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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
USGS2016

A potential predator-prey interaction of an American badger and an Agassiz's desert tortoise with a review of badger predation on turtles

The federally threatened Agassiz’s desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ) was listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 1990, but thus far, recovery efforts have been unsuccessful (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2015). Predation has been identified as a contributing factor to declining G. agassizii populations range-wide (e.g., Esque et al. 2010, Lovich et al. 2014). Understanding and managing for predator-prey dynamics is thus an important part of the recovery and conservation of this threatened species (USFWS 2011). Desert tortoises have a host of predators at all stages of their life cycle. Over 20 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles have been recorded as known or suspected predators (Woodbury and Hardy 1948, Luckenbach 1982, Ernst and Lovich 2009). American badgers ( Taxidea taxus , family: Mustelidae) are confirmed excavators of desert tortoise nests (Turner and Berry 1984). They are also suspected predators of adult desert tortoises, a possibility which has been presented in some studies but without empirical verification (Luckenbach 1982, Turner and Berry 1984). Active mostly at night, badgers are solitary, secretive predators (Lindzey 1978, 1982; Armitage 2004) that are extremely difficult to observe in predatory encounters. Recently, strong circumstantial evidence presented by Emblidge et al. (2015) suggests that badgers do prey on adult Agassiz’s desert tortoises based on observations of more than two dozen dead tortoises in the Western Mojave Desert of California. In this note, we present another case of potential badger predation on a large adult desert tortoise in the Sonoran Desert of California. Collectively, these recent two cases potentially indicate that badger predation may be more common and widespread than previously thought. In addition, we review the worldwide literature of badger predation on turtles in general and summarize reported badger observations in Joshua Tree National Park, where our observation occurred, over a period of 55 years.

California↗
USGS2016

Book review: Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act: Environmental litigation and the crippling battle over America's lands, endangered species, and critical habitats

Inside the Equal Access to Justice Act is authored by Lowell E. Baier, an attorney, political scientist, and historian whose conservation portfolio includes the J. N. “Ding” Darling Conservation Award from the National Wildlife Federation (2016), Citizen Conservationist Award from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (2013), Conservationist of the Year Award from Outdoor Life magazine (2010), and Conservationist of the Year Award from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (2008). In the book, Baier stresses the need to reform the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) because of unintended provisions that incentivize and reward environmental litigants for filing suit against federal regulatory and land management agencies, consequentially hindering pro-active, cooperative, conservation efforts. The book is the culmination of several years of legal research, case history analyses, and personal interviews with several key individuals from congress, conservation management agencies, and non-government organizations. Review info: Inside the equal access to justice act: Environmental litigation and the crippling battle over America's lands, endangered species, and critical habitats. By Lowell E. Baier, 2016. ISBN: 978-1442257443, 678 pp.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2011

An introduction to adaptive management for threatened and endangered species

Management of threatened and endangered species would seem to be a perfect context for adaptive management. Many of the decisions are recurrent and plagued by uncertainty, exactly the conditions that warrant an adaptive approach. But although the potential of adaptive management in these settings has been extolled, there are limited applications in practice. The impediments to practical implementation are manifold and include semantic confusion, institutional inertia, misperceptions about the suitability and utility, and a lack of guiding examples. In this special section of the Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management , we hope to reinvigorate the appropriate application of adaptive management for threatened and endangered species by framing such management in a decision-analytical context, clarifying misperceptions, classifying the types of decisions that might be amenable to an adaptive approach, and providing three fully developed case studies. In this overview paper, I define terms, review the past application of adaptive management, challenge perceived hurdles, and set the stage for the case studies which follow.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗
USGS2014

Spatially explicit habitat models for 28 fishes from the Upper Mississippi River System (AHAG 2.0)

