USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “California Fish and Game”

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.

116 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2008

Biological and societal dimensions of lead poisoning in birds in the USA

The ingestion of spent lead shot was known to cause mortality in wild waterfowl in the US a century before the implementation of nontoxic shot regulations began in 1972. The biological foundation for this transition was strongly supported by both field observations and structured scientific investigations. Despite the overwhelming evidence, various societal factors forestalled the full transition to nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting until 1991. Now, nearly 20 years later, these same factors weigh heavily in current debates about nontoxic shot requirements for hunting other game birds, requiring nontoxic bullets for big game hunting in California Condor range and for restricting the use of small lead sinkers and jig heads for sport-fishing. As with waterfowl, a strong science-based foundation is requisite for further transitions to nontoxic ammunition and fishing weights. Our experiences have taught us that the societal aspects of this transition are as important as the biological components and must be adequately addressed before alternatives to toxic lead ammunition, fishing weights, and other materials will be accepted as an investment in wildlife conservation.

Book chapter↗
USGS1989

Spatial, seasonal and diel distribution of fishes in a California reservoir dominated by native fishes

During 21 months of sampling with various techniques, we captured 24 species of fish in Britton Reservoir. Nine species comprised over 96% of the number of fish captured and approximately 88% of the biomass. Five native non-game species accounted for over 77% of the catches. The native non-game fishes have maintained large populations in the reservoir despite continued introductions of non-native species. Two sources of non-native species exist. The first is the introduction of exotic species directly into the reservoir during fish-stocking programs. The second is the continuous movement of non-native fishes into the reservoir from large populations which reside in a major tributary of the reservoir. Factors responsible for the large number of native fishes are: management of the reservoir for hydroelectric generation; temperature regime; reservoir morphology. The fish community structure is stratified along two axes: upper basin/lower basin and inshore/offshore. Most of the 24 species were found inshore: 14 species were found offshore. Four of the native non-game fishes were most abundant in the upper basin: three introduced non-native fishes were most abundant in the lower basin of the reservoir. The offshore community was dynamic on a daily and seasonal basis.

California↗
USGS1962

Fish kill from underwater explosions

The U.S. Geological Survey has used 23 different shotpoints during two seasons of field work in our seismic study of crustal structure in western United States. Without exception, it has been found that under-water shotpoints result in a more efficient conversion of explosive energy into seismic energy than do drilled-hole shotpoints. This experience, together with elimination of drilling costs, has led to the use of underwater shotpoints wherever possible. Three of the 23 shotpoints were in the Pacific Ocean, and for these we have no detailed information on the fish kill. Another six shotpoints were located in inland bodies of water. These are: * Soda Lake near Fallon, Nevada * Mono Lake near Lee Vining, California * Lake Mead near Boulder City, Nevada * Shasta Lake near Redding, California * C.J. Strike Reservoir near Bruneau, Idaho * Lucky Peak Reservoir near Boise, Idaho The 22 high-explosive charges, weighing a total of 95,100 pounds, that were fired in lakes containing fish life resulted in the known death of 2,413 game fish with a total weight of 759 pounds. The average mortality was 110 game fish or 34.5 pounds of game fish killed per average shot of 4,325 pounds of high-explosives.

California;Nevada;Idaho↗
USGS1998

Translocated sea otter populations off the coasts of Oregon and Washington

The historical distribution of sea otters extended from the northern islands of Japan north and east across the Aleutian chain to the mainland of North America then south along the west coast to central Baja California, Mexico (Riedman and Estes 1990). By the beginning of the twentieth century, after 150 years of being intensively hunted for their valuable fur, sea otters had been extirpated from most of their range (Kenyon 1969). In 1911 sea otters were protected by the passage of the International Fur Seal Treaty. Unfortunately, only 13 remnant populations survived the fur-hunting period, and two of those, British Columbia and Mexico, would also ultimately disappear, leaving only a small group of sea otters south of Alaska, along the rugged Big Sur coast of California (Kenyon 1969). The earliest attempts to reestablish sea otters to unoccupied habitat were begun in the early 1950’s by R. D. (Sea Otter) Jones, then manager of the Aleutian National Wildlife Refuge (Kenyon 1969). These early efforts were experimental, and all failed to establish populations. However, the knowledge gained from Jones’s efforts and the seminal work of Kenyon (1969) and others during the 1950’s and early 1960’s ultimately led to the successful efforts to come. During the mid-1960’s the Alaska Department of Fish and Game began translocating sea otters to sites where the species had occurred before the fur-trade period. The first translocations were restricted to Alaska, but beginning in 1969 and continuing through 1972, the effort expanded beyond Alaska. During this period, 241 sea otters were translocated to sites in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Jameson et al. 1982). The work was done cooperatively between state and provincial conservation agencies, with much of the financial support for the Oregon and Washington efforts coming from the Atomic Energy Commission (now ERDA). Followup studies of the Oregon population began in 1971 and continued through 1975. After 1975, surveys in Oregon occurred infrequently. In Washington no follow-up surveys were conducted until 1977, although the population has been monitored closely since then (Jameson et al. 1982, 1986; Jeffries and Jameson 1995).

