Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Interagency 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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Response of Yellowstone grizzly bears to changes in food resources: A synthesis. Final report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee

The Yellowstone grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) was listed as a threatened species in 1975 (Federal Register 40 FR:31734-31736). Since listing, recovery efforts have focused on increasing population size, improving habitat security, managing bear mortalities, and reducing bear-human conflicts. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC; partnership of federal and state agencies responsible for grizzly bear recovery in the lower 48 states) and its Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommitte (YES; federal, state, county, and tribal partners charged with recovery of grizzly bears in the Greater Yelowston Ecosystem [GYE]) tasked the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team to provide information and further research relevant to three concerns arising from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals November 2011 decision: 1) the ability of grizzly bears as omnivores to find alternative foods to whitebark pine seeds; 2) literature to support their conclusions; and 3) the non-intuitive biological reality that impacts can occur to individuals without causing the overall population to decline. Specifically, the IGBC and YES requested a comprehensive synthesis of the current state of knowledge regarding whitebark pinbe decline and individual and population-level responses of grizzly bears to changing food resources in the GYE. This research was particularly relevant to grizzly bear conservation given changes in the population trajectory observed during the last decade.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS1994

Report of the Interagency biological methods workshop

The U.S. Geological Survey hosted the Interagency Biological Methods Workshop in Reston, Virginia, during June 22-23, 1993. The purposes of the workshop were to (1) promote better communication among Federal agencies that are using or developing biological methods in water-quality assessment programs for streams and rivers, and (2) facilitate the sharing of data and interagency collaboration. The workshop was attended by 45 biologists representing numerous Federal agencies and programs, and a few regional and State programs that were selected to provide additional perspectives. The focus of the workshop was community assessment methods for fish, invertebrates, and algae; physical habitat characterization; and chemical analyses of biological tissues. Charts comparing program objectives, design features, and sampling methods were compiled from materials that were provided by participating agencies prior to the workshop and formed the basis for small workgroup discussions. Participants noted that differences in methods among programs were often necessitated by differences in program objectives. However, participants agreed that where programs have identified similar data needs, the use of common methods is beneficial. Opportunities discussed for improving data compatibility and information sharing included (1) modifying existing methods, (2) adding parameters, (3) improving access to data through shared databases (potentially with common database structures), and (4) future collaborative efforts that range from research on selected protocol questions to followup meetings and continued discussions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Keeping the crown of the continent connected: An interagency US2 connectivity workshop report

At over 2.5 million acres, Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex form one of the largest protected areas in the continental United States. Straddling the Continental Divide, these two areas form a vital linkage between vast areas of public land to the south towards Yellowstone, and contiguous protected areas north of the US-Canada border. However, US Highway 2 (US2) and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad separate Glacier National Park to the north from the Bob Marshall Wilderness complex to the south. While this narrow ribbon of development passes through primarily public land, it is bordered in some areas by narrow strips of private land. Many of these private parcels are developed as ranches, campgrounds, or seasonal and permanent home sites and businesses. Currently, two of the defining characteristics of this portion of the US2 corridor are relatively low highway traffic volume, but relatively high railroad traffic volume. The highway had a 2017 annual average daily traffic volume (AADT) of 1859 vehicles, far less than other interstate highways around the region which often have AADTs well over 10,000. Conversely, the BNSF railroad line currently carries about 33 trains per day, making it one of the busier railroad lines in the northwestern US. While wildlife movement patterns across this corridor have not been well studied, the existing data suggests that wildlife can still make frequent and successful crossings at current railroad and highway traffic levels. However, as the region’s human population grows, we expect that connectivity to diminish. Over the past decade (2000-2017), based on census data, Flathead County has grown by 10% and Glacier County has grown by 1.5%. A study on loss of open space found that Flathead County alone accounts for 15% of the new homes built in Montana since 2000 (https://headwaterseconomics.org/economicdevelopment/local-studies/montana-home construction/). Outdoor recreation and tourism have also been breaking participation records (source: GPI record passengers https://flatheadbeacon.com/2018/01/24/glacier-park-international-airport-sees-record-passengers-2017/, GNP record visitation https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2018-01 15/glaciernational-park-breaks-visitation-record-in-2017). This growth has been accompanied by a ~50% increase in highway traffic volume in the corridor over the past decade (Waller and Miller 2015). This increased traffic is decreasing the time available for wildlife to cross the highway and appears to be increasing the frequency of wildlife killed by vehicles (Fig. 1 and 2). In addition, the Middle Fork of the Flathead River is a favored river for recreation, and this also appears to be growing. In the summer of 2017, researchers recorded 136 boats per day in July and 93 boats per day in August. Although the river does not extend along the entire highway, it extends along 31 miles of the highway corridor.

