Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Fish and Wildlife Technical Report”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2003

Status assessment and conservation plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States

The Western Burrowing Owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ) is a grassland specialist distributed throughout w. North America, primarily in open areas with short vegetation and bare ground in desert, grassland, and shrub-steppe environments. Burrowing Owls are dependent on the presence of fossorial mammals (primarily prairie dogs and ground squirrels), whose burrows are used for nesting and roosting. Burrowing Owls are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the United States and Mexico. They are listed as Endangered in Canada and Threatened in Mexico. They are considered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to be a Bird of Conservation Concern at the national level, in three USFWS regions, and in nine Bird Conservation Regions . At the state level, Burrowing Owls are listed as Endangered in Minnesota, Threatened in Colorado, and as a Species of Concern in California, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Biological Technical Publication↗
USGS2020

Ungulate migrations of the western United States, Volume 1

Across the western United States, many ungulate herds must migrate seasonally to access resources and avoid harsh winter conditions. Because these migration paths cover vast landscapes (in other words migration distances up to 150 miles [241 kilometers]), they are increasingly threatened by roads, fencing, subdivisions, and other development. Over the last decade, many new tracking studies have been conducted on migratory herds, and analytical methods have been developed that allow for population-level corridors and stopovers to be mapped and prioritized. In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey assembled a Corridor Mapping Team to provide technical assistance to western states working to map bison, elk, moose, mule deer, and pronghorn migrations using existing Global Positioning System data. Led by the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the team consists of federal scientists, university researchers, and biologists and analysts from participating state agencies. In its first year, the team has worked to develop standardized analytical and computational methods and a workflow applicable to datasets typically collected by state agencies. In 2019, the team completed analyses necessary to map corridors, stopovers, routes and winter ranges in Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. A total of 26 corridors, 16 migration routes, 25 stopovers, and 9 winter ranges were mapped across these states and are included in this report. This report and associated data release provide the means for the habitats required for migration to be taken into account by state and federal transportation officials, land and wildlife managers, planners, and other conservationists working to maintain big-game migration in the western states.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Units Program—A hawk’s view of 2024

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (USGS CRU) program was established in 1935 and codified by Congress in 1960 to enhance graduate education in wildlife and fisheries sciences and to facilitate research and technical assistance among natural resource agencies and universities on fisheries and wildlife management topics of mutual concern. The success of the CRU program lies in its cooperative approach. State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies determine where focused, science-based studies for wildlife and natural resource management for societal benefit are needed. The CRU scientists conduct applied research to contribute results to inform and aid partners in determining best practices for managing resources. Each Unit is a unique partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a host university, one or more State agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

An overview of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership science and research synthesis

Maintaining and restoring the diverse ecosystems and resources that occur in southern Nevada in the face of rapid socio-economic and ecological change presents numerous challenged to Federal land managers. Rapid population growth since the 1980s, the land uses associated with that growth, and the interactions of those uses with the generally dry and highly variable climate result in numerous stresses to ecosystems, species, and cultural resource. In addition, climate models predict that the rate of temperature increase and, thus, changes in ecological processes, will be highest for ecosystems like the Mojave Desert. The Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http:www.SNAP.gov) was established in 1999 to address common issues pertaining to public lands in southern Nevada. Partners include the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service and they work with each other, the local community, and other partners. SNAP agencies manage more than seven million acres of public lands in southern Nevada (95% of the land area). Federal land includes two national recreation areas, two national conservation area, four national wildlife refuges, 18 congressionally designated wilderness areas, five wilderness study areas, and 22 areas of critical environmental concern. The partnership's activities are mainly centered in Southern Nevada's Clark County (fig. 1.1), but lands managed by SNAP partner agencies also include portions of Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Mohave County, Arizona, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Forest Service-managed lands in Lincoln and Nye Counties, Nevada, and all lands and activities managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management. These lands encompass nine distinct ecosystem types (fig. 1.2), support multiple species of management concern an 17 listed species, and are rich in cultural and historic resource. This introductory executive summary discusses the Science and Research Strategy developed by the SNAP agencies, the Science and Research Report, and need for science-based management in southern Nevada.

