USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

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 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
USGS2017

Nutrients, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and macrobenthos

Lower trophic levels support the prey fish on which most sport fish depend. Therefore, understanding the production potential of lower trophic levels is integral to the management of Lake Ontario’s fishery resources. Lower trophic-level productivity differs among offshore and nearshore waters. In the offshore, there is concern about the ability of the lake to support Alewife (Table 1) production due to a perceived decline in productivity of phytoplankton and zooplankton whereas, in the nearshore, there is a concern about excessive attached algal production (e.g., Cladophora) associated with higher nutrient concentrations—the oligotrophication of the offshore and the eutrophication of the nearshore (Mills et al. 2003; Holeck et al. 2008; Dove 2009; Koops et al. 2015; Stewart et al. 2016). Even though the collapse of the Alewife population in Lake Huron in 2003 (and the associated decline in the Chinook Salmon fishery) may have been precipitated by a cold winter (Dunlop and Riley 2013), Alewife had not returned to high abundances in Lake Huron as of 2014 (Roseman et al. 2015). Failure of the Alewife population to recover from collapse has been attributed to declines in lower trophic-level production (Barbiero et al. 2011; Bunnell et al. 2014; but see He et al. 2015). In Lake Michigan, concerns of a similar Alewife collapse led to a decrease in the number of Chinook Salmon stocked. If lower trophic-level production declines in Lake Ontario, a similar management action could be considered. On the other hand, in Lake Erie, which supplies most of the water in Lake Ontario, eutrophication is increasing and so are harmful algal blooms. Thus, there is also a concern that nutrient levels and algal blooms could increase in Lake Ontario, especially in the nearshore. Solutions to the two processes of concern—eutrophication in the nearshore and oligotrophication in the offshore—may be mutually exclusive. In either circumstance, fisheries management needs information on the productivity of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario. In this chapter, we review the status of lower trophic levels in Lake Ontario with special attention to the current (2008-2013) and previous (2003-2007) reporting periods. During the two reporting periods, three whole-lake surveys of lower trophic levels were conducted: the Lower Trophic Level Assessment (LOLA) in 2003 and 2008 (Makarewicz and Howell 2012; Munawar et al. 2015b) and the Cooperative Science and Management Initiative (CSMI) in 2013. Analyses of the CSMI data are ongoing. In addition to the three one-year sources of information on lower trophic levels, several multi-year sources of information are available, including data from the surveillance program conducted since 1965 by Environment Canada (EC) (Dove 2009), monitoring conducted since 1980 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) (Barbiero et al. 2014; Reavie et al. 2014), sampling for a Bioindex Program at two stations, one offshore and one in the Eastern Basin, assessments of Mysis diluviana (formerly Mysis relicta) conducted since 1980 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada (Johannsson et al. 1998, 2011) and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (OMNRF), and monitoring conducted since 1995 by the Biomonitoring Program (BMP) on the New York side of the lake (Holeck et al. 2015b). The BMP is a collaboration of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Cornell University.

Special Publication↗
USGS2016

Development of working hypotheses linking management of the Missouri River to population dynamics of Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon)

