Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Fish and Wildlife Technical 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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Texas coastal wetland surface elevation static survey campaign report

Surface elevation data along the Texas Coast is limited, despite having some of the highest rates of relative sea-level rise in the country (Sweet et al., 2022). To narrow these knowledge and data gaps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) established the first landscape-scale rod surface elevation table (RSET) monitoring project aimed at examining surface elevation dynamics of coastal marshes in Texas (Moon et al., 2022). The project, conducted cooperatively between the USFWS and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), has focused on 14 coastal marsh sites located within five National Wildlife Refuges (Figure 1). The main objective of this project’s RSET data collection is to quantify the impacts of sea-level rise on coastal properties owned by the USFWS and similar surrounding areas. Data from RSETs will be used to determine areas that are at the greatest risk for potential habitat loss and degradation by examining subsidence and accretion rates. However, for the RSET data to be tied into the national vertical datum of 1988 (NAVD88) and, therefore, linked to the relative sea-level change calculations, it is necessary to establish primary vertical control at each study site through highly accurate and precise global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) surveys. Having a clear methodology for standardization is important for quality data. This report focuses on the methods, with particular emphasis on post-processing, used to survey benchmarks for the RSET data collection along the Texas Coast for the USFWS. Furthermore, this report serves as a general reference guide on the technical aspects of performing and processing GNSS surveys within the Texas coastal refuges to maintain quality and consistency.

Texas↗
USGS2012

Developing accurate survey methods for estimating population sizes and trends of the critically endangered Nihoa Millerbird and Nihoa Finch.

This report describes the results of a comparative study of bird survey methods undertaken for the purpose of improving assessments of the conservation status for the two endemic passerines on the Island of Nihoa—Nihoa Millerbird (Sylviidae: Acrocephalus familiaris kingi ) and Nihoa Finch (Fringilidae: Telespiza ultima ; also referred herein as millerbird and finch)—both listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Hawai`i Revised Statutes 195D. The current survey protocol, implemented since 1967, has produced a highly variable range of counts for both the millerbird and finch, making difficult assessments of population size and trend. This report details the analyses of bird survey data collected in 2010 and 2011 in which three survey methods were compared―strip-transect, line-transect, and point-transect sampling―and provides recommendations for improved survey methods and protocols. Funding for this research was provided through a Science Support Partnership grant sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Point-transect surveys indicated that millerbirds were more abundant than shown by the striptransect method, and were estimated at 802 birds in 2010 (95%CI = 652 – 964) and 704 birds in 2011 (95%CI = 579 – 837). Point-transect surveys yielded population estimates with improved precision which will permit trends to be detected in shorter time periods and with greater statistical power than is available from strip-transect survey methods. Mean finch population estimates and associated uncertainty were not markedly different among the three survey methods, but the performance of models used to estimate density and population size are expected to improve as the data from additional surveys are incorporated. Using the pointtransect survey, the mean finch population size was estimated at 2,917 birds in 2010 (95%CI = 2,037 – 3,965) and 2,461 birds in 2011 (95%CI = 1,682 – 3,348). Preliminary testing of the line-transect method in 2011 showed that it would not generate sufficient detections to effectively model bird density, and consequently, relatively precise population size estimates. Both species were fairly evenly distributed across Nihoa and appear to occur in all or nearly all available habitat. The time expended and area traversed by observers was similar among survey methods; however, point-transect surveys do not require that observers walk a straight transect line, thereby allowing them to avoid culturally or biologically sensitive areas and minimize the adverse effects of recurrent travel to any particular area. In general, pointtransect surveys detect more birds than strip-survey methods, thereby improving precision and resulting population size and trend estimation. The method is also better suited for the steep and uneven terrain of Nihoa

