Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2005

Attitudinal survey component of the study Quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment : Report of methods and frequencies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2004

Combined impacts of Black-crowned Night-Heron predation/disturbance and various management activities on Roseate Tern productivity in 2003, and testing of a video surveillance system for recording the diurnal and nocturnal behavior of terns and night-herons at Falkner Island, Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Connecticut, in 2004: Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Westbrook, Connecticut and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 5 Regional Office, Hadley, Massachusetts

Falkner Island (FICT), a unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (SBMNWR) since 1985, is located in Long Island Sound 5 km south of Guilford, CT. For more than three decades it has been the site of the only large breeding colony in Connecticut of the federally endangered Northwest Atlantic population of Roseate Terns (Sterna dougallii) and the state's largest colony of Common Terns (S. hirundo). Both species have been studied at this site since 1978 as part of the Falkner Island Tern Project (FITP), and since 1987 also as part of a regional Cooperative Roseate Tern Metapopulation Dynamics and Ecology Project (CRTMP), both coordinated by Dr. Jeffrey A. Spendelow of the U.S. Geological Survey's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (USGS-PWRC). From 1997-2002 the Roseate Tern breeding population at this site declined by more than 50% from about 150 to about 70 nesting pairs, mostly as a result of the nocturnal predation and disturbance of tern chicks and eggs by Black-crowned Night-Herons (Nycticorax nycticorax). Here we report the results of research done with the goal of improving management of nocturnal predators and developing new practices/structures to reduce losses of tern eggs and chicks so as to prevent the abandonment of this site by Roseate Terns. Notification of release of the USGS 'Quick Response Funds' (QRF) that were to be used to support the part of this study entitled 'Nocturnal behavior/interactions of endangered Roseate Terns and Black-crowned Night-Herons', and final approval of the Study Plan for this research did not occur until after the breeding season in 2003 was well underway. As a result, some work will need to be completed during the 2004 field season. There are two major objectives of this study. The first is to collect basic information (a) on the nocturnal behavior and interactions of Roseate (and Common) Terns with predatory Black-crowned Night-Herons, and (b) on how the behavior of the night-herons and the behavior and productivity of the terns are affected by the activities of management personnel (or researchers) that may be moving around the island at night. The second objective is to develop new structures (or to modify existing ones) that can be used by adult Roseate Terns for nesting sites and/or by chicks as hiding sites so that tern eggs and chicks will be less susceptible to night-heron predation. Work on the development and comparative use of various man-made structures began prior to the start of the 2003 nesting season; work on the evaluation and testing of a video surveillance system to study the nocturnal behavior of the terns and night-herons began in June 2003. Reported here are (1) the results of work on the placement and use by Roseate Terns of several types of structures in different habitats, and (2) a description of the set-up, testing, and evaluation of a multi-camera video system to record tern and predator behavior during both day and night. Also given here is some additional information on other factors that affected the productivity of the Roseate Terns at FICT collected as part of the CRTMP which served as the underlying foundation for the additional work done with support of the 2003 Quick Response Funds.

Book↗
USGS2005

Wildlife and habitat damage assessment from Hurricane Charley: recommendations for recovery of the J. N. "Ding" Darling National Wildlife Refuge Complex. [Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]

