USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Wildlife Research 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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
USGS2014

Large scale Wyoming transportation data: a resource planning tool

The U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center created statewide roads data for the Bureau of Land Management Wyoming State Office using 2009 aerial photography from the National Agriculture Imagery Program. The updated roads data resolves known concerns of omission, commission, and inconsistent representation of map scale, attribution, and ground reference dates which were present in the original source data. To ensure a systematic and repeatable approach of capturing roads on the landscape using on-screen digitizing from true color National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery, we developed a photogrammetry key and quality assurance/quality control protocols. Therefore, the updated statewide roads data will support the Bureau of Land Management’s resource management requirements with a standardized map product representing 2009 ground conditions. The updated Geographic Information System roads data set product, represented at 1:4,000 and +/- 10 meters spatial accuracy, contains 425,275 kilometers within eight attribute classes. The quality control of these products indicated a 97.7 percent accuracy of aspatial information and 98.0 percent accuracy of spatial locations. Approximately 48 percent of the updated roads data was corrected for spatial errors of greater than 1 meter relative to the pre-existing road data. Twenty-six percent of the updated roads involved correcting spatial errors of greater than 5 meters and 17 percent of the updated roads involved correcting spatial errors of greater than 9 meters. The Bureau of Land Management, other land managers, and researchers can use these new statewide roads data set products to support important studies and management decisions regarding land use changes, transportation and planning needs, transportation safety, wildlife applications, and other studies.

Wyoming↗
USGS2007

Klamath Basin: A watershed approach to support habitat restoration, species recovery, and water resource planning

Water allocation among human and natural resource uses in the American West is challenging. Western rivers have been largely managed for hydropower, irrigation, drinking water, and navigation. Today land and water use practices have gained importance, particularly as aging dams are faced with re-licensing requirements and provisions of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. Rising demand for scarce water heightens the need for scientific research to predict consequences of management actions on habitats, human resource use, and fish and wildlife. Climate change, introduction of invasive species, or restoration of fish passage can have large, landscape-scaled consequences - research must expand to encompass the appropriate scale and by applying multiple scientific disciplines to complex ecosystem challenges improve the adaptive management framework for decision-making.

Oregon; California↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center science highlights for fiscal year 2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center is based in Bozeman, Montana, and has field offices in Glacier National Park, Mont.; Missoula, Mont.; and Knoxville, Tennessee. Our scientists respond to the natural resource management needs of Federal, Tribal, and State partners—directly engaging in the coproduction and application of integrated, interdisciplinary science—and perform place-based research throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, including Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and the northern Great Plains. However, the scope and implications of our research extend across the Nation. Our research themes are as follows: (1) climate change and drought, (2) species at risk, (3) habitat in changing landscapes, and (4) invasive species and wildlife disease. This Fact Sheet highlights examples of dynamic partnerships and key advances in our themes in fiscal year 2023 (October 2022–September 2023).

Fact Sheet↗
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↗
USGS2013

Wind River watershed restoration. Annual report. November 2011 through October 2012

Introduction This report summarizes work by U.S. Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory (USGS-CRRL) in the Wind River subbasin, from November 2011 through October 2012. Funding was provided by Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) under contract 55275. The primary focus of USGS activities during this time was tagging of parr steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss with Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags, and establishing a network of instream PIT tag interrogation systems (PTIS). The PIT-tagged parr steelhead will provide movement and life history data through recapture events and detections at instream PTIS systems, will contribute to estimates of adult steelhead returning to the Wind River, and aid in the evaluation of the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek steelhead populations. The Wind River Watershed project (BPA Project Number 1998-019-00) is a collaborative effort to restore wild steelhead in the Wind River, WA. The four partner agencies are the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), USGS-CRRL, and Underwood Conservation District (UCD). This partnership was established in the early 1990s with support from BPA, and has continued to conduct extensive habitat, research, monitoring, and coordination activities across the subbasin. The project works at multiple levels to identify and characterize key limiting habitat factors in the Wind River; restore degraded habitats and watershed processes; document fish populations, life histories, and interactions; investigate efficacy of restoration actions; and to share information across agency and non-agency boundaries. Long-term research in the Wind River has focused on assessments of steelhead/rainbow trout populations, relationships with introduced populations of spring Chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis , and effects of habitat variables and habitat restoration on fish productivity. During the period covered by this report, we PIT tagged steelhead parr in headwater sections of the subbasin (Figure 1), maintained a PTIS in Trout Creek, installed a PTIS in the Wind River, and installed smaller scale PTISs in Trapper Creek, Paradise Creek, and the Wind River upstream of Paradise Creek (Figure 2). Additionally we maintained thermologgers to collect water temperature data near the PIT tagging sites. A statement of work (SOW) was submitted to BPA in October 2011 that outlined work to be performed by USGS-CRRL. The SOW was organized by Work Element (WE), with each describing a research task. This report summarizes the progress completed under each WE.