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2019

North American Bat Monitoring Program regional protocol for surveying with stationary deployments of echolocation recording devices: Narrative version 1.0, Pacific Northwestern US

The outbreak of white-nose syndrome (WNS) and the growing awareness of the risks to bats from wind power generating facilities have driven radical changes to North American bat conservation. Over the last decade, formerly common species such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) have experienced unprecedented mortality rates and are now facing non-trivial extinction risk. In response to this change, federal land management agencies such as the US National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management and state wildlife management agencies such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Idaho Fish and Game have invested in collaborative, interagency bat monitoring to close the gap in information about bat welfare and to inform bat conservation strategies. Bats are notoriously difficult to track and study and there remains a paucity of fundamental information about the seasonal patterns of bat activity and habitat use and population distributions and abundances. Moreover, because bats are so highly mobile and difficult to survey (e.g., nocturnal flight), this information needs to be contextualized at broad regional (e.g., 10,000 km2) and range-wide extents. Delimiting bat populations at local scales (e.g., 100 km2) is very difficult and it is not clear, for example, how a declining trend in local (e.g., a small park unit) patterns of bat activity or relative abundance should be interpreted without broader context. In recognition of these challenges, a plan for coordinated continental-scale monitoring of bats, the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) was developed (Loeb et al. 2015). The centerpiece of the plan is the use of a spatially-balanced randomized master sample of grid-cell sample units from a grid-based sampling frame to provide the architecture for collaboration and the statistical foundation for making inferences about bat populations across broad regions and entire bat geographic ranges. The plan outlines general goals, survey design, and field methods for both summertime acoustic surveys of bats as well as winter and summer counts of bats in hibernacula and maternity colonies but it does not provide field-level protocol and standard operating procedures for consistent and efficient implementation. This regional protocol provides these details for one component of NABat, the deployment of stationary acoustic detectors to record bats during summer, as is called for by the NABat plan. This protocol was written specifically to provide guidance and consistency across the Pacific Northwestern US (N. California [California Department of Fish and Wildlife Northern Region], Idaho, Washington, and Oregon; US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 and portion of Region 8 [in Northern California and Klamath Basin]; US Forest Service Region 6 and portions of Regions 1 and 5 in Idaho; and the Upper Columbia Basin, North Coast Cascades, and Klamath Networks of the National Park Service). This region has internal cohesion, sharing a distinct bat faunal assemblage of 15 species (with several additional species occurring on the southern periphery of the region), and a long history of collaborative bat monitoring beginning with the interagency Bat Grid Program which operated from 2003-2010 across Oregon and Washington (US Forest Service Region 6). This protocol will be coordinated and implemented by the Northwestern Bat Hub, on behalf of the collective interagency partnership. The Northwestern Bat Hub is housed on the Oregon State University-Cascades campus and leverages pooled partner funds and resources to maintain a small staff that coordinates and conducts monitoring, provides training and oversight, ensures high-quality data quality and control, and analyzes data and reports on results.

California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2025

A partnership between the USGS and the Klamath Tribes to apply structured decision making for chronic wasting disease management