Hawaii↗
USGS2023

Partnering in search of answers: Seabird die-offs in the Bering and Chukchi Seas

Prior to 2015, seabird die-offs in Alaskan waters were rare; they typically occurred in mid-winter, linked to epizootic disease events or above-average ocean temperatures associated with strong El Nino-Southern Oscillation events (Bodenstein et al. 2015, Jones et al. 2019, Romano et al. 2020). Since 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has monitored mortality events that have become annual occurrences in Alaska (Fig. 1). Since 2017, communities on the coasts of the northern Bering and southern Chukchi Seas have annually observed dead and dying seabirds along their coasts, although such die-offs have not been reported from communities north of Point Hope. (Fig. 2). Affected species included planktivorous birds such as auklets ( Aethia spp.) and shearwaters ( Ardenna spp.), piscivorous murres ( Uria spp.), puffins ( Fratercula spp.), and kittiwakes ( Rissa spp.), as well as low numbers of benthic feeding sea ducks ( Somateria spp.). The range of seabird species and the different prey species involved, with localized events throughout summer and over widespread areas, indicate environmental causes at multiple trophic levels. Such wildlife mortality events are a public health concern for coastal communities that rely on ocean resources for their nutritional, cultural, and economic well-being. They have also been seen as a harbinger of concern for the state of the Arctic Ocean itself.

Alaska↗
USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗
USGS2014

Palila restoration research, 1996−2012

The Palila Restoration Project was initiated in 1996 by the U.S. Geological Survey to assist government agencies mitigate the effects of realigning Saddle Road (Highway 200) through Palila Critical Habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Federal Highway Administration 1999). Ecological research on the palila (Loxioides bailleui), an endangered Hawaiian forest bird, carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly organized as the Research Division of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) since 1987 and research conducted by the Palila Restoration Project provided the scientific bases for developing a recovery strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) and its adaptive implementation. The main objectives of the Palila Restoration Project were to develop techniques for reintroducing the palila to a portion of its former range, investigate the biological threats to the palila and its habitat, and synthesize the existing body of ecological knowledge concerning the palila. Five broad study themes formed the research framework: 1. Population reintroduction and restoration 2. Demography and breeding ecology 3. Habitat use and food ecology 4. Vegetation ecology 5. Predator ecology and management An element that was not included in the research program of the project was the ecology and management of introduced ungulates, which has historically constituted the single greatest threat to Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009). The absence of ungulate studies should not be interpreted to mean that we believe ungulates no longer damage palila habitat. Other research has already established that removing alien browsers and grazers from Mauna Kea is essential for the recovery of the subalpine forest on which palila now depend (Scowcroft and Giffin 1983; Scowcroft and Sakai 1983; Scowcroft and Conrad 1988, 1992; Hess et al. 1999). Moreover, the Federal District Court of Hawai‘i has ordered the state of Hawai‘i to remove browsing ungulates from Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009, Hess and Banko 2011). This final report summarizes results of Palila Restoration Project research from December 1996 to December 2012. Even though some results contained in this report have been published in scientific journals and other technical reports (Appendix I), they are included here to provide a comprehensive chronicle of all project activities.

Hawaii↗
USGS2015

Palila Restoration Research, 1996−2012. Summary and management implications

The Palila Restoration Project was initiated in 1996 by the U.S. Geological Survey to assist government agencies mitigate the effects of realigning Saddle Road (Highway 200) through Palila Critical Habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Federal Highway Administration 1999). Ecological research on the palila (Loxioides bailleui), an endangered Hawaiian forest bird, carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly organized as the Research Division of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) since 1987 and research conducted by the Palila Restoration Project provided the scientific bases for developing a recovery strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) and its adaptive implementation. The main objectives of the Palila Restoration Project were to develop techniques for reintroducing the palila to a portion of its former range, investigate the biological threats to the palila and its habitat, and synthesize the existing body of ecological knowledge concerning the palila. Five broad study themes formed the research framework: 1. Population reintroduction and restoration 2. Demography and breeding ecology 3. Habitat use and food ecology 4. Vegetation ecology 5. Predator ecology and management An element that was not included in the research program of the project was the ecology and management of introduced ungulates, which has historically constituted the single greatest threat to Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009). The absence of ungulate studies should not be interpreted to mean that we believe ungulates no longer damage palila habitat. Other research has already established that removing alien browsers and grazers from Mauna Kea is essential for the recovery of the subalpine forest on which palila now depend (Scowcroft and Giffin 1983; Scowcroft and Sakai 1983; Scowcroft and Conrad 1988, 1992; Hess et al. 1999). Moreover, the Federal District Court of Hawai‘i has ordered the State of Hawai‘i to remove browsing ungulates from Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009, Hess and Banko 2011). This final report summarizes results of Palila Restoration Project research from December 1996 to December 2012. Even though some results contained in this report have been published in scientific journals and other technical reports (Appendix I), they are included here to provide a comprehensive chronicle of all project activities.