On 13 August 2004, the first of four hurricanes to strike Florida in <6 weeks came ashore near J. N. ?Ding? Darling National Wildlife Refuge (JNDDNWR) Complex, Sanibel Island, FL. Hurricane Charley passed just north of Sanibel Island with maximum sustained winds of 145 mph (123 knots) and a storm surge of 0.3-2.7 m. We surveyed storm damage to JNDDNWR Complex from 20-24 September 2004. Our goals were to assess damage to: wetlands for Mangrove Cuckoos (Coccyzus minor) and Black-whiskered Vireo (Vireo altiloquus), waterbird rookeries/mangrove islands, impoundments, sea grass beds, and hardwood hammocks. The refuge complex sustained moderate to catastrophic damage to vegetation, especially mangrove forests and waterbird nesting or roosting islands. Lumpkin Island, Hemp Island, and Bird Key waterbird nesting areas had >50% and sometimes 90% of their vegetation severely damaged (dead, broken tree stems, and tipped trees). Shell Mound Trail of JNDDNWR sustained catastrophic damage to its old growth mangrove forests. Direct storm mortality and injury to manatees in the area was probably slight. Because seagrass beads and manatee habitat extend beyond refuge boundaries, we recommended a regional approach with partner agencies to more thoroughly assess storm impacts and monitor recovery of seagrass and manatees. Besides intensive monitoring of waterbirds and their nesting habitat (pre- and post-storm), we recommend that the Mangrove Cuckoo be used as an indicator species for recovery of mangrove forests and also for monitoring songbirds at risk. Black-whiskered Vireo may be another potential indicator species to monitor in mangrove forests. Damaged vegetation should be monitored for recovery (permanent or long-term plots), especially where previous study plots have been established and with additional plots in mangrove forests of waterbird nesting islands and freshwater wetlands. Potential loss of wetlands may be prevented by water level monitoring, locating the positions (GPS-GIS) and maintaining existing water control structures, creating a GIS map of refuge with accurate vertical data, and monitoring and eradicating invasive plants. Invasive species, including Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and air potato (Dioscorea bulbifora), were common in a very limited survey. As an important monitoring goal, we recommend that species presence-absence data analysis (with probability of detection) be used to determine changes in animal communities. This could be accomplished possibly with comparison to other storm-damaged and undamaged refuges in the Region. This information may be helpful to refuge managers when storms return in the future.

Book↗
USGS1987

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment: Report and recommendation to the Congress of the United States and final legislative environmental impact statement

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, in the northeastern corner of Alaska, was first established as the Arctic National Wildlife Range by Public Land Order 2214 in 1960, for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values. The original 8.9-millionacre Range was withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including mining laws but not including mineral leasing laws. This order culminated extensive efforts begun more than a decade earlier to preserve this unique part of Alaska. The following report analyzes the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from opening for lease of the entire area for oil and gas development, to wilderness designation. A legislative environmental impact statement has been integrated into the report.

Alaska↗
USGS2011

A survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees regarding topics for distance education-Summary report to respondents

This report provides a summary of responses to the questions included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) Distance Education survey conducted from January 26, 2010, to February 8, 2010. The survey included questions for two studies sponsored by the Division of Education Outreach (DEO) at the NCTC. The first study identifies the topics of interest to FWS employees on which training could be provided via distance education. The topics were limited to the area of conservation and environmental education, outreach, and partnerships because these topics are within the scope of the DEO. The second study focused on characterizing the relation between onsite course enrollment at NCTC and distance education offerings. Because there were only a few questions on the survey for the second study and because the target populations were the same for both, the two surveys were combined. Our preliminary conclusion, based only on frequencies of responses and averages, is that our survey respondents appear to prefer traditional instructor-led training. However, they would still enroll in distance education courses. The distance education technologies of audio conferencing, computer-mediated training, and written resource provision are the technologies respondents reported being most familiar and accessible to them. For four of the five topic areas-creating and maintaining partnerships, technology, program planning and development, and outreach methods-the response frequencies and averages indicate that the topics were viewed as both relevant and important. Respondents were more neutral regarding the relevance and importance of the topic of evaluation methods. Respondents reported preferences for different types of information on different topics and also reported preferences in delivery mode of training for each topic area. Detailed results and conclusions will be included in the completion reports for the two studies.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1976

Wildlife importation into the United States, 1900-1972

Data from Bureau of Biological Survey and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports show an overall increase in the number of birds and mammals imported from 1900 to 1972. The trend was interrupted by World War I, the economic depression of the 1930's, and World War II. Data are lacking for the years after World War II until 1968. Until 1942, domesticated canaries and a few species of game birds made up most of the avian imports; the shell parakeet or budgerigar was the most commonly imported parrot. Although the total number ofbirds imported 1968-72 was-not greatly different from the pre-depression years, the proportion of canaries, game species, and parakeets declined greatly and the variety and number of cage birds including other parrot species greatly increased. Until 1930 most mammals imported were for laboratory use or fur farming. After 1930 the number of imported mammals increased with the growing importance of primates, especially rhesus macaques, in research. Since 1968 the number of mammals irnported annually has been at least 5 times greater than the previous peak of 1938, and primates have made up 87% of mammalian imports. Information on reptiles and amphibians imported into the United States is available only for 1970 and 1971. Turtles were the most commonly imported reptiles, frogs and toads the most commonly imported amphibians.

