Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Wildlife Review”

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 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2005

Grassland bird use of Conservation Reserve Program fields in the Great Plains

An enormous area in the Great Plains is currently enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): 19.5 million acres (nearly 8 million ha) in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This change in land use from cropland to grassland since 1985 has markedly influenced grassland bird populations. Many, but certainly not all, grassland species do well in CRP fields. The responses by birds to the program differ not only by species but also by region, year, the vegetation composition in a field, and whether or not a field has been hayed or grazed. The large scale and extent of the program has allowed researchers to address important conservation questions, such as the effect of the size of habitat patch and the influence of landscape features on bird use. However, most studies on nongame bird use of CRP in or near the Great Plains have been short-lived; 83% lasted only 1-3 years. Further, attention to the topic seems to have waned in recent years; the number of active studies peaked in the early 1990s and dramatically declined after 1995. Because breeding-bird use of CRP fields varies dramatically in response both to vegetational succession and to climatic variation, long-term studies are important. What was learned about CRP in its early stages may no longer be applicable. Finally, although the CRP provisions of the Farm Bill have been beneficial to many grassland birds, it is critical that gains in grassland habitat produced by the program not be off set by losses of native prairie.

Wildlife Society Technical Review↗
USGS1988

Waterfowl Management Handbook

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Service's most recent mandate for management of migratory waterfowl, and recent legislation such as the Farm Bill all underscore the need for a single source of information about the management of waterfowl and their habitat. Much of this information exists in scientific papers, unpublished reports, or has never been recorded, and thus is not readily accessible by waterfowl managers. A prototype handbook was developed in 1987 and critiqued by 38 reviewers who provided suggestions on style and substance as well as topics for inclusion. The assistance of these reviewers, who included Federal and State wildlife managers, Federal and State biologists, and scientists in the United States and Canada, is most gratefully acknowledged. This product differs from most Fish and Wildlife Leaflets. It will be issued as a series of chapters over the next several years, each with a unique number, designed to be inserted in an accompanying looseleaf binder.

Fish and Wildlife Leaflet↗
USGS2018

Wildlife underpass use and environmental impact assessment: A southern California case study

Environmental planners often rely on transportation structures (i.e., underpasses, bridges) to provide connectivity for animals across developed landscapes. Environmental assessments of predicted environmental impacts from proposed developments often rely on literature reviews or other indirect measures to establish the importance of wildlife crossings. Literature-based evaluations of wildlife crossings may not be accurate, and result in under-estimation of impacts or establishment of inappropriate mitigation measures. To investigate the adequacy of literature-based evaluations, we monitored wildlife use of a freeway underpass that had been identified as critically important to wildlife connectivity, and which was evaluated in an environmental review document. Photographs were obtained from a network of trail cameras over 3 years. Six mid- to large-sized native mammal species used the underpass and two other mammal species were photographed near the underpass but not using it. American badger ( Taxidea taxus ) was photographed at a higher rate in the underpass than in the surrounding area. Gray fox ( Urocyon cinereoargenteus ) was rarely detected in the underpass relative to surrounding habitats, whereas the absence of mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) in the underpass was unexpected, given relatively frequent detection in adjacent habitats. These results differed from the environmental assessment in that American badger was listed as "potentially" present while mule deer were expected to use the underpass. Results underscore importance of gathering data to document wildlife use of corridors, because some species do not or rarely take advantage of apparently suitable corridors, while others may be present when assumed to be absent.