Hawaii↗
USGS2016

Federal interagency nature‐like fishway passage design guidelines for Atlantic coast diadromous fishes

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have collaborated to develop passage design guidance for use by engineers and other restoration practitioners considering and designing nature‐like fishways (NLFs). The primary purpose of these guidelines is to provide a summary of existing fish swimming and leaping performance data and the best available scientific information on safe, timely and effective passage for 14 diadromous fish species using Atlantic Coast rivers and streams. These guidelines apply to passage sites where complete barrier removal is not possible. This technical memorandum presents seven key physical design parameters based on the biometrics and swimming mode and performance of each target fishes for application in the design of NLFs addressing passage of a species or an assemblage of these species. The passage parameters include six dimensional guidelines recommended for minimum weir opening width and depth, minimum pool length, width and depth, and maximum channel slope, along with a maximum flow velocity guideline for each species. While these guidelines are targeted for the design of step‐pool NLFs, the information may also have application in the design of other NLF types being considered at passage restoration sites and grade control necessary for infrastructure protection upstream of some dam removals, and in considering passage performance at sites such as natural bedrock features.

Atlantic Ocean↗
USGS2017

Food web conceptual model

This chapter describes a general model of food webs within tidal wetlands and represents how physical features of the wetland affect the structure and function of the food web. This conceptual model focuses on how the food web provides support for (or may reduce support for) threatened fish species. This model is part of a suite of conceptual models designed to guide monitoring of restoration sites throughout the San Francisco Estuary (SFE), but particularly within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) and Suisun Marsh. The conceptual models have been developed based on the Delta Regional Ecosystem Restoration Implementation Plan (DRERIP) models, and are designed to aid in the identification and evaluation of monitoring metrics for tidal wetland restoration projects. Many tidal restoration sites in the Delta are being constructed to comply with environmental regulatory requirements associated with the operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. These include the Biological Opinions for Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and salmonids (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008; National Marine Fisheries Service 2009), and the Incidental Take Permit for Longfin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthyes) (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2009). These regulatory requirements are based on the hypothesis that the decline of listed fish species is due in part to a decline in productivity of the food web (phytoplankton and zooplankton in particular) or alterations in the food web such that production is consumed by other species in the Estuary (Sommer et al. 2007; Baxter et al. 2010; Brown et al. 2016a). Intertidal wetlands and shallow subtidal habitat can be highly productive, so restoring areas of tidal wetlands may result in a net increase in productivity that will provide food web support for these fish species. However, other factors such as invasive bivalves that reduce phytoplankton and zooplankton biomass and invasive predatory fishes that may compete with or prey upon listed fishes can limit the utility of tidal wetlands for food web support (Lucas and Thompson 2012; Herbold et al. 2014). This model utilizes information from the previous DRERIP models for Delta food webs (Durand 2008) and tidal wetlands (Kneib et al. 2008), an updated DRERIP model (Durand 2015), and the State of BayDelta Science 2016 review of recent Delta food web literature (Brown et al. 2016a).

Interagency Ecological Program Technical Report↗
USGS2023

Northern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris kenyoni) population abundance and distribution across the southeast Alaska stock, summer 2022

In the summer of 2022, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and partners successfully completed the first single-year, aerial photo survey of sea otters across the entire Southeast stock of northern sea otters. This document presents the latest findings from the 2022 Southeast Alaska Sea Otter Survey, providing up-to-date information regarding occupancy, abundance and carrying capacity. We collected two independent data streams of sea otter observations during the survey using novel image sensor technologies for marine wildlife surveys and recently developed statistical methods. We calculated an abundance estimate of 22,359 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 19,595, 25,290, CV = 0.064) sea otters. Based on the these results, the population size of the Southeast stock of northern sea otters is still increasing and below the estimated carrying capacity for the region of 48,083 (95% Bayesian credible interval: 40,575, 58,570) sea otters. Results from this report include the first updated abundance estimates for the Southeast stock of sea otters in 10 years, which will help inform stakeholders from across the region and addresses the top priority identified by the 2019 Southeast Sea Otter Stakeholder Working Group.

