USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Fish and Wildlife Technical Report”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Appendix 6: Overview of iPOM 2.0: Updates to wolf abundance estimation in Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) uses the integrated Patch Occupancy Model (iPOM) to estimate statewide and regional wolf abundance. During the early years of recovery, wolf abundance was tracked using minimum counts. As the population increased, limitations of this method became apparent, motivating development of a model-based approach for estimating abundance. iPOM development began in 2006, was operationalized in 2013, and has been used in its current form (iPOM 1.0) since 2021. Since its inception, iPOM has been developed and presented as an adaptive modeling framework intended to evolve as new data and analytical methods become available1. Here, we briefly present ongoing work to produce the next iteration of iPOM, hereafter iPOM 2.0, and summarize major model updates and resulting preliminary wolf abundance estimates. iPOM uses models for occupancy, territory size, and pack size, along with monitoring data collected by MFWP wolf specialists and potential wolf sightings reported by deer and elk hunters during the 5-week general rifle season each Nov-Dec. These monitoring data, wolf sightings, and covariates for habitat and survey effort are used to model occupancy of packs on a statewide grid of 600-km 2 cells. The area used by wolves is then estimated as each cell’s occupancy estimate multiplied by grid cell area. iPOM estimates pack abundance by dividing this area by predicted territory sizes, and in-pack wolf abundance by multiplying pack abundance by estimated group size. This is combined with a lone wolf rate to estimate total wolf abundance (see Sells et al. 1 for a full description of iPOM 1.0). This technical summary provides a high-level overview of the proposed iPOM updates and their implications for wolf abundance estimates. The estimates presented here represent results as of June 2026 and are provided to inform upcoming discussions surrounding harvest management and regulations (e.g., season dates, quotas, methods). Results are preliminary and remain subject to final model refinement and peer review.

Montana↗
USGS1989

Streamside habitats in southern forested wetlands: Their role and implications for management

The value of streamside forests to fish and wildlife and the influence of forest management on their value have been recognized in a general sense for decades. However, in today’s climate of increasing environmental regulation and intensive forest management, there is need for more detailed understanding of the value of streamside forests to fish and wildlife. Dickson and Huntley (1987:38) described the problem well when they wrote that “quantitative data on the effects of riparian zones on wildlife populations are insufficient to enable wildlife managers to justify the retention of riparian zones in land-use plans on a biological and economical basis.” Due in large part to the passage of water pollution control legislation, as well as legislation mandating multiple-use management in our national forests, progress is being made. During the last l&15 years, a great deal of research has been directed at understanding the value and appropriate management of the riparian zone (Brouha and Parsons 1985). The vast majority of research on riparian habitats has been conducted in western forests and/or narrow zones in otherwise upland areas. Also, much of the work done in southern forested wetlands has applied to entire floodplain forests. In this paper, we review the literature on streamside habitats within southern forested wetlands and, for reasons described in the next section, we make a distinction between streamside forests and floodplain (or riparian) forests. We also discuss in less detail the value of streamside habitats within other southern forest types, such as pine or mixed pine-hardwood.

General Technical Report↗
USGS2017

Hawai`i forest bird monitoring database: Database dictionary

Between 1976 and 1981, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (now U.S. Geological Survey – Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center [USGS-PIERC]) conducted systematic surveys of forest birds and plant communities on all the main Hawaiian Islands, except O‘ahu, as part of the Hawai‘i Forest Bird Surveys (HFBS). Results of this monumental effort have guided conservation efforts and provided the basis for many plant and bird recovery plans and land acquisition decisions in Hawai‘i. Unfortunately, these estimates and range maps are now seriously outdated, hindering modern conservation decision-making and recovery planning. HFBIDP staff work closely with land managers and others to identify the location of bird populations in need of protection. In addition, HFBIDP is able to assess field collection methods, census areas, and survey frequency for their effectiveness. Survey and geographical data are refined and released in successive versions, each more inclusive, detailed, and accurate than the previous release. Incrementally releasing data gives land managers and survey coordinators reasonably good data to work with early on rather than waiting for the release of ‘perfect’ data, ‘perfectly’ analyzed. Consequently, summary results are available in a timely manner.