This report documents a process of filtering of hypotheses that relate Missouri River Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) population dynamics to management actions including flow alterations, channel reconfigurations, and pallid sturgeon population augmentation. The filtering process was a partnership among U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to contribute to the Missouri River Recovery Management Plan process. The objective of the filtering process was to produce a set of hypotheses with high relevance to pallid sturgeon population dynamics and decision making on the Missouri River. The Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis team filtered hundreds of potential hypotheses implicit in conceptual ecological models to develop a set of 40 candidate dominant hypotheses that were identified by experts as being important in pallid sturgeon population dynamics. Using a modified Delphi process and additional expert opinion, the team reduced this set of hypotheses to 23 working dominant hypotheses. We then matched the 23 hypotheses with management actions that could influence the biotic outcomes, resulting in as many as 176 potential effects between management actions and pallid sturgeon in the Missouri River. This number was consolidated to a candidate set of 53 working management hypotheses because some management actions applied to multiple life stages of the pallid sturgeon. We used an additional round of expert surveys to identify a set of 30 working management hypotheses. Finally, the set of working management hypotheses was filtered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Recovery Program for actions that were within the agency’s authority and jurisdiction. This round resulted in a set of 21 hypotheses for initial modeling of linkages from management to pallid sturgeon population responses. The initial set of candidate hypotheses provides a useful starting point for quantitative modeling and adaptive management of the river and species. We anticipate that hypotheses will change from the set of working management hypotheses as adaptive management progresses. More importantly, hypotheses that have been filtered out of our multistep process are still being considered. These filtered hypotheses are archived and if existing hypotheses are determined to be inadequate to explain observed population dynamics, new hypotheses can be created or filtered hypotheses can be reinstated.

Missouri River Basin↗
USGS2025

Decision framing overview and performance of management alternatives for bison and elk feedground management at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming

This report was developed to evaluate the performance of a set of proposed alternatives for Cervus elaphus canadensis (elk) and Bison bison (bison) management at the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, U.S.A., and to inform a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement focused on developing the next “Bison and Elk Management Plan” (BEMP). The U.S. Geological Survey facilitated a structured decision-making process for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop the alternatives and the criteria (performance metrics) for evaluating the alternatives. Chapter A (this chapter) provides scoping details of the “BEMP”, a summary of the 19 metrics that are used to evaluate the performance of each of 5 alternatives, and methodological details of 2 performance metrics that were not covered in other technical chapters. Additional technical details, results, and interpretations are briefly covered in this chapter, but are mostly contained in chapters B–E.

Wyoming↗
USGS2025

Decision framing overview and performance of management alternatives for bison and elk feedground management at the National Elk Refuge in Jackson, Wyoming

This report was developed to evaluate the performance of a set of proposed alternatives for Cervus elaphus canadensis (elk) and Bison bison (bison) management at the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming, U.S.A., and to inform a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement focused on developing the next “Bison and Elk Management Plan” (BEMP). The U.S. Geological Survey facilitated a structured decision-making process for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop the alternatives and the criteria (performance metrics) for evaluating the alternatives. Chapter A (this chapter) provides scoping details of the “BEMP,” a summary of the 19 metrics used to evaluate the performance of each of the 6 alternatives, and methodological details of 2 performance metrics that were not covered in other technical chapters. Additional technical details, results, and interpretations are briefly covered in this chapter but are mostly contained in chapters B–F.