Alaska↗
USGS2018

Ecosystems science: Genes to landscapes

Bountiful fisheries, healthy and resilient wildlife, flourishing forests and vibrant grasslands are coveted resources that benefit all Americans. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science supports the conservation and management of the Nation’s fish and wildlife, and the landscapes they inhabit. Our biological resources—ecosystems and the wild things that live in them—are the foundation of our conservation heritage and an economic asset to current and future generations of Americans. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area, the biological research arm of the Department of the Interior (DOI), provides science to help America achieve sustainable management and conservation of its biological resources. This work is done within the broader mission of the USGS—to serve the Nation with science that advances understanding of our natural resources, informs land and water stewardship, and helps safeguard communities from natural and environmental hazards. The Ecosystems Mission Area provides research, technical assistance, and education conducted by Cooperative Research Units and Science Centers located in nearly every State. The quality of life and economic strength in America hinges on healthy ecosystems that support living things and natural processes. Ecosystem science better enables society to understand how and why ecosystems change and to guide actions that can prevent damage to, and restore and sustain ecosystems. It is through this knowledge that informed decisions are made about natural resources that can enhance our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2017

Vegetation map for the Hakalau Forest Unit of the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex on the island of Hawai‘i

This vegetation map was produced to serve as an updated habitat base for management of natural resources of the Hakalau Forest Unit (HFU) of the Big Island National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge) on the island of Hawai‘i. The map is based on a vegetation map originally produced as part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Hawai‘i Forest Bird Survey to depict the distribution, structure, and composition of plant communities on the island of Hawai‘i as they existed in 1977. The current map has been updated to represent current conditions of plant communities in the HFU, based on WorldView 2 imagery taken in 2012 and very-high-resolution imagery collected by Pictometry International from 2010 to 2014. Thirty-one detailed plant communities are identified on this map, and fourteen of these units are found within the boundaries of HFU. Additionally, the mapped units can be displayed as five tree canopy cover units, three moisture zones units, eight dominant tree species units, and four habitat status units by choosing the various fields to group the units from the map attribute table. This updated map will provide a foundation for the refinement and tracking of management actions on the Refuge for the near future, particularly as the habitats in this area are subject to projected climate change.

Hawai'i↗
USGS2026

Decision analysis in support of proactive planning for chronic wasting disease in Vermont, USA

Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal, transmissible disease in white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) and related species, is spreading across North America but has not yet been detected in Vermont, United States (U.S.). The Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife, along with partner agencies, wants to develop a proactive prevention and response plan in anticipation of the eventual detection of the disease. Between September 2023 and September 2025, staff from the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Vermont facilitated a structured decision-making (SDM) process with seven State and Federal agencies that have jurisdiction over some aspect of CWD management in Vermont. The aim of this process was to generate and evaluate alternative response plans against a range of long-term objectives important to the agencies. To aid in the evaluation of the alternatives, we developed a linked set of models for white-tailed deer population and disease dynamics, hunter participation and health, forest health, economic consequences, and agricultural opportunities related to the actions being contemplated as part of the response plan. We evaluated over 256 different permutations of management actions and used multi-criteria decision analysis, a branch of decision analysis designed to help decision makers navigate tradeoffs among competing objectives, to summarize the performance of those alternative strategies against the desired outcomes. Proactive actions—those designed to slow the arrival of CWD to Vermont—were moderately effective, but the most important proactive action was surveillance to detect the disease early after arrival, which triggered response actions after detection. With the insights generated by the SDM process and the results of the analyses, the participating agencies were able to identify a preferred strategy and outline the elements of a proactive response plan. This report describes the SDM process, the technical details of the modeling work, and the results of the analyses. It is intended to serve as the technical basis for Vermont’s response plan.