California↗
USGS2020

Antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife: Perspectives on trends, acquisitions and dissemination, data gaps, and future directions

The proliferation of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the environment has potential negative economic and health consequences. Thus, previous investigations have targeted wild animals to understand the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in diverse environmental sources. In this critical review and synthesis, we summarize important concepts learned through the sampling of wildlife for antibiotic resistant indicator bacteria. These concepts are helpful for understanding dissemination of resistance through environmental pathways and helping to guide future research efforts. Our review is comprised of six sections. The first section briefly introduces antibiotic resistance as it pertains to bacteria harbored in environmental sources such as wild animals. Next, we differentiate wildlife from other animals in the context of how diverse taxa provide different information on antibiotic resistance in the environment. In the third section, we identify representative research and seminal works that illustrate important associations between the occurrence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife and anthropogenic inputs into the environment. For example, we highlight numerous investigations that support the premise that anthropogenic inputs into the environment drive the occurrence of antibiotic resistance in bacteria harbored by free-ranging wildlife. Additionally, we summarize previous research demonstrating foraging as a mechanism by which wildlife may be exposed to anthropogenic antibiotic resistance contamination in the environment. In the fourth section of our review, we summarize molecular evidence for the acquisition and dissemination of resistance among bacteria harbored by wildlife. In the fifth section, we identify what we believe to be important data gaps and potential future directions that other researchers may find useful towards the development of efficient, informative, and impactful investigations of antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife. Finally, we conclude our review by highlighting the need to move from surveys that simply identify antibiotic resistant bacteria in wildlife towards hypothesis-driven investigations that: (1) identify point sources of antibiotic resistance; (2) provide information on risk to human and animal health; (3) identify interventions that may interrupt environmentally mediated pathways of antibiotic resistance acquisition/transmission; and (4) evaluate whether management practices are leading to desirable outcomes.

Journal of Wildlife Diseases↗
USGS2018

Timelines and mechanisms of wildlife population recovery following the Exxon Valdez oil spill

Research and monitoring activities over the 28 years since the T/V Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled oil into Prince William Sound, Alaska have led to an improved understanding of how wildlife populations were damaged, as well as the mechanisms and timelines of recovery. A key finding was that for some species, such as harlequin ducks and sea otters, chronic oil spill effects persisted for at least two decades and were a larger influence on population dynamics over the long term than acute effects of the spill. These data also offer insights into population variation resulting from factors other than the oil spill. For example, while many seabirds experienced direct and indirect effects of the spill, population trajectories of some piscivorous birds, including pigeon guillemots and marbled murrelets, were linked to long-term environmental changes independent of spill effects. Another species, killer whales, suffered population declines due to acute spill effects that have not been resolved despite lack of chronic direct effects, representing a novel pathway of long-term injury. The observed variation in mechanisms and timelines of recovery is linked to species specific life history and natural history traits, and thus may be useful for predicting population recovery for other species following other spills.

Alaska↗
USGS1983

Impacts of forest herbicides on wildlife: Toxicity and habitat alteration

This paper begins with a review of both laboratory and field studies on tbe possible direct toxic effects of herbicides on terrestrial vertebrates, primarily birds and mammals. Alteration of the palatability of forage and changes in reproductive success are also discussed. Emphasis is placed on the use of herbicides in forestry; studies dealing with agricultural systems are referenced where appropriate. The indirect effects of herbicides on wildlife-habitat are then conceptualized and quantified using data from a 3-year study on effects of phenoxy and glyphosate herbicides on bird and small mammal communities in western Oregon. Data on density and habitat use are presented and compared with data available from other geographic regions.

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗
USGS1999

Factors influencing estimation of pesticide-related wildlife mortality

Free-ranging wildlife is regularly exposed to pesticides and can serve as a sentinel for human and environmental health. Therefore a comprehensive pesticide hazard assessment must incorporate the effects of actual applications on free-ranging wildlife. Mortality is the most readily reported wildlife effect, and the significance of these data can be realized only when placed in context with the factors that affect the gathering of this type of information. This paper reviews the variables that affect the collection of wildlife mortality data. Data show that most effects on wildlife are not observed, and much of observed mortality is not reported. Delays in reporting or in the response to a report and exposure to multiple stressors distort the exposure-effect relationship and can result in uncertainty in determining the cause of death. The synthesis of information strongly indicates that the actual number of affected animals exceeds the number recovered.