Nevada↗
USGS1990

Chlordane Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

Technical chlordane is an organochlorine compound first introduced into the United States in 1947 in a variety of formulations for use as a broad-spectrum pesticide. By 1974, about 9.5 million kilograms of chlordane were produced annually. Concern over the potential carcinogenicity of chlordane has led to sharply curtailed production. Since 1983, chlordane use in the United States has been prohibited, except for control of underground termites. Chlordane is readily absorbed by warmblooded animals through skin, diet, and inhalation, and distributed throughout the body. In general, residues of chlordane and its metabolites are not measurable in tissues 4 to 8 weeks after exposure, although metabolism rates varied significantly between species. Food chain biomagnification is usually low, except in some marine mammals. In most mammals, the metabolite oxychlordane has proven much more toxic and persistent than the parent chemical.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS2015

Changes in thyroid parameters of hatchling American kestrels ( Falco sparverius ) following embryonic exposure to technical short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs; C 10-13 , 55.5% CL)

Chlorinated paraffins (CPs) are complex mixtures of polychlorinated n-alkanes categorized according to their carbon chain length: short chain (SCCPs, C10 – C13), medium (C14 - C17), and long chain (C>17), chlorinated paraffins. SCCPs are primarily used in metalworking applications, as flame retardants, and in paints, adhesives, sealants, textiles, plastics and rubber (UNEP 2012). In 2012, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP 2012) reported in the Revised Draft Risk Profile for SCCPs, that CPs were produced in the United States, the European Union (EU), Slovakia, Brazil, India, Japan and China. While annual global consumption of SCCPs is large (>25 tonnes/year), it has sharply declined over the past 20 years. SCCPs are released through wastewater, landfills, and air emissions (UNEP 2012). Concentrations of SCCPs have been reported in fish and marine mammals in North and South America, Europe, Japan, Greenland and the Arctic (UNEP 2012 and references therein). Characterization of SCCP concentrations and exposure in terrestrial wildlife is limited. In 2010, SCCP concentrations were reported in the eggs of yellow-legged gulls (Larus michahellis) (4536 ± 40 pg/g wet weight (ww)) and Audouin’s gulls (Larus audouinii) (6364 ± 20 pg/g ww) in Spain (Morales et al. 2012), and little auks (Alle alle) (5 - 88 ng/g ww) and kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) (5 - 44 ng/g ww) in the European Arctic (Reth et al. 2006). In Sweden, muscle of ospreys contained CPs of unspecified chain length (Jansson et al. 1993). Although the toxicity of SCCPs has been demonstrated in aquatic invertebrates, fish, frogs, and laboratory rats, there are limited avian studies and these reported no effects of SCCPs on egg parameters of domestic hens (Gallus gallus domesticus) and ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) (UNEP 2012). Despite reported accumulation of SCCPs in wild birds, to our knowledge, exposure-related toxicities and effects with respect to avian wildlife remain unknown.

Organohalogen Compounds↗
USGS2017

Summary of oceanographic and water-quality measurements in Chincoteague Bay, Maryland and Virginia, 2014–15

U.S. Geological Survey scientists and technical support staff measured oceanographic, waterquality, seabed-elevation-change, and meteorological parameters in Chincoteague Bay, Maryland and Virginia, during the period of August 13, 2014, to July 14, 2015, as part of the Estuarine Physical Response to Storms project (GS2–2D) supported by the Department of the Interior Hurricane Sandy recovery program. These measurements provide time series data that quantify the response and can be used to better understand the resilience of this back-barrier estuarine system to storms. The Assateague Island National Seashore (National Park Service) and the Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) are on the east side of Chincoteague Bay.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2005

Evaluation of models and data for assessing whooping crane habitat in the central Platte River, Nebraska

The primary objectives of this evaluation were to improve the performance of the Whooping Crane Habitat Suitability model (C4R) used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for defining the relationship between river discharge and habitat availability, and to assist the Service in implementing improved model(s) with existing hydraulic files. The C4R habitat model is applied at the scale of individual river cross-sections, but the model outputs are scaledup to larger reaches of the river using a decision support “model” comprised of other data and procedures. Hence, the validity of the habitat model depends at least partially on how its outputs are incorporated into this larger context. For that reason, we also evaluated other procedures including the PHABSIM data files, the FORTRAN computer programs used to implement the model, and other parameters used to simulate the relationship between river flows and the availability of Whooping Crane roosting habitat along more than 100 miles of heterogeneous river channels. An equally important objective of this report was to fully document these related procedures as well as the model and evaluation results so that interested parties could readily understand the technical basis for the Service’s recommendations.

