Fish And Wildlife Service Research Articles

Selection of vegetation types and density of bison in an arid ecosystem

ABSTRACTUnderstanding species habitat selection and factors that drive selection are key components for conservation. We report the first resource selection functions (RSFs) for bison inhabiting an arid ecosystem and use them with density estimates of bison to estimate the number of bison that could be supported if the bison range were expanded to federal lands in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. We derived RSFs for vegetation types using locations of plains bison collected weekly over 3 years from 2005 to 2007. Bison selected for wet or mesic grassland habitats in all seasons. Wetland selection by bison was predicted to be 18 times greater than that of rabbitbrush vegetation, the reference category, and selection of meadows was predicted to be 11 times greater than that of the rabbitbrush type. Willow‐dominated plant communities were strongly avoided. Cottonwood communities were also avoided, with the exception of some moderate levels of selection in fall. The willow and cottonwood communities have an understory with low biomass of herbaceous species and low productivity in this arid system. Based on the RSFs we predicted that in the San Luis Valley of Colorado up to 2,379 bison could be supported in similar habitats under Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) jurisdiction, and up to 759 bison could be supported on adjacent National Park Service (NPS) land. This modeling framework provides a conservation tool for the restoration of bison to their historical habitats, and has utility for application to other terrestrial species where assumptions are met. Published 2015. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Science, policy, and the fate of the greater sage‐grouse

Few species are currently receiving more attention from scientists, managers, legislators, and reporters than the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Once numbering in the millions and spanning 13 US states and three Canadian provinces, sage-grouse are now extirpated in two states and one province and have lost 44% of their original range. In the mid-1990s, biologists became increasingly concerned about declining populations and the loss and deteriorating conditions of remaining sagebrush (Artemisia spp) ecosystems. At that time, however, it was determined that the species did not meet requirements for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Years later, in 2010 – after litigation, a “not warranted” decision in 2005, and more litigation – the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concluded that the sage-grouse did warrant ESA protection. The USFWS is under court order to finalize a decision by 30 September 2015. What has followed is an unprecedented effort among federal and state agencies, private landowners, and numerous other stakeholders to conserve sage-grouse across more than 480 000 km2 of sagebrush habitat. However, the looming deadline has not been without controversy. As predictable as the Sun rising in the east, lawyers, lobbyists, and consultants hired by industry and others began questioning the science underlying the threats to sage-grouse, conservation objectives, and management recommendations that the USFWS will use in making their final decision. A few unpublished reports have emerged, attacking studies, peer-review processes, and scientists, questioning their objectivity and calling researchers an “insular group of scientist–advocates who deviate from providing credible, accurate scientific data to advancing policies they personally support”. This characterization is a case of the proverbial “pot calling the kettle black”. These unpublished, non-peer-reviewed reports serve as the foundation for a lawsuit, filed in March 2015, by numerous western counties and industry-oriented plaintiffs claiming violation of the Data Quality Act of 2001. The fate of that lawsuit has yet to be determined, but the stage is set for another round of court battles that will decide whose science is most defensible. At the heart of the scientific argument lies uncertainty and discord on how many sage-grouse there actually are, causal factors affecting their decline, and what is needed to offset extirpation and habitat loss and degradation. Annual counts of males at breeding sites (leks) are used as an index to determine population trends. Imperfect methodology and sampling effort, questionable extrapolation of male-driven indices to derive population estimates, and difficulty in attributing these data to any one threat (eg energy development) have fueled the criticism. Without exception, all field studies on sage-grouse include assumptions and limitations, and some even have flaws, but the weight of evidence regarding threats to sage-grouse and sagebrush ecosystems cannot be denied. One need look no further than current and projected habitat changes from development as well as losses associated with invasive plant species and fire to realize what that evidence shows. Debate among scientists is fundamental for the advancement of science and policies derived from its findings. But the current debate over sage-grouse seems anything but scientific. Opponents of change seem more interested in casting doubt and discrediting the facts than they are in healthy scientific debate. History is replete with examples where professionals attempt to demonstrate that science is clear on an issue and immediate action is needed to avoid potentially dire consequences – only to be confronted by other “science” or “scientists” trying to show that the existing information is incomplete or unclear. As with our justice system, it only takes “reasonable doubt” to convince many that the science does not justify needed change and action. Indeed, what is the land manager or decision maker to do when everyone comes to the table with their own scientists, to contend that their particular way of doing business is not a threat? As the court-ordered September 2015 deadline approaches, one thing is certain: the courts will decide the fate of sage-grouse, regardless of what the USFWS decides. Existing science will continue to be questioned, perhaps with valid criticism but probably not with credible, published data supporting counter positions. This has become the “state of play” for contentious ecological issues and especially those requiring some stakeholders to change their practices. Science has been lost in the political and legal vortex that now plays out in social media and does not translate to a general public increasingly losing interest in the natural world. This scenario demonstrates why scientists must ensure that their work will pass both peer and legal scrutiny and can be messaged in a way that captures the public's attention when the “next sage-grouse” comes along – and it surely will.