Washington↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here and built on to incorporate new information. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter “GRSG”) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” under the Endangered Species Act was in part a result of a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the USGS has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. Our most recent GRSG literature summary was published in 2020 (Carter and others, 2020) and included products published through October 2, 2019. Here, we consider products published between October 2, 2019, and July 21, 2022. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and USGS Open-File Reports) on greater sage-grouse. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products for which greater sage-grouse was not a research focus or the study did not present new data or findings about greater sage-grouse. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified management topics addressed by each product; for example, species and population characteristics. We also identified projects that provided new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 221 total products, of which 147 met our criteria for inclusion. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and population estimates or targets were the most commonly addressed management topics. The online version of this bibliography, which will be available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ), will be searchable by topic, location, and year, and will include links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GRSG populations across the GRSG range.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Statistical power analysis in wildlife research

Statistical power analysis can be used to increase the efficiency of research efforts and to clarify research results. Power analysis is most valuable in the design or planning phases of research efforts. Such prospective (a priori) power analyses can be used to guide research design and to estimate the number of samples necessary to achieve a high probability of detecting biologically significant effects. Retrospective (a posteriori) power analysis has been advocated as a method to increase information about hypothesis tests that were not rejected. However, estimating power for tests of null hypotheses that were not rejected with the effect size observed in the study is incorrect; these power estimates will always be ≤ 0.50 when bias adjusted and have no relation to true power. Therefore, retrospective power estimates based on the observed effect size for hypothesis tests that were not rejected are misleading; retrospective power estimates are only meaningful when based on effect sizes other than the observed effect size, such as those effect sizes hypothesized to be biologically significant. Retrospective power analysis can be used effectively to estimate the number of samples or effect size that would have been necessary for a completed study to have rejected a specific null hypothesis. Simply presenting confidence intervals can provide additional information about null hypotheses that were not rejected, including information about the size of the true effect and whether or not there is adequate evidence to 'accept' a null hypothesis as true. We suggest that (1) statistical power analyses be routinely incorporated into research planning efforts to increase their efficiency, (2) confidence intervals be used in lieu of retrospective power analyses for null hypotheses that were not rejected to assess the likely size of the true effect, (3) minimum biologically significant effect sizes be used for all power analyses, and (4) if retrospective power estimates are to be reported, then the α -level, effect sizes, and sample sizes used in calculations must also be reported.

Journal of Wildlife Management↗
USGS2009

Alaska Interagency Ecosystem Health Work Group

The Alaska Interagency Ecosystem Health Work Group is a community of practice that recognizes the interconnections between the health of ecosystems, wildlife, and humans and meets to facilitate the exchange of ideas, data, and research opportunities. Membership includes the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Sea Life Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2014

Trouble in the aquatic world: How wildlife professionals are battling amphibian declines

A parasitic fungus, similar to the one that caused the extinction of numerous tropical frog and toad species, is killing salamanders in Europe. Scientists first identified the fungus, Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans, in 2013 as the culprit behind the death of fire salamanders ( Salamandr a salamandra ) in the Netherlands ( Martel et al. 2013 ) and are now exploring its potential impact to other species. Although the fungus, which kills the amphibians by infecting their skin, has not yet spread to the United States, researchers believe it’s only a matter of time before it does and, when that happens, the impact on salamander populations could be devastating ( Martel et al. 2014 ). Reports of worldwide declines of amphibians began a quarter of a century ago ( Blaustein & Wake 1990 ). Globally, some amphibian population declines occurred in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and declining trends continued in North America ( Houlahan et al. 2000 ). In the earlier years, population declines were attributed primarily to overharvest due to unregulated supply of species such as the northern leopard frog ( Lithobate s pipiens ) for educational use ( Dodd 2013 ). In later years, however, causes of declines were less evident. In 1989, herpetologists at the First World Congress of Herpetology traded alarming stories of losses across continents and in seemingly protected landscapes, making it clear that amphibian population declines were a “global phenomenon.” In response to these reports, in 1991, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force to better understand the scale and scope of global amphibian declines. Unfortunately, the absence of long-term monitoring data and targeted studies made it difficult for the task force to compile information. Today, according to AmphibiaWeb.org, there are 7,342 amphibian species in the world — double the number since the first alerts of declines — making the situation appear deceptively less dire. In fact, our understanding of genetic diversity significantly raises the stakes, and we are at risk of losing far more species than we believed only a few years ago. According to the IUCN, amphibians now lead the list of vertebrate taxa affected by the larger “biodiversity crisis” and sixth major mass- extinction event on Earth ( Keith et al. 2014 , Wake and Vredenburg 2008 ).