Toxicology and Industrial Health↗
USGS2021

Challenges in updating habitat suitability models: An example with the lesser prairie-chicken

Habitat loss from land-use change is one of the top causes of declines in wildlife species of concern. As such, it is critical to assess and reassess habitat suitability as land cover and anthropogenic features change for both monitoring and developing current information to inform management decisions. However, there are obstacles that must be overcome to develop consistent assessments through time. A range-wide lek habitat suitability model for the lesser prairie-chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ), currently under review by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for potential listing under the Endangered Species Act) was published in 2016. This model was based on lek data from 2002 to 2012, land cover data ranging from 2001 to 2013, and anthropogenic features from circa 2011, and has been used to help guide lesser prairie-chicken management and anthropogenic development actions. We created a second iteration model based on new lek surveys (2015 to 2019) and updated predictor layers (2016 land cover and cleaned/ updated anthropogenic data) to evaluate changes in lek suitability and to quantify current range-wide habitat suitability. Only three of 11 predictor variables were directly comparable between the iterations, making it difficult to directly assess what predicted changes resulted from changes in model inputs versus actual landscape change. The second iteration model showed a similar positive relationship with land cover and negative with anthropogenic features to the first iteration, but exhibited more variation among candidate models. Range-wide, more suitable habitat was predicted in the second iteration. The Shinnery Oak Ecoregion, however, exhibited a loss in predicted suitable habitat which could be due to predictor source changes. Iterated models such as this are important to ensure current information is being used in conservation and development decisions.

Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas↗
USGS2020

Wind, sun, and wildlife: Do wind and solar energy development “short-circuit” conservation in the western United States?

Despite the trade-offs between renewable energy development, land use, humans, and wildlife, wind and solar development continues to transform the southwestern US into a green energy landscape. While renewable energy reduces carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, many studies have emerged on the associated ecological and social impacts of this technology. Here, we review the current state of knowledge on the nexus between wildlife conservation and energy development in the western US since 2010. We revisit pertinent ecological concepts and questions presented in earlier reviews to assess how far the field has progressed in mitigating negative effects. Specifically, we ask, what density or design of development maximizes energy benefits while minimizing negative effects on wildlife, whether the results of previously-deficient before-after control-impact studies are now more readily-available, and ultimately, can the impacts of renewable energy development on wildlife be mitigated? We also provide a case study on the federally-protected Desert Tortoise, a conservation-reliant species in the Desert Southwest US, to highlight efforts to mitigate the negative effects of renewable energy development. Our review concludes that successful mitigation is possible via use of spatial decision support tools, applying novel wildlife deterrence and detection systems developed for existing installed facilities, and incorporating impact studies that provide managers with conservation metrics for evaluating different future development land-use scenarios.

Environmental Research Letters↗
USGS2012

Ecosystem services valuation to support decisionmaking on public lands—A case study of the San Pedro River watershed, Arizona