Project Overview: The Klamath Tribes (TKT) are the Klamath, Modoc, and Yahooskin Paiute peoples, and are the first peoples of the land, having lived in ancestral lands of Oregon and California since time immemorial. Members of TKT have rights to hunt, fish, trap, and gather, including the harvest of mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and elk ( Cervus canadensis nelsoni ) within the 1.19 million acres of their Reserved Treaty Rights Area. Anthropogenic changes threaten the well-being of mule deer and elk and of the Tribes that rely on them. Today, these species are a primary protein source for TKT. They are traded within TKT and among other Tribes and provide materials for cultural and sacred items such as regalia. However, mule deer numbers have been declining across the western states for the past several decades because of multiple stressors, including persistent and frequent drought and wildfires, habitat loss and degradation, vehicle mortality, and increasing barriers to migratory movements between summer and winter ranges. The migratory movements of mule deer, which allow deer to access the best available seasonal habitats, put them at risk of another potential stressor—infection with chronic wasting disease (CWD). Chronic wasting disease is a fatal prion disease of deer that has been detected in 36 U.S. states. It was detected in free-ranging mule deer in northern Idaho in 2021, prompting the Tribes to initiate a planning process for CWD surveillance, prevention, and response measures to preserve and protect the deer and elk within the Reserved Treaty Rights Area. In 2023, the Klamath Tribes Natural Resources Department began to develop their CWD plan by incorporating preliminary input provided by the Klamath Indian Game Commission (KIGC) and working with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This collaborative effort includes the application of structured decision making and the development of mathematical models to analyze potential CWD management strategies. The result will be a transparent assessment that incorporates TKT values throughout the process and can inform place-based management of the cultural, natural, and physical resources upon which the Tribes depend. In addition, this process may provide opportunities for broader coordination by natural resource management agencies to work together to ensure the long-term health and sustainability of deer and elk populations within the Reserved Treaty Rights Area and throughout the state of Oregon.

Oregon↗
USGS2007

Using a remote sensing/GIS model to predict southwestern Willow Flycatcher breeding habitat along the Rio Grande, New Mexico

Introduction The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; hereafter SWFL) is a federally endangered bird (USFWS 1995) that breeds in riparian areas in portions of New Mexico, Arizona, southwestern Colorado, extreme southern Utah and Nevada, and southern California (USFWS 2002). Across this range, it uses a variety of plant species as nesting/breeding habitat, but in all cases prefers sites with dense vegetation, high canopy, and proximity to surface water or saturated soils (Sogge and Marshall 2000). As of 2005, the known rangewide breeding population of SWFLs was roughly 1,214 territories, with approximately 393 territories distributed among 36 sites in New Mexico (Durst et al. 2006), primarily along the Rio Grande. One of the key challenges facing the management and conservation of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is that riparian areas are dynamic, with individual habitat patches subject to cycles of creation, growth, and loss due to drought, flooding, fire, and other disturbances. Former breeding patches can lose suitability, and new habitat can develop within a matter of only a few years, especially in reservoir drawdown zones. Therefore, measuring and predicting flycatcher habitat - either to discover areas that might support SWFLs, or to identify areas that may develop into appropriate habitat - requires knowledge of recent/current habitat conditions and an understanding of the factors that determine flycatcher use of riparian breeding sites. In the past, much of the determination of whether a riparian site is likely to support breeding flycatchers has been based on qualitative criteria (for example, 'dense vegetation' or 'large patches'). These determinations often require on-the-ground field evaluations by local or regional SWFL experts. While this has proven valuable in locating many of the currently known breeding sites, it is difficult or impossible to apply this approach effectively over large geographic areas (for example, the middle Rio Grande). The SWFL Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002) recognizes the importance of developing new approaches to habitat identification, and recommends the development of drainage-scale, quantitative habitat models. In particular, the plan suggests using models based on remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS) technology that can capture the relatively dynamic habitat changes that occur in southwestern riparian systems. In 1999, Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) developed a GIS-based model (Hatten and Paradzick 2003) to identify SWFL breeding habitat from Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery and 30-m resolution digital elevation models (DEMs). The model was developed with presence/absence survey data acquired along the San Pedro and Gila rivers, and from the Salt River and Tonto Creek inlets to Roosevelt Lake in southern Arizona (collectively called the project area). The GIS-based model used a logistic regression equation to divide riparian vegetation into 5 probability classes based upon characteristics of riparian vegetation and floodplain size. This model was tested by predicting SWFL breeding habitat at Alamo Lake, Arizona, located 200 km from the project area (Hatten and Paradzick 2003). The GIS-based model performed as expected by identifying riparian areas with the highest SWFL nest densities, located in the higher probability classes. In 2002, AGFD applied the GIS-based model throughout Arizona, for riparian areas below 1,524 m (5,000 ft) elevation and within 1.6 km of perennial or intermittent waters (Dockens et al. 2004). Overall model accuracy (using probability classes 1-5, with class 5 having the greatest probability of nesting activity) for predicting the location of 2001 nest sites was 96.5 percent; accuracy decreased when fewer probability classes were defined as suitable. Map accuracy, determined from errors of commission, increased in higher probability classes in a fashion similar to errors of omission. Map accuracy, li

