USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological 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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS1995

Evaluations of duck habitat and estimation of duck population sizes with a remote-sensing-based system

During 1987-90, we used high-altitude photography, aerial videography, counts, and models to estimate sizes of breeding populations of dabbling ducks (Anatinae) and duck production and to identify duck habitat on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service land and easements and on private land in the prairie pothole region of the United States. The study area contained about 3.1 million wetland basins (28,490 km2). Wetland area (ha per km2) was highest on service-owned land; wetland-basin density was greatest on service easements. Temporary and seasonal wetlands were underrepresented and lakes were overrepresented on service-owned land. Seventy-eight percent of all basins were less than 0.41 ha. Cropland dominated private land. Pond density decreased from 4.4/km2 in 1987 to 3.4/km2 in 1990 and pond area, from 7.2 ha/km2 to 2.7 ha/km2. The density of the blue-winged teal was greatest (3.4 pairs/km2) and was followed in magnitude by those of the mallard (2.1 pairs/km2), the gadwall (1.8 pairs/km2), the northern pintail (0.8 pairs/km2), and the redhead (0.8 pairs/km2). Duck density was consistently highest on service-owned land. The decline of breeding-population sizes in 1987-90 closely corresponded to losses of pond numbers and pond area. The density of breeding pairs per pond was inversely related to pond density, suggesting that breeding ducks tended to concentrate on the remaining ponds as drought intensified. The production of recruits followed the same pattern as breeding-population sizes. We estimated that 2.5% of the ducklings hatched on service-owned land, which was 1.3% of the study area; 19.6% hatched on service easements, which were 14.2% of the study area; and 77.9% hatched on private land, which was 84.6% of the study area. Various sources of bias and sampling error and improvements to the system are discussed.

Biological Science Report↗
USGS1981

Birds of the St. Croix River valley: Minnesota and Wisconsin

The St. Croix River Valley encompasses nearly 11,550 km2 in east-central Minnesota and northwestern Wisconsin. A wide range of habitats are available for birds including upland oak, lowland deciduous, maple-basswood, lowland and upland coniferous forests, natural basin wetlands, and grasslands. Situated in the north-central region of the United States, the valley is a biological 'crossroads' for many species. Because of the mixed affinities of plant communities, the valley includes the northern and southern range limits for a number of species. Also, because the valley lies near the forest-prairie transition zone, many typical western breeding species (e.g. pintail, western meadowlark, yellow-headed blackbird) breed in proximity to typical eastern species such as tufted titmouse, eastern meadowlark, and cardinal. From 1966 to 1980, I conducted extensive surveys of avian distribution and abundance in the St. Croix River Valley. I have supplemented the results of these surveys with published and unpublished observations contributed by many ornithologists. These additional data include compilations from Christmas Bird Counts sponsored by the National Audubon Society and from the Breeding Bird Survey coordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Three hundred fourteen species have been recorded in the study area; data are presented on the migration period, nesting season distribution, winter distribution, relative abundance, and habitat use of each species. Recognizing the uniqueness of the area, and its importance not only to wildlife but also to man, the U.S. Congress designated the St. Croix a National Scenic Riverway. This action provided a considerable degree of protection to lands along and directly adjacent to the river. Unfortunately, no similar legal measure exists to protect lands away from the river. With the exception of the northern quarter of the St. Croix River Valley, agricultural interests have made significant inroads into the habitat base. The continuing expansion of the nearby Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region has degraded or destroyed many woodlots, upland fields, and wetlands. In numerous instances, degradation of natural habitats has influenced the abundance and distribution of bird species. Because of these changes, both the Federal government and State Departments of Natural Resources have listed several species in various categories based on their current status. In the St. Croix River Valley, seven species are endangered, eight are threatened, and 29 are watch or priority status in either or both states. Data presented in this report are of value to land managers, land use specialists, and ornithologists, in assessing current and projected habitat alterations on the avifauna of this valley. The St. Croix River bisects a large region of western Wisconsin and east central Minnesota that exhibits a wide range of habitat types. This region supports not only birds, but many mammals, fishes, reptiles and amphibians, and several thousand species of vascular and nonvascular plants. The river itself is relatively clean through most of its course, and its natural flow is interrupted by only two small dams. Because the river lies within a 1-day drive of nearly 10 million people (Waters 1977), use of the area for recreational purposes is extremely heavy. Recreational pursuits include sunbathing, boating, and wild river kayaking in the summer, and ice fishing and cross-country skiing in the winter. The large number of unique and highly fragile habitats that exist there may never be compatible with the uses and abuses of the land that go with expanding human populations. Through the efforts of a number of citizens concerned with the quality of their environment and the foresightedness of several local, State, and Federal legislators, a portion of the upper St. Croix River Valley (hereafter termed 'the Valley') was established as a National Wild and Scenic River. Through establishment of t