Wyoming↗
USGS2005

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2004

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2004 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The study team continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). A computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was completed in spring 2005. We will use an improved version of this model to verify the accuracy of the rules using known bears and their telemetry locations in test runs. We hope to have this work complete by the end of 2005. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established mortality quotas at 4% of the minimum population estimate derived from female with COY data and no more than 30% of the 4% (1.2%) could be female bears. Simulation modeling (Harris 1984) established sustainable mortality at around 6% of the population. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris. A Wildlife Monograph has been accepted for publication and should be available by summer 2005. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine has been published (Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770). The manuscript on fish consumption rates was also accepted and is published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493-501. Both can be found on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. We began a new study in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black ( Ursus americanus ) bears. We will employ a new form of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of our first yea r’s field season are summarized in this report. Whitebark pine (WBP) has been identified as one of the import ant fall foods of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Previous efforts to map the distribution of WBP were for the Cumulative Effects Model. Consequently the only coverage of WBP distribution was for the grizzly bear Recovery Zone. We were successful in getting financial support through the U.S. Geological Survey Land Remote Sensing Program and Interdisciplinary Science Support Activities Project to create an ecosystem-wide map of the distribution of WBP. The results of that project are reported in Appendix A. The study team annually estimates WBP cone production on a series of transects. That information is reported annually in our reports. Concern over the long-term health of WBP prompted us to investigate the usefulness of cone counts as an indirect index of WBP health. Results of this analysis (Appendix B) indicated that cone production is too variable to serve this purpose. Consequently, we partnered with several 2 other agencies and embarked on a program to develop a long-term monitoring program directed specifically at WBP health in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Our team (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group) was successful in obtaining funds to develop and implement a WBP health monitoring program. Results of our first years work are presented in Appendix C. We also successfully competed for funds in 2005 and will continue to collect information on WBP health. Army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) are also a very important food for a segment of the GYE grizzly bear population. Hillary Robison, graduate student at University of Nevada, Reno, is nearing completion of her program. In this report, we post her annual work summary, and abstracts of her most recently submitted publications. These include one on the levels of pesticides in cutworm moths and their potential affect on grizzly bears (Appendix D), a spatial analysis to identify army cutworm moth habitat (Appendix E), and the results of a preliminary analysis of pollen grains on the mouth parts of moths (Appendix F) to help identify which plant species are commonly fed upon. Other study team members have also been working on various aspects of grizzly bear science. Study team member Kerry Gunther hosted a workshop on habituated grizzly bears in North America. A copy of the abstract of that report can be found in Appendix G. Additionally, Kerry Gunther and Doug Smith, wolf researcher in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), reported on the interactions between gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and female grizzly bears with young. They report that of 15 interactions between these 2 carnivores, 8 involve d females with COY. They observed 2 incidents where cubs were killed by wolves at ungulate carcasses (Appendix H). The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a ), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2020

Hydrologic monitoring networks in the Death Valley Regional Flow System, Nye County, Nevada and Inyo County, California

Introduction Water is an important resource in the arid southwest region of the United States where there is a limited supply of surface water and groundwater. In the Death Valley regional groundwater flow system (DVRFS) in southern Nevada and eastern California, groundwater is the main source of supply for agricultural, commercial, and domestic water needs. For over four decades, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Nevada Water Science Center (NVWSC) has assisted environmental programs with the collection of hydrologic information within the DVRFS. Three hydrologic networks, managed in cooperation with local (Nye County, Nev., and Inyo County, Calif.) and federal (Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration) agencies, are used to actively monitor wells and springs in the region.

California, Nevada↗
USGS2002

Preliminary volcano-hazard assessment for Kanaga Volcano, Alaska

Kanaga Volcano is a steep-sided, symmetrical, cone-shaped, 1307 meter high, andesitic stratovolcano on the north end of Kanaga Island (51°55’ N latitude, 177°10’ W longitude) in the western Aleutian Islands of Alaska. Kanaga Island is an elongated, low-relief (except for the volcano) island, located about 35 kilometers west of the community of Adak on Adak Island and is part of the Andreanof Islands Group of islands. Kanaga Volcano is one of the 41 historically active volcanoes in Alaska and has erupted numerous times in the past 11,000 years, including at least 10 eruptions in the past 250 years (Miller and others, 1998). The most recent eruption occurred in 1993-95 and caused minor ash fall on Adak Island and produced blocky aa lava flows that reached the sea on the northwest and west sides of the volcano (Neal and others, 1995). The summit of the volcano is characterized by a small, circular crater about 200 meters in diameter and 50-70 meters deep. Several active fumaroles are present in the crater and around the crater rim. The flanking slopes of the volcano are steep (20-30 degrees) and consist mainly of blocky, linear to spoonshaped lava flows that formed during eruptions of late Holocene age (about the past 3,000 years). The modern cone sits within a circular caldera structure that formed by large-scale collapse of a preexisting volcano. Evidence for eruptions of this preexisting volcano mainly consists of lava flows exposed along Kanaton Ridge, indicating that this former volcanic center was predominantly effusive in character. In winter (October-April), Kanaga Volcano may be covered by substantial amounts of snow that would be a source of water for lahars (volcanic mudflows). In summer, much of the snowpack melts, leaving only a patchy distribution of snow on the volcano. Glacier ice is not present on the volcano or on other parts of Kanaga Island. Kanaga Island is uninhabited and is part of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The island is remote and often shrouded by clouds and fog. It can be reached only by boat, helicopter,or amphibiouslanding aircraft.