Technical Report↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS1989

The ecology of hydric hammocks: a community profile

This community profile is one in a series of Fish and Wildlife Service publications compiled to provide a state-of-knowledge synthesis of scientific information and literature on various coastal habitats. The subject of this profile is the hydric hammock, a distinctive type of forested wetland occurring at low elevations along the gulf coast of Florida from Aripeka to St. Marks and at various inland sites in Florida. Relatively little research has been conducted in hydric hammocks, and no thorough effort has been made previously to define this community. Consequently, no consensus has existed about the extent and nature of this community; some published works and active researchers have differed in their judgments about it; and the entity sometimes is ignored and often is lumped with other types of mixed hardwood forests. The purpose of this profile is to establish or clarify an identification and understanding of the hydric-hammock community. Information for the profile was gathered from published and unpublished literature, from persona 1 communication with many technical experts, and from our own fie 1 d experience. The profile includes some new data gathered in the field for the purpose of defining this community. It is hoped that the content and format of the profile will be useful to a broad spectrum of users, including other scientists, students, resource managers and planners, teachers, and interested citizens. The profile includes structural and functional aspects of the community: its physical setting, plant and animal composition and dynamics, interactions of its flora and fauna, and its relationships with other communities.

Florida↗
USGS2009

Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse in the Bi-State Planning Area Final Report, September 2007

Conservation efforts for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), hereafter sage-grouse, are underway across the range of this species. Over 70 local working groups have been established and are implementing on-the-ground sage-grouse oriented conservation projects. Early on in this process, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recognized the need to join in these efforts and received funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Candidate Species Conservation Program to help develop a species conservation plan for sage-grouse in the Mono County area. This conservation plan covers portions of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties in California and Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral counties in Nevada. A concurrent effort underway through the Nevada Governor's Sage-grouse Conservation Team established Local Area Working Groups across Nevada and eastern California. The Mono County populations of sage-grouse were encompassed by the Bi-State Local Planning Area, which was comprised of six population management units (PMUs). The state agencies from California (CDFG) and Nevada (Nevada Department of Wildlife; NDOW) responsible for the management of sage-grouse agreed to utilize the process that had begun with the Nevada Governor's Team in order to develop local plans for conservation planning and implementation. Resources from the USFWS were applied to several objectives in support of the development of the Bi-State Local Area Sage-grouse Conservation Plan through a grant to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Objectives included: (1) participate in the development of the Bi-State Conservation Plan, (2) compile and synthesize existing sage-grouse data, (3) document seasonal movements of sage-grouse, (4) identify habitats critical to sage-grouse, (5) determine survival rates and identify causal factors of mortality, (6) determine nest success and brood success of sage-grouse, and (7) identify sage-grouse lek sites. Progress reports completed in 2004 and 2005 addressed each of the specific objectives and this final report focuses on the biological information gathered in support of local conservation efforts. Participation in the development of the Bi-State Local Area Conservation Plan was accomplished on multiple scales. Beginning in the fall of 2002, USGS personnel began participating in meetings of local stakeholders involved in the development of a sage-grouse conservation plan for the Bi-State planning area. This included attendance at numerous local PMU group meetings and field trips as well as participating on the technical advisory committee (TAC) for the Bi-State group. Whenever appropriate, ongoing results and findings regarding sage-grouse ecology in the local area were incorporated into these working group meetings. In addition, the USGS partnered with CDFG to help reorganize one of the local PMU groups (South Mono) and edited that portion of the Bi-State plan. The USGS also worked closely with CDFG to draft a description of the state of knowledge for sage-grouse genetic information for inclusion in the Bi-State Conservation Plan. The first edition of the Bi-State Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse was completed in June 2004 (Bi-State Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). This report is organized primarily by PMU to facilitate the incorporation of these research findings into the individual PMU plans that compose the Bi-State plan. Information presented in this report was derived from over 7,000 radio-telemetry locations obtained on 145 individual sage-grouse during a three year period (2003-2005). In addition, we collected detailed vegetation measurements at over 590 habitat sampling plots within the study area including canopy cover, shrubs, forbs, and grasses diversity. Vegetation data collection focused on sage-grouse nests, and brood-use areas. Additionally we collected data at random sites to examine sage-grouse habitat relationships within the study area. The majori

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes Basin: A report on sediment, water, and fish tissue chemistry collected in 2010-2012