North American Fauna↗
USGS2016

Ecoregions of California

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across Federal agencies, State agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources in the same geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions are hierarchical and can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, map revised 2006). At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Level IV, depicted here for California, is a further refinement of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define these ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Omernik and others (2000), and Omernik and Griffith (2014). California has great ecological and biological diversity. The State contains offshore islands and coastal lowlands, large alluvial valleys, forested mountain ranges, deserts, and various aquatic habitats. There are 13 level III ecoregions and 177 level IV ecoregions in California and most continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent States of the United States or Mexico (Bryce and others, 2003; Thorson and others, 2003; Griffith and others, 2014). The California ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). This poster is the result of a collaborative project primarily between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of the Interior–Geological Survey (USGS), and other State of California agencies and universities. The project is associated with interagency efforts to develop a common framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service (Bailey and others, 1994; Miles and Goudy, 1997; Cleland and others, 2007), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 1981; U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in California, where some agreement has been reached among multiple resource-management agencies, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

California↗
USGS2006

History of the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center ("the Center") has been a nucleus of research, technology development, and associated scientific activities within the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years. The Center’s historical activities are deeply rooted in federal biological resources research and its supporting disciplines, particularly as they relate to the needs of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its resource management agencies. The organizational framework and activities of the Center have changed and adapted over the years in response to shifts in the scientific issues and challenges facing the U.S. Department of the Interior and with the development of new strategies to meet these challenges. Thus, the history of the Center has been dynamic. The Center has been nested within the U.S. Geological Survey since 1996. From 1993 to 1996 the Center was a major unit of the National Biological Service (named the National Biological Survey at its inception). This was a period of great organizational flux. During that time the Center comprised multiple field stations and science functions that prior to 1993 had been scattered among the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1993, certain biological research components of these agencies were assigned to join with the National Ecology Research Center, formerly one of the major research and development hubs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the year when biological resources research in the U.S. Department of the Interior was consolidated by the Secretary of the Interior, who in an April 1993 memo explaining his intentions wrote, "Our Department has, without doubt, the best biologists in the world." Soon after formation of the new agency, the Center was re-named the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, reflecting its geographic location within the new Midcontinent administrative region of the National Biological Service (the other three original administrative regions were the eastern, western, and southern). The change in name to the Fort Collins Science Center took place in 2002, soon after the center moved to new facilities on the Colorado State University Natural Resources Research Campus. At various times during the period when it was part of the National Biological Service (1993–96), the Center served as the administrative and programmatic home base for a wide number of science activities in numerous Western states (table 1). This reflected the previous fragmentation of biological and related science efforts across resource management agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The organization of the 2 Center within the National Biological Service was a manifestation of the desire of the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate its biological science activities in administratively independent entities that would ensure that the science retained its objectivity. Congress later recognized the need to maintain a hierarchical independence between biological science and resource management in the Department. However, Congress also saw that the U.S. Geological Survey, with its long history of objective science support to the nation in geology, water resources, geography, and remote sensing, was a suitable alternative home for these biological science functions. Thus, in 1996 Congress transferred the biological resources functions of the National Biological Service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed overviews and opinions about the history and policy issues surrounding the formation and subsequent fate of the National Biological Service can be found elsewhere (for example Cohn, 1993, 2005; Kaufman, 1993; Kreeger, 1994; Pulliam, 1995, 1998a,b; Reichhardt, 1994; Wagner, 1999)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Modeling occupancy of rare stream fish species in the upper Cumberland and Kentucky River Basins