Special Scientific Report - Wildlife↗
USGS2000

Field surveys of Midwestern and Northeastern Fish and Wildlife Service lands for the presence of abnormal frogs and toads

The national distribution of information on the discovery of malformations in Minnesota frogs in 1995 stimulated collection and examination of newly metamorphosed frogs during 1996. By late summer and early fall of 1996, malformed frogs and toads were reported on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands in Vermont (Northeast, Region 5) and Minnesota (Midwest, Region 3). In response to these reports, biologists in USFWS Regions 3 and 5 conducted a survey, during the summer of 1997 to determine the distribution and type of malformations in frogs and toads on selected federal lands. Region 3 personnel surveyed 38 field stations at National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's) and Wetland Management Districts. Malformed frogs and toads were collected at 23 (61%) of the Region 3 sites. External malformations were detected in 110 of 6632 individuals representing seven of 13 frog species and one of three toad species examined for an overall of 1.7% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 0.4-5.2%). In Region 5, 17 NWR's and one National Park were surveyed. Malformed frogs were collected at 10 (56%) of the Region 5 sites. External malformations were detected in 58 of 2267 individuals representing six of 11 frog species and one of two toad species examined for an overall total of 2.6% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 1.8-15.6%). The majority of malformations observed in frogs and toads collected in Regions 3 and 5 were partially or completely missing hind limbs and digits (50%)or malformed hind limbs and digits (14%). A few individuals had an extra limb or toe, missing or malformed front limb, missing eye, or malformation of the mandible. Despite small sample sizes at some sites, malformations were confirmed to be present in eight species of frogs and two species of toads on Federal lands in USFWS Regions 3 and 5. Further study is needed to determine the extent and distribution of amphibian malformations in these Regions. Data from this study were provided to the national database on distribution of malformed amphibians.

Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesnowta, Missouri, O↗
USGS2011

A survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees regarding constraints to connecting children with nature-Summary report to respondents

This report provides a summary of responses to the questions included on a survey of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees regarding constraints to connecting children with nature. The survey was sponsored by the Division of Education Outreach at the National Conservation Training Center and conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. The data collection process started on February 25, 2010 and ended on March 9, 2010. The dataset includes the responses from 320 individuals from all regions in the Service. The adjusted response rate for the survey was 55 percent. In this report, we provide the summary results for the survey questions in the order in which the questions were asked. The questions addressed the following topics: relevance of certain outcomes to the aspect of the Service's mission that relates to connecting people with nature, perceived success at connecting children with nature, the extent to which ten constraints present problems in connecting children with nature, and attitudes about the importance of connecting children with nature. The text of comments provided by respondents to open-ended questions is provided. In-depth analyses will be reported in the completion report for this project.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2005

Visitor and community survey results for Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge and Lighthouse: Completion report

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation are currently pursuing the planning and potential design of an alternative transportation system (ATS) for Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or Kilauea Point NWR). The USFWS and CFLHD seek an alternative transportation solution that provides the highest quality visitor experience and is sensitive to biological and cultural resources and the needs of the local community. In planning the alternative transportation system, managers need to consider how an ATS would change factors such as visitor access, visitor experience, visitor willingness to pay, and visitor net economic benefits. The Policy Analysis and Science Assistance branch (PASA) at the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center is dedicated to studying relations between humans and the environment. The objective of PASA is to conduct studies to understand how humans are affected by environmental management decisions and how human activities impact use and conservation of natural resources.