The Wildlife Professional↗
USGS2000

Managers' summary - Ecological studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997

Ecological Studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997 provides a synthesis of key findings of landscape-scale, interdisciplinary studies of the effects of wild horses and native ungulates on a rugged, mountain ecosystem. This is perhaps the most comprehensive study of a wild horse herd conducted. This was a complex study and one involving a truly interagency approach. Six agencies either provided input to research priority setting, funding, or both. The agencies included the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and U.S. Forest Service. The major research direction and effort came from the U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Ecology Lab, Colorado State University with Montana State University and the University of Kentucky also participating. Ungulate monitoring was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Bureau of Land Management, Billings Field Office and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Parks, with funding by Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Many other individuals and groups were involved and deserve credit. The report printing was made possible with funds from the Bureau of Land Management, Wild Horse and Burro Program, Washington Office. This report was prepared by the Information Management Project, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey.

Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2007

Winter ecology of the western burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ) in southern Texas 1999-2004

This study examines the winter ecology of the western burrowing owl ( Athene cunicularia hypugaea ) in five Texas counties surrounding Corpus Christi, in southern Texas. There is a substantial gap in information on the owl's life cycle during migration and non-breeding winter months; almost all previous research on western burrowing owls has been conducted during the breeding season. The western burrowing owl currently is federally threatened in Mexico, federally endangered in Canada, and in the United States is considered a National Bird of Conservation Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Topics investigated included status, effectiveness of public outreach, roost sites and use of culverts and artificial burrows, roost site fidelity, diet, contaminant burdens, body mass, and ectoparasites. Early ornithological reports and a museum egg set revealed that burrowing owls once bred in southern Texas and were common in winter; however, since the 1950's they have been reported in relatively low numbers and only during winter. In this study, public outreach increased western burrowing owl detections by 68 percent. Owls selected winter roost sites with small-diameter openings, including culverts less than or equal to 16 centimeters and artificial burrows of 15 centimeters, probably because the small diameters deterred mammalian predators. Owls showed strong roost site fidelity; 15 banded birds stayed at the same roost sites within a winter, and 8 returned to the same site the following winter. The winter diet was over 90 percent insects, with crickets the primary prey. Analyses of invertebrate prey and regurgitated pellets showed that residues of all but 3 of 28 carbamate and organophosphate pesticides were detected at least once, but all were below known lethal concentrations. Mean body mass of western burrowing owls was 168 grams and was highest in midwinter. Feather lice were detected in low numbers on a few owls, but no fleas or other ectoparasites were found.

Texas↗
USGS2016

National protocol framework for the inventory and monitoring of bees

This national protocol framework is a standardized tool for the inventory and monitoring of the approximately 4,200 species of native and non-native bee species that may be found within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, this protocol framework may also be used by other organizations and individuals to monitor bees in any given habitat or location. Our goal is to provide USFWS stations within the NWRS (NWRS stations are land units managed by the USFWS such as national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, wetland management districts, conservation areas, leased lands, etc.) with techniques for developing an initial baseline inventory of what bee species are present on their lands and to provide an inexpensive, simple technique for monitoring bees continuously and for monitoring and evaluating long-term population trends and management impacts. The latter long-term monitoring technique requires a minimal time burden for the individual station, yet can provide a good statistical sample of changing populations that can be investigated at the station, regional, and national levels within the USFWS’ jurisdiction, and compared to other sites within the United States and Canada. This protocol framework was developed in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the USFWS, and a worldwide network of bee researchers who have investigated the techniques and methods for capturing bees and tracking population changes. The protocol framework evolved from field and lab-based investigations at the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland starting in 2002 and was refined by a large number of USFWS, academic, and state groups. It includes a Protocol Introduction and a set of 8 Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs and adheres to national standards of protocol content and organization. The Protocol Narrative describes the history and need for the protocol framework and summarizes the basic elements of objectives, sampling design, field methods, training, data management, analysis, and reporting. The SOPs provide more detail and specific instructions for implementing the protocol framework. A central database, for managing all the resulting data is under development. We welcome use of this protocol framework by our partners, as appropriate for their bee inventory and monitoring objectives.

