanding of the various modes of sediment mobilization, transport, and deposition within the Yazoo Basin, as well as of the role of bottomland hardwoods. The model developed in this study could be applied to a variety of management or mitigation alternatives prior to implementation to determine their relative effectiveness. Policy, political, and socio-economic consequences of any proposed management/mitigation practice, however, must ultimately be taken into consideration by those charged with management of water resources within the Yazoo Basin before any practice is implemented. This study makes no effort to judge the feasibility of management alternatives in this regard.

Report↗
USGS2016

National protocol framework for the inventory and monitoring of bees

This national protocol framework is a standardized tool for the inventory and monitoring of the approximately 4,200 species of native and non-native bee species that may be found within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, this protocol framework may also be used by other organizations and individuals to monitor bees in any given habitat or location. Our goal is to provide USFWS stations within the NWRS (NWRS stations are land units managed by the USFWS such as national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, wetland management districts, conservation areas, leased lands, etc.) with techniques for developing an initial baseline inventory of what bee species are present on their lands and to provide an inexpensive, simple technique for monitoring bees continuously and for monitoring and evaluating long-term population trends and management impacts. The latter long-term monitoring technique requires a minimal time burden for the individual station, yet can provide a good statistical sample of changing populations that can be investigated at the station, regional, and national levels within the USFWS’ jurisdiction, and compared to other sites within the United States and Canada. This protocol framework was developed in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the USFWS, and a worldwide network of bee researchers who have investigated the techniques and methods for capturing bees and tracking population changes. The protocol framework evolved from field and lab-based investigations at the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland starting in 2002 and was refined by a large number of USFWS, academic, and state groups. It includes a Protocol Introduction and a set of 8 Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs and adheres to national standards of protocol content and organization. The Protocol Narrative describes the history and need for the protocol framework and summarizes the basic elements of objectives, sampling design, field methods, training, data management, analysis, and reporting. The SOPs provide more detail and specific instructions for implementing the protocol framework. A central database, for managing all the resulting data is under development. We welcome use of this protocol framework by our partners, as appropriate for their bee inventory and monitoring objectives.

Report↗
USGS2007

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2006

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2006 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of- the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). After considerable delays due to programming issues, a computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was development and tested in 2005 and 2006. Simulations using observations of collared females with COY were randomly sampled to generate datasets of observations of random females with COY. These datasets were then run though the simulations program to test the accuracy of the rules. Data are currently being summarized. This project has been completed and a manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established human-caused mortality quotas. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris (1984). A Wildlife Monographs was published in 2006. Additionally, the study team, in cooperation with several quantitative experts, reassessed how population size is indexed and how sustainable mortality rates are established. A draft report was presented to the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee in spring 2005. It was published as part of the USFWS Delisting Rule (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 221, Nov. 17, 2005, 69853–69884) and subjected to public comment. This workshop document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. During the summer of 2006, a second workshop was held to address public comment and professional peer review. The result of this workshop was a supplement to the 2005 workshop document. This supplement can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm under the link Revised Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits. Results of those estimates are provided in Appendix A. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770. Results of the mercury studies were also published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493–501. Copies can be found on the IGBST website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. Based upon this work, we submitted a proposal to analyze all historic tissue samples from grizzly bears in the ecosystem. That proposal was funded and samples have been sent to a lab for isotopic analysis. We hope to have those results in early 2008. Results of DNA hair snaring work conducted on Yellowstone Lake were submitted and published in the Journal Ursus (Haroldson et al. 2005). Results of this study conducted from 1997–2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985–1987. As a consequence, the IGBST submitted a proposal to the National Park Service and received 3 years funding to repeat that work. This project began in 2007. There are 2 graduate students and several field technicians working on the program. We completed the final field season in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black bears ( Ursus americanus ). We continue to use GPS technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of the 2006 field season are reported here. We plan to complete the final report in late 2007. We continued to monitor the health of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. A summary of the 2006 monitoring is also presented (Appendix B). The IGBST uses counts of winter-killed ungulates to index spring carcass abundance for grizzly bears. Likewise, we use wier counts and stream surveys to index cutthroat trout abundance. We ask Dr. Steve Cherry, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, to review the protocols and make recommendations for improving them. That review and recommendations are presented in Appendix C. Finally, the state of Wyoming, following recommendations from the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee and the IGBST, launched the Bear Wise Community Effort. The focus is to minimize human/bear conflicts, minimize human-caused bear mortalities associated with conflicts, and safeguard the human community. Results of these efforts are detailed in Appendix D. The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS1995