Hawaii↗
USGS1989

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

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

Report↗
USGS2015

Anatomy of an eradication effort: Removing Hawaii's illegally introduced axis deer

In February 2011, a rancher in the rural southern part of Hawaii Island reported a large mammal on her land. Her call mobilized several agencies led by the Big Island Invasive Species Committee (BIISC), a partnership to prevent, detect, and control the establishment and spread of invasive species, to sit up and take notice. Agency biologists installed camera traps to identify the animal, and a few months later verified the diagnostic field marks of a chervid with spots. The animal in questions was a chital , or axis deer ( Axis axis )--a species native to tropical and subtropical India. Although the deer are abundant on the islands of Molokai, Lānai, and Maui, officials knew they weren't capable of swimming across the notoriously treacherous ʻAlenuihāhā channel, and subsequently suspected human intervention. Soon after the rancher's report, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service launched an investigation, which revealed that in December 2009, a helicopter pilot and rancher from Maui had covertly transported four deer in exchange for about a dozen European mouflon sheep ( Ovis gmelini musimon ) (Tummons 2011a, b)--a species also valued for trophies and meat. Because neither species was established in the wild on either of the islands, in June 2012, state lawmakers responded by specifically banning "the international possession or interisland transportation or release of wild or feral deer" (Honolulu Star-Advertiser 2012). The two individuals were prosecuted under the Lacey Act for transporting wildlife between islands with the intent to guide hunting for out-of-state residents (Stephens Media 2012), while the individual who provided the mouflon was sentenced to community service. Further, the helicopter pilot agreed to provide 500 hours of flight time to locate and eradicate the Hawaii Island deer population in restitution.

Hawai'i↗
USGS1988

The ecology of the soft-bottom benthos of San Francisco Bay: a community profile

This profile, part of a series of profiles concerning coastal habitats of the United States, is a detailed examination of the soft-bottom benthos of San Francisco Bay. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game report (1979) entitled "Protection and Restoration of San Francisco Bay Fish and Wildlife Habitat" provides clear recognition of the importance of intertidal and subtidal soft-bottom habitats and their associated organisms to the bay's birds and fishes and to the overall functioning of the estuary. The purpose of this profile is to provide a description of the structure and functioning of the benthic community in San Francisco Bay (exclusive of its tidal marshes, which are discussed by M. Josselyn [1983] in another profile). The habitats covered in this volume include all nonvegetated soft-bottom intertidal and subtidal areas of the bay between the Golden Gate and the mouths of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to the northeast, and to the southern extremity of the bay. The profile provides a reference to the scientific information concerning the animals and plants of the bay's benthic communities, their importance to the bay ecosystem, and their value as a resource measured in human terms. Because there have been few process-oriented studies of the benthos of San Francisco Bay (e.g., field and laboratory rate-measurement experiments), the material presented herein is largely descriptive. Nonetheless, we have described the processes that interconnect the various physical, chemical, and biological components of the benthic environment, and the important couplings between this environment and the water column above, with reference to research results from other estuaries where necessary. We consider the role of the benthic community as a food source for fish, aquatic birds, and humans; as a consumer or degrader of organic materials including wastes; as a recycler of minerals and nutrients; and as an accumulator of pollutants.

California↗
USGS2002

Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research summaries

In 1980, when the U.S. Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it also mandated a study of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were also to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress. In 1987, the Department of the Interior published the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource Assessment - Report and Recommendations to the Congress of the United States and Final Environmental Impact Statement. This report to Congress identified the potential for oil and gas production (updated* most recently by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2001), described the biological resources, and evaluated the potential adverse effects to fish and wildlife resources. The 1987 report analyzed the potential environmental consequences of five management alternatives for the coastal plain, ranging from wilderness designation to opening the entire area to lease for oil and gas developement. The report's summary recommended opening the 1002 Area to an orderly oil and gas leasing program, but cautioned that adverse effects to some wildlife populations were possible. Congress did not act on this recommendation nor any other alternative for the 1002 Area, and scientists continued studies of key wildlife species and habitats on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge and surrounding areas. This report contains updated summaries of those scientific investigations of caribou, muskoxen, predators (grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles), polar bears, snow geese, and their wildlife habitats. Contributions to this report were made by scientists affiliated with the U.S. Geological Survey; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Alaska Department of Fish and Game; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; Canadian Wildlife Service; Yukon Department of Renewable Resources; and the Northwest Territories Department of Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development. Sections of the report presenting new information on caribou and forage plants were peer-reviewed by three independent, non-affiliated scientists. The remaining sections summarize previously published peer-reviewed scientific papers and were reviewed by a single independent scientist. The U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated in the publication of this report.