Alaska↗
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↗
USGS2018

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 Year in Review, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1438, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1438 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review postcard

This postcard provides details about the "Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2018 Year in Review," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1452, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1452 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .

General Information Product↗
USGS2015

Whooping crane stopover site use intensity within the Great Plains

Whooping cranes ( Grus americana ) of the Aransas-Wood Buffalo population migrate twice each year through the Great Plains in North America. Recovery activities for this endangered species include providing adequate places to stop and rest during migration, which are generally referred to as stopover sites. To assist in recovery efforts, initial estimates of stopover site use intensity are presented, which provide opportunity to identify areas across the migration range used more intensively by whooping cranes. We used location data acquired from 58 unique individuals fitted with platform transmitting terminals that collected global position system locations. Radio-tagged birds provided 2,158 stopover sites over 10 migrations and 5 years (2010–14). Using a grid-based approach, we identified 1,095 20-square-kilometer grid cells that contained stopover sites. We categorized occupied grid cells based on density of stopover sites and the amount of time cranes spent in the area. This assessment resulted in four categories of stopover site use: unoccupied, low intensity, core intensity, and extended-use core intensity. Although provisional, this evaluation of stopover site use intensity offers the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and partners a tool to identify landscapes that may be of greater conservation significance to migrating whooping cranes. Initially, the tool will be used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other interested parties in evaluating the Great Plains Wind Energy Habitat Conservation Plan.

Alberta, Iowa, Kansas, Manitoba, Minnesota, Missou↗
USGS2012

Socioeconomic issues for the Bear River Watershed Conservation Land Area Protection Plan

The Bear River Watershed Conservation Area is located in the Bear River Watershed, a vast basin covering fourteen counties across three states. Located in Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, the watershed spans roughly 7,500 squares miles: 1,500 squares miles in Wyoming; 2,700 squares miles in Idaho; and 3,300 squares miles in Utah (Utah Division of Water Resources, 2004). Three National Wildlife Refuges are currently contained within the boundary of the BRWCA: the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Utah, the Bear Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Idaho, and the Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge in Wyoming. In 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a Preliminary Project Proposal and identified the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area as having high-value wildlife habitat. This finding initiated the Land Protection Planning process, which is used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study land conservation opportunities including adding lands to the National Wildlife Refuge System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to include part of the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area in the Refuge System by acquiring up to 920,000 acres of conservation easements from willing landowners to maintain landscape integrity and habitat connectivity in the region. The analysis described in this report provides a profile of the social and economic conditions in the Bear River Watershed Conservation Area and addresses social and economic questions and concerns raised during public involvement in the Land Protection Planning process.

Wyoming;Utah;Idaho↗
USGS2007

Wind River Watershed Restoration: Annual report April 2006 to March 2007

This report summarizes work completed by U.S. Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS-CRRL) in the Wind River subbasin during the period April 2006 through March 2007 under Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) contract 26922. During this period, we collected temperature, flow, and habitat data to characterize physical habitat condition and variation within and among tributaries and mainstem sections in the Wind River subbasin. We also conducted electrofishing and snorkeling surveys to determine juvenile salmonid populations within select study areas throughout the subbasin. Portions of this work were completed with additional funding from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group (LCFEG). Funding from USFWS was for work to contribute to a study of potential interactions between introduced Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and wild steelhead O. mykiss. Funding from LCFEG was for work to evaluate the effects of nutrient enrichment in small streams. A statement of work (SOW) was submitted to BPA in March 2006 that outlined work to be performed by USGS-CRRL. The SOW was organized by work elements, with each describing a research task. This report summarizes the progress completed under each work element.