BioRxiv↗
USGS2026

Appendix 6: Overview of iPOM 2.0: Updates to wolf abundance estimation in Montana

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) uses the integrated Patch Occupancy Model (iPOM) to estimate statewide and regional wolf abundance. During the early years of recovery, wolf abundance was tracked using minimum counts. As the population increased, limitations of this method became apparent, motivating development of a model-based approach for estimating abundance. iPOM development began in 2006, was operationalized in 2013, and has been used in its current form (iPOM 1.0) since 2021. Since its inception, iPOM has been developed and presented as an adaptive modeling framework intended to evolve as new data and analytical methods become available1. Here, we briefly present ongoing work to produce the next iteration of iPOM, hereafter iPOM 2.0, and summarize major model updates and resulting preliminary wolf abundance estimates. iPOM uses models for occupancy, territory size, and pack size, along with monitoring data collected by MFWP wolf specialists and potential wolf sightings reported by deer and elk hunters during the 5-week general rifle season each Nov-Dec. These monitoring data, wolf sightings, and covariates for habitat and survey effort are used to model occupancy of packs on a statewide grid of 600-km 2 cells. The area used by wolves is then estimated as each cell’s occupancy estimate multiplied by grid cell area. iPOM estimates pack abundance by dividing this area by predicted territory sizes, and in-pack wolf abundance by multiplying pack abundance by estimated group size. This is combined with a lone wolf rate to estimate total wolf abundance (see Sells et al. 1 for a full description of iPOM 1.0). This technical summary provides a high-level overview of the proposed iPOM updates and their implications for wolf abundance estimates. The estimates presented here represent results as of June 2026 and are provided to inform upcoming discussions surrounding harvest management and regulations (e.g., season dates, quotas, methods). Results are preliminary and remain subject to final model refinement and peer review.

Montana↗
USGS1989

Streamside habitats in southern forested wetlands: Their role and implications for management

The value of streamside forests to fish and wildlife and the influence of forest management on their value have been recognized in a general sense for decades. However, in today’s climate of increasing environmental regulation and intensive forest management, there is need for more detailed understanding of the value of streamside forests to fish and wildlife. Dickson and Huntley (1987:38) described the problem well when they wrote that “quantitative data on the effects of riparian zones on wildlife populations are insufficient to enable wildlife managers to justify the retention of riparian zones in land-use plans on a biological and economical basis.” Due in large part to the passage of water pollution control legislation, as well as legislation mandating multiple-use management in our national forests, progress is being made. During the last l&15 years, a great deal of research has been directed at understanding the value and appropriate management of the riparian zone (Brouha and Parsons 1985). The vast majority of research on riparian habitats has been conducted in western forests and/or narrow zones in otherwise upland areas. Also, much of the work done in southern forested wetlands has applied to entire floodplain forests. In this paper, we review the literature on streamside habitats within southern forested wetlands and, for reasons described in the next section, we make a distinction between streamside forests and floodplain (or riparian) forests. We also discuss in less detail the value of streamside habitats within other southern forest types, such as pine or mixed pine-hardwood.

General Technical Report↗
USGS2017

Hawai`i forest bird monitoring database: Database dictionary

Between 1976 and 1981, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (now U.S. Geological Survey – Pacific Island Ecosystems Research Center [USGS-PIERC]) conducted systematic surveys of forest birds and plant communities on all the main Hawaiian Islands, except O‘ahu, as part of the Hawai‘i Forest Bird Surveys (HFBS). Results of this monumental effort have guided conservation efforts and provided the basis for many plant and bird recovery plans and land acquisition decisions in Hawai‘i. Unfortunately, these estimates and range maps are now seriously outdated, hindering modern conservation decision-making and recovery planning. HFBIDP staff work closely with land managers and others to identify the location of bird populations in need of protection. In addition, HFBIDP is able to assess field collection methods, census areas, and survey frequency for their effectiveness. Survey and geographical data are refined and released in successive versions, each more inclusive, detailed, and accurate than the previous release. Incrementally releasing data gives land managers and survey coordinators reasonably good data to work with early on rather than waiting for the release of ‘perfect’ data, ‘perfectly’ analyzed. Consequently, summary results are available in a timely manner.