Alaska, Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory↗
USGS1989

Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary

Riparian ecosystems generally compose a minor proportion of surrounding areas, but typically are more structurally diverse and more productive in plant and animal biomass than adjacent upland areas. Riparian areas supply food, cover, and water (especially important in the arid West) for a large diversity of animals, and serve as migration routes and forest connectors between habitats for a variety of wildlife, particularly ungulates and birds. Because riparian ecosystems often are relatively small areas and occur in conjunction with waterways, they are vulnerable to severe alteration. Riparian ecosystems throughout the U.S. have been heavily impacted by man's activities. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration have been used as mitigation for project impacts from highway, bridge, and pipeline construction; water development; flood control channel modifications; industrial and residential development; agriculture; irrigation; livestock grazing; mining; and accidental habitat loss. Creation of a riparian ecosystem in| a more mesic upland area (e.g., ‘grassland or cropland) adjacent to a river requires appropriate water supply and grading the topography to suitable elevations to support plantings of riparian vegetation. Restoration involves returning the ecosystem to pre disturbance conditions and typically implies revegetation. Removing exotic vegetation or restoring water supplies to pre disturbance level also may be involved. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems commonly refers to improving existing conditions to increase habitat value, usually by increasing plant or community diversity to increase value for wildlife. Managing a riparian ecosystem typically involves enhancement techniques. However, creation and restoration projects often involve use of techniques considered more management-oriented (e.g., fencing to prevent cattle grazing until planted vegetation of a created or restored wetland is established). Protection of an existing riparian ecosystem from impact should be of utmost importance during planning and construction phases of development projects. If loss or damage is unavoidable, wetland creation or restoration can be used as mitigation. Compared to other wetland types (e.g., coastal wetlands), projects and techniques involving creation or restoration of riparian ecosystems are not well documented. For example, only 8% of the records in the WCR Data Base contained information on riparian ecosystems, whereas 31% of the records contained information on coastal emergent or forested ecosystems. To provide a source of currently available literature, riparian information from 92 records (primarily published papers or reports) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Creation-Restoration (WCR) Data Base (Schneller-McDonald et al. 1988) was used to develop a literature summary of creation and restoration of riparian ecosystems. The summary provides an overview of the status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., a discussion of several riparian functions, and a review of some techniques used for planning, implementing, monitoring, and measuring project success of creation-restoration efforts. Case studies of various creation or restoration projects are used to demonstrate these techniques and to report some results of their use. Several well-documented case studies are discussed in detail to illustrate more extensive efforts to plan, implement, or monitor riparian ecosystem creation-restoration projects. For the purpose of this report, riparian ecosystems are defined as landscapes adjacent to drainageways of floodplains that exhibit vegetation, soil, and hydrologic mosaics along topographic and moisture gradients that are distinct from the predominant landscape surface types. Major plant communities are described under palustrine system in Cowardin et al. (1979). Literature from the WCR Data Base was used to provide a summary of riparian ecosystem creation-restoration literature. Thus, information concerning natural systems is not included unless discussed in these articles. This focus allows the reader to compare relative information available on riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts. However, this focus also results in limited information in some sections of the report (e.g., Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the U.S.). Individuals involved in riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts are encouraged to thoroughly examine available literature on natural and altered systems. Brinson et al. (1981) provide a comprehensive review and synthesis of the ecology and status of riparian ecosystems. Over 500 articles are cited in their 124-page report. Chapters include the following topics: status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., ecological functions and properties of riparian ecosystems (e.g., geomorphology, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, hydrology), importance of riparian ecosystems to fish and wildlife, and considerations in valuation (ecologic and economic) of riparian ecosystems. Brinson et al. (1981) also discuss management of riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystem management literature was not included in the WCR Data Base, unless the article also discussed creation or restoration.

Report↗