Nebraska↗
USGS2016

Facilitating the inclusion of nonmarket values in Bureau of Land Management planning and project assessments—Final report

Executive Summary This report summarizes the results of a series of field-based case studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to (1) evaluate the use of nonmarket values in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning and project assessments, (2) update existing technical resources for measuring those values, and (3) provide guidance to field staff on the use of nonmarket values. Four BLM pilot sites participated in this effort: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado, Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas in Utah, BLM’s Taos Field Office in New Mexico, and BLM's Tuscarora Field Office in Nevada. The focus of the case studies was on practical applications of nonmarket valuation. USGS worked directly with BLM field staff at the pilot sites to demonstrate the process of considering nonmarket values in BLM decisionmaking and document the questions, challenges, and opportunities that arise when tying economic language to projects. As part of this effort, a Web-based toolkit, available at https://my.usgs.gov/benefit-transfer/ , was updated and expanded to help facilitate benefit transfers (that is, the use of existing economic data to quantify nonmarket values) and qualitative discussions of nonmarket values. A total of 53 new or overlooked nonmarket valuation studies comprising 494 nonmarket value estimates for various recreational activities and the preservation of threatened, endangered, and rare species were added to existing databases within this Benefit Transfer Toolkit. In addition, four meta-regression functions focused on hunting, wildlife viewing, fishing, and trail use recreation were developed and added to the Benefit Transfer Toolkit. Results of this effort demonstrate that there are two main roles for nonmarket valuation in BLM planning. The first is to improve the decisionmaking process by contributing to a more comprehensive comparison of economic benefits and cost when evaluating resource tradeoffs for National Environmental Policy Act analyses. The second is to use economic language and information on economic values, either qualitative or quantitative, to improve the ability to communicate the economic significance of the resources provided by BLM-managed lands. Findings also indicate that the use of existing economic data to quantify nonmarket values (that is, benefit transfer) poses unique challenges because of the scarcity of both resource data and existing valuation studies focused on resources and sites managed by BLM. This highlights the need for improvements in the collection of resource data at BLM sites, especially visitor use data, as well as an opportunity for BLM’s Socioeconomics Program to strategically identify priority areas, in terms of both resources and geographic locations, where primary valuation studies could be conducted and the results used for future benefit transfers. Finally, whereas qualitative discussions of nonmarket values do not facilitate the comparison of monetized values, they can provide a manageable next step forward in providing more comprehensive information on nonmarket values for BLM plans and project assessments.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published since January 2015

The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter GRSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” was in part due to a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. To identify articles and reports published about GRSG, we first conducted a structured search of three reference databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the search term “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by (1) removing duplicates, (2) excluding products that were not published as research or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal government technical reports, and (3) retaining only those products for which GRSG or their habitat was a research focus. We summarized the contents of each product by using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assessed the content of each product relevant to a list of 31 management topics. These topics include GRSG biology and habitat characteristics along with potential management actions, land uses, and environmental factors related to GRSG management and conservation. We also noted which articles/reports created new geospatial data. The final search was conducted on January 6, 2018, and application of our criteria resulted in the inclusion of 169 published products (2 of these products were published corrections to journal articles). The management topics most commonly addressed were GRSG behavior or demographics and GRSG habitat selection or habitat characteristics at broad or site scales. Few products addressed captive breeding, recreation, wild horses and burros, and range management structures (including fences). We include in this annotated bibliography the full citation, product summary, and management topics addressed by each product. The online version of this bibliography ( https://apps.usgs.gov/gsgbib/index.php ) is searchable by topic and location and includes links to the original publications. A substantial body of literature has been compiled based on research explicitly related to the conservation, management, monitoring, and assessment of GRSG. These studies may inform planning and management actions that seek to balance conservation, economic, and social objectives and manage diverse resource uses and values across the western United States. The review process for this product included requesting input on each summary from one or more authors of the original peer-reviewed article or report and a formal review of the entire document by three independent reviewers and, subsequently, the USGS Bureau Approving Official. This process is consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Regional protocol framework for the inventory and monitoring of breeding Atlantic Coast Piping Plovers