Biological conservation often requires an understanding of how environmental conditions affect species occurrence and detection probabilities. We used a hierarchical framework to evaluate these effects for several Appalachian stream fish species of conservation concern: Chrosomus cumberlandensis (BSD; blackside dace), Etheostoma sagitta (CAD; Cumberland arrow darter), and Etheostoma spilotum (KAD; Kentucky arrow darter). Etheostoma susanae (Cumberland darter) also is present in the study area but was too rare to model in this analysis. In this study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, fish and habitat data were collected from 205 randomly selected stream sites in the upper Cumberland and Kentucky River Basins (120 and 85 sites, respectively) of Kentucky and Tennessee. Sites were sampled with 10 spatial replicates (2 meter x 5 meter electrofishing zones) to enable estimation of detection probabilities and environmental effects. The best models (that is, lowest Akaike information criterion scores) showed the effects of agriculture (negative) on occurrence of BSD and stream conductivity (negative) on occurrence of CAD and KAD. These effects were statistically more important than measures of basin area, elevation, and substrate size. Conductivity and agriculture showed nonlinear effects on species occurrence, and effects of conductivity were more precise above 400 microsiemens per centimeter than below this threshold. Models incorporated detection-level effects of electrofishing time (positive), flow velocity (negative), sand substrate (positive), and gravel/cobble substrate (negative). Models accounting for detection of BSD estimated occupancy rates similar to the observed proportion of occupied sites (0.10), but the best-supported models for CAD and KAD increased expected occupancy by about 4 percent for each species (from 0.17 to 0.21 for CAD and from 0.07 to 0.11 for KAD). Results of this study provide new inferences for modeling stream fish occurrence and detection processes and highlight the importance of continued monitoring and assessment of rare fish species in Appalachian headwater streams.

Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia↗
USGS2003

Seabird tissue archival and monitoring project: Egg collections and analytical results 1999-2002

In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge (AMNWR), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) began the Seabird Tissue Archival and Monitoring Project (STAMP) to collect and cryogenically bank tissues from seabirds in Alaska for future retrospective analysis of anthropogenic contaminants. The approach of STAMP was similar to that of the Alaska Marine Mammal Tissue Archival Project (AMMTAP). AMMTAP was started in 1987 by NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of the Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assessment Program sponsored by the Minerals Management Service. Presently sponsored by the USGS-BRD, AMMTAP continues its work as part of a larger national program, the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program. AMMTAP developed carefully designed sampling and specimen banking protocols. Since 1987, AMMTAP has collected tissues from marine mammals taken in Alaska Native subsistence hunts and has cryogenically banked these tissues at the NIST National Biomonitoring Specimen Bank (NBSB). Through its own analytical work and working in partnership with other researchers both within and outside Alaska, AMMTAP has helped to develop a substantial database on contaminants in Alaska marine mammals. In contrast, data and information is limited on contaminants in Alaska seabirds, which are similar to marine mammals in that they feed near the top of the food chain and have the potential for accumulating anthropogenic contaminants. During its early planning stages, STAMP managers identified the seabird egg as the first tissue of choice for study by the project. There is a relatively long history of using bird eggs for environmental monitoring and for investigating the health status of bird populations. Since 1998, protocols for collecting and processing eggs, and cryogenically banking egg samples have been developed by STAMP (see York et al. 2001). Eggs are being collected on an annual basis for several species at nesting colonies throughout Alaska. Aliquots of these egg samples are being analyzed on a regular basis for persistent organic pollutants and mercury. Results of this work have been published in scientific journals (Christopher et al. 2002) and in conference proceedings (Kucklick et al. 2002; Vander Pol et al. 2002a, 2002b). The intent of this report is to provide an up-to-date description of STAMP. The report contains the most recent egg collection inventory, analytical data, preliminary interpretations based on these data, and a discussion of possible future directions of the project.

Report↗
USGS1999

Assessing environmental contaminant threats to lands and biota managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Contaminant Assessment Process (CAP) is a standardized approach for documenting and assessing threats posed by environmental contaminants to lands and biota managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI). The Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division (USGS/BRD) developed the CAP cooperatively with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Division of Environmental Contaminants (DEC). The CAP involves two parts, a retrospective analysis, and if needed, field-sampling. The retrospective analysis documents the ecological characteristics, management goals, areas potentially vulnerable to hazardous substance spills, and habitats of importance for the DOI land unit of interest. In addition, contaminant transport pathways and sources (point and nonpoint) are identified and potentially contaminated areas delineated. The second part of the CAP involves developing field-sampling plans to confirm the presence or effects of contaminants identified in the retrospective analysis. Field-sampling deemed necessary to confirm contaminant issues on national wildlife refuges identified through the retrospective analyses of CAP is handled as part of DECs on- and off-refuge investigation programs. By gathering and interpreting information, the CAP generates valuable insight regarding contaminant issues that may be affecting refuges. Findings from the CAP can help FWS stewards select options that reduce contaminant impacts on the habitats and species that they manage. Information synthesized through the CAP also contributes to the development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans mandated through the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. To insure that this information has the maximum benefit to the agency, DEC and the BEST Program jointly developed a data management system to support the CAP. This system facilitates information acquisition from remote sources and serves as a permanent data repository. Thus, the system documents CAP findings, enhances FWS's institutional memory, and supports informed management decisions. This document is a user's guide, intended for use by FWS field biologists responsible for applying the retrospective analysis portion of the CAP to FWS national wildlife refuge lands and provides instructions for entering information into the data management system. This is the third revision of the original document written in 1993 by scientists of the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