Washington↗
USGS2007

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2006

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2006 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of- the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). After considerable delays due to programming issues, a computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was development and tested in 2005 and 2006. Simulations using observations of collared females with COY were randomly sampled to generate datasets of observations of random females with COY. These datasets were then run though the simulations program to test the accuracy of the rules. Data are currently being summarized. This project has been completed and a manuscript was submitted to the Journal of Wildlife Management. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established human-caused mortality quotas. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris (1984). A Wildlife Monographs was published in 2006. Additionally, the study team, in cooperation with several quantitative experts, reassessed how population size is indexed and how sustainable mortality rates are established. A draft report was presented to the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee in spring 2005. It was published as part of the USFWS Delisting Rule (Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 221, Nov. 17, 2005, 69853–69884) and subjected to public comment. This workshop document can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. During the summer of 2006, a second workshop was held to address public comment and professional peer review. The result of this workshop was a supplement to the 2005 workshop document. This supplement can be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm under the link Revised Methods to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits. Results of those estimates are provided in Appendix A. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine was published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770. Results of the mercury studies were also published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493–501. Copies can be found on the IGBST website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. Based upon this work, we submitted a proposal to analyze all historic tissue samples from grizzly bears in the ecosystem. That proposal was funded and samples have been sent to a lab for isotopic analysis. We hope to have those results in early 2008. Results of DNA hair snaring work conducted on Yellowstone Lake were submitted and published in the Journal Ursus (Haroldson et al. 2005). Results of this study conducted from 1997–2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985–1987. As a consequence, the IGBST submitted a proposal to the National Park Service and received 3 years funding to repeat that work. This project began in 2007. There are 2 graduate students and several field technicians working on the program. We completed the final field season in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black bears ( Ursus americanus ). We continue to use GPS technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of the 2006 field season are reported here. We plan to complete the final report in late 2007. We continued to monitor the health of whitebark pine in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) in cooperation with the Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. A summary of the 2006 monitoring is also presented (Appendix B). The IGBST uses counts of winter-killed ungulates to index spring carcass abundance for grizzly bears. Likewise, we use wier counts and stream surveys to index cutthroat trout abundance. We ask Dr. Steve Cherry, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Montana State University-Bozeman, to review the protocols and make recommendations for improving them. That review and recommendations are presented in Appendix C. Finally, the state of Wyoming, following recommendations from the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee and the IGBST, launched the Bear Wise Community Effort. The focus is to minimize human/bear conflicts, minimize human-caused bear mortalities associated with conflicts, and safeguard the human community. Results of these efforts are detailed in Appendix D. The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2006

Contaminant exposure and potential effects on terrestrial vertebrates residing in the National Capital Region network and Mid-Atlantic network