Montana↗
USGS2017

Yolo Bypass Juvenile Salmon Utilization Study 2016—Summary of acoustically tagged juvenile salmon and study fish release, Sacramento River, California

The Yolo Bypass is a flood control bypass in Sacramento Valley, California. Flood plain habitats may be used for juvenile salmon rearing, however, the potential value of such habitats can be difficult to evaluate because of the intermittent nature of inundation events. The Yolo Bypass Juvenile Salmon Utilization Study (YBUS) used acoustic telemetry to evaluate the movements and survival of juvenile salmon adjacent to and within the Yolo Bypass during the winter of 2016. This report presents numbers, size data, and release data (times, dates, and locations) for the 1,197 acoustically tagged juvenile salmon released for the YBUS from February 21 to March 18, 2016. Detailed descriptions of the surgical implantation of transmitters are also presented. These data are presented to support the collaborative, interagency analysis and reporting of the study findings.

California↗
USGS1990

Water-resources programs and hydrologic-information needs, Marion County, Indiana, 1987

Water resources are abundant in Marion County, Indiana, and have been developed for public and industrial supply, energy generation, irrigation, and recreation. The largest water withdrawals are from surface water, and the two largest water uses are public supply and cooling water for electrical-generating plants. Water-resources programs in the county are carried out by Federal, State and local agencies to address issues of surface and groundwater availability and quality. The programs of each agency are related to the functions and goals of the agency. Although each agency has specific information needs to fulfill its functions, sometimes these needs overlap, and there are times when the same hydrologic information benefits all. Overlapping information needs and activities create opportunities for interagency coordination and cooperation. Such cooperation could lead to a savings of dollars spent on water-resources programs and could assure an improved understanding of the water resources of the county. Representatives from four agencies-- the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, and the U.S. Geological Survey--met four times in 1987 to describe their own water-resources programs, to identify hydrologic-information needs, and to contact other agencies with related programs. This report presents the interagency findings and is intended to further communication among water resource agencies by identifying current programs and common needs for hydrologic information. Hydrologic information needs identified by the agency representatives include more precise methods for determining the volume of water withdrawals and for determining the volume of industrial and municipal discharges to surface water. Maps of flood-prone areas need to be updated as more of the county is developed. Improved aquifer maps of the inter-till aquifers are needed, and additional observation wells are needed in the inter-till and bedrock aquifers. Finally, immediate access to instantaneous precipitation data is needed to assess flooding potential. (USGS)