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↗
USGS1984

Proceedings of a workshop on fish habitat suitability index models

One of the habitat-based methodologies for impact assessment currently in use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980). HEP is based on the assumption that the quality of an area as wildlife habitat at a specified target year can be described by a single number, called a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). An HSI of 1.0 represents optimum habitat: an HSI of 0.0 represents unsuitable habitat. The verbal or mathematical rules by which an HSI is assigned to an area are called an HSI model. A series of Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models, described by Schamberger et al. (1982), have been published to assist users in applying HEP. HSI model building approaches are described in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1981). One type of HSI model described in detail requires the development of Suitability Index (SI) graphs for habitat variables believed to be important for the growth, survival, standing crop, or other measure of well-being for a species. Suitability indices range from 0 to 1.0, with 1.0 representing optimum conditions for the variable. When HSI models based on suitability indices are used, habitat variable values are measured, or estimated, and converted to SI's through the use of a Suitability Index graph for each variable. Individual SI's are aggregated into an HSI. Standard methods for testing this type of HSI model did not exist at the time the studies reported in this document were performed. A workshop was held in Fort Collins, Colorado, February 14-15, 1983, that brought together biologists experienced in the use, development, and testing of aquatic HSI models, in an effort to address the following objectives: (1) review the needs of HSI model users; (2) discuss and document the results of aquatic HSI model tests; and (3) provide recommendations for the future development, testing, modification, and use of HSI models. Individual presentations, group discussions, and group decision techniques were used to develop and present information at the meeting. A synthesis of the resulting concepts, results, and recommendations follows this preface. Subsequent papers describe individual tests of selected HSI models. Most of the tests involved comparison of values from HSI models or Suitability index (SI) curves with standing crop, as required contractually. Time and budget constraints generally limited tests to the use of data previously collected for other purposes. These proceedings are intended to help persons responsible for the development, testing, or use of HSI models by increasing their understanding of potential uses and limitations of testing procedures and models based on aggregated Suitability Indices. Problems encountered when testing HSI models are described, model performance during tests is documents, and recommendations for future model development and testing presented by the participants are listed and interpreted.

Biological Report↗
USGS2020

Biological assessment of a proposed vegetation management program to benefit tribes in eastern Oklahoma

Tribal communities may benefit from land management activities that enhance their use of resources on tribal lands. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is implementing a 5-year vegetation management program to provide support for projects that develop and use natural and cultural resources and improve opportunities for agricultural activities to benefit 20 Indian Tribes and Nations in the Eastern Oklahoma Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bureau is working with individual Tribes to identify project objectives and design treatments, which include prescribed burning, timber removal, thinning, and reduction of hazardous fuels. The total action area for the vegetation management program is estimated to be 236,575 acres, representing approximately 1 percent of the region. A biological assessment was prepared, in cooperation with the bureau and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed vegetation management program on 22 federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species that may occur within the Eastern Oklahoma Region. The species evaluated included one plant, two insects, one reptile, five fresh-water mussels, four fishes, five birds, and four bats. Because the proposed treatments will be largely restricted to terrestrial systems, it is expected that there will be no adverse effects on the 15 species associated with aquatic habitats, provided that best management practices are followed. The proposed treatments may affect but are unlikely to adversely affect six of the primarily terrestrial species (the Papaipema eryngii [rattlesnake master borer], Picoides borealis [red-cockaded woodpecker], Myotis grisescens [gray bat], Myotis sodalis [Indiana bat], Myotis septentrionalis [northern long-eared bat], and Corynorhinus townsendii ingens [Ozark big-eared bat]), provided that best management practices are followed, including avoidance of critical habitat features. The only species likely to be adversely affected by the proposed treatments is Nicrophorus americanus (American burying beetle) as a consequence of short-term disturbances to soils and vegetation. Most adverse effects of the treatments (such as soil compaction and decreased cover in the forest understory) are expected to be short term (habitat will recover or be restored within 5 years of treatments). Less than 1 percent of the action area is expected to result in long-term adverse effects to the American burying beetle as a result of permanent cover changes that persist for more than 5 years. It is expected that the primary treatments will be largely beneficial to the American burying beetle population in the region by reducing the risk of high-severity fires and expansion of invasive woody shrubs, such as Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) within potential beetle habitat and the surrounding landscape. Overall, the proposed management program is expected to provide long-term benefits to American burying beetle habitat across 91 percent of the action area.