Environmental management actions in the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) typically require pre-project assessments of predicted benefits under a range of project scenarios. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) now requires certified and peer-reviewed models to conduct these assessments. Previously, habitat benefits were estimated for fish communities in the UMRS using the Aquatic Habitat Appraisal Guide (AHAG v.1.0; AHAG from hereon). This spreadsheet-based model used a habitat suitability index (HSI) approach that drew heavily upon Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The HSI approach requires developing species response curves for different environmental variables that seek to broadly represent habitat. The AHAG model uses species-specific response curves assembled from literature values, data from other ecosystems, or best professional judgment. A recent scientific review of the AHAG indicated that the model’s effectiveness is reduced by its dated approach to large river ecosystems, uncertainty regarding its data inputs and rationale for habitat-species response relationships, and lack of field validation (Abt Associates Inc., 2011). The reviewers made two major recommendations: (1) incorporate empirical data from the UMRS into defining the empirical response curves, and (2) conduct post-project biological evaluations to test pre-project benefits estimated by AHAG. Our objective was to address the first recommendation and generate updated response curves for AHAG using data from the Upper Mississippi River Restoration-Environmental Management Program (UMRR-EMP) Long Term Resource Monitoring Program (LTRMP) element. Fish community data have been collected by LTRMP (Gutreuter and others, 1995; Ratcliff and others, in press) for 20 years from 6 study reaches representing 1,930 kilometers of river and >140 species of fish. We modeled a subset of these data (28 different species; occurrences at sampling sites as observed in day electrofishing samples) using multiple logistic regression with presence/absence responses. Each species’ probability of occurrence, at each sample site, was modeled as a function of 17 environmental variables observed at each sample site by LTRMP standardized protocols. The modeling methods used (1) a forward-selection process to identify the most important predictors and their relative contributions to predictions; (2) partial methods on the predictor set to control variance inflation; and (3) diagnostics for LTRMP design elements that may influence model fits. Models were fit for 28 species, representing 3 habitat guilds (Lentic, Lotic, and Generalist). We intended to develop “systemic models” using data from all six LTRMP study reaches simultaneously; however, this proved impossible. Thus, we “regionalized” the models, creating two models for each species: “Upper Reach” models, using data from Pools 4, 8, and 13; and “Lower Reach” models, using data from Pool 26, the Open River Reach of the Mississippi River, and the La Grange reach of the Illinois River. A total of 56 models were attempted. For any given site-scale prediction, each model used data from the three LTRMP study reaches comprising the regional model to make predictions. For example, a site-scale prediction in Pool 8 was made using data from Pools 4, 8, and 13. This is the fundamental nature and trade-off of regionalizing these models for broad management application. Model fits were deemed “certifiably good” using the Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness-of-Fit statistic (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000). This test post-partitions model predictions into 10 groups and conducts inferential tests on correspondences between observed and expected probability of occurrence across all partitions, under Chi-square distributional assumptions. This permits an inferential test of how well the models fit and a tool for reporting when they did not (and perhaps why). Our goal was to develop regionalized models, and to assess and describe circumstances when a good fit was not possible. Seven fish species composed the Lentic guild. Good fits were achieved for six Upper Reach models. In the Lower Reach, no model produced good fits for the Lentic guild. This was due to (1) lentic species being much less prominent in the Lower Reach study areas, and (2) those that do express greater prominence principally do so only in the La Grange reach of the Illinois River. Thus, developing Lower Reach models for Lentic species will require parsing La Grange from the other two Lower Reach study areas and fitting separate models. We did not do that as part of this study, but it could be done at a later time. Nine species comprised the Lotic guild. Good fits were achieved for seven Upper Reach models and six Lower Reach models. Four species had good fits for both regions (flathead catfish, blue sucker, sauger, and shorthead redhorse). Three species showed zoogeographic zonation, with a good model fit in one of the regions, but not in the region in which they were absent or rarely occurred (blue catfish, rock bass, and skipjack herring). Twelve species comprised the Generalist guild. Good fits were achieved for five Upper Reach models and eight Lower Reach models. Six species had good fits for both regions (brook silverside, emerald shiner, freshwater drum, logperch, longnose gar, and white bass). Two species showed zoogeographic zonation, with a good model fit in one of the regions, but not in the region in which they were absent or rarely occurred (red shiner and blackstripe topminnow). Poorly fit models were almost always due to the diagnostic variable “field station,” a surrogate for river mile. In these circumstances, the residuals for “field station” were non-randomly distributed and often strongly ordered. This indicates either fitting “pool scale” models for these species and regions, or explicitly model covariances between “field station” and the other predictors within the existing modeling framework. Further efforts on these models should seek to resolve these issues using one of these two approaches. In total, nine species, representing two of the three guilds (Lotic and Generalist), produced well-fit models for both regions. These nine species should comprise the basis for AHAG 2.0. Additional work, likely requiring downscaling of the regional models to pool-scale models, will be needed to incorporate additional species. Alternately, a regionalized AHAG could be comprised of those species, per region, that achieved well-fit models. The number of species and the composition of the regional species pools will differ among regions as a consequence. Each of these alternatives has both pros and cons, and managers are encouraged to consider them fully before further advancing this approach to modeling multi-species habitat suitability.