Report↗
USGS2023

Effects of noise from oil and gas development on ungulates and small mammals—A science synthesis to inform National Environmental Policy Act analyses

The U.S. Geological Survey is working with Federal land management agencies to develop a series of science syntheses to support environmental effects analyses that agencies conduct to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This report synthesizes science information about the potential effects of noise from oil and gas development on North American ungulates and small mammals, including rodents and leporids. We conducted a structured search of published scientific literature to find information about noise levels produced during oil and gas development, methods for analyzing sound propagation, the effects of noise on ungulates and small mammals, and measures to reduce noise emissions. We organized the sections of this synthesis to align with standard elements of NEPA analyses. We found that oil and gas development is a common source of human-caused noise on public lands and includes noise sources such as heavy construction and drilling machinery, long-term production machinery, truck traffic, and aircraft. Common techniques for predicting potential noise include field data collection using a sound level meter, inference from previously published data, and sound propagation modeling. A substantial body of research shows that human-caused noise can affect wildlife health and behavior, with variation in sensitivity to noise among species. Studies have shown consistent, detectable effects of noise on ungulates, but the amount of literature on ungulates is very small, and additional research could improve our understanding of differences in effects among species, seasons, and individual indicators of fitness. Several species of small mammals are dependent on audible signals for predator detection and communication, and noise has been shown to affect their vigilance and foraging behavior. However, other studies have documented no effects to rodents in noisy areas, and the effects of noise on small mammals may differ by species and study system. Techniques suggested in the literature for reducing noise emissions include sound barriers, seasonal and daily timing restrictions, traffic control measures, and siting infrastructure to take advantage of natural sound barriers. Public land managers can use this report by incorporating it by reference in NEPA documentation, as supplemental information, or as a general reference for literature about the effects of noise from oil and gas development on ungulates and small mammals.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2004

Fort Collins Science Center: Policy Analysis and Science Assistance

Most resource management decisions involve the integrated use of biological, sociological, and economic information. Combining this information provides a more comprehensive basis for making effective land management and conservation decisions. Toward this end, scientists in the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) contribute expert knowledge for natural resources management by conducting biological, social, economic, and institutional analyses of conservation policies and management practices. PASA's mission is to integrate biological, social, and economic research so that resource managers can use the resulting information to make informed decisions and resolve resource management conflicts. PASA scientists pursue and conduct scientific analyses that help agencies and Native American tribes to (1) identify impending policy controversies and areas where social and natural science research is needed to address future policy questions; (2) develop methods and approaches to assist researchers in preparing scientific evidence; (3) assess habitat alteration in a manner consistent with policy needs; and (4) evaluate policy options. Branch scientists also evaluate policy options (e.g., effects of different land treatments, fish and wildlife management practices, or visitor/recreation management practices) in response to specific questions faced by policymakers and managers.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2005

Public access management as an adaptive wildlife management tool

Wildlife populations across the United States are benefiting from improved wildlife management techniques. However, these benefits also create new challenges including overpopulation, disease, increased winter kill, and forage degradation. These issues have become the challenges for natural resource managers and landowners. Specifically, elk (Cervus elaphus) populations in the Gunnison River Valley of Colorado are growing and causing increased resource damage on public and private lands. On public lands elk threaten sage grouse habitat and compete with domestic livestock for available forage; on private lands they diminish available livestock forage. Management of elk and elk habitat in this area is a shared responsibility of the NPS (Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Curecanti National Recreation Area), BLM (Uncompahgre Field Office), USFS (Gunnison National Forest), and the CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife). All of these agencies participate in this research and adaptive management project. One key issue in the Black Mesa – Black Canyon area is the interaction between motorized vehicles and. The working hypothesis for this study is that early season elk movement onto private lands and the National Park is precipitated by increased use of Off Highway Vehicles (OHV’s). Data on intensity of motorized use is extremely limited. In this study, we monitor intensity of motorized vehicle and trail use on elk movements and habitat usage and analyze interactions. If management agencies decide to alter accessibility, we will monitor wildlife responses to changes in the human-use regime. This provides a unique opportunity for adaptive management experimentation based on coordinated research and monitoring. The products from this project will provide natural resource managers across the nation with tools and information to better meet these resource challenges.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1952

Twenty five years of Federal fishery research on the Great Lakes

The major purpose of this publication is to present an annotated bibliography of papers resulting from Federal investigations on the Great Lakes fish and fisheries since the formal initiation of a continuing research program by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is believed that this purpose can be served best by prefacing that bibliography with a brief account of the origins of Great Lakes Fishery Investigations, of the circumstances that have guided their course, and of the scientists who have participated in the several studies.

