Search USGSSearch

USGS · sir20045258

Status assessment and conservation plan for the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii)

Abstract

Because of its restricted range, small population size, specific habitat requirements, and perceived threats to its breeding habitat, the Yellow-billed Loon (Gavia adamsii) is a species of conservation concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the subject of a petition for listing under the Endangered Species Act. This Status Assessment synthesizes current information on population size, trends, and potential threats to Yellow-billed Loons, and the Conservation Plan identifies research and monitoring activities that would contribute to the conservation of this species. The preparation of this report was requested and funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nongame Bird Office, Region 7.The Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Yellow-billed Loon can be summarized as follows:? Northern Alaska breeding grounds support an average of 3,369 individuals, including <1,000 nesting pairs in most years. The Yellow-billed Loon ranks as one of the 10 rarest birds that breeds regularly within the main land U.S. and one of only 20 with a North American population <16,000 individuals (Section 6-E).? There is no evidence of a long-term trend in the Yellow-billed Loon population index since 1986 (-0.9% annual change), but interpretation of surveys is complicated by changes in observers and high annual variation, and the 95% confidence interval is large (-3.6% to +1.8% annual change). The low reproductive potential of Yellow-billed Loons suggests that recovery from a substantial decline would not occur rapidly. There are no systematic surveys of Canadian and Russian breeding populations (Section 6-F).? The expansion of the oil industry into prime Yellow-billed Loon breeding habitat is a recent occurrence and we lack the necessary information to accurately predict its effect on the population. Most of northern Alaska?s Yellow-billed Loons (91%) occur on the National Petroleum Reserve?Alaska, virtually all of which is open or proposed to be opened to development and where there is no permanent or legal protection of Yellow-billed Loon habitat (Section 7-A).? Other potential factors affecting the population are also addressed, such as contaminants, subsistence hunting, by catch in subsistence and commercial fisheries on the breeding and wintering grounds, and health of the marine ecosystem off the coast of East Asia where Alaska?s Yellow-billed Loons winter, but data are lacking to reach strong conclusions on most issues.? The conservation goal adopted by the Alaska Loon and Grebe Working Group for the Yellow-billed Loon is to maintain a stable breeding population, of current size and distribution, across the extent of the loon?s breeding range in Alaska. The Conservation Plan, designed to provide information necessary to meet this goal, puts forth seven objectives: 1) Conduct annual population surveys having negligible bias and 80% statistical power to detect a 3.4% annual decline, a decline that would result in a 50% loss of the population within 20 years; 2) Obtain an unbiased and reliable estimate of the size of Alaska?s breeding population; 3) Identify geographic regions and habitats of importance during breeding, staging, and wintering periods; 4) Use demographic models to evaluate risks to the population; 5) Identify potential effects of oil development on the breeding grounds and measures necessary to minimize the effects; 6) Evaluate the magnitude of subsistence harvest and by catch and their potential effects on the population; 7) Develop a continent-wide and range-wide context for Alaska?s population and habitat objectives.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Susan L. Earnst. 2004. Status assessment and conservation plan for the yellow-billed loon (Gavia adamsii). https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20045258

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Aspects of visitor use

Federally managed public lands and waters receive around 1 billion recreational visits each year. Data on these visitors can aid in guiding policy decisions, managing resources effectively, and communicating the economic contributions of lands and waters. This report explores the methods used by agencies to collect data on aspects of recreational visitor use to Federal lands and waters (apart from visitation numbers, which are the focus of a companion publication). Aspects of recreational visitor use include visitor demographics, recreational activity participation, visitor satisfaction, visitor attitudes and experiences, trip characteristics, and economic contributions. We review practices used to understand aspects of visitor use across seven Federal agencies, revealing similarities such as the use of visitor intercept surveys and coverage of similar topic areas, and differences in how survey programs are operationalized and how specific questions on visitor surveys are worded. We also evaluate emerging technologies, such as geolocated social media and mobile device location data, for their potential to aid in understanding aspects of visitor use. This report concludes with potential opportunities to enhance data collection and coordination, ensuring cost-effective data collection and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report

Evaluation of best management practices at an edge-of-field site in the Eagle Creek watershed, Ohio, 2012–20

In 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey worked in partnership with the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and the Natural Resources Conservation Service to identify farm fields in priority watersheds—watersheds critically important to Great Lake health. Intensive best management practices were implemented in five States to test the efficacy of best management practices, also referred to as agricultural conservation practices, to reduce sediment and nutrient runoff on agricultural fields. These fields were chosen as representatives of the priority watersheds because their farming practices and geographical conditions were common among farms in those watersheds. A farm site located near Findlay, Ohio, in the Eagle Creek watershed used two conservation practices, cover crop (Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 340) and variable rate technology (VRT; Natural Resources Conservation Service practice standard 590), which represent common practices in the Maumee priority watershed. This study monitored surface runoff and subsurface tile runoff at the Eagle Creek watershed site. The effects of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on sediment and nutrient runoff were assessed from October 2012 to September 2020. Cover crops were applied in fall of 2016, 2017, and 2018, coinciding with VRT applications. The following parameters were analyzed as part of the study: runoff discharge; peak discharge; and concentrations and loads of total phosphorus, particulate phosphorus, dissolved reactive phosphorus, and suspended sediment. High peak runoff events disproportionally affected nutrient concentrations and loads in runoff. A threshold of the 85th percentile of the peak discharge was chosen to assess the effect of cover crop and VRT nutrient application on nutrient mitigation at each gage. Runoff events below the 85th percentile were considered small, and runoff events over the 85th percentile were considered large. Concentrations from collected water-quality samples were used for the analysis; estimated concentrations were excluded from the statistical evaluation. All surface runoff parameters during small runoff events, except surface runoff volume, were significantly lower in the period with cover crops and VRT implementation. Contrarily, subsurface runoff parameters during small events were not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. Surface and subsurface parameters during large events were also not statistically different between the periods with and without cover crops and VRT implementation. These results indicate cover crops and VRT may improve water quality during small runoff events, but additional best management practices that mitigate large runoff events may lead to greater water-quality improvement given the contribution of large events to overall losses.

Ohio

Continuous monitoring and temporal variability of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter in karst groundwater of the Edwards aquifer, south-central Texas, 2019–24

Widespread urbanization on the Edwards aquifer recharge zone in south-central Texas has prompted the development of new approaches and tools for evaluating the current and future status of water quality in the San Antonio and Barton Springs segments of the Edwards aquifer. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the San Antonio Water System and the City of Austin, applied continuous monitoring of fluorescence of dissolved organic matter (fDOM) to characterize the sources and transport of dissolved organic matter and associated constituents in the Edwards aquifer. Continuous fDOM time-series data were adjusted using empirically derived temperature, turbidity, and inner-filter-effect correction factors prior to analysis and interpretation. Fully corrected fDOM time-series data from the study sites were evaluated for short- and long-term temporal variability in fDOM in the context of the hydrologic and climatic conditions that occurred during the 5-year study period to understand vulnerability of the aquifer to potential contaminants in recharge. Study results indicate that fDOM is an effective proxy for dissolved organic carbon that, in turn, is indicative of the influx of recent surface water and associated contaminants, and thus, aquifer vulnerability to those contaminants. Although other continuously monitored water-quality parameters provide insights into changes in water quality in response to varying hydrologic conditions, the quantitative relation between fDOM and dissolved organic carbon directly indicates the timing and magnitude of pulses of organic constituents derived from the land surface, whereas other water-quality parameters do not.

Texas