Benefits to trout growers from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Research: an overview of recent advances
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Salmonid↗
SEARCH · Geology Reports
Results for “Fish and Wildlife Research”
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.
Restoration of Rio Grande cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis to the Mescalero Apache Reservation
Rio Grande Cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis (RGCT) represents the most southern subspecies of cutthroat trout, endemic to Rio Grande, Canadian, and Pecos basins of New Mexico and southern Colorado. The subspecies currently occupies less than 12% of its historic range. The Mescalero Apache Tribe has partnered with U.S. Geological Survey-New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to meet mutually shared goals of restoring and maintaining a Pecos strain of RGCT to Tribal lands. The goal of this project was to assess the suitability of the Rio Ruidoso within the Mescalero Apache Reservation to support a self-sustaining RGCT population by conducting a systematic and comprehensive survey. We conducted three surveys (fall 2010, spring 2011 and 2012) to characterize water quality, macroinvertebrate assemblages, fish communities, and physical habitat (stream size, channel gradient, channel substrate, habitat complexity, riparian vegetation cover and structure, migration barriers to movement). Seven-100 m reaches throughout three major tributaries of the Rio Ruidoso within the Tribal lands were sampled during baseflow conditions October 2010, May 2011, and June 2012. Despite the onset of severe drought in 2011, water quality, physical habitat, and fish populations revealed that the Rio Ruidoso and its three tributaries would most likely support a self-sustaining RGCT population. Pools were abundant (mean, 8.9 pools/100 m), instream woody debris was present (range, 3.8-45.6 pieces/100 m), and instream dataloggers revealed daily maximum stream temperatures rarely exceeded criteria established in New Mexico for coldwater fishes, however, presence of frazil and anchor ice may limit fish distribution in the winter. Aquatic macroinvertebrate samples revealed a community of benthic invertebrates reflective of high quality cool to cold water. Overall densities of brown trout, rainbow trout and brook trout were high (overall mean, 0.23 fish/m2) and in relatively good condition (range of mean relative weight, 84-117). Should the Mescalero Apache Tribe decide to introduce RGCT, prior to chemical treatment, a barrier placed below the confluence of Middle and South forks of the Rio Ruidoso would create approximately 12 km of perennial flow and help protect against invasion of non-native fishes. The North Fork of the Rio Ruidoso is not a good candidate for reintroduction because of easy access by the public to reintroduce non-native fishes into the watershed. Lastly, an annual, long-term monitoring program of RGCT would help document that there was no subsequent incursion of non-native fishes.
Cooperator Science Series↗
Research on polar bears in Alaska, 1983-1985
Research on the ecology and status of polar bear populations in Alaska has continued since 1967. Research was a joint U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Alaska Department of Fish and Game effort until passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, and has been largely a Federal effort since then. In 1985, Alaskan polar beer research continues to be carried out by the Research Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DOI). A recent reorganization removed authority for ecological research in Alaska from the Denver Wildlife Research Center, and vested it with the newly created Alaska Office of Fish and Wildlife Research. This new research office is the center for Federal fish and Wildlife related research throughout the state of Alaska and in its coastal waters. Although the responsibility for polar bear research lies with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, numerous other organizations and agencies deserve mention for their cooperation and support of the ongoing research. These include: the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (DOC), The U.S. Minerals Management Service (DOI), The Canadian Wildlife Service, The Northwest Territories Wildlife Service, the Yukon Wildlife Service, Dome Petroleum Ltd, Gulf Canada, and the Alaska Department of Fish and game.
Alaska↗
Assessment of general health of fishes collected at selected sites in the Great Lakes Basin In 2012
During the past decade, there has been a substantive increase in the detection of “emerging contaminants”, defined as a new substance, chemical, or metabolite in the environment; or a legacy substance with a newly expanded distribution, altered release, or a newly recognized effect (such as endocrine disruption). Emerging contaminants include substances such as biogenic hormones (human and animal), brominated flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, plasticizers, current use pesticides, detergents, and nanoparticles. These contaminants are frequently not regulated or inadequately regulated by state or Federal water quality programs. Information about the toxicity of these substances to fish and wildlife resources is generally limited, compared to more highly regulated contaminants, and some classes have been shown to cause affects (for example feminization of male fish, immunomodulation) that are not evaluated via traditional toxicity testing protocols. As a result, these compounds may pose a substantial, but currently poorly documented threat to aquatic ecosystems. Failure to identify and understand the impacts of these emerging contaminants on fish and wildlife resources may result in deleterious impacts to Great Lakes resources that can result in adverse ecological, economic and recreational consequences. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service received funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) for an Early Warning Program to detect and identify emerging contaminants and to evaluate the effects of these contaminants on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Geological Survey (WV Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and National Fish Health Research Laboratory, Leetown Science Center) developed and implemented a biological effects monitoring protocol to assist in this program. Fish collections and measurements of biomarkers of exposure in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 occurred at individual sites within select Areas of Concern (AOCs). They provided an assessment of the utility of the suite of biomarkers and also identified sites for more in-depth analyses. Selected areas are characterized as areas with known emerging contaminants, sensitive or listed species, areas downstream from municipal wastewater discharges or receiving waters for industrial facilities, and/or areas susceptible to agricultural or urban contamination, or harbors or ports. The results of the 2010- 2011 studies were summarized in Blazer et al. 2014 a, b, c; Braham et al. in review and Blazer et al. in review.