Dispatches

Dispatches

Using ecological theory to develop recovery criteria for an endangered butterfly

Using ecological theory to develop recovery criteria for an endangered butterfly

Restored oxbows reduce nutrient runoff and improve fish habitat

A n oxbow is a remnant meander of a river or stream that has been cut off from present flow as the stream channel has migrated within its floodplain. The remaining depression is often connected to the water table, leaving pools of standing water throughout the year. Regular flooding and land use practices cause sediment and organic material to be deposited in the depression over time. The deposited material reduces the depth of the historic oxbow, limiting its potential for flood storage, nutrient cycling, and off-channel fish habitat. In recognition of the important ecosystem services that they provide, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has been restoring oxbows in the Raccoon River Watershed in Iowa since 2002 (Betts 2014). The USFWS, the Nature Conservancy (TNC), Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Iowa Soybean Association (ISA), Sand County Foundation (SCF), USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and other partners have contributed to additional oxbow restorations as an innovative fish habitat improvement and tile line nitrate (NO3) treatment practice. Partners have worked with area producers through a voluntary conservation program to restore a series of oxbows that collect water from tile lines. The practice is intriguing to landowners since water quality and…

On formally integrating science and policy: walking the walk

The contribution of science to the development and implementation of policy is typically neither direct nor transparent. In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) made a decision that was unprecedented in natural resource management, turning to an unused and unproven decision process to carry out trust responsibilities mandated by an international treaty. The decision process was adopted for the establishment of annual sport hunting regulations for the most economically important duck population in North America, the 6 to 11 million mallards Anas platyrhynchos breeding in the mid-continent region of north-central United States and central Canada. The key idea underlying the adopted decision process was to formally embed within it a scientific process designed to reduce uncertainty (learn) and thus make better decisions in the future. The scientific process entails use of models to develop predictions of competing hypotheses about system response to the selected action at each decision point. These predictions not only are used to select the optimal management action, but also are compared with the subsequent estimates of system state variables, providing evidence for modifying degrees of confidence in, and hence relative influence of, these models at the next decision point. Science and learning in one step are formally and directly incorporated into the next decision, contrasting with the usual ad hoc and indirect use of scientific results in policy development and decision-making. Application of this approach over the last 20 years has led to a substantial reduction in uncertainty, as well as to an increase in transparency and defensibility of annual decisions and a decrease in the contentiousness of the decision process. As resource managers are faced with increased uncertainty associated with various components of global change, this approach provides a roadmap for the future scientific management of natural resources. Science and policy