This report details the findings of the Bureau of Land Management–U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Services Valuation Pilot Study. This project evaluated alternative methods and tools that quantify and value ecosystem services, and it assessed the tools’ readiness for use in the Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking process. We tested these tools on the San Pedro River watershed in northern Sonora, Mexico, and southeast Arizona. The study area includes the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (managed by the Bureau of Land Management), which has been a focal point for conservation activities and scientific research in recent decades. We applied past site-specific primary valuation studies, value transfer, the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) and Artificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) models to value locally important ecosystem services for the San Pedro River watershed—water, carbon, biodiversity, and cultural values. We tested these approaches on a series of scenarios to evaluate ecosystem service changes and the ability of the tools to accommodate scenarios. A suite of additional tools were either at too early a stage of development to run, were proprietary, or were place-specific tools inappropriate for application to the San Pedro River watershed. We described the strengths and weaknesses of these additional ecosystem service tools against a series of evaluative criteria related to their usefulness for Bureau of Land Management decisionmaking. Using these tools, we quantified gains or losses of ecosystem services under three categories of scenarios: urban growth, mesquite management, and water augmentation. These results quantify tradeoffs and could be useful for decisionmaking within Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Results are accompanied by a relatively high level of uncertainty associated with model outputs, valuation methods, and discount rates applied. Further guidance on representing uncertainty and applying uncertain results in decisionmaking would benefit both tool developers and those offices in using ecosystem services to compare management tradeoffs. Decisionmakers and Bureau of Land Management managers at the State-, district-, and field-office level would also benefit from continuing model improvements, training, and guidance on tool use that can be provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of the Interior. Tradeoffs were identified in the level of effort needed to parameterize and run tools and the amount and quality of information they provide to the decision process. We found the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit, Ecosystem Services Review, and United Nations Environment Programme–World Conservation Monitoring Centre Ecosystem Services Toolkit to be immediately feasible for application by the Bureau of Land Management, given proper guidance on their use. It is also feasible for the Bureau of Land Management to use the InVEST model, but in early 2012 the process of parameterizing the model required resources and expertise that are unlikely to be available in most Bureau of Land Management district or field offices. Application of past primary valuation is feasible, but developing new primary-valuation studies is too time consuming for regular application. Value transfer approaches (aside from the Wildlife Habitat Benefits Estimation Toolkit) are best applied carefully on the basis of guidelines described in this report, to reduce transfer error. The ARIES model can provide useful information in regions modeled in the past (Arizona, California, Colorado, and Washington), but it lacks some features that will improve its usability, such as a generalized model that could be applied anywhere in the United States. Eleven other tools described in this report could become useful as the tools more fully develop, in high-profile cases for which additional resources are available for tool application or in case-study regions where place-specific models have already been developed. To improve the value of these tools in decisionmaking, we suggest scientific needs that agencies such as U.S. Geological Survey can help meet—for instance, development and support of data archives. Such archives could greatly reduce resource needs and improve the reliability and consistency of results. Given the rapid state of evolution in the field, periodic follow-up studies on ecosystem services tools would help to ensure that the Bureau of Land Management and other public land management agencies are kept up to date on new tools and features that bring ecosystem services closer to readiness for use in regular decisionmaking.

Arizona;Sonora↗
USGS2018

U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers and U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center—Annual report for 2017

Introduction The year 2017 was a year of review and renewal for the Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC). The Southeast, Northwest, Alaska, Southwest, and North Central CSCs’ 5-year summary review reports were released in 2017 and contain the findings of the external review teams led by the Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit in conjunction with the American Fisheries Society. The reports for the Pacific Islands, South Central, and Northeast CSCs are planned for release in 2018. The reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate aspects of the cooperative agreement, such as the effectiveness of the CSC in meeting project goals and assessment of the level of scientific contribution and achievement. These reviews serve as a way for the CSCs and NCCWSC to look for ways to recognize and enhance our network’s strengths and identify areas for improvement. The reviews were followed by the CSC recompetition, which led to new hosting agreements at the Northwest, Alaska, and Southeast CSCs. Learn more about the excellent science and activities conducted by the network centers in the 2017 annual report.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Lead in the environment