Despite being detected at low levels in surface waters and sediments across the United States, contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes Basin are not well characterized in terms of spatial and temporal occurrence. Additionally, although the detrimental effects of exposure to CECs on fish and wildlife have been documented for many CECs in laboratory studies, we do not adequately understand the implications of the presence of CECs in the environment. Based on limited studies using current environmentally relevant concentrations of chemicals, however, risks to fish and wildlife are evident. As a result, there is an increasing urgency to address data gaps that are vital to resource management decisions. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey, is leading a Great Lakes Basin-wide evaluation of CECs (CEC Project) with the objectives to (a) characterize the spatial and temporal distribution of CECs; (b) evaluate risks to fish and wildlife resources; and (c) develop tools to aid resource managers in detecting, averting, or minimizing the ecological consequences to fish and wildlife that are exposed to CECs. This report addresses objective (a) of the CEC Project, summarizing sediment and water chemistry data collected from 2010 to 2012 and fish liver tissue chemistry data collected in 2012; characterizes the sampling locations with respect to potential sources of CECs in the landscape; and provides an initial interpretation of the variation in CEC concentrations relative to the identified sources. Data collected during the first three years of our study, which included 12 sampling locations and analysis of 134 chemicals, indicate that contaminants were more frequently detected in sediment compared to water. Chemicals classified as alkyphenols, flavors/ fragrances, hormones, PAHs, and sterols had higher average detection frequencies in sediment compared to water, while the opposite was observed for pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and plasticizers/flame retardants. The St. Louis River and Maumee River sampling locations had the most CEC detections in water and sediment, relative to other sites, as well as the largest number of maximum detected concentrations across all sites in the Basin. No consistent temporal CEC occurrence patterns were observed at locations sampled multiple times each day. Most appearances and increases in chemical concentrations in sediments occurred at sites immediately downstream from wastewater treatment plants and at sites with predominantly developed land use. The location with the most observed appearances and increases was the St. Louis River. Perfluorinated compounds were commonly detected in fish liver tissues with detections in 100% of both benthic and pelagic species. The occurrence of these chemicals in liver tissue of benthic and pelagic species was generally similar. Abstract

Great Lakes Basin↗
USGS2011

Design of forest bird monitoring for strategic habitat conservation on Kaua'i Island, Hawai'i

This report was commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The purpose was to develop a monitoring program for Kaua`i forest birds in the USFWS Strategic Habitat Conservation and adaptive management frameworks. Monitoring within those frameworks is a tool to assess resource responses to management and conservation actions, and through an iterative learning process improve our understanding of species recovery, effective management, and knowledge gaps. This report provides only the monitoring component of both frameworks, and we apply the monitoring program to the East Alaka`i Protective Fence Project. The East Alaka`i Protective Fence Project is a joint project by the USFWS, State of Hawai`i Division of Forest and Wildlife, Kaua`i Watershed Alliance, and The Nature Conservancy to restore and preserve an 809 ha area of native forest bird habitat through fencing, and ungulate and weed control. The primary purpose of the project is to restore and preserve the habitat that will in turn support abundant and resilient bird populations. This report contains: A monitoring program specifically developed to track bird distribution, density and demography, and habitat for the East Alaka`i Protective Fence Project; A review of the Kaua`i forest bird surveys; A description of the current status and trends of Kaua`i forest birds; An assessment and evaluation of the current surveys; A monitoring program developed to sample bird distribution, density and demography, and habitat at three general levels of spatial scale. Without the management components described in the East Alaka`i Protective Fence Project and the Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds (USFWS 2006) the bird monitoring recommended in this report is little better than surveillance (i.e., monitoring without a link to management). If, however, the proposed management actions are implemented in conjunction with the recommended bird monitoring, then this monitoring program will identify population changes in a timely manner and facilitate identification of the proximate causes of population changes.