The ecology of cormorants: some research needs and recommendations

Concerns about Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) have arisen because of their rapid population increase across North America and their economic impact on several aquaculture and commercial fish industries. In spite of the concern for cormorants, little published research is available that addresses either basic population biology questions or management issues. Based on a literature review, I recommend that research be conducted in four areas. First, a large-scale banding and marking program should be initiated so that population models can be used to estimate age- and sex-specific survival and fecundity (as has been done for the Shag [P. aristotelis] in Europe). By marking individual birds, survival and movement rates can be estimated between nesting colonies, which will provide information about potential source versus sink colonies. Second, studies of movements during migration and winter are required. Presently, no data are available on habitat use during migration or on the length-of-stay by individual birds. This has important implications to how cormorants interact with other fish and wildlife species over a broad range. Studies of movements during winter with radio-marked birds should indicate whether the 'problem birds' at aquaculture sites are merely a few specialists. Third, limiting factors, such as contaminants and disease, should receive further investigation, especially in light of recent concerns over the outbreak of Newcastle disease. The relationship between contaminant levels and developmental abnormalities in young cormorants in certain areas of the Great Lakes in Canada and the United States remains equivocal. Fourth, further studies are needed to document the economic impacts of cormorants on Channel Catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and other cultured fishes and to determine ways to reduce predation by fish-eating birds. Mesocosm experiments should be conducted to evaluate how different fish extraction rates affect final productivity of fish. Controlled experiments with different exclusion and scaring devices are needed. With radio-marked birds, it should be determined what the behavioral responses are to the different scaring devises. Also, providing alternative wetland feeding sites in regions of fish farm depredation might alleviate some of the pressure on farmers. Studies with radio-marked birds could evaluate effects of manipulation of 'natural' wetlands on use by birds during the winter period. Finally, any research directed at the Double-crested Cormorant should also evaluate its interactions with other fisheating waterbirds.

Book chapter↗
USGS1994

Famphur Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

Famphur (phosphorothioic acid, O,(4((dimethylamino)sulfonyl),phenoyl)O,Odimethyl ester), also known as Warbex, is a systemic organophosphorus insecticide used almost exclusively as a veterinary chemical to control parasite in livestock. Only famphur and its oxygen analog, famoxon, were of toxicological significance; other famphur metabolites were 31 to 237 times less toxic, as Judged by acute oraltoxicity tests in the mouse (Mus sp.). Famphur is administered to livestock by intramuscular or subcutaneous injection, through the diet, as a dermal pour-on, or as an oral bolus. Current recommendations include the discontinuance of topical applications of famphur to cattle because of its association with primary and secondary poisoning of birds, and more research on famphur in the three areas of latent effects on treated livestock, fate and effects in aquatic ecosystems, and carcinogenicity evaluation.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS2012

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↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here and built on to incorporate new information. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter “GRSG”) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” under the Endangered Species Act was in part a result of a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the USGS has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. Our most recent GRSG literature summary was published in 2020 (Carter and others, 2020) and included products published through October 2, 2019. Here, we consider products published between October 2, 2019, and July 21, 2022. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and USGS Open-File Reports) on greater sage-grouse. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products for which greater sage-grouse was not a research focus or the study did not present new data or findings about greater sage-grouse. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified management topics addressed by each product; for example, species and population characteristics. We also identified projects that provided new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 221 total products, of which 147 met our criteria for inclusion. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and population estimates or targets were the most commonly addressed management topics. The online version of this bibliography, which will be available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ), will be searchable by topic, location, and year, and will include links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GRSG populations across the GRSG range.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Evaluation of a decoy-only public good hunting opportunity in central South Dakota: The role of harvest success on hunter satisfaction