Endangered Species Recovery Criteria: Reconciling Conflicting Views

Recovery criteria (RC) serve the important purpose of determining when an endangered species can be delisted, or removed from protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Although delisting is the ultimate goal for recovering all threatened species, it has been a controversial process, because delisted species may lose some protection provided by the ESA, making them susceptible to the same causes of decline that resulted in their initial listing. RC are designated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in the recovery plan of an endangered species, and the ESA mandates that RC should be based on “objective, measurable criteria.” How to designate RC has been a thorny problem since the ESA was enacted in 1972. In this issue of BioScience, we find conflicting views of how RC should be determined offered by Doak and colleagues and by Wolf and colleagues. The authors of both articles champion the application of quantitative RC in place of the heterogeneous approach currently used. But here the similarities end. Doak and colleagues argue that RC should be based on “demographic criteria,” emphasizing estimates of the risk of extinction from a population viability analysis (PVA) that projects population size for decades to 100 years (or more) into the future. Under this approach, recovery plans would be required to include RC tied to the probability of meeting specific extinction risk or demographic thresholds from models. In contrast, Wolf and colleagues espouse a less data-intensive and broader set of methods, based on the ecological principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy (the “3Rs”). The 3Rs would be evaluated quantitatively or qualitatively using multiple approaches for setting recovery targets, such as the percentage of historic range, population size, the number and spatial distribution of populations, and the risk of extinction from a PVA when adequate data are available. Both articles provide important insights into the shortcomings of past efforts to delineate RC and discussion of the concepts for delineating RC. But both run head on into the same knotty problems of developing quantitative criteria for RC that relate to population viability and the absence of risk standards.

Energy and the Environment: Fowl Play: Lesser Prairie Chicken to End Western Energy Boom?

Last March, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the western prairie chicken (Exhibit 1) as “threatened.”1 Under federal law, a “threatened” listing means the species is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future. In effect, it is endangered species “lite.”

Dispatches

Dispatches

Are We There Yet? A Roadmap to Understanding National Park Service Rulemaking

The preproposal stage of the rulemaking process is notoriously understudied, but enormously important in determining regulatory outputs. Recently, Rinfret (2011c) analyzed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) rulemaking process and developed a frame analysis model to interpret stakeholder influence during the preproposal stage. Rinfret argues that stakeholders use three frames to influence agency rulemaking, including an expertise, a fiscal feasibility, and an information frame. This article tests this model to determine whether it is applicable to other federal agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS). Through an analysis of stakeholder framing within the 2012 NPS Yellowstone Winter Use Rule, this research confirms that Rinfret's model is indeed applicable to the NPS process. Therefore, this research suggests that this theoretical model examining stakeholder influence is applicable to other public land agencies, and arguably can be applied across the bureaucracy.

Recent Trends in U.S. Prairie Pothole Wetlands

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the principal Federal agency that provides information to the public on the extent and status of the Nation’s wetlands. The most recent report released in July of 2014 presents the latest status information on the extent, type and trends of wetland resources in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the United States and provides estimates of losses or gains that occurred between 1997 and 2009. The PPR in the U.S. encompasses an area of about 150,930 square miles and extends from central Iowa north to the Canadian border and includes portions of the states of Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana.

Legitimization of Regulatory Norms: Waterfowl Hunter Acceptance of Changing Duck Bag Limits

Few studies have examined response to regulatory change over time, or addressed hunter attitudes about changes in hunting bag limits. This article explores Minnesota waterfowl hunters’ attitudes about duck bag limits, examining attitudes about two state duck bag limits that were initially more restrictive than the maximum set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but then increased to match federal limits. Results are from four mail surveys that examined attitudes about bag limits over time. Following two bag limit increases, a greater proportion of hunters rated the new bag limit “too high” and a smaller proportion rated it “too low.” Several years following the first bag limit increase, the proportion of hunters who indicated that the limit was “too high” had declined, suggesting hunter acceptance of the new regulation. Results suggest that waterfowl bag limits may represent legal norms that influence hunter attitudes and gain legitimacy over time.