Hawaii↗
USGS2015

Information resources

During recent decades, natural resources agency personnel and others involved with the management and stewardship of wildlife have experienced an increasing need to access information and obtain technical assistance for addressing a diverse array of wildlife disease issues. This Chapter provides a broad overview of selected sources for obtaining supplemental information and technical assistance for addressing wildlife disease issues in North America. Specifically, examples of existing major wildlife disease programs focusing on free-ranging wildlife populations are highlighted; training opportunities for enhancing within-agency wildlife disease response are identified; a selected reading list of wildlife disease references is provided; and selected Web sites providing timely information on wildlife disease are highlighted. No attempt is made to detail all the North American programs and capabilities that address disease in free-ranging wildlife populations. Instead, this Chapter is focused on enhancing awareness of the types of capabilities that exist as potential sources for assistance and collaboration between wildlife conservation agency personnel and others in addressing wildlife disease issues. A wide variety of entities across North America are involved in wildlife disease investigations; however, the formal assembly of multidimensional programs that primarily address disease for the benefit of free-ranging wildlife is rather limited. The Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC), and the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative (CWHC) are selected examples. These programs are highlighted because of the scope of their capabilities and long-term involvement in assisting State and Federal natural resource agencies combat wildlife disease. A variety of other sources for possible assistance in addressing wildlife disease issues exists throughout North America and globally. It is prudent for wildlife conservation field biologists, managers, and administrators to be aware of such local resources. Ideally, awareness and knowledge of the types of assistance those programs can provide should be obtained prior to disease crisis events since appropriate, timely intervention often is required to minimize wildlife losses from disease and prevent the establishment of new infectious diseases within wildlife populations and geographic areas. Increasing recognition of the substantial number of infectious diseases being transferred between wildlife, domestic animals, and humans has led to increased collaborative investigations between wildlife, domestic, and human health programs. That collaboration has led to a heightened focus on wildlife disease within some public health and agriculture agencies. For purposes of this Chapter, wildlife disease is narrowly defined as those diseases (infectious and noninfectious) causing morbidity and mortality in free-ranging wildlife populations. Therefore, there is no focus on the numerous fish disease or environmental contaminant programs that exist on behalf of North American fauna.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2016

Improve wildlife species tracking—Implementing an enhanced global positioning system data management system for California condors

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) staff in the Pacific Southwest Region and at the Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuge Complex requested technical assistance to improve their global positioning system (GPS) data acquisition, management, and archive in support of the California Condor Recovery Program. The USFWS deployed and maintained GPS units on individual Gymnogyps californianus (California condor) in support of long-term research and daily operational monitoring and management of California condors. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) obtained funding through the Science Support Program to provide coordination among project participants, provide GPS Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM) transmitters for testing, and compare GSM/GPS with existing Argos satellite GPS technology. The USFWS staff worked with private companies to design, develop, and fit condors with GSM/GPS transmitters. The Movebank organization, an online database of animal tracking data, coordinated with each of these companies to automatically stream their GPS data into Movebank servers and coordinated with USFWS to improve Movebank software for managing transmitter data, including proofing/error checking of incoming GPS data. The USGS arranged to pull raw GPS data from Movebank into the USGS California Condor Management and Analysis Portal (CCMAP) ( https://my.usgs.gov/ccmap ) for production and dissemination of a daily map of condor movements including various automated alerts. Further, the USGS developed an automatic archiving system for pulling raw and proofed Movebank data into USGS ScienceBase to comply with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. This improved data management system requires minimal manual intervention resulting in more efficient data flow from GPS data capture to archive status. As a result of the project’s success, Pinnacles National Park and the Ventana Wildlife Society California condor programs became partners and adopted the same workflow, tracking, and data archive system. This GPS tracking data management model and workflow should be applicable and beneficial to other wildlife tracking programs.

California↗
USGS1998

Geospatial Technology Applications and Infrastructure in the Biological Resources Division