Upper Mississippi River System↗
USGS2023

Wildlife ecological risk assessment in the 21st century: Promising technologies to assess toxicological effects

Despite advances in toxicity testing and development of new approach methodologies (NAMs) for hazard assessment, the ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework for terrestrial wildlife (i.e., air-breathing amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) has remained unchanged for decades. While survival, growth, and reproductive endpoints derived from whole animal toxicity tests are central to hazard assessment, non-standard measures of biological effects at multiple levels of biological organization (e.g., molecular, cellular, tissue, organ, organism, population, community, ecosystem) have potential to enhance the relevance of prospective and retrospective wildlife ERAs. Other factors (e.g., indirect effects of contaminants on food supplies and infectious disease processes) are influenced by toxicants at individual, population, and community levels, and need to be factored into chemically-based risk assessments to enhance the “eco” component of ERAs. Regulatory and logistical challenges often relegate such non-standard endpoints and indirect effects to post-registration evaluations of pesticides and industrial chemicals, and contaminated site evaluations. While NAMs are being developed, to date their applications in ERAs focused on wildlife have been limited. No single magic tool or model will address all uncertainties in hazard assessment. Modernizing wildlife ERAs will likely entail combinations of laboratory and field-derived data at multiple levels of biological organization, knowledge collection solutions (e.g., systematic review, adverse outcome pathway frameworks), and inferential methods that facilitate integrations and risk estimations focused on species, populations, interspecific extrapolations, and ecosystem services modeling, with less dependence on whole animal data and simple hazard ratios.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗
USGS2009

Status Assessment of Laysan and Black-Footed Albatrosses, North Pacific Ocean, 1923-2005