Indiana↗
USGS1987

Results of a workshop concerning ecological zonation in bottomland hardwoods

Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has regulatory responsibilities concerning the discharge of dredged or fill material into the Nation's waters. In addition to its advisory role in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit program, EPA has a number of specific authorities, including formulation of the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, use of Section 404(c) to prohibit disposal at particular sites, and enforcement actions for unauthorized discharges. A number of recent court cases focus on the geographic scope of Section 404 jurisdiction in potential bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands and the nature of landclearing activities in these areas that require a permit under Section 404. Accordingly, EPA needs to establish the scientific basis for implementing its responsibilities under Section 404 in bottomland hardwoods. EPA is approaching this task through a series of workshops designed to provide current scientific information on bottomland hardwoods and to organize that information in a manner pertinent to key questions, including the following. What are the characteristics of bottomland hardwoods (in terms of hydrology, soils, vegetation, fish, wildlife, agricultural potential, and the like) and how can the functions (e.g., flood storage, water quality maintenance, detrital export) that they perform best be quantified? How do perturbations like landclearing, levee construction, and drainage impact the functions that bottomland hardwoods perform and how can these effects best be quantified? And finally, how significant are the impacts and how is their significance likely to change under various management scenarios? The first workshop in this series was held December 3-7, 1984, in St. Francisville, Louisiana. The workshop was attended by over 40 scientists and regulators (see ACKNOWLEDGMENTS section) and facilitated by the editors of this report under an Interagency Agreement between EPA and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The general objective of the workshop was to examine ways in which the structure and function of BLH ecosystems can be characterized and, in particular, to investigate the utility of a conceptual framework developed at a workshop held in Lake Lanier, Georgia, in 1980. In this framework, the transition from aquatic habitats to upland habitats through a BLH ecosystem is divided into six zones based on concomitant variation in the soil moisture regime and associated vegetation (Table 1). The zonation concept is of particular interest to EPA from at least two perspectives. The first is simply as a framework for organizing information. If the zones are discernible in the field, have recognizable characteristics, and perform identifiable functions, they might form a useful basis for tasks such as assessing the impacts of a particular site-specific activity. The second is the potential utility of the zonation concept in identifying the wetland portions of BLH communities. If the zones can be recognized in the field, and if one or more of them can be shown consistently to have wetland characteristics (i.e., perform functions, such as detrital export, often attributed to wetlands), while others do not, then the zones might have utility in identifying areas that fall under the jurisdiction of Section 404. The workshop itself was divided into two parts. The first was a series of papers in which authors described current research and data-synthesis activities in the context of the zonation concept. The second was a series of six workgroups in which participants discussed the zonation concept from the perspective of hydrology, soils, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and ecosystem processes. This report is a compilation of the written material from those workgroups, much of which was produced at the workshop. The formal papers presented in the first part of the workshop have been distributed to participants under separate cover, but are referenced in this report by citations such as: (Jones, workshop presentation).

Report↗
USGS2022

Biology: Integrating core to essential variables (Bio-ICE) task team report for hard corals

The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) is chartered by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST). The purpose of the IOOC is to advise, assist, and make recommendations to the SOST on matters related to ocean observations via task teams such as the Biology - Integrating Core to Essential Variables (Bio-ICE) task team. The goal of the Bio-ICE task team is to advance the integration of biological observations from local, regional, and federal sources using best practices to inform national needs and ultimately feed seamlessly into the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), as appropriate. To accomplish this goal, and for the first time at the U.S. federal government level, a subgroup of the Bio-ICE task team focused on tropical, shallow-water (0-30 m) hard corals to identify commonalities between the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) core biological variable1 of “coral species and abundance,” the GOOS Essential Ocean Variable2 (EOV) “hard coral cover and composition,” the Group on Earth Observations Biological Observation Network (GEO BON) Essential Biodiversity Variables3 (EBVs), and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Essential Climate Variables4 (ECVs) (Figure 1). The EOV data allows production of EBVs such as time series of maps of genetic composition, species populations, etc. Recognizing the complementarity of the different essential variable frameworks helps to promote best practices in observing and information management to facilitate data interoperability (Figure 1). The task team was charged with identifying where there are synergies in terms of spatial and temporal observing requirements and existing observation infrastructure and data delivery, including best practices and standard operating procedures. The task team also made suggestions to improve pathways for data flow for observations of these variables from Regional Associations of the U.S. IOOS, other nonfederal partners, and federal sources. The focus of the task team was on identifying and implementing best practices surrounding standardized data collection and data delivery to make continued progress toward adhering to the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR) and Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics (CARE) data principles.