Executive Summary -- Automated spatial processing technology such as geographic information systems (GIS), telemetry, and satellite-based remote sensing are some of the more recent developments in the long history of geographic inquiry. For millennia, humankind has endeavored to map the Earth's surface and identify spatial relationships. But the precision with which we can locate geographic features has increased exponentially with satellite positioning systems. Remote sensing, GIS, thematic mapping, telemetry, and satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are tools that greatly enhance the quality and rapidity of analysis of biological resources. These technologies allow researchers, planners, and managers to more quickly and accurately determine appropriate strategies and actions. Researchers and managers can view information from new and varying perspectives using GIS and remote sensing, and GPS receivers allow the researcher or manager to identify the exact location of interest. These geospatial technologies support the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division (BRD) and the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) by providing a cost-effective and efficient method for collection, analysis, and display of information. The BRD mission is 'to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources.' A major responsibility of the BRD is to develop and employ advanced technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological and ecological information. As the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) states, 'fulfilling this mission depends on effectively balancing the immediate need for information to guide management of biological resources with the need for technical assistance and long-range, strategic information to understand and predict emerging patterns and trends in ecological systems.' Information sharing plays a key role in nearly everything BRD does. The Strategic Science Plan discusses the need to (1) develop tools and standards for information transfer, (2) disseminate information, and (3) facilitate effective use of information. This effort centers around the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), components of the National Information Infrastructure. The NBII and NSDI are distributed electronic networks of biological and geographical data and information, as well as tools to help users around the world easily find and retrieve the biological and geographical data and information they need. The BRD is responsible for developing scientifically and statistically reliable methods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. Scientists also conduct important inventory and monitoring studies to maintain baseline information on these same resources. Research on those species for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has trust responsibilities (including endangered species and migratory species) involves laboratory and field studies of individual animals and the environments in which they live. Researchboth tactical and strategicis conducted at the BRD's 17 science centers and 81 field stations, 54 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in 40 states, and at 11 former Cooperative Park Study Units. Studies encompass fish, birds, mammals, and plants, as well as their ecosystems and the surrounding landscape. Biological Resources Division researchers use a variety of scientific tools in their endeavors to understand the causes of biological and ecological trends. Research results are used by managers to predict environmental changes and to help them take appropriate measures to manage resources effectively. The BRD Geospatial Technology Program facilitates the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and informat

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2012

Coordinated bird monitoring: Technical recommendations for military lands

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

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona

Since the 1980s, four major science and restoration programs have been developed for the Colorado River Basin to address primarily the conservation of native fish and other wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA): (1) Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (commonly called the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program) (1988); (2) San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (1992); (3) Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (1997); and (4) Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (2005). Today, these four programs, the efforts of which span the length of the Colorado River, have an increasingly important influence on water management and resource conservation in the basin. The four efforts involve scores of State, Federal, and local agencies; Native American Tribes; and diverse stakeholder representatives. The programs have many commonalities, including similar and overlapping goals and objectives; comparable resources and threats to those resources; and common monitoring, research, and restoration strategies. In spite of their commonalities, until recently there had been no formal opportunity for information exchange among the programs. To address this situation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) worked in coordination with the four programs and numerous Federal and State agencies to organize the first Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, which took place in Scottsdale, AZ, in November 2008. The symposium's primary purpose was to promote an exchange of information on research and management activities related to the restoration and conservation of the Colorado River and its major tributaries. A total of 283 managers, scientists, and stakeholders attended the 3-day symposium, which included 87 presentations and 27 posters. The symposium featured plenary talks by experts on a variety of topics, including overviews of the four restoration programs, water-management actions aimed at restoring native fish habitat, climate change, assessments of the status of native and nonnative fish populations, and Native American perspectives. Intermixed with plenary talks were four concurrent technical sessions that addressed the following important topics: (1) effects of dam and reservoir operations on downstream physical and biological resources; (2) native fish propagation and genetic management and associated challenges in co-managing native and nonnative fish in the Colorado River; (3) monitoring program design, case studies, and links to management; and (4) riparian system restoration, monitoring, and exotic species control efforts.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2017

2010-2015 Juvenile fish ecology in the Nisqually River Delta and Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve

The return of tidal inundation to over 750 acres of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Billy Frank Jr. Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge (NNWR) in fall of 2009 was the crowning moment in the effort to protect and restore the Nisqually Delta. The Nisqually NWR project complemented three earlier restoration projects completed by the Nisqually Indian Tribe (Tribe) on tribal property to restore over 900 acres of the estuary, representing the largest estuary restoration project in the Pacific Northwest and one of the most significant advances to date towards the recovery of Puget Sound (USFWS 2005). In 2011 the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR established the over 14000 acre Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve (Reserve), complementing the protection and restoration successes in the Nisqually Delta. The Reserve includes all state-owned aquatic lands around Anderson, Ketron and Eagle islands and part of McNeil Island (Figure 1, WDNR 2011). The Reserve also includes a diverse assemblage of nearshore and offshore habitats important to resident and migratory fish including federal endangered species act listed fish like Chinook salmon (Oncorynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (O. mykiss). Studies in the Nisqually Estuary (Ellings and Hodgson 2007, David et al. 2014, Ellings et al. 2016) and South Puget Sound (Duffy 2003) have summarized fish use of the area. However, the fish ecology of the reserve had not been systematically surveyed. The Tribe, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NNWR, Nisqually River Foundation (NRF), and others are currently conducting a multi-year, interdisciplinary, hypothesis-based research and monitoring study investigating the impact of delta restoration on estuarine processes, habitat structures, and functions. Our interdisciplinary monitoring framework enables us to link key estuarine processes with habitat development and biological response at multiple scales across the restored footprint, reference marshes, and throughout the Nisqually Reach. Key research components include hydrology and sediment regime, channel and marsh topography and development, vegetation colonization, and invertebrate, bird, and fish abundance, habitat use, and foraging ecology. After the Reserve was established, the WDNR and the research partnership led by the Tribe expanded the existing delta fish ecology assessment to include sampling stations throughout the Reserve. The results of the Reserve fish ecology assessment provide a unique regional analysis of fish ecology from the Nisqually River to McNeil Island.