Great Lakes↗
Coastal mapping programs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Research Center
Over the past 10 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) National Wetlands Research Center (center; formerly the National Coastal Ecosystems Team) has been continuously involved in the production of maps for use by coastal decision makers. The types of maps produced by the center have been national, regional, or local in scope depending on user needs. Map scales have ranged from 1:24,000 to 1:250,000. Themes depicted have included biological resources, including wetlands and seagrasses; upland habitat or land use; water resources such as water quality, bathymetry, and salinity; cultural features such as ownership, archaeological sites, and dredge-spoil disposal areas; and soils and landforms. We present overviews on the various mapping programs of the center. We highlight efforts such as the ecological inventories of the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts; the ecological characterization atlases of the Gulf of Mexico; and the large scale (1:24,000) habitat maps of various coastal regions of the United States. Center methods and techniques are discussed, including the collaborative efforts between the center and FWS's National Wetlands Inventory for updating wetland maps and adding upland and seagrass bed delineations to inventory maps. We also make recommendations for future coastal ecosystem mapping programs that use conventional and automated mapping methodologies, such as geographic information systems and image processing.
Biological Report↗
At-a-Glance—Summary of the 2023 U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Units Program Year-in-Review
Introduction Established in 1935, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program is a unique partnership among the USGS, State Fish and Wildlife agencies, host universities, the Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As of 2023, there are 43 CRUs in 41 states that fall under three supervisory regions and a National Program Office located at USGS in Reston, Virginia.
Fact Sheet↗
U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Units Program—A hawk’s view of 2024
Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (USGS CRU) program was established in 1935 and codified by Congress in 1960 to enhance graduate education in wildlife and fisheries sciences and to facilitate research and technical assistance among natural resource agencies and universities on fisheries and wildlife management topics of mutual concern. The success of the CRU program lies in its cooperative approach. State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies determine where focused, science-based studies for wildlife and natural resource management for societal benefit are needed. The CRU scientists conduct applied research to contribute results to inform and aid partners in determining best practices for managing resources. Each Unit is a unique partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a host university, one or more State agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fact Sheet↗
Tactical planning in fish and wildlife management and research
No abstract available.
Resource Publication↗
Effects of fire in the Northern Great Plains
This publication is a review of selected literature about prescribed burning in the Northern Great Plains (NGP) for management of wildlife. It also will be useful to other resource managers and researchers and to persons interested in the NGP. It is more 'descriptive' than 'interpretative.'The publication is a joint effort of the South Dakota State Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (SDCFWRU), South Dakota State University, Brookings; the Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center (NPWRC), Jamestown, N.D.; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Fergus Falls, Minn. Manuscript typing and library services were shared between SDCFWRU and NPWRC.This publication (EC 761) is the second of three SDSU Extension circulars on grassland fires. EC 760 is Prescribed burning guidelines in the Northern Great Plains; EC 762 is Annotated bibliography of fire literature relative to northern grasslands in South-Central Canada and North-Central United States and contains many more citations than presented in this publication. All three circulars may be obtained from either the Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Department; SDSU Box 2206; ph (605) 688-6121; or from the Ag Communications Bulletin Room; SDSU Box 2231; ph (605) 688-5628; both in Brookings, S.D. 57007.