An important measure of success for wildlife managers is hunter satisfaction, and it often has been assumed that harvest success is related to satisfaction and may even be a surrogate measure for hunter satisfaction. However, introduction of the multiple satisfactions concept, showing that hunters seek and receive a number of benefits from hunting in addition to harvest success, has directed research into the factors associated with hunter satisfaction and the relevant role of harvest success. In 1998, the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks Department (SDGFP) established the Lower Oahe Waterfowl Hunting Access Area (LOWHAA) located approximately 15 miles north of Pierre, South Dakota. It was managed to provide a variety of quality goose hunting opportunities along the Missouri River. Part of the package included field decoy-only areas with limited access, via registration, to ensure an uncrowded goose hunting experience. The registration process for gaining access included collecting harvest information and a question measuring hunters’ satisfaction. A review of data collected by the SDGFP (1998 – 2011) measuring hunting participation, harvest, and satisfaction with the day’s hunting experience at the decoy-only unit of the LOWHAA revealed a strong relationship between goose harvest and satisfaction of the hunting party, but also identified a segment of hunters for whom harvest success was not related to satisfaction. A better understanding of this segment of hunters may identify factors that managers can influence to maintain or increase hunter satisfaction.

South Dakota↗
USGS1998

Nickel Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

This account is a selective review and synthesis of the technical literature on nickel and nickel salts in the environment and their effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic plants and animals, avian and mammalian wildlife, and other natural resources, The subtopics include nickel sources and uses; physical, chemical, and metabolic properties of nickel; nickel concentrations in field collections of abiotic materials and living organisms; nickel deficiency effects; lethal and sublethal effects, including effects on survival, growth, reproduction, metabolism, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity; currently proposed nickel criteria for the protection of human health and sensitive natural resources; and recommendations for additional research.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS2009

Geography of Alaska lake districts: Identification, description, and analysis of lake-rich regions of a diverse and dynamic state

Lakes are abundant landforms and important ecosystems in Alaska, but are unevenly distributed on the landscape with expansive lake-poor regions and several lake-rich regions. Such lake-rich areas are termed lake districts and have landscape characteristics that can be considered distinctive in similar respects to mountain ranges. In this report, we explore the nature of lake-rich areas by quantitatively identifying Alaska’s lake districts, describing and comparing their physical characteristics, and analyzing how Alaska lake districts are naturally organized and correspond to climatic and geophysical characteristics, as well as studied and managed by people. We use a digital dataset (National Hydrography Dataset) of lakes greater than 1 hectare, which includes 409,040 individual lakes and represents 3.3 percent of the land-surface area of Alaska. The selection criteria we used to identify lake districts were (1) a lake area (termed limnetic ratio, in percent) greater than the mean for the State, and (2) a lake density (number of lakes per unit area) greater than the mean for the State using a pixel size scaled to the area of interest and number of lakes in the census. Pixels meeting these criteria were grouped and delineated and all groups greater than 1,000 square kilometers were identified as Alaska’s lake districts. These lake districts were described according to lake size-frequency metrics, elevation distributions, geology, climate, and ecoregions to better understand their similarities and differences. We also looked at where lake research and relevant ecological monitoring has occurred in Alaska relative to lake districts and how lake district lands and waters are currently managed. We identified and delineated 20 lake districts in Alaska representing 16 percent of the State, but including 65 percent of lakes and 75 percent of lake area. The largest lake districts identified are the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Arctic Coastal Plain, and Iliamna lake districts with high limnetic ratios of 19, 17, and 21 percent, respectively. The three smallest districts we considered were Tetlin in the eastern interior, Menhiskof on the Alaska Peninsula, and Matanuska–Susitna at the head of Cook Inlet with limnetic ratios of 14, 9, and 9 percent, respectively. Lake density and limnetic ratio were poorly related among lake districts, such that some districts had a few large lakes like Iliamna with Lakes Iliamna and Becharof—the two largest in the State, compared to other districts with many very small lakes like Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta with 111,130 lakes and 63 percent of these less than 10 hectares. Most lake districts are in regions with relatively low precipitation, but temperature regimes varied widely among lake districts. Approximately one-half of lake districts were glaciated during the Pleistocene and similar numbers occur in regions classified as having continuous, discontinuous, and sporadic permafrost, or perennially unfrozen soils. Most districts are at low elevations (less than 250 meters) with two important exceptions being Tetlin with a mean elevation of 530 meters and Ahtna with a mean elevation of 760 meters. These higher elevation districts, particularly Ahtna, had distinct characteristics from other lake districts such as continuous permafrost and Pleistocene glaciation. Several lake districts share similar boundaries to defined ecoregions with lake districts occurring in less than one-half of these 32 ecoregions of Alaska. Most lake districts are lands fully or partly managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, with other land management by the Bureau of Land Management and State and borough government. Much of the U.S. Geological Survey’s lake water-quality sampling efforts has been done in the Arctic Coastal Plain, Matanuska-Susitna, and Iliamna districts but no recorded collections in nine lake districts. Similarly, most lake limnological studies in Alaska were site-specific and represent only a small portion of Alaska’s lake districts. This identification, characterization, and analysis of lake-rich regions may help provide a template to guide future limnological and other scientific research for Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2015