This regional protocol provides a framework for quantifying the number of breeding pairs and productivity of Atlantic Coast piping plover (Charadrius melodus) populations during the breeding season. A primary purpose of this protocol is to standardize piping plover monitoring during the breeding season. The survey techniques described herein involve repeated visual counts of adults, nests, eggs, and chicks within a defined survey site (i.e., beach) as well as visual identification of potential threats to survival and productivity. Resulting data can be compiled and analyzed across multiple geographic units (i.e., sites, states, and recovery units) to assess progress toward recovery goals, inform local management decisions, assess management effectiveness, and improve monitoring efforts. This protocol framework was developed as part of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Initiative in coordination with Ecological Services (ES) and state coordinators within the Southeast and Northeast Regions (4 and 5, respectively). Although this protocol framework is to be used primarily by NWRS to inform recovery goals, assist with local management decision-making, and meet State reporting requirements, the approach strives to assist monitoring efforts of nonNWRS partners, such as other federal agencies (e.g. National Park Service), State wildlife agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private landowners. This protocol framework and associated data management system (PIPLweb) aims to interface with existing data management and analysis tools (i.e., PIPLODES, NestStory, and PiperEx) to ensure that data collection is efficient and comparable across scales, and supports management decisions across partners. The content and structure of the protocol framework follows standards set forth in the USFWS’s How to Develop Survey Protocols: A Handbook (Version 1.0; 2013). The eight elements addressed include: introduction, sampling design, field methods, data management and analysis, reporting, personnel requirements and training, operational requirements, and references. A series of standard operating procedures (SOPs) provides greater detail on recommended methods and technical aspects of this protocol. Data entry, archival, and multi-scale analysis are handled through a secure web application (Plover Inventory and Productivity Library; PIPLweb) developed by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). When management activities and survey objectives are similar across management units, partners (Refuges, other federal agencies, State, NGOs, private) are encouraged to use this protocol framework to develop stepped-down site-specific survey protocols that include guidance for conducting on-the-ground monitoring and management plans.

Regional Protocol Framework↗
USGS2016

Using resilience and resistance concepts to manage threats to sagebrush ecosystems, Gunnison sage-grouse, and Greater sage-grouse in their eastern range: A strategic multi-scale approach

This report provides a strategic approach developed by a Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies interagency working group for conservation of sagebrush ecosystems, Greater sage-grouse, and Gunnison sage-grouse. It uses information on (1) factors that influence sagebrush ecosystem resilience to disturbance and resistance to nonnative invasive annual grasses and (2) distribution and relative abundance of sage-grouse populations to address persistent ecosystem threats, such as invasive annual grasses and wildfire, and land use and development threats, such as oil and gas development and cropland conversion, to develop effective management strategies. A sage-grouse habitat matrix links relative resilience and resistance of sagebrush ecosystems with modeled sage-grouse breeding habitat probabilities to help decisionmakers assess risks and determine appropriate management strategies at both landscape and site scales. Areas for targeted management are assessed by overlaying matrix components with Greater sage-grouse Priority Areas for Conservation and Gunnison sage-grouse critical habitat and linkages, breeding bird concentration areas, and specific habitat threats. Decision tools are discussed for determining the suitability of target areas for management and the most appropriate management actions. A similar approach was developed for the Great Basin that was incorporated into the Federal land use plan amendments and served as the basis of a Bureau of Land Management Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool, which was used to prioritize sage-grouse habitat for targeted management activities.