Report↗
Geospatial Technology Applications and Infrastructure in the Biological Resources Division
Executive Summary -- Automated spatial processing technology such as geographic information systems (GIS), telemetry, and satellite-based remote sensing are some of the more recent developments in the long history of geographic inquiry. For millennia, humankind has endeavored to map the Earth's surface and identify spatial relationships. But the precision with which we can locate geographic features has increased exponentially with satellite positioning systems. Remote sensing, GIS, thematic mapping, telemetry, and satellite positioning systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS) are tools that greatly enhance the quality and rapidity of analysis of biological resources. These technologies allow researchers, planners, and managers to more quickly and accurately determine appropriate strategies and actions. Researchers and managers can view information from new and varying perspectives using GIS and remote sensing, and GPS receivers allow the researcher or manager to identify the exact location of interest. These geospatial technologies support the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Resources Division (BRD) and the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) by providing a cost-effective and efficient method for collection, analysis, and display of information. The BRD mission is 'to work with others to provide the scientific understanding and technologies needed to support the sound management and conservation of our Nation's biological resources.' A major responsibility of the BRD is to develop and employ advanced technologies needed to synthesize, analyze, and disseminate biological and ecological information. As the Strategic Science Plan (BRD 1996) states, 'fulfilling this mission depends on effectively balancing the immediate need for information to guide management of biological resources with the need for technical assistance and long-range, strategic information to understand and predict emerging patterns and trends in ecological systems.' Information sharing plays a key role in nearly everything BRD does. The Strategic Science Plan discusses the need to (1) develop tools and standards for information transfer, (2) disseminate information, and (3) facilitate effective use of information. This effort centers around the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), components of the National Information Infrastructure. The NBII and NSDI are distributed electronic networks of biological and geographical data and information, as well as tools to help users around the world easily find and retrieve the biological and geographical data and information they need. The BRD is responsible for developing scientifically and statistically reliable methods and protocols to assess the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. Scientists also conduct important inventory and monitoring studies to maintain baseline information on these same resources. Research on those species for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has trust responsibilities (including endangered species and migratory species) involves laboratory and field studies of individual animals and the environments in which they live. Researchboth tactical and strategicis conducted at the BRD's 17 science centers and 81 field stations, 54 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in 40 states, and at 11 former Cooperative Park Study Units. Studies encompass fish, birds, mammals, and plants, as well as their ecosystems and the surrounding landscape. Biological Resources Division researchers use a variety of scientific tools in their endeavors to understand the causes of biological and ecological trends. Research results are used by managers to predict environmental changes and to help them take appropriate measures to manage resources effectively. The BRD Geospatial Technology Program facilitates the collection, analysis, and dissemination of data and informat
Information and Technology Report↗
Attitudinal survey component of the study Quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment : Report of methods and frequencies
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.
Open-File Report↗
Environmental flow studies of the Fort Collins Science Center— Cherry Creek, Arizona
At the request of the U.S. Forest Service, an instream flow assessment was conducted at Cherry Creek, Ariz., to investigate habitat for native and introduced fish species and to describe the beneficial use of a possible instream flow water right. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Collins Science Center performed an intensive field study of two sections of Cherry Creek in September 2008 to provide base data for hydrodynamic simulation of the flow conditions in the stream. The USGS Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, at the University of Arizona School of Natural Resources, conducted a survey of the habitat requirements of the resident fish species in Cherry Creek and provided the habitat suitability criteria used in this study. The habitat suitability criteria were combined with hydrodynamic simulation results to quantify fish habitat for the full range of daily flow experienced in the creek and to produce maps of habitat occurrence for those flows. The flow record at the Cherry Creek stream gage was used to generate habitat response values over time. The long-term habitat response was incorporated into an Excel (Registered) spreadsheet to allow evaluation of habitat occurrence with and without an instream water right under different hypothetical water withdrawal scenarios. The spreadsheet displays information about the time sequence of habitat events, the duration of critical events, and habitat retention.
Arizona↗
Satellite telemetry: A new tool for wildlife research and management
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game have cooperated since 1984 to develop and evaluate satellite telemetry as a means of overcoming the high costs and logistical problems of conventional VHF (very high frequency) radiotelemetry systems. Detailed locational and behavioral data on caribou ( Rangifer tarandus ), polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ), and other large mammals in Alaska have been obtained using the Argos Data Collection and Location System (DCLS). The Argos system, a cooperative project of the Centre National d'Études Spatiales of France, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, is designed to acquire environmental data on a routine basis from anywhere on earth. Transmitters weighing 1.6-2.0 kg and functioning approximately 12-18 months operated on a frequency of 401.650 MHz. Signals from the transmitters were received by Argos DCLS instruments aboard two Tiros-N weather satellites in sun-synchronous, nearpolar orbits. Data from the satellites were received at tracking stations, transferred to processing centers in Maryland and France, and made available to users via computer tape, printouts, or telephone links. During 1985 and 1986, more than 25,000 locations and an additional 28,000 sets of sensor data (transmitter temperature and short-term and long-term indices of animal activity) were acquired for caribou and polar bears. Locations were calculated from the Doppler shift in the transmitted signal as the satellite approached and then moved away from the transmitter. The mean locational error for transmitters at known locations (n - 1,265) was 829 m; 90% of the calculated locations were within 1,700 m of the true location. Caribou transmitters provided a mean of 3.1 (+5.0. SD) locations per day during 6h of daily operation, and polar bear transmitters provided 1.7 (+6.9SD) locations during 12h of operation every third day. During the first 6 months of operation, the UHF (ultra-high frequency) signal failed on three of 32 caribou transmitters and 10 of 36 polar bear transmitters. A geographic information system (GIS) incorporating other databases (e.g., land cover, elevation, slope, aspect, hydrology, ice distribution) was used to analyze and display detailed locational and behavioral data collected via satellite. Examples of GIS applications to research projects using satellite telemetry and examples of detailed movement patterns of caribou and polar bears are presented. This report includes documentation for computer software packages for processing Argos data and presents developments, as of March 1987, in transmitter design, data retrieval using a local user terminal, computer software, and sensor development and calibration.
