Copper hazards to fish, wildlife, and invertebrates: a synoptic review

The Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) complex, located in northeastern California and southern Oregon, is situated on a major Pacific Flyway migration corridor connecting waterfowl breeding grounds in the north with major wintering grounds in California and Mexico. The complex comprises five waterfowl refuges including Lower Klamath NWR, Tule Lake NWR, Upper Klamath NWR, Klamath Marsh NWR, and Clear Lake NWR, and one bald eagle refuge, Bear Valley NWR. Lower Klamath and Tule Lake NWRs are the largest refuges in the complex; historically, they supported some of the greatest autumn and spring concentrations of migrating waterfowl in North America. Starting in 1953, standardized waterfowl surveys from small aircraft have been conducted in autumn through spring. This report summarizes waterfowl migration activity (i.e., abundance, species composition, distribution on refuges, and chronology) over four time periods—the long-term (1953-2001), early (1953-76), recent (1977-2001), and the most recent (1998-2001)—to describe changing patterns of migration on Klamath Basin refuges from autumn 1953 to spring 2001. Over the long term, waterfowl abundance (birds per day) on the refuge complex averaged about 1.0 million in autumn and about 360,000 in spring. A record peak count of 5.8 million waterfowl was recorded September 24-25, 1958. Average abundance of autumn staging waterfowl for the refuge complex, after reaching record levels in the 1950s and early 1960s, began a decline that lasted until the 1980s. A gradual recovery occurred during the 1990s, but autumn abundance has not recovered to pre-1970 levels. In contrast to autumn, average spring abundance was generally lower in the early decades but has gradually increased through the 1990s, particularly on Lower Klamath NWR. Dabbling ducks represented an average of 68% of all waterfowl in autumn and 55% in spring for the long term. Northern pintail ( Anas acuta ) was dominant, representing 62% of all dabblers in autumn and 51% in spring. A significant decline in pintail abundance starting in the late 1950s altered waterfowl composition on Klamath Basin refuges. As pintail declined, other species such as mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and green-winged teal ( Anas crecca ) increased in abundance. Although Arctic nesting geese, including white-fronted ( Anser albifrons ), cackling Canada ( Branta canadensis minima ), white geese (lesser snow [ Chen caerulescens caerulescens ], and Ross’s [ Chen rossii ]) have become less prominent in recent decades, they reached an historically high abundance during autumn in the 1960s and 1970s, particularly on Tule Lake NWR. Tule Lake NWR supported the highest average autumn waterfowl populations until surpassed by Lower Klamath NWR around 1980. During the recent period (1977-2001), Lower Klamath NWR accounted for 60% of all waterfowl using the refuge complex in autumn and 61% in spring. Habitat diversity and wetland productivity contributed to its greater waterfowl abundance. Tule Lake NWR supported the most geese over the long term, 79% in autumn and 66% in spring; however, total waterfowl abundance on this refuge in autumn has been in decline, likely because of reduced diversity and productivity of sumps in the refuge. Upper Klamath, Klamath Marsh, and Clear Lake NWRs accounted for less than 8% of total waterfowl use in autumn and spring but provided diverse habitats for migrants. Waterfowl use-days on Klamath Basin refuges typically peaked in mid-autumn, decreased as migrants passed through the basin, and then reached a lesser peak during spring passage. Waterfowl abundance reached a pronounced peak in autumn during the early period (1953-76), but spring peak buildup was much less pronounced. For the recent period the autumn peak was more subdued. Waterfowl abundance, species composition, and distribution on Klamath Basin refuges have fluctuated over the decades and have been influenced by events such as productivity on breeding grounds and habitat conditions on wintering grounds that cause shifts in migration patterns. A major challenge for the future appears to be the availability of adequate water for wetland management on Klamath Basin refuges.

California, Oregon↗

USGS2004

Coefficients of productivity for Yellowstone's grizzly bear habitat

This report describes methods for calculating coefficients used to depict habitat productivity for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem. Calculations based on these coefficients are used in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects Model to map the distribution of habitat productivity and account for the impacts of human facilities. The coefficients of habitat productivity incorporate detailed information that was collected over a 20-year period (1977-96) on the foraging behavior of Yellowstone's bears and include records of what bears were feeding on, when and where they fed, the extent of that feeding activity, and relative measures of the quantity consumed. The coefficients also incorporate information, collected primarily from 1986 to 1992, on the nutrient content of foods that were consumed, their digestibility, characteristic bite sizes, and the energy required to extract and handle each food. Coefficients were calculated for different time periods and different habitat types, specific to different parts of the Yellowstone ecosystem. Stratifications included four seasons of bear activity (spring, estrus, early hyperphagia, late hyperphagia), years when ungulate carrion and whitebark pine seed crops were abundant versus not, areas adjacent to (< 100 m) or far away from forest/nonforest edges, and areas inside or outside of ungulate winter ranges. Densities of bear activity in each region, habitat type, and time period were incorporated into calculations, controlling for the effects of proximity to human facilities. The coefficients described in this report and associated estimates of grizzly bear habitat productivity are unique among many efforts to model the conditions of bear habitat because calculations include information on energetics derived from the observed behavior of radio-marked bears.

Biological Science Report↗

USGS2003

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participants on environmental effects, wildlife issues, and vegetation management on program lands

A national survey of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contractees was completed to obtain information about Abstract environmental and social effects of the program on participants, farms, and communities. Of interest were observations concerning wildlife, attitudes about long-term management of program lands, and effectiveness of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) assistance in relation to these issues. Surveys were delivered to 2,189 CRP participants with a resultant response rate of 64.5%. Retired farmers represented the largest category of respondents (52%). Enhanced control of soil erosion was the leading benefit of the CRP reported. Over 73% of respondents observed increased numbers of wildlife associated with lands enrolled in the program. The majority of respondents reported CRP benefits, including increased quality of surface and ground waters, improved air quality, control of drifting snow, and elevated opportunities to hunt or simply observe wildlife as part of daily activities. Income stability, improved scenic quality of farms and landscapes, and potential increases in property values and future incomes also were seen as program benefits. Negative aspects, reported by a smaller number of respondents, included seeing the CRP as a source of weeds, fire hazard, and attracting unwanted requests for trespass. Over 75% of respondents believed CRP benefits to wildlife were important. A majority of respondents (82%) believed the amount of assistance furnished by USDA related to planning and maintaining wildlife habitat associated with CRP lands was appropriate. Nearly 51% of respondents would accept incorporation of periodic management of vegetation into long-term management of CRP lands to maintain quality of wildlife habitats. Provision of funds to address additional costs and changes in CRP regulations would be required to maximize long-term management of program lands. Additional, on-ground assistance related to management of CRP, and other agricultural lands, to maintain wildlife habitats was commonly identified as a need by survey respondents.

Biological Science Report↗