Hurricane Isaac Post-Storm Response1

ABSTRACT Hurricane Isaac made landfall on August 29, 2012 over Louisiana, lingering overhead for more than 60 hours. While most were concerned with surviving the 80+ mph winds and ensuing storm surge and floods, Coast Guard members statewide knew there would be no calm after the storm; instead it would be a grueling fight to restore the port to normalcy. The slow moving storm caused grounded deep draft vessels and barges, spilled oil, releases of hazardous materials (HAZMAT), and damage to various buildings and infrastructures. U.S. Coast Guard Sector New Orleans integrated local, states, and federal agencies into a Unified Command structure to coordinate limited resources post-storm. Within Sector New Orleans, the Incident Management Division (IMD) made it their primary mission to mitigate any substantial threats of oil discharges or HAZMAT releases and ensure proper cleanup. On September 2, 2012, IMD utilized the Incident Command System (ICS) to establish a Marine Environmental Response (MER) Incident Management Team (IMT) to achieve their post storm mission. The MER IMT consisted of 200 personnel, of which 60 were Coast Guard members, and included representatives from the National Strike Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator's Office (LOSCO), Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), and three Oil Spill Removal Organizations (OSROs); together the team collected 4500 barrels of oily water and 1200 HAZMAT containers, deployed over 11,000 feet of containment boom, and federalized three pollution projects. The MER IMT was disestablished on September 28, 2012 leaving Sector New Orleans IMD to maintain complete management of the ongoing federalized projects, “Fantome”, “Map Drilling”, and “Gulf South”. The projects included oil discharges in adjacent waterways of two oil production/storage facilities, oil discharges from fixed facility barges, and oil discharges from a storage platform along the marsh shoreline. Sector New Orleans executed $9.5 million in Oil Spill Liability Trust Funds towards emergency response efforts and successfully restored safety to the public health, welfare, environment, and maritime community.

Addressing the Uncertainty and Requirements for Oil Spill Response Consultations

ABSTRACT In the United States (U.S.), oil spill response planning, preparedness, and response requirements are dictated primarily by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, a regulation that implements the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Clean Water Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. At the planning stage, these regulations require the development of national, regional, and local response capabilities and promote overall coordination among responders. During a spill, these capabilities are utilized by the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to analyze whether response actions are likely to impact protected resources. The consultation process required under Federal statutes, charges the FOSC to consult with Federal, state, Tribal entities, and other Federal agencies to determine potential effects of response actions during an incident and to develop strategies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate those effects (40 CFR § 300.135(j); § 300.305(e); and § 300.322(a), 1994). Consultations should continue until response operations are concluded and may continue after operations are complete. Four key regulatory mandates that require an FOSC to initiate consultation during a response include:Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended requires consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on federally listed species and designated critical habitats;Magnuson-Stevens Act requires consultation with NMFS on any action that may affect Essential Fish Habitats;National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended requires Federal agencies to consult with states, federally recognized tribes, and other stakeholders on potential impacts to historic and cultural resources; andTribal Consultations under Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments when federally recognized Indian Tribes and their interests are affected by a response. Consultation is also required under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act when Native American burial sites, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or items of cultural patrimony are identified on Federal or Tribal lands during a response and no pre-consultation plan of action has been developed.1 Consultation requirements are not universally understood, leading to uncertainty and inconsistencies across the response community and Trustees regarding when to initiate and how to conduct the consultations. This paper discusses the Federal consultation requirements and identifies areas of possible uncertainties in the consultation process throughout the pre-spill planning, response, and post-response phases of an incident. This paper will suggest resolutions and recommendations to further enhance the consultation process by the Federal spill response decision-makers and planning bodies.

Using Fish Behavior to Assess Habitat Quality of a Restored Oyster Reef

UW Pres s / Ecolog ical Rest oration Acknowledgements Our study was funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station located at South Dakota State University (SDSU). We appreciate the support provided by the Department of Natural Resource Management at SDSU. We thank USFWS staff including W. Henderson, S. Revering, D. Peterson, C. Stromlund, J. Brooks, F. Christopher, S. Rockwood, J. Vandenbosch, K. Moratz, B. Van Kuelen, N. Bieber, and M. Seufert for field assistance. We thank L. Garner for reviewing an earlier draft of this manuscript. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the USFWS.