Salmon Recovery Program Technical Report↗
USGS2014

A hierarchical integrated population model for greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) in the Bi-State Distinct Population Segment, California and Nevada

Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus , hereafter referred to as “sage-grouse”) are endemic to sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystems throughout Western North America. Populations of sage-grouse have declined in distribution and abundance across the range of the species (Schroeder and others, 2004; Knick and Connelly, 2011), largely as a result of human disruption of sagebrush communities (Knick and Connelly, 2011). The Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (DPS) represents sage-grouse populations that are geographically isolated and genetically distinct (Benedict and others, 2003; Oyler-McCance and others, 2005) and that are present at the extreme southwestern distribution of the sage-grouse range (Schroeder and others, 2004), straddling the border of California and Nevada. Subpopulations of sage-grouse in the DPS may be at increased risk of extirpation because of a substantial loss of sagebrush habitat and lack of connectivity (Oyler-McCance and others, 2005). Sage-grouse in the Bi-State DPS represent small, localized breeding populations distributed across 18,325 km 2 . The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently (2014) is evaluating the Bi-State DPS as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, independent of other sage-grouse populations. This DPS was designated as a higher priority for listing than sage-grouse in other parts of the species’ range (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010). Range-wide population analyses for sage-grouse have included portions of the Bi-State DPS (Sage and Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse Technical Committee 2008; Garton and others, 2011). Although these analyses are informative, the underlying data only represent a portion of the DPS and are comprised of lek count observations only. A thorough examination of population dynamics and persistence that includes multiple subpopulations and represents the majority of the DPS is largely lacking. Furthermore, fundamental information on population growth rate (i.e., finite rate of change, λ) and specific demographic parameters that explain sources of variation in λ within different subpopulations would be valuable for making conservation and management decisions for this DPS. During 2003–12, agencies and universities collaborated to conduct extensive monitoring of sage-grouse populations within the Bi-State DPS. Data regarding lek attendance, movement, and survival of sage-grouse across multiple life stages were documented. Specifically, sage-grouse from nearly all subpopulations were marked and tracked across multiple seasons using radio-telemetry techniques. A hierarchical integrated population modeling (IPM) approach was used to derive demographic parameters for the Bi-State DPS using the large amount of data collected over a 10-year period. This modeling approach allows integration of multiple data sources to inform population growth rates and population vital rates for the Bi-State DPS overall, as well as for individual subpopulations. These models are more informative than other models because they integrate inputs of demographic data (for example, survival and fecundity rates) and survey data (for example, lek observations). The findings here will help characterize population growth rates within the Bi-State DPS.

California;Nevada↗
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↗
USGS2017