Anthropogenic uses of lead have probably altered its availability and environmental distribution more than any other toxic element. Consequently, lead concentrations in many living organisms may be approaching thresholds of toxicity for the adverse effects of lead. Such thresholds are difficult to define, as they vary with the chemical and physical form of lead, exposure regime, other elements present and also vary both within and between species. The technological capability to accurately quantify low lead concentrations has increased over the last decade, and physiological and behavioral effects have been measured in wildlife with tissue lead concentrations below those previously considered safe for humans.s.236 Consequently. lead criteria for the protection of wildlife and human health are frequently under review, and 'thresholds' of lead toxicity are being reconsidered. Proposed lead criteria for the protection of natural resources have been reviewed by Eisler. Uptake of lead by plants is limited by its generally low availability in soils and sediments, and toxicity may be limited by storage mechanisms and its apparently limited translocation within most plants. Lead does not generally accumulate within the foliar parts of plants, which limits its transfer to higher trophic levels. Although lead may concentrate in plant and animal tissues, no evidence of biomagnification exists. Acid deposition onto surface waters and soils with low buffering capacity may influence the availability of lead for uptake by plants and animals, and this may merit investigation at susceptible sites. The biological significance of chronic low-level lead exposure to wildlife is sometimes difficult to quantify. Animals living in urban environments or near point sources of lead emission are inevitably subject to greater exposure to lead and enhanced risk of lead poisoning. Increasingly strict controls on lead emissions in many countries have reduced exposure to lead from some sources. and the .reduction of lead in gasoline has resulted in lower tissue lead concentrations in humans and wildlife from many, particularly urban, locations. However, it has been suggested that increasing use of organic lead compounds as catalysts for the production of plastics and as wood preservatives and biocides could adversely affect wildlife. The most significant source of direct wildlife mortality from lead is spent gunshot and fishing sinkers. Elevated mortality from shot ingestion in avian species resulted in the introduction of nontoxic (steel) shot zones along certain flyways in the United States in the mid-1970s and a total ban on the use of lead for waterfowl and coot hunting nationwide by 1992. Several other countries are now following suit and have either banned or are in the process of restricting the use of lead shot for waterfowl hunting. In the United States it has been estimated that since the 1986 hunting season. when the use of nontoxic shot became widespread. over 6 million ducks have not been lost to lead poisoning. Raptors, especially eagles, have also apparently benefited. although lead poisoning from ingestion of bullet fragments remains a problem for the critically threatened California condor. Quantifying reductions in lead mortality rates would be difficult since eagle populations throughout North America are rapidly recovering from other anthropogenic perturbations, especially organochlorine pesticides.

Book chapter↗
USGS2005

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

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

Journal of Raptor Research↗
USGS1989

Regional lists of plant species that occur in wetlands: data base user's guide

The Data Base List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (LIST) currently contains records for 6,728 plant species. Each record provides information on nomenclature, plant characteristics and lifeforms, distribution, and frequency of occurrence in wetlands. The List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, developed to supplement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al. 1979), underwent an intensive review by field botanists across the country. This review was coordinated by national and regional interagency wetland plant list review panels composed of representatives from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Soil Conservation Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Initial and updated versions of the Data Base List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands are available in hardcopy (Reed 1986, 1988). Regional lists are available as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report Series 88(26.126.13). State lists are available as National Ecology Research Center Report Series 88(18.01-18.50). The computerized data base tracks and documents indicator assignments made by regional interagency review panels and facilitates generation of reports. This user's guide describes the format and contents of the LIST Data Base. The Data Base is available on 5-1/4" floppy disks in ASCII format for use with a data base management system on an IBM PC/XT/AT compatible computer. The LIST Data Base was developed using the QUICKTEXT Data Base Management System (Osborn and Strong 1984). Use of QUICKTEXT with the LIST Data Base is strongly recommended. Instructions for loading LIST into QUICKTEXT are included in this user's guide. Other data base management systems capable of handling variable length fields can be used by individuals familiar with these software packages. LIST distribution disks are available for 13 regions (Table 1). QUICKTEXT (course QT100--Data Base Management Techniques) and regional subsets of the LIST Data Base (distributed as self-tutorial courses, Table 1) are available through the Office of Conference Services, Colorado State University.