General Technical Report↗
USGS2020

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from 2015 to 2019

The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter GRSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” was in part due to a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. The first GRSG literature summary was published early in 2018. Here we provide an update to that document by adding summaries of articles published between January 6, 2018 and October 2, 2019. To identify articles and reports published about GRSG, we first conducted a structured search of three reference databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the search term “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by (1) removing duplicates, (2) excluding products that were not published as research or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) retaining only those products for which GRSG or their habitat was a research focus. We summarized the contents of each product by using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assessed the content of each product relevant to a list of 31 management topics. These topics include GRSG biology and habitat characteristics along with potential management actions, land uses, and environmental factors related to GRSG management and conservation. We also noted which articles/reports created new geospatial data. Our original search, conducted on January 7, 2018, and the application of our criteria, resulted in the inclusion of 169 published products (2 of these products were published corrections to journal articles). This update adds summaries of 69 products published between then and October 2, 2019. The management topics most commonly addressed were GRSG behavior or demographics and GRSG habitat selection or habitat characteristics at broad or site scales. Few products addressed captive breeding, recreation, wild horses and burros, and range management structures (including fences). The management topics with the largest increase in representation between the 2018 GRSG literature summary and this update were GRSG survival and GRSG population estimates or targets, which were each addressed in 16 percent of products in the original literature summary document, but were addressed in 30 and 33 percent, respectively, of newly summarized products. Topics with the largest declines in representation were conifer expansion, - 17 to 10 percent, and new geospatial data, -31 to 21 percent. We include in this annotated bibliography the full citation, Digital Object Identifier (DOI), product summary, and management topics addressed by each product. The online version of this bibliography (https://apps.usgs.gov/gsgbib/index.php) is searchable by topic and location and includes links to journal landing pages for each original publication. A substantial body of literature has been compiled on research explicitly related to the conservation, management, monitoring, and assessment of GRSG. These studies may inform planning and management actions that seek to balance conservation, economic, and social objectives and manage diverse resource uses and values across the western United States. The review process for this product included requesting input on each summary from one or more authors of the original peer-reviewed article or report and a formal review of the entire document by three independent reviewers for the original document and by two independent reviewers for the updated document and, subsequently, the USGS Bureau Approving Official. This process is consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mont↗
USGS1982

Susitna Hydroelectric Project: terrestrial environmental workshop and preliminary simulation model

The technical feasibility, economic viability, and environmental impacts of a hydroelectric development project in the Susitna River Basin are being studied by Acres American, Inc. on behalf of the Alaska Power Authority. As part of these studies, Acres American recently contracted LGL Alaska Research Associates, Inc. to coordinate the terrestrial environmental studies being performed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and, as subcontractors to LGL, several University of Alaska research groups. LGL is responsible for further quantifying the potential impacts of the project on terrestrial wildlife and vegetation, and for developing a plan to mitigate adverse impacts on the terrestrial environment. The impact assessment and mitigation plan will be included as part of a license application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) scheduled for the first quarter of 1983. The quantification of impacts, mitigation planning, and design of future research is being organized using a computer simulation modelling approach. Through a series of workshops attended by researchers, resource managers, and policy-makers, a computer model is being developed and refined for use in the quantification of impacts on terrestrial wildlife and vegetation, and for evaluating different mitigation measures such as habitat enhancement and the designation of replacement lands to be managed by wildlife habitat. This report describes the preliminary model developed at the first workshop held August 23 -27, 1982 in Anchorage.

Report↗
USGS2014

Technical review of managed underground storage of water study of the upper Catherine Creek watershed, Union County, northeastern Oregon

Because of water diversions during summer, flow in Catherine Creek, a tributary to the Grande Ronde River in northeastern Oregon, is insufficient to sustain several aquatic species for which the stream is listed as critical habitat. A feasibility study for managed underground storage (MUS) in the upper Catherine Creek watershed in Union County, Oregon, was undertaken by Anderson Perry and Associates, Inc., to address the issue of low flows in summer. The results of the study were released as a report titled “Upper Catherine Creek Storage Feasibility Study for Grande Ronde Model Watershed,” which evaluated the possibility of diverting Catherine Creek streamflow during winter (when stream discharge is high), storing the water by infiltration or injection into an aquifer adjacent to the stream, and discharging the water back to the stream in summer to augment low flows. The method of MUS would be accomplished using either (1) aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) that allows for the injection of water that meets drinking-water-quality standards into an aquifer for later recovery and use, or (2) artificial recharge (AR) that involves the intentional addition of water diverted from another source to a groundwater reservoir. Concerns by resource managers that the actions taken to improve water availability for upper Catherine Creek be effective, cost-efficient, long-term, and based on sound analysis led the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to request that the U.S. Geological Survey conduct an independent review and evaluation of the feasibility study. This report contains the results of that review. The primary objectives of the Anderson Perry and Associates study reviewed here included (1) identifying potentially fatal flaws with the concept of using AR and (or) ASR to augment the streamflow of Catherine Creek, (2) identifying potentially favorable locations for augmenting streamflow, (3) developing and evaluating alternatives for implementing AR and (or) ASR, and (4) identifying next steps and estimated costs for implementation. The Anderson Perry study was not intended as a comprehensive evaluation of feasibility, but, rather, an effort to develop a concept and preliminary evaluation of feasibility. Additionally, the feasibility study was limited to using existing data from which additional data needs were to be identified. The feasibility study mostly accomplished the goals of identifying potential fatal flaws and developing a project implementation plan. However, a more practical discussion of conclusions regarding the feasibility, likelihood for success, achievement of goals, and overall project costs could have received greater emphasis and would be of value to decision makers. With regard to objective (2), the subject report analyzed information from several possible sites examined for an MUS system. Sufficient cause is provided in the subject report to identify the basalt aquifer in the Milk Creek sub-area as having the greatest potential for MUS. Therefore, this review is primarily focused on the Milk Creek sub-area and the basalt aquifer.