Sea Turtle Funding Dries Up

In December, as we celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act and all of its accomplishments, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) terminated support for the recovery of an icon: the Kemp's ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ). This sea turtle nearly slipped into

Federal Agency Responses to Greater Sage-Grouse and the ESA: Getting Nowhere Fast

In 2005, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) determined that listing greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter, sage-grouse) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was not warranted. A complaint filed in July 2006 alleged the 2005 finding was incorrect, arbitrary, and unwarranted. The U.S. District Court for Idaho subsequently ruled the USFWS determination was arbitrary and capricious and remanded the finding to the USFWS. In March 2010, the USFWS concluded that sage-grouse were warranted for protection under ESA, but listing was precluded by higher priorities; a final determination will be made by September 2015. This listing decision identified habitat loss/fragmentation, including habitat treatments, and lack of adequate regulatory mechanisms as key reasons for declines in sage-grouse populations.

Toxicity Assessment of Phosphonium Based Ionic Liquids Towards Female Guppy Fish

In this study, two phosphonium based ionic liquids (butyl triphenyl phosphonium chloride and hexyl triphenyl phosphonium bromide) have been synthesized using quarternisation process. The toxicities of these Ionic Liquids (ILs) are unknown and may be harmful to humans and the environment. Therefore, the toxicity assessment of these ILs was carried out according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 203 guideline using female guppy fish (Poecilia reticulata). The median Lethal Concentrations (LC50) have been estimated for butyl triphenyl phosphonium chloride and for hexyl triphenyl phosphonium bromide to be 73.35 and 61.36 mg L respectively. Both LC50 obtained can be identified as slightly toxic ILs based on Acute Toxicity Rating Scale by Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The findings from this study can be used for better design of phosphonium-based ILs with consideration of their aquatic toxicities.

Toxicity Measurement of Imidazolium Ionic Liquids Using Acute Toxicity Test

Ionic liquids (ILs) can be considered as environmentally friendly solvent, but they have the ability to dissolve in water and accumulate in the environment. Therefore, the toxicity of ILs should be assessed in order to prevent their harm to human and environment. This study was carried out to investigate the toxicity of ILs towards marine and freshwater fish. Three ILs have been tested, which are 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium hydrogen sulfate and 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide toward marine fish and 1-Hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide toward freshwater fish. Two different marine fish were employed, which are: Cephalopholis cruentata (grouper) and Lates calcarifer (barramundi). For freshwater fish, male Poecilia reticulate (guppy) was employed. The toxicity tests were conducted according to OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) guideline 203. For 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium hydrogen sulphate [BMIM][HSO4], the median lethal concentration (LC50) estimated toward Cephalopholis cruentatato be 199.98mg.L-1. For 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide [BMIM][TFSI], LC50 estimated toward LatesCalcariferto be 374.11mg.L-1. While, for 1-Hexyl-3-methylimidazolium bis (trifluoromethylsulfonyl) imide, [HMIM][NTf2], LC50 estimated toward Poecilia Reticulate to be 207.49mg.L-1. All the LC50 values obtained can be identified as practically nontoxic liquids based on Acute Toxicity Rating Scale by Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As to our knowledge, there is no previous reported toxicity studies of [BMIM][HSO4] and [BMIM][TFSI] on marine fish and [HMIM] [NTf2] on freshwater fish. Thus, this paper can be used as a benchmark for researchers who are dealing with these three ILs.

From hazard to habitat (or hazardous habitat)

Rocky Flats (RF) is a former nuclear weapons manufacturing complex in Colorado, 26 km northwest of downwind Denver, at the eastern base of the Rocky Mountains’ Front Range. At RF, between 1952 and 1989, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and its successors manufactured plutonium triggers. After remediation (1996–2005), 4000 acres of buffer zone were transferred to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to manage as Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge (2007). Drawing on research materials from local libraries and archives, this essay explores the ‘weapons to wildlife’ (W2W) conversion of a militarized environment in Denver’s ‘Gunbelt’. The various phases in RF’s demilitarization (closure, cleanup, transition to wildlife refuge and refuge management planning) are examined with reference to recognition of biodiversity value, debate over the ex-plant’s future, and options for running a refuge still in an arrested state of development – closed to the public for want of funding. A further aim is to bring to the attention of physical geographers a growing body of scholarship by human geographers on environmental contamination at former nuclear sites and debates over remediation and post-industrial uses – and to contribute the additional perspective of an environmental historian.