Over the past century, Laysan (Phoebastria immutabilis) and black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes) albatrosses have been subjected to high rates of mortality and disturbance at the breeding colonies and at sea. Populations were greatly reduced and many colonies were extirpated around the turn of the 20th century as a result of feather hunting. Populations were recovering when military occupation of several breeding islands during World War II led to new population declines at these islands and additional colony extirpations. At sea, thousands of Laysan and black-footed albatrosses were killed each year in high-seas driftnet fisheries, especially from 1978 until the fisheries were banned in 1992. Through the 1990s, there was a growing awareness of the large numbers of albatrosses that were being killed in longline fisheries. During the 1990s, other anthropogenic factors, such as predation by non-native mammals and exposure to contaminants, also were documented to reduce productivity or increase mortality. In response to the growing concerns over the impacts of these threats on albatross populations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracted with the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct an assessment of Laysan and black-footed albatross populations. This assessment includes a review of the taxonomy, legal status, geographic distribution, natural history, habitat requirements, threats, and monitoring and management activities for these two species. The second part of the assessment is an analysis of population status and trends from 1923 to 2005. Laysan and black-footed albatrosses forage throughout the North Pacific Ocean and nest on tropical and sub-tropical oceanic islands from Mexico to Japan. As of 2005, 21 islands support breeding colonies of one or both species. The core breeding range is the Hawaiian Islands, where greater than 99 percent of the World's Laysan albatrosses and greater than 95 percent of the black-footed albatrosses nest on the small islands and atolls of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. These islands are all protected as part of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. Albatrosses are long-lived seabirds with deferred maturity, low fecundity, and high rates of adult survival. Their life history characteristics make populations especially vulnerable, to small increases in adult mortality. The primary threats to Laysan and black-footed albatrosses include interactions with commercial fisheries, predation by introduced mammals, reduced reproductive output due to contaminants, nesting habitat loss and degradation due to human development and invasive plant species, and potential loss and degradation of habitat due to climate change and sea-level rise. Incidental mortality (bycatch) in commercial fisheries is the greatest anthropogenic source of mortality (post-fledging) for both species. We found that longline fishing effort prior to the 1980s was greater than previously estimated and a very significant source of mortality. Regulations to minimize and monitor albatross mortality have been enacted in most U.S. and Canadian longline fisheries, but monitoring of bycatch rates and regulations to minimize seabird mortality are extremely limited in the much larger multinational longline fleets. Management to address threats at the breeding colonies is ongoing and includes eradication or control of non-native species, habitat management, and abatement programs to reduce impacts of contaminants. Effective long-term conservation and management of the Laysan and black-footed albatrosses require management and monitoring at the breeding colonies and at sea and continued assessment of population status and trends. We evaluated the status and trends of Laysan and black-footed albatross populations using linear regression, population viability analysis (PVA), and age-structured matrix models. Analyses were predominantly based on nest-count data gathered at French Frigate Shoals, Laysan Island, and Midw

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

An ecological perspective on the changing face of Brucella abortus in the western United States

After a hiatus during the 1990s, outbreaks of Brucella abortus in cattle are occurring more frequently in some of the western states of the United States, namely, Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. This increase is coincident with increasing brucellosis seroprevalence in elk (Cervus elaphus), which is correlated with elk density. Vaccines are a seductive solution, but their use in wildlife systems remains limited by logistical, financial, and scientific constraints. Cattle vaccination is ongoing in the region. Livestock regulations, however, tend to be based on serological tests that test for previous exposure and available vaccines do not protect against seroconversion. The authors review recent ecological studies of brucellosis, with particular emphasis on the Greater Yellowstone Area, and highlight the management options and implications of this work, including the potential utility of habitat modifications and targeted hunts, as well as scavengers and predators. Finally, the authors discuss future research directions that will help us to understand and manage brucellosis in wildlife.

OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique↗
USGS2007

Scale-dependent approaches to modeling spatial epidemiology of chronic wasting disease.