Oregon↗
USGS2011

Monitoring habitat restoration projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2015

Biological responses to climate impacts with a focus on Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN)

This chapter reviews the responses to climate change on the 367 Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) identified by the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Diversity Technical Committee (NEFWDTC), technical experts from states’ natural resource agencies (Appendix 3.1). These species were chosen based on their conservation status, listing in SWAPs, and the percentage of their range that occurs in the Northeast. The objectives of this chapter are to: summarize how regional biodiversity has already responded and is expected to respond to climate change; summarize information on specific RSGCN species responses to climate change to date and anticipated under future scenarios; characterize the greatest uncertainties about how biodiversity and RSGCN species will respond to climate change in the future; and highlight where other factors are expected to exacerbate the effects of climate change. This information was obtained through a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature, primarily using the ISI Web of Knowledge to search for papers on each species related to “climate”, “temperature”, or “precipitation”. Although we undoubtedly missed some sources, the following allows us to review some of the ways climate change will affect regional species of conservation concern

Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Ma↗
USGS2013

Native Prairie Adaptive Management: a multi region adaptive approach to invasive plant management on Fish and Wildlife Service owned native prairies

Much of the native prairie managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the northern Great Plains is extensively invaded by the introduced cool-season grasses, smooth brome ( Bromus inermis ) and Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ). Management to suppress these invasive plants has had poor to inconsistent success. The central challenge to managers is selecting appropriate management actions in the face of biological and environmental uncertainties. In partnership with the FWS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed an adaptive decision support framework to assist managers in selecting management actions under uncertainty and maximizing learning from management outcomes. This joint partnership is known as the Native Prairie Adaptive Management (NPAM) initiative. The NPAM decision framework is built around practical constraints faced by FWS refuge managers and includes identification of the management objective and strategies, analysis of uncertainty and construction of competing decision models, monitoring, and mechanisms for model feedback and decision selection. Nineteen FWS field stations, spanning four states of the PPR, have participated in the initiative. These FWS cooperators share a common management objective, available management strategies, and biological uncertainties. Though the scope is broad, the initiative interfaces with individual land managers who provide site-specific information and receive updated decision guidance that incorporates understanding gained from the collective experience of all cooperators. We describe the technical components of this approach, how the components integrate and inform each other, how data feedback from individual cooperators serves to reduce uncertainty across the whole region, and how a successful adaptive management project is coordinated and maintained on a large scale. During an initial scoping workshop, FWS cooperators developed a consensus management objective: increase the composition of native grasses and forbs on native sod while minimizing cost. Cooperators agreed that decision guidance should be provided annually and should account for local, real-time vegetation conditions observed on the ground. Over the course of development, two prototypes of the decision framework were considered. The final framework recognized four alternative actions that managers could take in any given year: (1) Graze—targeted use of grazing ungulates to achieve defoliation, (2) Burn—application of prescribed fire as the single form of defoliation, (3) Burn/Graze—a combination treatment, and (4) Rest—no action. The study area included northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie. Native vegetation in mixed–grass prairie has a strong cool-season component and thus the dominant native species have a phenology similar to that of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, making management of those species challenging. In contrast, tallgrass prairie has a strong warm-season native component, leading to an existence of cool-season windows, periods of time in the fall and spring when cool‐season invasive grass species are actively growing and vulnerable to damage via select management actions, but warm‐season grass species are not active and are thus less susceptible to damage via the same actions. This dichotomy between prairie types necessitated the development of separate but parallel decision support systems for mixed-grass and tallgrass biomes. Management units are parcels of native prairie that receive a single management treatment at any one time over their entire extent. At any particular time, the vegetation state of each management unit is characterized by the amount of cover of native grasses and forbs and the type of invasive grass that is dominant. In addition, each unit has a defoliation state which reflects the number of years since the last defoliation event and an index to how intensively the unit was managed during the