Task Team Report↗
USGS2018

Greater sage-grouse science (2015–17)—Synthesis and potential management implications

Executive Summary The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter called “sage-grouse”), a species that requires sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), has experienced range-wide declines in its distribution and abundance. These declines have prompted substantial research and management investments to improve the understanding of sage-grouse and its habitats and reverse declines in distribution and population numbers. Over the past two decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has responded to eight petitions to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with the completion of the most recent listing determination in September 2015. At that time, the USFWS determined that the sage-grouse did not warrant a listing, primarily because of the large scale science-based conservation and planning efforts completed or started by Federal, State, local agencies, private landowners, and other entities across the range. The planning efforts culminated in the development of the 2015 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments, which provided regulatory certainty and commitment from Federal land-management agencies to limit, mitigate, and track anthropogenic disturbance and implement other sage-grouse conservation measures. After these policy decisions, the scientific community has continued to refine and expand the knowledge available to inform implementation of management actions, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those actions, and continue developing an overall understanding of sage-grouse populations, habitat requirements, and their response to human activity and other habitat changes. The development of science has been driven by multiple prioritization documents including the “Greater Sage-Grouse National Research Strategy” (Hanser and Manier, 2013) and, most recently, the “Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan” (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016). In October 2017, after a review of the 2015 Federal plans relative to State sage-grouse plans, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3353, the BLM issued a notice of intent to consider whether to amend some, all, or none of the 2015 land use plans. At that time, the BLM requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inform this effort through the development of an annotated bibliography of sage-grouse science published since January 2015 and a report that synthesized and outlined the potential management implications of this new science. Development of the annotated bibliography resulted in the identification and summarization of 169 peer-reviewed scientific publications and reports. The USGS then convened an interagency team (hereafter referred to as the “team”) to develop this report that focuses on the primary topics of importance to the ongoing management of sage-grouse and their habitats. The team developed this report in a three-step process. First, the team identified six primary topic areas for discussion based on the members’ collective knowledge regarding sage-grouse, their habitats, and threats to either or both. Second, the team reviewed all the material in the “Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Research on Greater Sage-Grouse Published since January 2015” to identify the science that addressed the topics. Third, team members discussed the science related to each topic, evaluated the consistency of the science with existing knowledge before 2015, and summarized the potential management implications of this science. The six primary topics identified by the team were: Multiscale habitat suitability and mapping tools Discrete anthropogenic activities Diffuse activities Fire and invasive species Restoration effectiveness Population estimation and genetics

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Expert bioblitzes facilitate non-native fish tracking and interagency partnerships

Documenting the distribution and composition of non-native species populations can be challenging, especially when species cross jurisdictional boundaries that require interagency coordination. Herein I report the development of three tools that have been used in Florida over the past seven years to assist with tracking of non-native fishes: 1) an overarching organization to increase coordination and communication amongst stakeholders (Florida Non-Native Fish Action Alliance); 2) regularly-scheduled expert bioblitzes (Fish Slams); and 3) symposia (Fish Chats). Ten Fish Slams were held since 2012, which have included nearly 100 individuals from 20 organizations. Participants have sampled nearly 200 unique sites, capturing 36 non-native fish taxa. These activities have generated over 600 records for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database. Many specimens collected during Fish Slams are deposited into natural history museums or used by researchers. Informal interactions amongst colleagues working together in the field, at check-in meetings at the end of the day, and during more structured Fish Chat symposia allow members of various organizations to become acquainted, build trust, and share information and technology, which may then lead to professional collaborations. While this program is focused on non-native fish species in south Florida, I also discuss how the expert bioblitz may be adapted to suit other taxonomic groups and a variety of conservation needs.

Florida↗
USGS1983

Wildlife guilds in Arizona desert habitats

This report summarizes information produced from Interagency Agreement No. AA-851-IA1-27 between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), USDI, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), USDI. The contract was instrumental in the final development of wildlife guilds for the Hualapai-Aquarius planning area of the BLM in westcentral Arizona, reported herein. The Arizona study area was selected for the application of the guilding technology because a thorough assessment of the floral and faunal resources had recently occurred in conjunction with the development of a grazing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Thus, the association of wildlife species with habitat type was well known, which aided in the compilation of the data base necessary for the development of guilds. Some data were also available that described the vegetative structure of habitats. This was useful in the development of a model that evaluated the quality of habitat on the basis of the diversity of cover in those habitats (Short 1982).

Arizona↗