Special Scientific Report - Fisheries↗
USGS2001

Biology and conservation of the common murre in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia: Vol. 1, Natural history and population trends

Over the past 30 years, the common murre ( Uria aalge californica ) has been recognized as a prominent indicator of marine conservation issues in California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia, especially regarding oil pollution, certain fisheries, and human disturbance. To assist the effective management of the common murre and the marine environments in which they live, this summary of available information on the biology and regional status of the common murre has been sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Division of Migratory Bird Management). In Volume 1 (Chapter 1), the natural history of the common murre is summarized, drawing heavily on breeding studies from the South Farallon Islands, California, plus a host of detailed breeding studies from the North Atlantic Ocean. Population trends of the common murre are summarized in Volume 1 (Chapter 2), focusing on changes in whole-colony counts determined from aerial photographs between the late 1970s and 1995 in California, Oregon and Washington. Historical data and human impacts to murre colonies since the early nineteenth century are also summarized. Volume 2 will summarize population threats, conservation, and management. Information presented in Volume 1 has been obtained and recorded by a large number of researchers and natural historians over two centuries. From the 1960s to 1995, most work in California, Oregon, and Washington was sponsored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minerals Management Service, and California Department of Fish and Game. Important breeding biology studies were conducted at the South Farallon Islands (Farallon National Wildlife Refuge) by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge). Colony surveys in California were conducted mainly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge), U.S. Geological Survey (Western Ecological Research Center, Dixon Field Station), Humboldt State University, and University of California (Santa Cruz). Colony surveys in Oregon and Washington were conducted mainly by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge and Washington Maritime National Wildlife Refuges). In British Columbia, most work from the 1960s to 1995 was sponsored and conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service and Royal British Columbia Museum.

British Columbia, California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2013

Accuracy of the Missouri River Least Tern and Piping Plover Monitoring Program: considerations for the future

The upper Missouri River system provides nesting and foraging habitat for federally endangered least terns (Sternula antillarum; hereafter “terns”) and threatened piping plovers (Charadrius melodus; hereafter “plovers”). These species are the subject of substantial management interest on the Missouri River for several reasons. First, ecosystem recovery is a goal for management agencies that seek to maintain or restore natural functions and native biological communities for the Missouri River system. Terns and plovers are recognized as important ecosystem components that are linked with the river’s ecological functions. Second, although both species breed beyond the Missouri River system, the Missouri River is one of the principal breeding areas in the Northern Great Plains; thus, the river system is a focal area for recovery actions targeted at regional population goals. Third, a Biological Opinion for Missouri River operations established annual productivity goals for terns and plovers, and the recovery plan for each species established annual population goals. Meeting these goals is a key motivation in management decision making and implementation with regard to both species. A myriad of conservation and management interests necessitate understanding numbers, distribution, and productivity of terns and plovers on the Missouri River system. To this end, a Tern and Plover Monitoring Program (TPMP) was implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter “Corps”) in 1986, and has since provided annual estimates of tern and plover numbers and productivity for five Missouri River reservoirs and four river reaches (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993). The TPMP has served as the primary source of information about the status of terns and plovers on the Missouri River, and TPMP data have been used for a wide variety of purposes. In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC) was tasked by the Corps to evaluate the accuracy of the TPMP and provide guidance on revising the program to assess tern and plover numbers and reproductive success. Accordingly, NPWRC studied terns and plovers on two river reaches and one reservoir (hereafter “the evaluation”), and used the results of those studies to help understand properties and potential limitations of TPMP data and to provide guidance for TPMP revisions. The purpose of this report is to present an overview and evaluation of the TPMP data, the results of our intensive monitoring, and propose an alternative idea that provides a framework for making decisions about how to monitor terns and plovers.

Montana;Nebraska;North Dakota;South Dakota↗