previous 7 years. State-transition models are used to predict the state of a management unit in year t+1 from its state in year t and a prescribed management action that was applied between the two monitoring events. Alternative models are built around key uncertainties that make choice of a management action difficult. Three uncertainties revolve around whether the effect of management actions depends on (1) type of dominant invader, (2) past defoliation history, and (3) level of invasion. Two additional uncertainties are considered when choosing a management action for tallgrass units: (4) the effectiveness of grazing within the cool-season window as a surrogate for burning when smooth brome is the dominant invader, and (5) the differential effect of active management outside the window as compared to rest. Because data on the probability of transitioning from one state to another under the various models were lacking, expert opinion and elicitation were used to parameterize the models. In addition, cooperators participated in elicitation exercises to extract their beliefs regarding the value of having native prairie compared to the cost of achieving it. Quantifying the subjective expression of utility in this way allowed for mathematical representation of the management objective into an objective function. By maximizing the objective function, cumulative utility is maximized, leading to the identification of a sequence of decisions that will achieve the management objective. The NPAM system adopted a vegetation monitoring protocol that was rapid, inexpensive, and familiar to many of the cooperators. The monitoring protocol served three purposes: (1) determining current vegetation and defoliation states of each unit, (2) evaluating progress toward the management objective, and (3) assessing predictive performance of the alternative models. The management year runs from September 1 to August 31. Management can be applied anytime during that period and monitoring takes places from late June to mid-August. Cooperators enter vegetation data and management information into a centralized database by August 25 of each year. Given the current state of the system (vegetation and defoliation states) and the current understanding of the system (or the belief state), identifying the current best management decision is a matter of looking up the combination (that is, system state and belief state) in the appropriate (mixed-grass or tallgrass) optimal decision table. Given complete uncertainty at the outset of decision-making, initial assignment of equal belief weights to each model was believed reasonable. The decisions in the optimal decision table that correspond to the current belief state constitute the current optimal decision policy. By August 31 of each year, individual cooperators are provided with a recommended management action for each of their management units for the upcoming management year. Upon receiving the management recommendations for their units, managers consider the recommendation, along with other relevant information, and at some point during the year one of the management alternatives is carried out. This iterative cycle of making and implementing a management decision, predicting the response, monitoring the outcome, comparing predicted and observed outcomes, updating model weights, and recommending a management action for the next cycle is expected to result in an accumulation of weight on a representative model of system dynamics, thereby increasing understanding needed to effectively manage native prairies. The NPAM system is now entering its second full year of complete operation, and represents one of only a few fully implemented applications of adaptive management within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NPAM is truly unique in that it originated from the ground up as a result of the leadership and steadfastness of several refuge biologists and managers confronted with a common problem. These biologists recognized that working together across a large landscape presented perhaps the best opportunity for halting and reversing the invasion of native grasslands by non-native cool-season grasses. Importantly, the NPAM system encapsulates the collective thinking and experience of tens if not hundreds of individuals who have battled this vexing problem for much of their careers. The NPAM initiative is rooted in principles of adaptive management, thereby affording the opportunity for grassland managers to pursue management objectives while acquiring information to reduce uncertainty and improve future management. The project introduced a number of technical innovations that will serve as templates for conservation efforts throughout and beyond the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. First, NPAM is an on-the-ground implementation of active adaptive management—possibly the first of its kind in conservation management—in which recommended management actions result from a prospective analysis of future learning (Williams, 1996). Second, by the use of dynamic optimization, NPAM demonstrates how decisions can be made that take into account possible future transitions of the system. Third, NPAM demonstrates how models of partial controllability are an effective means of accommodating unpredictable circumstances that cause a manager to follow a different course than was intended. Finally, the database developed for NPAM is an unparalleled system that enables the rapid integration of data from the field for the generation of ‘just-in-time’ management recommendations. In all, NPAM provides an example of how a science-management partnership can be forged to achieve large-scale conservation objectives.

Minnesota;Montana;North Dakota;South Dakota↗