Oklahoma↗
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↗
USGS2007

Longitudinal patterns of fish assemblages, aquatic habitat, and water temperature in the Lower Crooked River, Oregon

The Lower Crooked River is a remarkable groundwater-fed stream flowing through vertical basalt canyons in the Deschutes River Valley ecoregion in central Oregon (Pater and others, 1998). The 9-mile section of the river between the Crooked River National Grasslands boundary near Ogden Wayside and river mile (RM) 8 is protected under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) for its outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, hydrologic, wildlife, and botanical values (ORVs), and significant fishery and cultural values. Groundwater springs flow directly out of the canyon walls into the Lower Crooked River and create a unique hydrologic setting for native coldwater fish, such as inland Columbia Basin redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri). To protect and enhance the ORVs that are the basis for the wild and scenic designation, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has identified the need to evaluate, among other conditions, fish presence and habitat use of the Lower Crooked River. The results of this and other studies will provide a scientific basis for communication and cooperation between the BLM, Oregon Water Resources Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and all water users within the basin. These biological studies initiated by the BLM in the region reflect a growing national awareness of the impacts of agricultural and municipal water use on the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Biological surveys are needed to better understand the aquatic ecosystem of the Lower Crooked River. This baseline information will be valuable to public land managers whose task is to balance resource use while protecting the unique attributes (that is, ORVs) of the Lower Crooked River. The habitat requirements of coldwater fishes in this section of stream are of particular interest due to state and federal regulation of water temperature in order to protect and restore fish populations. Historical data on the distribution and abundance of stream fishes in the Lower Crooked River are limited to point observations by fishermen and local biologists because steep canyon walls have limited access to most of the river. Surveys of aquatic habitat (channel morphology and substrate composition) have been conducted for the BLM by the ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1997), U.S. Forest Service (United States Forest Service, 2003), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but fish surveys using electrofishing gear have never been conducted in the isolated 11-mile section of the Crooked River Gorge, and visual observations with mask and snorkel have only been made at isolated point locations where hiking trails provide access to the river (K. Jones, Steve Marx, and Brett Hodgson, ODFW; P. Lickwar, USFWS; pers. comm.). Thus, there is a poor understanding of stream fish presence and distribution throughout Lower Crooked River. Information on fish assemblages is available for the Deschutes River basin and applies generally to the Lower Crooked River because the two rivers were connected historically (Zimmerman and Ratliff 2003). The construction of dams throughout the Deschutes River basin has eliminated historic runs of salmon and steelhead and prevented migration of bull trout and Pacific lamprey into the Crooked River system. Native fish species expected to occur in the Lower Crooked River include Columbia Basin redband trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri ), mountain whitefish ( Prosopium williamsoni ), sculpin ( Cottus spp.), two species of dace ( Rhinichthys spp.), two species of sucker ( Catostomus spp.), northern pikeminnow ( Ptychocheilus oregonensis ), chiselmouth ( Acrocheilus alutaceus ), and redside shiner ( Richardsonius balteatus ). Threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), a species native to western Oregon, also occurs in the basin but is believed to be introduced (D. Markle, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, personnel commun.). Extensive stocking of rainbow trout has contributed to a large population of naturalized fish of hatchery origin in the Lower Crooked River. Due to the difficulty of differentiating between wild redband trout and naturalized rainbow trout of hatchery origin, the general classification of rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) is used throughout this report to describe the fish that were observed in the Lower Crooked River. Exotic fish species expected to occur in the Lower Crooked River include large- and smallmouth bass ( Micropterus spp.), yellow perch ( Perca flavescens ), and brown bullhead (Ameiurus nebulosis) (Zimmerman and Ratliff 2003). The goal of this project was to examine longitudinal patterns in fish assemblages, aquatic habitat, and water temperature in the Lower Crooked River during summer conditions. Specific objectives were to (1) characterize the spatial distribution of native and non-native fishes, (2) describe variation in channel morphology, substrate composition, and water temperature, and (3) evaluate the associations between fishes, aquatic habitat, and water temperature.