Report↗
USGS2006

An evaluation and review of water-use estimates and flow data for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, Oregon and California

The Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges, located in the upper Klamath Basin of Oregon and California, encompass approximately 46,700 and 39,100 acres, respectively. Demand for water in the semiarid upper Klamath Basin has increased in recent years, resulting in the need to better quantify water availability and use in the refuges. This report presents an evaluation of water-use estimates for both refuges derived on the basis of two approaches. One approach used evaporation and evapotranspiration estimates and the other used measured inflow and outflow data. The quality of the inflow and outflow data also was assessed. Annual water use in the refuges, using evapotranspiration estimates, was computed with the use of different rates for each of four land-use categories. Annual water-use rates for grain fields, seasonal wetlands, permanently flooded wetlands with emergent vegetation, and open-water bodies were 2.5, 2.9, 2.63, and 4.07 feet per year, respectively. Total water use was estimated as the sum of the products of each rate and the number of acres in its associated land-use category. Mean annual (2003-2005) water use for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake refuges was approximately 124,000 and 95,900 acre-feet, respectively. To estimate water deliveries needed for each refuge, first, annual precipitation for 2003-2005 was subtracted from the annual water use for those years. Then, an adjusted total was obtained by adding 20 percent to the difference to account for salinity flushing. Resulting estimated mean annual adjusted needed water deliveries in 2003-2005 for the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake refuges were 107,000 and 82,800 acre-feet, respectively. Mean annual net inflow to the refuges for 2003-2005 was computed by subtracting estimated and measured surface-water outflows from inflows. Mean annual net inflow during the 3-year period for the Lower Klamath refuge, calculated for a subsection of the refuge, was approximately 73,700 acre-feet. The adjusted needed water delivery for this section of the refuge, calculated from evapotranspiration estimates, was approximately 77,600 acre-feet. For the Tule Lake refuge, mean annual net inflow during the 3-year period was approximately 76,100 acre-feet, which is comparable to the estimated annual needed water delivery for the refuge of 82,800 acre-feet. For 1962-2005, mean annual net inflow to the Lower Klamath refuge was approximately 49,800 acre-feet, about 23,900 acre-feet less than for 2003-2005. Although mean April-September net inflows for 1962-2005 and 2003-2005 have remained fairly constant, annual net inflow has increased for October-March, which accounts for the difference. Consistently higher autumn and winter flow deliveries since the mid-1980s reflect a significant change in refuge management. More sections of the refuge are currently managed as seasonal wetlands than were in the 1960s and 1970s. Flow records for the Ady Canal at State Line Road, Klamath Straits Drain at State Line Road, and D Pumping Plant were evaluated for their data quality. On the basis of USGS flow-record criteria, all three flow records were rated as 'poor.' By definition, 95 percent of the daily flows in a record having this rating could be in error by more than 15 percent.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2017

Forestry best management practices relationships with aquatic and riparian fauna: A review

Forestry best management practices (BMPs) were developed to minimize water pollution from forestry operations by primarily addressing sediment and sediment transport, which is the leading source of pollution from silviculture. Implementation of water quality BMPs may also benefit riparian and aquatic wildlife, although wildlife benefits were not driving forces for BMP development. Therefore, we reviewed literature regarding potential contributions of sediment-reducing BMPs to conservation of riparian and aquatic wildlife, while realizing that BMPs also minimize thermal, nutrient, and chemical pollution. We reached five important conclusions: (1) a significant body of research confirms that forestry BMPs contribute to the protection of water quality and riparian forest structure; (2) data-specific relationships between forestry BMPs and reviewed species are limited; (3) forestry BMPs for forest road construction and maintenance, skid trails, stream crossings, and streamside management zones (SMZs) are important particularly for protection of water quality and aquatic species; (4) stream crossings should be carefully selected and installed to minimize sediment inputs and stream channel alterations; and (5) SMZs promote retention of older-age riparian habitat with benefits extending from water bodies to surrounding uplands. Overall, BMPs developed for protection of water quality should benefit a variety of riparian and aquatic species that are sensitive to changes in water quality or forest structure.