Colorado, New Mexico↗
USGS2020

Book review: Proceedings of the First International Snakehead Symposium

Snakehead fishes (family Channidae) are among the most maligned aquatic invasive species in the USA and some other countries where they have been introduced outside of their native range in Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, snakeheads continue to be widely exploited in the live‐food trade in aquaculture and wild‐capture fisheries, are highly sought by anglers, and are also popular in the aquarium trade (Courtenay and Williams 2004). The Northern Snakehead Channa argus is the most widespread of the three channid species that are currently naturalized in the USA. This species has generated much concern and controversy, a situation that is partly fueled by sensational media coverage and B‐grade science fiction horror films, such as “Frankenfish,” “Snakehead Terror,” and “Snakehead Swamp.” Media reports of snakehead introductions are often replete with provocative terms, such as “vicious,” “villain,” “voracious,” “monster,” “diabolical,” and even “ecological Armageddon.” When snakeheads first appeared in natural waters of the USA, fisheries professionals became increasingly interested in their status. Established populations rapidly expanded in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas, with scattered reports of introduced snakeheads from isolated locations in Hawaii, California, North Carolina, Florida, the Upper Midwest, and New England. In 2002, snakeheads were added to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act, thereby prohibiting their importation or transport across state lines without a permit. This symposium was conceived by the editors and other concerned fisheries professionals of the Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species. The mission of the symposium, held in Alexandria, Virginia, in July 2018, was to bring together experts on snakehead biology and ecology and to synthesize existing information into summary papers. In this book, 35 authors contributed to 15 peer‐reviewed articles that detail the current state of knowledge about snakehead introductions in the USA. Additionally, 16 abstracts are included from meeting presentations that were not accompanied by full‐length manuscripts. Also included is a summary of a facilitated symposium panel discussion featuring eight experts representing state and federal natural resource agencies and private fishing organizations. The book is organized into six sections. In the first section (Distribution), three papers provide an overview of the Channa species introduced into the USA and historical accounts of occurrence and dispersal of the Northern Snakehead in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas. The second section (Biology/Ecology) consists of two articles that examine growth and energetics of Northern Snakehead populations and two papers that investigate diet, diel feeding activity, and movement of this species in the Potomac River drainage. The third section (Monitoring/Response) includes a paper that models range expansion of the Northern Snakehead in the southeastern USA based on occurrence data and environmental conditions. Also included in this section is a paper summarizing an environmental DNA study to assess the status and range of the Bullseye Snakehead C. marulius in southern Florida. The fourth section (Management/Control) is comprised of four papers that address harvest, age and growth, and development of a stock–recruitment model to inform management decisions regarding control and mitigation for Northern Snakehead populations in the greater Chesapeake Bay area. The fifth section (Perspectives) includes a paper on the history of snakehead introductions in Japan and a thought‐provoking social commentary on the human dimensions of Northern Snakehead management. Abstracts in the final section provide brief summaries of a diversity of snakehead studies, including aspects of distribution, ecology, behavior, control and monitoring efforts, public outreach, and pathology. The summary of the panel discussion is an engaging dialogue about the challenges of snakehead management in the context of conflicts regarding snakeheads as injurious versus their value as game and food species. Most of this book is focused on the Northern Snakehead. Much has been done to document snakehead distributions and certain aspects of snakehead biology, such as diets, age, and growth. Less research has been devoted to understanding the ecological impacts of snakeheads to native aquatic communities and ecosystems. This book would have benefited from a chapter summarizing the current systematics and diversity of the Channidae to inform fisheries biologists about the morphological characteristics of the family, approximate numbers of genera and species, and taxonomic instability. Exemplifying the latter, recent molecular and morphological evidence indicates uncertainty regarding identification of the feral snakehead population in Florida (Adamson and Britz 2019). Those authors suggest that this population may have originated from western Thailand, a possibility that could have implications for understanding historical pathways of snakehead introductions into the USA. In comparison with many published AFS symposia, this volume is relatively narrow in scope and lacks cohesive integration. It will primarily be of interest to those fisheries professionals engaged in the study of snakeheads as well as other nonnative species for which there are contrasting social values regarding their management: whether to monitor and attempt control or eradication efforts or to maintain populations for harvest as game or food species. The book should serve to identify information gaps and guide future research.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