Oregon↗
USGS2009

Occurrence and Trends of Selected Chemical Constituents in Bottom Sediment, Grand Lake O' the Cherokees, Northeast Oklahoma, 1940-2008

After over 100 years of continuous activity, lead and zinc mining in the Tri-State Mining District (hereafter referred to as the TSMD) in parts of southeast Kansas, southwest Missouri, and northeast Oklahoma ended in the 1970s. The mining activity resulted in substantial historical and ongoing input of cadmium, lead, and zinc to the environment including Grand Lake O' the Cherokees (hereafter referred to as Grand Lake), a large reservoir in northeast Oklahoma. To help determine the extent and magnitude of contamination in Grand Lake, a one-year study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bottom-sediment coring at five sites was used to investigate the occurrence of cadmium, lead, zinc, and other selected constituents in the bottom sediment of Grand Lake. Cadmium concentrations in the bottom sediment of Grand Lake ranged from 2.3 to 3.6 mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram) with a median of 3.5 mg/kg (5 samples). Compared to an estimated local background concentration of 0.6 mg/kg, the historical mining activity increased cadmium concentrations by about 280 to 500 percent. Lead concentrations ranged from 35 to 102 mg/kg with a median of 59 mg/kg (50 samples). Compared to an estimated local background concentration of 20 mg/kg, the historical mining activity increased lead concentrations by about 75 to 410 percent. The range in zinc concentrations was 380 to 986 mg/kg with a median of 765 mg/kg (50 samples). Compared to an estimated local background concentration of 100 mg/kg, the historical mining activity increased zinc concentrations by about 280 to 890 percent. With the exception of the most upstream coring site, the lead and zinc depositional profiles generally were similar in terms of the range in concentrations measured and the temporal pattern observed. Depositional profiles for lead and zinc indicated mid-core peaks followed by concentrations that decreased since about the 1980s. The depositional profiles reflect the complex interaction of several factors including historical mining and related activities, mine drainage, remediation, landscape stabilization, precipitation and associated runoff, and the erosion and transport of contaminated and clean sediments within the basin. Compared to sediment-quality guidelines, the Grand Lake samples had cadmium concentrations that were substantially less than the general probable-effects concentration (PEC) (4.98 mg/kg) and a TSMD-specific PEC (11.1 mg/kg). The PECs represent the concentration above which toxic biological effects are likely to occur. Likewise, all sediment samples had lead concentrations that were substantially less than the general PEC (128 mg/kg) and a TSMD-specific PEC (150 mg/kg). Zinc concentrations typically exceeded the general PEC (459 mg/kg), but were substantially less than a TSMD-specific PEC (2,083 mg/kg). Throughout the history of Grand Lake, lead and zinc concentrations in the deposited sediment did not approach or exceed the TSMD-specific PECs. As of 2008, legacy effects of mining still included the delivery of contaminated sediment to Grand Lake by the Spring and Neosho Rivers. The Neosho River, with its larger flows and less-contaminated sediment, likely dilutes the load of contaminated sediment delivered to Grand Lake by the Spring River. The information contained in this report provides a baseline of Grand Lake conditions with which to compare future conditions that may represent a response to changes in mining-related activity in the Grand Lake Basin.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Rare Plant Monitoring Review and Revision

Introduction The San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) was developed for the conservation of plants and animals in the south part of San Diego County, under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991 (California Department of Fish and Game) and the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S. Code 1531-1544.) The Program is on the leading edge of conservation, as it seeks to both guide development and conserve at-risk species with the oversight of both State and Federal agencies. Lands were identified for inclusion in the MSCP based on their value as habitat for at-risk plants or plant communities (Natural Community Conservation Planning, 2005). Since its inception in the mid-1990s the Program has protected over 100,000 acres, involving 15 jurisdictions and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in the conservation of 87 taxa. Surveys for covered species have been conducted, and management and monitoring have been implemented at some high priority sites. Each jurisdiction or agency manages and monitors their conservation areas independently, while collaborating regionally for long-term protection. The San Diego MSCP is on the forefront of conservation, in one of the most rapidly growing urban areas of the country. The planning effort that developed the MSCP was state-of-the-art, using expert knowledge, spatial habitat modeling, and principles of preserve design to identify and prioritize areas for protection. Land acquisition and protection are ahead of schedule for most jurisdictions. Surveys have verified the locations of many rare plant populations known from earlier collections, and they provide general information on population size and health useful for further conservation planning. Management plans have been written or are in development for most MSCP parcels under jurisdictional control. Several agencies are developing databases for implementation and management tracking. In many ways this program is at the cutting edge of regional conservation, testing concepts, developing techniques, and demonstrating conservation effectiveness in new and uncharted ways. Periodic program review is crucial to the continued success of the program, as it moves from a phase of planning and acquisition to one of management and monitoring. Ecological monitoring is the key to assessing the success of the protection and management implemented at each individual reserve and for the MSCP as a whole. The ultimate goal of the Program is conservation of at-risk taxa and their habitats, as well as underlying ecological processes that contribute to sustainability of the ecosystem. Monitoring guidelines and timetables were developed by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. (1996), and reviewed by Conservation Biology Institute (2001). The Program is in transition now, from the initial stage of land protection to one of land management and monitoring to determine population responses to management regimes. Several agencies have already invested substantial effort in status and trend monitoring, while others are developing their monitoring plans. Management is ongoing at several sites. With both management and monitoring, collaboration and coordination among jurisdictions can be especially fruitful in conserving resources and maximizing success.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2020