Part of the mission of the National Park Service is to preserve the natural resources, processes, systems, and associated values of its units in an unimpaired condition. Environmental contamination and pollution processes are well recognized stressors addressed by its management policies and plans. A recent study indicates that contemporary terrestrial vertebrate ecotoxicological data are lacking for 59 of 126 Park Service units located in coastal watersheds exhibiting serious water quality problems or high vulnerability to pollution. Based upon these findings, a more in-depth evaluation of contaminant threats and ecotoxicological data gaps related to terrestrial vertebrates was undertaken at 23 Inventory and Monitoring National Park units in National Capital Region and Mid-Atlantic Networks. Ecotoxicological data were compiled for each park unit through literature searches and meetings with Park Service personnel. Information on contemporary and on persistent legacy pollutants in air, water, soil, and terrestrial vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) were evaluated. To identify contaminant threats in proximity to the 23 Park Service study units, data was gathered on National Priority List Superfund sites, Section 303(d) Impaired Waterbodies, the number and relative toxicity of current use pesticides and herbicides, Toxic Release Inventory sites and discharge of priority pollutants, and Fish Consumption Advisories. A metric was derived that described the quality and quantity of existing data for each park, and in combination with known contaminant threats, park units in need of additional study were identified. Results demonstrated that over half of the Park Service study units are near Toxic Release Inventory sites discharging dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls, lead or mercury into air or water, and fish consumption advisories are in effect at or near 22 of the 23 study units. Pesticide and herbicide use at the park units is minimal, with the exception of those units with significant agricultural leases. Despite highly regulated use, many of the pesticides and herbicides applied are believed to be highly toxic to amphibians, and some of the compounds are also highly toxic to birds. Only 70 reports were found that describe terrestrial vertebrate ecotoxicology data on or near the study units. Of the greater than 75,000 compounds in commerce in the United States, existing terrestrial vertebrate exposure and effects data in the pr esent study were limited to 58 legacy organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls and individual congeners, insecticides and rodenticides, metals, and some contemporary compounds (e.g., polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants, and alkylphenol and ethoxylate surfactants). Based upon these and other findings, ecotoxicological monitoring and research investigations of terrestrial vertebrates are warranted at several National Parks. These include Shenandoah National Park, Richmond National Battlefield, Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historic Park, Valley Forge National Historic Park, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site, Monocacy National Battlefield, and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. The types of investigations vary according to the species present at these parks and potential contaminant threats, but should focus on contemporary use pesticides and herbicides, polychlorinated biphenyls, mercury, lead, and perhaps, emerging contaminants including antibiotics, flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, and surfactants. Other management recommendations include additional training for natural resource staff members in the area of ecotoxicology, inclusion of terrestrial vertebrate contaminant monitoring and the Contaminant Assessment Process (U.S. Geological Survey Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends Project) into the National Park Service Vital Signs Program, development of protocols for hand ling and toxicological analysis of dead or seemingly affected wildlife, consideration of some alternative methods and compounds for pest management and weed control, and use of non-toxic fishing tackle by visitors.

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia↗
USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗
USGS1995

Captive propagation, introduction, and translocation programs for wildlife vertebrates

Captive propagation, introduction, and translocation (relocation) programs for many animals have been undertaken by federal, state, and private agencies for more than 20 years. These programs help aid the recovery of endangered and threatened species, reestablish lost species, augment declining populations, increase recreational opportunities, reduce nuisance species, and introduce non-native species. Davidson and Nettles (1992) discuss translocation as a component of successful early restorations of game species including wild turkey ( Meleagris gallopavo ) and white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), and recovery of endangered species such as the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Despite some successes, the total number of translocations that occur yearly is unknown, as is the success and effects of these programs, because there is rarely appreciable monitoring after release (Griffith et al. 1989; Gogan 1990). This report focuses on trends in the use of translocation programs and disease transmission following translocation of wildlife vertebrates other than fish. In the absence of a national data base on wildlife translocations, a search for publications with information on translocations was performed by using Wildlife Review and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Reference Service CD-ROM data bases for the 20-year period, 1971-91. In addition, personnel from multiple federal, state, and private agencies that conduct propagation and translocation programs were contacted for supplemental information and literature. Increasing numbers of books (Neilsen and Brown 1988), journals (Ullrey 1993), and meetings (Junge 1992; Wolff and Seal 1992) discuss wildlife translocations and many contain information on the effects of translocations on animals and their environment.

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

Preliminary juvenile Lost River and shortnose sucker investigations in Clear Lake, California--2011 pilot study summary

Poor recruitment appears to limit the recovery of Lost River and shortnose sucker populations in Clear Lake Reservoir, California, but the cause is unknown. Adult suckers migrate up Willow Creek and its tributaries to spawn in some years, but low flow in Willow Creek may inhibit spawning migrations in other years. It is unclear whether spawning is successful, larvae survive, or juveniles persist to adulthood. Environmental variables associated with successful spawning or young-of-year survival have not been identified and early life history for these populations is poorly understood. The U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Ruby Pipeline L.L.C. Corporation (El Paso, Tex.) initiated a study in 2011 to better understand juvenile sucker life history in Clear Lake Reservoir, and to identify constraints in the early life history that may limit recruitment to the adult spawning populations. This is a report on the 2011 pilot study for this project.

California↗