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 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
USGS2005

Technical review of the status of Northern Goshawks in the western United States

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was petitioned in 1997 to consider listing Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, west of the 100th meridian of the contiguous United States. In their 12-mo finding issued in June 1998, the FWS determined that listing this population as threatened or endangered was not warranted and based that decision on review existing population and habitat information. Because the status of goshawks in the western U.S. continues to be contentious and the FWS finding has been challenged, the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. and The Wildlife Society jointly formed a committee to review information regarding the status of the goshawk population in the contiguous U.S. west of the 100th meridian. The committee was requested to: (1) determine if there is evidence of a population trend in goshawks in the western U.S., excluding Alaska; (2) determine if there is evidence that goshawks nesting in the eastern and western U.S. represent distinctive, genetically unique populations; and (3) evaluate evidence for goshawk-habitat relations, including any association with large, mostly-unbroken tracts of old growth and mature forests. Based on existing information, the committee concluded: (1) existing data are not adequate to assess population trend in goshawks west of the 100th meridian; (2) existing analyses of phylogeography have not provided evidence of genetic differences among recognized (atricapillus, laingi) or putative (apache) subspecies, and the genetic distinctness of atricapillus goshawks in western and eastern North America is not known; and (3) at present, assessing the status of goshawks solely using distribution of late-successional forests is not appropriate, based on the current understanding of goshawk-habitat relations, although goshawks clearly use and often select late-successional forests for nesting and foraging. We provide recommendations on information needs to assess status and population trend of goshawks in the western U.S. ?? 2005 The Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.

Journal of Raptor Research↗
USGS2022

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

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

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗
USGS1995

Reef fishes of the Florida Keys

The Florida Keys are a chain of islands extending 320 km (199 mi) along the southern edge of the Florida Plateau from Biscayne Bay to the Dry Tortugas (101 km [63 mi] west of Key West). The Florida Reef Tract, a band of living coral reefs paralleling the Keys, extends from Fowey Rocks to the Marquesas and includes about 130 km (81 mi) of bank reefs and 6,000 patch reefs. For convenience, the Keys can be divided into the upper, middle, and lower Keys (Fig. 1). The environmental and economic importance of the Florida Keys is indicated by the many protected or regulated areas, which include several national wildlife refuges, national parks, marine sanctuaries, and state-protected areas (Fig. 1). Because many recreational and commercial activities occur in nearshore habitats, these areas have high potential for environmental damage. Relatively high rates of human population increase (28%-44%) are predicted over the next 20 years in some parts of the Keys; Monroe County, which includes all of the Keys, had a population growth of 160% during the past 40 years. Human activities associated with increased population growth may well ultimately disrupt the Florida Keys marine ecosystem and damage the area's overall economy. In recognition of this possibility, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated in 1990 under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, U.S. Public Law 101-605. The sanctuary includes 9,515 km 2 (3,673 mi 2 ) of coastal waters around the Florida Keys. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was charged with developing a comprehensive management plan and regulations to protect sanctuary resources (NOAA 1995). We focus on the current status of Florida Keys reef fishes and areas where research is needed immediately.

Florida↗
USGS2026

Mississippi’s resiliency and changing environmental conditions

Mississippi is experiencing shifts in environmental conditions, many of which are expected to intensify in the coming decades, and will have important implications for ecosystems, species, and natural resource management across the state. Historical climate analyses and downscaled projections summarized for the state’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) level III Ecoregions show that Mississippi will likely face increases in extremely hot days, more intense heatwaves, greater evapotranspiration, and reductions in cold-season extremes. Temperature trends indicate that while Mississippi has warmed relatively little over the last century, recent years have been among the warmest on record. Projections suggest substantial increases in the number of days with maximum temperatures at or above 95°F across all Ecoregions, particularly under higher warming scenarios. Correspondingly, the number of freezing nights is expected to decline, with statewide decreases of 7–21 days depending on the global warming level and timeframe. These combined patterns are likely to reshape habitat conditions, influence species’ thermal stress, and alter ecological processes such as soil moisture retention and stream temperature regimes. Mississippi’s hydrological systems are also expected to be significantly affected. Extreme rainfall events, particularly the most intense 1% of precipitation days, are projected to increase across the state, raising risks of flooding, erosion, and altered stream flow. Coastal Mississippi faces additional stress from sea‑level rise, which is already contributing to more frequent high‑tide flooding; projections show continued increases in inundation risk throughout the century. These flooding patterns, combined with stronger hurricane rainfall rates and the potential for landfalling storms to stall, pose ongoing threats to coastal ecosystems and communities. The state is also vulnerable to extreme weather hazards such as tornadoes. Recent research shows a geographic shift in tornado activity toward the Southeast, with Mississippi experiencing some of the nation’s greatest increases in favorable tornado days and nighttime tornado frequency—hazards that have direct implications for wildlife, habitat stability, and human safety. Drought conditions may intensify as well: higher temperatures and increased evapotranspiration during dry spells could worsen water stress regardless of uncertainty in average annual precipitation. These changing environmental conditions have important consequences for Mississippi’s Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Vulnerability assessments and ecological niche models indicate that several fish, mussel, crayfish, plant, amphibian, bird, and mammal species may face heightened stress due to warming temperatures, shifting hydrology, habitat loss, and increases in extreme events. For example, many cold‑water and moisture‑dependent species in the state’s rivers and wetlands are already near their thermal limits, and further warming could reduce suitable habitat. Birds breeding in bottomland hardwood forests, such as the Prothonotary Warbler, are increasingly susceptible to nest loss from flooding. Similarly, species like the Louisiana Black Bear may encounter higher risks from habitat inundation and shifting food availability. The “A Closer Look” section underscores the vulnerability of the Mississippi Alluvial Plain—one of the state’s most ecologically rich yet heavily altered Ecoregions. Its bottomland hardwood forests, wetlands, and floodplain habitats support diverse wildlife but are increasingly threatened by rising temperatures, hydrological changes, development pressures, and compounded disturbances. These habitats provide critical ecosystem services such as water filtration, flood attenuation, and biodiversity support, making their conservation particularly urgent under future conditions. Collectively, these findings indicate that Mississippi’s ongoing and projected environmental changes present both challenges and opportunities for natural resource management. Incorporating adaptation strategies into the State Wildlife Action Plan will be essential for sustaining habitats, mitigating risks, and supporting the long‑term resilience of Mississippi’s wildlife and ecosystems.

Mississippi↗
USGS2012

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

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

Virginia↗
USGS2016

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

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

Washington↗
USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

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

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

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

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

Nevada↗
USGS2020

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

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

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗
USGS2016

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

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

Human-Wildlife Interactions↗
USGS1999

Herpetology in the federal government: a personal view

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

Herpetologists' League Communications↗
USGS2011

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

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

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2019

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

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

Laurentian Great lakes↗
USGS1988

Applications of a simulation model to decisions in mallard management

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

Fish and Wildlife Technical Report↗
USGS2022

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

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

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS1983

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

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

Report↗
USGS2025

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

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

lower 48 states↗
USGS2012

Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin

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

Society & Natural Resources: An International Jour↗