Wind River subbasin restoration: Annual report of US..Geological Survey activities, January 2018 through December 2018

We sampled juvenile wild Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss in headwater streams of the Wind River, WA, to characterize populations and investigate life-history metrics, particularly migratory patterns. We used Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT)-tagging and a series of instream PIT-tag interrogation systems (PTISs) to track juveniles. The Wind River subbasin is considered a wild Steelhead refuge by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). No hatchery Steelhead have been planted in the Wind River subbasin since 1997, and hatchery adults are estimated to be less than one percent of spawners in most years (pers comm. Thomas Buehrens, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). Our repeated headwater sampling of consistent sites in the Wind River subbasin has also allowed us to track relative abundance of Brook Trout, a non-native species to the Wind River. Our work is contributing to understanding of Steelhead population response to numerous restoration actions in the subbasin, including removal of Hemlock Dam from Trout Creek in 2009, where our PTISs are helping to quantify adult response. Data from our study, and companion work by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are contributing to Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) Research Monitoring and Evaluation (RM&E) Program Strategy of Fish Population Status Monitoring (www.cbfish.org/ProgramStrategy.mvc/ViewProgramStrategySummary/1). Specifically this work addresses the sub-strategies of: 1) Assessing the Status and Trends of Diversity of Natural Origin Fish Populations and to Uncertainties Research regarding differing life histories of a wild Steelhead population, 2) Assessing the Status and Trend of Adult Natural Origin Fish Populations, and 3) Monitoring and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tributary Habitat Actions Relative to Environmental, Physical, or Biological Performance Objectives. Our headwaters parr PIT tagging, WDFW parr, smolt, and adult tagging and our instream PTISs are providing data on movements and life histories of parr, smolt, and adult Steelhead. During summer 2018, we PIT-tagged 1,592 age-0 and age-1 Steelhead parr in headwater areas of the Wind River subbasin to characterize population traits and investigate life-history diversity, including growth and pre-smolt downstream movement. Repeat headwater sampling and smolt trap operations provide opportunities for recapture, and instream PTISs and Columbia River infrastructure provide opportunity for detection of PIT-tagged fish. Throughout the year, we maintained a series of six instream PTISs to monitor movement of tagged Steelhead parr, smolts, and adults. Detections at the instream PTISs have demonstrated trends of age-0 and age-1 parr emigration from natal areas during summer and fall, in addition to the expected movement of parr and smolts in spring. Substantial numbers of parr make downstream movements as age-1 fish. We have estimated that from 15 to 33 percent of parr tagged as age-0 fish make downstream migrations at age-1 for additional rearing. We have estimated that from 1 to 27 percent of parr tagged as age-1 fish make downstream migrations during fall. These findings raise many questions about parr rearing strategies, habitat use, and success of these migrants and suggest a need for broader monitoring of juvenile Steelhead in some river systems to fully document juvenile production. Long-term monitoring of PIT-tagged fish is providing information on contribution of various life-history strategies to smolt production and adult returns. Movements of PIT-tagged adult Steelhead were recorded at instream PTISs. These data have allowed assessment of adult returns to tributary watersheds within the Wind River subbasin. Detection efficiency of adult PIT-tagged Steelhead at our primary adult-monitoring PTIS in Trout Creek has been greater than 92 percent during 6 of the past 7 years. This is providing excellent data to estimate adult returns to this watershed. Determination of adult use of tributary watersheds is providing data to help evaluate the efficacy of the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek. Hemlock Dam, located at rkm 2.0 of Trout Creek, was removed in summer 2009. The dam contributed to hydrologic impairment of Trout Creek and had potential negative effects on Steelhead. The improvements made to the upper Wind River PTIS (site code WRU at rkm 28.3; better site characteristics and grid power) during 2016 and 2017, and a planned new site in the Mine Reach of the upper Wind River, will allow estimates of subbasin adult escapement like those in Trout Creek. During 2018, we also completed planning and permitting with U.S. Forest Service for a new PTIS site at rkm 36 of the Wind River (the Mine Reach, mentioned above). This site will replace two sites (one in Paradise Creek and one at rkm 41 of the Wind River), which had operational challenges due to lack of adequate solar power and winter difficulties. The new Mine Reach PTIS site at rkm 36, will have better solar exposure, fewer winter operations difficulties, and provide opportunity to detect fish from juvenile sampling sites that were downstream of the previous two PTISs. The more consistent operation of the new Mine Reach PTIS site will increase our ability to estimate migrant abundance as all the juveniles tagged upstream of it will be subject to the same potential detection history, instead of three different potential detection histories as before. Additionally, with the new Mine Reach PTIS site lower in the watershed, it will subject more PIT-tagged adult Steelhead to detection and provide ability to generate a nonbiased adult-detection efficiency estimate for the WRU PTIS at rkm 28.3 of the Wind River. This will provide the opportunity to estimate yearly adult Steelhead abundance to the upper Wind watershed area. Permitting is complete and some supplies have been purchased to build and install this new site in 2019. Repeat sampling at consistent locations in the subbasin has allowed investigation into juvenile Steelhead growth patterns. Growth rates (relative change in weight) of age-0 PIT-tagged parr during summer are similar across the subbasin, but lower for age-1 parr in the Trout Creek watershed than the upper Wind River watershed. Yearly growth for parr tagged at age-0 is similar across the subbasin. Yearly growth for parr tagged at age-1 is lowest in Martha Creek, but similar elsewhere. Non-native Brook Trout are present in portions of the subbasin, chiefly the Trout Creek watershed, and repeat sampling has allowed us to index their prevalence. Percentage of catch that is Brook Trout at each of four sample sites in Trout Creek have declined from the period 1998 – 2003 to the period 2011 – 2018. There was a pattern of decline in percent of catch and number of Brook Trout at the Trout Creek sites from 2011 through 2016, though a slight upward trend during 2017 and 2018 has been evident. Evaluating and planning restoration efforts are of interest to many managers and agencies to ensure efficient use of resources. The evaluation of various life-histories of Steelhead within the Wind River subbasin will provide information to better track populations, and to direct habitat restoration and water allocation planning. Movement of Steelhead parr raises many questions regarding estimating juvenile abundance, origin, and habitat use within watersheds. Improved PTISs and focused PIT tagging of age-0 and age-1 Steelhead parr are increasingly allowing us to investigate such questions. Increasingly detailed Viable Salmonid Population information, such as that provided by PIT-tagging and instream PTISs networks like those in the Wind River subbasin, provide data to inform policy and management, as life-history strategies and production bottlenecks are identified and understood.