Resource Publication↗
Columbia Environmental Research Center
The U.S. Geological Survey Columbia Environmental Research Center performs research to solve challenging environmental problems related to contaminants and habitat alterations in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The research is interdisciplinary and pursued through partnerships within the U.S. Geological Survey and with national, international, state, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; and universities. Research is prioritized to provide science to the U.S. Department of the Interior and other natural resource management agencies to inform rehabilitation of degraded habitats and imperiled fish and wildlife populations. The Columbia Environmental Research Center was established in 1966 in Columbia, Missouri, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Fish Pesticide Research Laboratory; the Columbia Environmental Research Center was incorporated into the U.S. Geological Survey in 1996. The U.S. Geological Survey’s staff of 130 includes 90 scientists of which one-half have advanced degrees in ecology, toxicology, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, hydrology, geology, and information technology.
Missouri↗
Fishery population and habitat assessment in Puerto Rico streams: Phase 2 final report
This document serves as the Final Report for research on Puerto Rico stream fishes and their habitat funded by the Puerto Rico Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, in the form of a grant to the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. This research was also conducted to meet the thesis requirement for a Master of Science degree granted to Elissa Buttermore (Chapters 3–4) and the dissertation requirement for a Doctor of Philospophy degree granted to William Smith (Chapters 5–8). Formatting differs among chapters, as each was developed to target a specific scientific journal and to conform to journal style.
Puerto Rico↗
Seasonal and spatial distribution patterns of finfish and selected invertebrates in coastal lagoons of northeastern Florida, 2002-2004
The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a survey of juvenile fisheries resources, in cooperation with the St. Johns River Water Management District and Volusia County, to establish baseline data on spatial and temporal distribution patterns of estuarine fish. The survey was conducted from November 2001 to March 2005 and the baseline data established for the survey in the Northern Coastal Basins were collected from January 2002 to December 2004. The study area included the bar-built estuaries ranging from just north of St. Augustine, Florida, south to Ponce de Leon Inlet. Sampling protocols developed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute for their statewide Fisheries Independent Monitoring (FIM) program were replicated to allow for comparability with FIM program results. Samples were collected monthly from randomly selected stations based on a geographically stratified design. Finfish and selected invertebrates were collected using a 21.3-meter center-bag seine with a 3-millimeter mesh, and a 6.1-meter otter trawl with a 3-millimeter mesh liner. Total estimated fish and selected invertebrate densities were similar to estimates from FIM projects in adjacent areas and were characterized by similar dominant species. Preliminary analysis indicates that observed species distribution patterns were mainly a function of proximity to the three inlets within the study area. The two regions encompassing the northern Tolomato River and the Tomoka River and Basin are farthest from inlets and appear to function as oligohaline nursery areas. Those two areas had the greatest estimated densities of shellfish and juvenile sciaenid (drum) species associated with oligohaline waters (for example, Micropogonias undulatus, Sciaenops ocellatus and Cynoscion nebulosus). Samples near inlets, and between the two northern inlets, had greater estimated densities of species limited to euhaline waters, including juvenile clupeids collected at relatively high abundance and species of marine strays collected in low abundance. Based on correspondence analysis, seasonal variation dominated the ordination of seine samples and spatial variation dominated the ordination of trawl samples; this was due to differences in the number and timing of taxa found near inlets versus oligohaline regions. The absence of seagrass habitat in the Northern Coastal Basins is reflected by the absence of a seagrass-fish assemblage.
Scientific Investigations Report↗
Who Knew? Inconnu
In 1999, I moved to Alaska to serve as unit leader of the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and professor of fisheries in the School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. What was unusual about this move was that before this I was an easterner and southerner, having done my graduate work in fisheries at Texas A&M University and been stationed in the Coop Unit Program in Ohio, West Virginia, and Maryland. I had never worked with salmonids of any sort. To me fish with adipose fins also had whiskers! I suddenly found myself working in the land of salmon experts, and I didn't even reliably know the names—scientific, common, or colloquial—of the five (or is it six?) common Pacific salmon species in Alaska. I had to quickly find a research niche that probably didn't involve salmon.
Fisheries↗