Forests↗
USGS2004

Global climate change and wildlife in North America

It is widely accepted by the scientific community that the earth, which has always experienced climate variation, is now undergoing a period of rapid climate change that is enhanced by anthropogenic atmospheric carbon enrichment during the past 100 years. These climatic changes are accelerating and projections for the next 100 years indicate extensive warming in most (but not all) areas, changing patterns of precipitation, and a significant acceleration of sea level rise. Other likely components of ongoing climate change include changes in season lengths, decreasing range of nighttime versus daytime temperatures, declining snowpack, and increasing frequency and intensity of severe weather events. The many components of climate change, and especially the unprecedented rapid rate of change, are just as important as increasing temperatures. Wildlife species are closely adapted to their environments and readily respond to climate variation. However, as discussed in this technical review, the climate change now underway has extensive potential to affect wildlife throughout North America, either directly or indirectly through responses to changing habitat conditions. When considered in combination with other factors (e.g., pollution, ozone depletion, urbanization, etc.), the potential effect is even greater. The effects of climate change on populations and range distributions of wildlife are expected to be species specific and highly variable, with some effects considered negative and others considered positive. In North America the ranges of habitats and wildlife are predicted to generally move northward as temperatures increase. Variations in this overall pattern will be dependent upon specific local conditions, changing precipitation patterns, and the response of different species to different components of climate change. It follows that the structure of plant–animal communities will also change. Ignoring climate change is likely to increasingly result in failure to reach wildlife management objectives. Wildlife managers need to become knowledgeable about climate change, ways to cope with it, and ways to take advantage of it. Management options currently available include protecting coastal wetlands to allow for sea level rise, reducing the risks to wildlife from potential catastrophic events, adjusting yield and harvest models, accounting for known climatic variations, and taking climate change into consideration when selecting the location and other characteristics of conservation areas. Wildlife managers also need to expect the unexpected and reduce nonclimate stressors on ecosystems. Overall, wildlife managers can minimize negative impacts to wildlife and take advantage of positive aspects by planning ahead and employing adaptive management.

Technical Review↗
USGS1989

Assessing the relationship between Section 404 and wetland losses: a feasibility study

The primary objective of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251) is to restore and maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Section 404 of the Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill materials into wetlands and represents the primary Federal authority for regulation of wetland alterations. Since its inception, the Section 404 program has been controversial in regard to the extent to which it was intended to provide wetlands regulation. Section 404 requires those who wish to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which include many wetlands, to first obtain a Federal permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overall responsibility for administration of the Section 404 program and promulgates guidelines that must be followed in issuing permits. In addition, EPA has the final authority to prohibit specific discharges if the environmental impacts are unacceptable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issues Section 404 permits, which can be of two types. Individual Permits are issued following case-by-case reviews of proposed discharges. General Permits, which can be either nationwide or regional in scope, are authorized by the Corps for categories of activities that are similar in nature and that have only minimal individual and cumulative adverse environmental impacts. EPA, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), and State natural resource agencies review and comment on permit applications and offer recommendations on appropriate mitigation measures. Although comments from the Service and other natural resource agencies are advisory in nature (EPA's veto authority excepted), they can serve as the basis for modifying, conditioning, or denying a Section 404 permit. In 1986, in a survey conducted by the National Ecology Research Center, Service personnel indicated interest in additional information concerning both wetland trends and the impacts of activities authorized by the Corps under Section 404 (Roelle 1986). Although there is some information concerning wetland losses for certain geographic areas and for the Nation as a whole (Frayer et al. 1983; Tiner 1984), there appears to be little information on how these losses relate to the Section 404 permitting process. The primary objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of estimating wetland losses in relationship to Individual and General Permits issued under Section 404. A secondary objective was to assemble data on acceptance and implementation of specific mitigation recommendations offered by the Service and other natural resource agencies in connection with development activities on wetlands examined. At present, 26 categories of Nationwide permits have been authorized by the Corps. Nationwide permit 26 was of particular interest in this study because it specifically authorizes discharges into wetlands under certain circumstances (see Figure 1 and related text for a more complete discussion of circumstances under which Nationwide Permit 26 is applicable). All subsequent references to Nationwide or General permits pertain to Nationwide Permit 26.

Report↗