This e-book is the product of a second workshop that was funded and promoted by the United States Geological Survey to enhance cooperation between states for the management of chronic wasting disease (CWD). The first workshop addressed issues surrounding the statistical design and collection of surveillance data for CWD. The second workshop, from which this document arose, followed logically from the first workshop and focused on appropriate methods for analysis, interpretation, and use of CWD surveillance and related epidemiology data. Consequently, the emphasis of this e-book is on modeling approaches to describe and gain insight of the spatial epidemiology of CWD. We designed this e-book for wildlife managers and biologists who are responsible for the surveillance of CWD in their state or agency. We chose spatial methods that are popular or common in the spatial epidemiology literature and evaluated them for their relevance to modeling CWD. Our opinion of the usefulness and relevance of each method was based on the type of field data commonly collected as part of CWD surveillance programs and what we know about CWD biology, ecology, and epidemiology. Specifically, we expected the field data to consist primarily of the infection status of a harvested or culled sample along with its date of collection (not date of infection), location, and demographic status. We evaluated methods in light of the fact that CWD does not appear to spread rapidly through wild populations, relative to more highly contagious viruses, and can be spread directly from animal to animal or indirectly through environmental contamination. We discovered that many of the wellpublished methods were developed for fast-spreading human diseases, such as influenza and measles. While these methods are applicable to fast spreading wildlife diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease or West Nile virus, many are not likely to work well for CWD. Only limited data exist to evaluate geographic and spatial spread because many locations where we find CWD tend to be locations where samples have just been taken or sample sizes have just become large enough to have a high probability of detecting a low prevalence. Consequently, methods that work well to describe or predict the spread of foot-and-mouth disease throughout England, which occurred within a year, do not work well for describing or predicting CWD spread. We did not exclude methods that we regarded as inappropriate; rather, we included methods that are commonly used for disease epidemiology and then discussed their applicability for modeling the spatial epidemiology of CWD. We hope including inappropriate methods with an explanation of why they are ill-suited for CWD will make it easier to drop them from consideration and explain to others why they were not recommended for spatial modeling of CWD. We organized the three chapters by scale and extent for which each method was developed or best suited. The first chapter covers methods appropriate to multi-jurisdictional or multi-state modeling, which we call “regional” scale. The second chapter covers methods appropriate for within state areas such as wildlife management units or metapopulations, which we call “landscape” scale. The third chapter covers methods appropriate for population or individual-based modeling, which we call “fine” scale. We know this rubric is somewhat artificial because many methods work at multiple scales. We hope, however, that this structure addresses some of the challenges faced by managers that work at local, regional, state, and national scales. Further, the resolution of empirical data often changes with spatial scale, which affects the utility of different modeling approaches. For example, individual-based models work best at modeling spread within populations, while risk analysis is most useful for summarizing data over larger scales such as a region. Because some methods are applicable at several scales, however, we included a graphic at the beginning of each method that indicates the range of scales for which it applies. For example, the graphic to the right indicates that the method is most applicable for regional-scale modeling. There is also a question of resolution as well as scale and extent for each method. CWD surveillance data have been collected over large areas, such as a wildlife management unit or state, but the resolution of the data may be fine scale with GPS locations for many samples. For each method, we described the required resolution of the data and describe the type of data required, as well as what questions the method could answer and how useful the method is, given typical CWD data. For each scale, we presented a focal approach that would be useful for understanding the spatial pattern and epidemiology of CWD, as well as being a useful tool for CWD management. The focal approaches include risk analysis and micromaps for the regional scale, cluster analysis for the landscape scale, and individual based modeling for the fine scale of within population. For each of these methods, we used simulated data and walked through the method step by step to fully illustrate the “how to”, with specifics about what is input and output, as well as what questions the method addresses. We also provided a summary table to, at a glance, describe the scale, questions that can be addressed, and general data required for each method described in this e-book. We hope that this review will be helpful to biologists and managers by increasing the utility of their surveillance data, and ultimately be useful for increasing our understanding of CWD and allowing wildlife biologists and managers to move beyond retroactive fire-fighting to proactive preventative action.

Book↗
USGS2023

Blue snowflakes in a warming world: Karner blue butterfly climate change vulnerability synthesis and best practices for adaptation