Wildlife specimen collection, preservation, and shipment

Specimens are used to provide supporting information leading to the determination of the cause of disease or death in wildlife and for disease monitoring or surveillance. Commonly used specimens for wildlife disease investigations include intact carcasses, tissues from carcasses, euthanized or moribund animals, parasites, ingested food, feces, or environmental samples. Samples from live animals or the environment (e.g., contaminated feed) in the same vicinity as a mortality event also may be helpful. The type of specimen collected is determined by availability of samples and biological objectives. Multiple fresh, intact carcasses from affected species are the most useful in establishing a cause for a mortality event. Submission of entire carcasses allows observation of gross lesions and abnormalities, as well as disease testing of multiple tissues. Samples from live animals may be more appropriate when sick animals cannot be euthanized (e.g., threatened or endangered species) or for research and monitoring projects examining disease or agents circulating in apparently healthy animals or those not exhibiting clinical signs. Samples from live animals may include collections of blood, hair, feathers, feces, or ectoparasites, or samples obtained by swabbing lesions or orifices. Photographs and videos are useful additions for recording field and clinical signs and conveying conditions at the site. Collection of environmental samples (e.g., feces, water, feed, or soil) may be appropriate when animals cannot be captured for sampling or the disease agent may persist in the environment. If lethal collection is considered necessary, biologists should refer to the policies, procedures, and permit requirements of their institution/facility and the agency responsible for species management (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or State natural resource agency) prior to use in the field. If threatened or endangered species are found dead, or there is evidence of illegal take, field personal should contact local wildlife law enforcement authorities immediately and prior to handling the carcass. Prior to collecting samples, it is important to determine the capabilities and submission criteria of the laboratory receiving the samples. Some laboratories may specialize in a limited number of tests, be equipped to accept only certain types of tissues (instead of entire carcasses), or specialize in particular species or group of animals (e.g., reptiles, birds, mammals). Diagnostic laboratories have specific requirements regarding preparation, labeling, and shipping of samples. Adherence to these requirements helps ensure the usefulness of any submitted specimens. Although laboratories may vary in the cost and turnaround times for diagnostic tests, some laboratories may be able to prioritize samples and accommodate accelerated time frames if communicated at the time of submission. Keeping a prepacked kit with basic carcass-collection supplies, including a paper copy of the specimen history form (available for download from the Web sites of most diagnostic laboratories), in the office or vehicle will decrease the chances of forgetting an essential item and decrease response time for arriving at an event.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2006

Science to support adaptive habitat management: Overton Bottoms North Unit, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Missouri

Extensive efforts are underway along the Lower Missouri River to rehabilitate ecosystem functions in the channel and flood plain. Considerable uncertainty inevitably accompanies ecosystem restoration efforts, indicating the benefits of an adaptive management approach in which management actions are treated as experiments, and results provide information to feed back into the management process. The Overton Bottoms North Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge is a part of the Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Project. The dominant management action at the Overton Bottoms North Unit has been excavation of a side-channel chute to increase hydrologic connectivity and to enhance shallow, slow current-velocity habitat. The side-channel chute also promises to increase hydrologic gradients, and may serve to alter patterns of wetland inundation and vegetation community growth in undesired ways. The U.S. Geological Survey's Central Region Integrated Studies Program (CRISP) undertook interdisciplinary research at the Overton Bottoms North Unit in 2003 to address key areas of scientific uncertainty that were highly relevant to ongoing adaptive management of the site, and to the design of similar rehabilitation projects on the Lower Missouri River. This volume presents chapters documenting the surficial geologic, topographic, surface-water, and ground-water framework of the Overton Bottoms North Unit. Retrospective analysis of vegetation community trends over the last 10 years is used to evaluate vegetation responses to reconnection of the Overton Bottoms North Unit to the river channel. Quasi-experimental analysis of cottonwood growth rate variation along hydrologic gradients is used to evaluate sensitivity of terrestrial vegetation to development of aquatic habitats. The integrated, landscape-specific understanding derived from these studies illustrates the value of scientific information in design and management of rehabilitation projects.

Missouri↗