Conceptual model for invasive bivalve control on wetland productivity

Tidal wetlands were the historically dominant features of many coastal regions around the world, including the San Francisco Estuary (Callaway et al. 2011; Whipple et al. 2012). These mosaics of varied interconnected habitats (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993) provide a host of ecosystem services, including biodiversity maintenance, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, flood abatement, and carbon sequestration (Rabenhorst 1995; Costanza et al. 1997; Bottom et al. 2005; Zedler and Kercher 2005; Barbier et al. 2010). They also support human activities and values such as recreation and aesthetic appreciation (Barbier et al. 2010; Milligan and Kraus-Polk 2016). Despite their critical functions, many wetland landscapes have been destroyed or irreparably altered, either incidentally or intentionally, by human activities (Holland et al. 2004; Zedler and Kercher 2005; Callaway et al. 2011; Cloern and Jassby 2012; Whipple et al. 2012; Schile et al. 2014). San Francisco Estuary (SFE) (see Figure 1) tidal wetlands were largely converted to other land uses in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with the extent of loss and new use varying by region. Wetland losses in the North, Central, and South San Francisco bays and Suisun Bay ranged from 70 percent to 93 percent to accommodate agricultural uses, salt production, managed waterfowl habitat, and urban development (Callaway et al. 2011). Landscape transformation within the most inland portion of the SFE, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), was even more dramatic. Overall, today’s Delta contains 97 percent less freshwater tidal wetland than its historical state and nearly double the open water area (Whipple et al. 2012). The majority of the modern Delta consists of agricultural tracts protected from tidal waters by human-made dikes or levees, which are commonly armored with riprap. The de-watered, rich peat soils of these created islands have supported abundant agricultural production, but have oxidized, compacted, and blown away in the process, causing significant subsidence (Deverel and Leighton 2010). Occasional levee failures turn islands into lakes; a few large shallow lakes remain after accidental levee breaches were not repaired (Whipple et al. 2012).

California↗
USGS2017

Guidance documents: Continued support to improve operations of fish hatcheries and field sites to reduce the impact or prevent establishment of New Zealand Mudsnails and other invasive mollusks

This project tested and revised a risk assessment/management tool authored by Moffitt and Stockton designed to provide hatchery biologists and others a structure to measure risk and provide tools to control, prevent or eliminate invasive New Zealand mudsnails (NZMS) and other invasive mollusks in fish hatcheries and hatchery operations. The document has two parts: the risk assessment tool, and an appendix that summarizes options for control or management. The framework of the guidance document for risk assessment/hatchery tool combines approaches used by the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) process with those developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in the Tri-National Risk Assessment Guidelines for Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. The framework approach for this attached first document assesses risk potential with two activities: probability of infestation and consequences of infestation. Each activity is treated equally to determine the risk potential. These two activities are divided into seven basic elements that utilize scientific, technical, and other relevant information in the process of the risk assessment. To determine the probability of infestation four steps are used that have scores reported or determined and averaged. This assessment follows a familiar HACCP process to assess pathways of entry, entry potential, colonization potential, spread potential. The economic, environmental and social consequences are considered as economic impact, environmental impact, and social and cultural influences. To test this document, the Principal Investigator worked to identify interested hatchery managers through contacts at regional aquaculture meetings, fish health meetings, and through the network of invasive species managers and scientists participating in the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and the 100th Meridian Initiative's Columbia River Basin Team, and the Western New Zealand Mudsnail Conference in Seattle. Targeted hatchery workshops were conducted with staff at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex (ID), Similkameen Pond, Oroville WA, and Ringold Springs State Hatchery (WA). As a result of communications with hatchery staff, invasive species managers, and on site assessments of hatchery facilities, the document was modified and enhanced. Additional resources were added to keep it up to date. The result is a more simplified tool that can lead hatchery or management personnel through the process of risk assessment and provide an introduction to the risk management and communication process. In addition to the typical HACCP processes, this tool adds steps to rate and consider uncertainty and the weight of evidence regarding options and monitoring results . Uncertainty of outcome exists in most tools that can be used to control or prevent NZMS or other invasive mollusks from infesting an area. In additional this document emphasizes that specific control tools and plans must be tailored to each specific setting to consider the economic, environmental and social influences. From the testing and evaluation process, there was a strong recognition that a number of control and prevention tools previously suggested and reported in the literature from laboratory and small scale trials may not be compatible with regional and national regulations, economic constraints, social or cultural constraints, engineering or water chemistry characteristics of each facility. The options for control are summarized in the second document, Review of Control Measures for Hatcheries Infested with NZMS (Appendix A) that provides sources for additional resources and specific tools, and guidance regarding the feasibility and success of each approach. This tool also emphasizes that management plans need to be adaptive and incorporate oversight from professionals familiar with measuring risks of fish diseases, and treatments (e.g. the fish health practitioners and water quality and effluent management teams). Finally, with such a team, the adaptive management approach must be ongoing, and become a regular component of hatchery operations. Although it was the intent that this two part document would be included as part of the revised National Management and Control Plan for the NZMS proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and others, it is provided as a stand-alone document.

Cooperator Science Series↗