This report—developed at the request of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service-led Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Team by Recovery Team members and partners—provides a Karner blue butterfly climate change vulnerability synthesis, explores a range of potential responses, and presents best practices for climate change-informed conservation of the species. The three decades since the Karner blue butterfly’s (Lycaeides [Plebejus] melissa samuelis Nabokov) listing as federally endangered in the United States have seen a diverse and dedicated research and management community coalesce around the species’ recovery. This geographically expansive conservation collaboration has broken new ground for threatened and endangered species recovery. Many Karner blue recovery areas are making steady progress towards recovery goals, but some are not. An extremely hot and dry 2012, perhaps aided by adverse longer-term climate trends such as declining snow cover, extirpated the Karner blue from Indiana Dunes National Park and the surrounding Indiana Dunes Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Unit—the southernmost recovery unit and once host to one of the species’ largest populations—as well as from northwest Ohio. Because of the fundamental challenge that climate change represents to Karner blue butterfly recovery and of the general need for endangered species conservation plans to better address climate change, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service-led Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Team tasked a subset of the team to: Explore the species’ climate change sensitivity and adaptive capacity, review ongoing and projected climate change across the Karner blue range and associated uncertainties, and develop and suggest best practices concerning long-term adaptation strategies. Consistent with that mandate, this report synthesizes what is known about Karner blue climate change vulnerability and applies current thinking in climate change adaptation to help foster strategic, long-term, climate change-informed Karner blue recovery and conservation. It develops and explores a range of potential climate change-informed butterfly- and habitat-stewardship responses, using the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework to foster a broad range of approaches, and provides guidance regarding how they may be pursued. The report also provides suggestions for improving the climate change-exposure component of Karner blue vulnerability assessment.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS1982

Habitat suitability index models: Black crappie

Characteristics and habitat requirements of the black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus) are described in a review of Habitat Suitability Index models. This is one in a series of publications to provide information on the habitat requirements of selected fish and wildlife species. Numerous literature sources have been consulted in an effort to consolidate scientific data on species-habitat relationships. These data have subsequently been synthesized into explicit Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models. The models are based on suitability indices indicating habitat preferences. Indices have been formulated for variables found to affect the life cycle and survival of each species. Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models are designed to provide information for use in impact assessment and habitat management activities. The HSI technique is a corollary to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Habitat Evaluation Procedures.

FWS/OBS↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Gunnison sage-grouse published from January 2005 to September 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Centrocercus minimus (Gunnison sage-grouse; hereafter GUSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation since the early 2000s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed GUSG as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2014 because of declining populations and increasing habitat loss. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have sought to increase the conservation of this species by adapting management and recovery plans to reduce threats and increase population resiliency. GUSG are studied less than the closely related Centrocercus urophasianus (greater sage-grouse); however, research efforts have recently increased to understand the life history, genetics, and habitat suitability of this sagebrush-obligate species. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on GUSG, published between January 2005 and September 2022. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the following search phrases: “Gunnison sage-grouse” or “lesser sage-grouse” or “Gunnison grouse” or “Gunnison sage grouse” or “lesser sage grouse” or “ Centrocercus minimus .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products that did not have GUSG as a research focus or products that did not present new data or findings about GUSG. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, population estimates or targets, habitat, and management efforts) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 80 total products, of which 63 met our criteria for inclusion of which 53 were products that had not been summarized before. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics; population estimates or targets; behavior or demographics; and genetics were the most commonly addressed management topics. The bibliographies are available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ) and are searchable by topic, location, and year, and the search tool includes links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized in this annotated bibliography may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GUSG populations across the GUSG range.

Colorado↗
USGS2022

A review of current capabilities and science gaps in water supply data, modeling, and trends for water availability assessments in the Upper Colorado River Basin

The Colorado River is a critical water resource in the southwestern United States, supplying drinking water for 40 million people in the region and water for irrigation of 2.2 million hectares of land. Extended drought in the Upper Colorado River Basin (UCOL) and the prospect of a warmer climate in the future pose water availability challenges for those charged with managing the river. Limited water availability in the future also may negatively affect aquatic ecosystems and wildlife that depend upon them. Water availability components of special importance in the UCOL include streamflow, salinity in groundwater and surface water, groundwater levels and storage, and the role of snow in the UCOL water cycle. This manuscript provides a review of current “state of the science” for these UCOL water availability components with a focus on identifying gaps in data, modeling, and trends in the basin. Trends provide context for evaluations of current conditions and motivation for further investigation and modeling, models allow for investigation of processes and projections of future water availability, and data support both efforts. Information summarized in this manuscript will be valuable in planning integrated assessments of water availability in the UCOL.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