Technical Report↗
USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗
USGS1989

The ecology of hydric hammocks: a community profile

This community profile is one in a series of Fish and Wildlife Service publications compiled to provide a state-of-knowledge synthesis of scientific information and literature on various coastal habitats. The subject of this profile is the hydric hammock, a distinctive type of forested wetland occurring at low elevations along the gulf coast of Florida from Aripeka to St. Marks and at various inland sites in Florida. Relatively little research has been conducted in hydric hammocks, and no thorough effort has been made previously to define this community. Consequently, no consensus has existed about the extent and nature of this community; some published works and active researchers have differed in their judgments about it; and the entity sometimes is ignored and often is lumped with other types of mixed hardwood forests. The purpose of this profile is to establish or clarify an identification and understanding of the hydric-hammock community. Information for the profile was gathered from published and unpublished literature, from persona 1 communication with many technical experts, and from our own fie 1 d experience. The profile includes some new data gathered in the field for the purpose of defining this community. It is hoped that the content and format of the profile will be useful to a broad spectrum of users, including other scientists, students, resource managers and planners, teachers, and interested citizens. The profile includes structural and functional aspects of the community: its physical setting, plant and animal composition and dynamics, interactions of its flora and fauna, and its relationships with other communities.

Florida↗
USGS2009

Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse in the Bi-State Planning Area Final Report, September 2007

Conservation efforts for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), hereafter sage-grouse, are underway across the range of this species. Over 70 local working groups have been established and are implementing on-the-ground sage-grouse oriented conservation projects. Early on in this process, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recognized the need to join in these efforts and received funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Candidate Species Conservation Program to help develop a species conservation plan for sage-grouse in the Mono County area. This conservation plan covers portions of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties in California and Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral counties in Nevada. A concurrent effort underway through the Nevada Governor's Sage-grouse Conservation Team established Local Area Working Groups across Nevada and eastern California. The Mono County populations of sage-grouse were encompassed by the Bi-State Local Planning Area, which was comprised of six population management units (PMUs). The state agencies from California (CDFG) and Nevada (Nevada Department of Wildlife; NDOW) responsible for the management of sage-grouse agreed to utilize the process that had begun with the Nevada Governor's Team in order to develop local plans for conservation planning and implementation. Resources from the USFWS were applied to several objectives in support of the development of the Bi-State Local Area Sage-grouse Conservation Plan through a grant to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Objectives included: (1) participate in the development of the Bi-State Conservation Plan, (2) compile and synthesize existing sage-grouse data, (3) document seasonal movements of sage-grouse, (4) identify habitats critical to sage-grouse, (5) determine survival rates and identify causal factors of mortality, (6) determine nest success and brood success of sage-grouse, and (7) identify sage-grouse lek sites. Progress reports completed in 2004 and 2005 addressed each of the specific objectives and this final report focuses on the biological information gathered in support of local conservation efforts. Participation in the development of the Bi-State Local Area Conservation Plan was accomplished on multiple scales. Beginning in the fall of 2002, USGS personnel began participating in meetings of local stakeholders involved in the development of a sage-grouse conservation plan for the Bi-State planning area. This included attendance at numerous local PMU group meetings and field trips as well as participating on the technical advisory committee (TAC) for the Bi-State group. Whenever appropriate, ongoing results and findings regarding sage-grouse ecology in the local area were incorporated into these working group meetings. In addition, the USGS partnered with CDFG to help reorganize one of the local PMU groups (South Mono) and edited that portion of the Bi-State plan. The USGS also worked closely with CDFG to draft a description of the state of knowledge for sage-grouse genetic information for inclusion in the Bi-State Conservation Plan. The first edition of the Bi-State Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse was completed in June 2004 (Bi-State Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). This report is organized primarily by PMU to facilitate the incorporation of these research findings into the individual PMU plans that compose the Bi-State plan. Information presented in this report was derived from over 7,000 radio-telemetry locations obtained on 145 individual sage-grouse during a three year period (2003-2005). In addition, we collected detailed vegetation measurements at over 590 habitat sampling plots within the study area including canopy cover, shrubs, forbs, and grasses diversity. Vegetation data collection focused on sage-grouse nests, and brood-use areas. Additionally we collected data at random sites to examine sage-grouse habitat relationships within the study area. The majori

Open-File Report↗