Washington↗
USGS2010

The power to detect trends in Missouri River fish populations within the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program

As with all large rivers in the United States, the Missouri River has been altered, with approximately 32.5 percent of the main stem length impounded and 32.5 percent channelized. These physical alterations to the environment have had effects on the fisheries, but studies examining the effects of alterations have been localized and for short periods of time. In response to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated monitoring of the fish community of the Missouri River in 2003. The goal of the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program is to provide information to detect changes in populations and habitat preferences with time for pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) and native target species in the Missouri River Basin. To determine statistical power of the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program, a power analysis was conducted using a normal linear mixed model with variance component estimates based on the first 3 years of data (2003 to 2005). In cases where 3 years of data were unavailable, estimates were obtained using those data. It was determined that at least 20 years of data, sampling 12 bends with 8 subsamples per bend, would be required to detect a 5 percent annual decline in most of the target fish populations. Power varied between Zones. Zone 1 (upstream from Lake Sakakawea) did not have any species/gear type combinations with adequate power, whereas Zone 3 (downstream from Gavins Point Dam) had 19 species/gear type combinations with adequate power. With a slight increase in the sampling effort to 12 subsamples per bend, the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program has adequate power to detect declines in shovelnose sturgeon (S. platorynchus) throughout the entire Missouri River because of large catch rates. The lowest level of non-occurrence (in other words, zero catches) at the bend level for pallid sturgeon was 0.58 using otter trawls in Zone 1. Consequently, the power of the pallid sturgeon models was not as high as other species at the current level of sampling, but an increase in the sampling effort to 16 subsamples for each of 24 bends for 20 years would generate adequate power for the pallid sturgeon in all Zones. Since gear types are selective in their species efficiency, the strength of the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program approach is using multiple gears that have statistical power to detect population trends at the same time in different fish species within the Missouri River. As often is the case with monitoring studies involving endangered species, the data used to conduct the analyses exhibit some departures from the parametric model assumptions; however, preliminary simulations indicate that the results of this study are appropriate.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Wildlife specimen collection, preservation, and shipment

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

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