Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Publication”

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 1,225 records · Page 68Linked to original sources

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

Invasion of American bullfrogs along the Yellowstone River

The American bullfrog ( Lithobates catesbeianus ) is a globally distributed invasive species that was introduced to the Yellowstone River floodplain of Montana. Knowledge about floodplain habitat features that allow for bullfrog persistence and spread will help identify effective control strategies. We used field surveys in 2010, 2012 and 2013 to describe bullfrog spread in the Yellowstone River floodplain and the habitat features that are associated with bullfrog occupancy and colonization. Bullfrogs in our study area expanded from ~ 60 km in 2010 to 106 km in 2013, and are spreading to up- and downstream habitats. The number of breeding sites (i.e., presence of bullfrog eggs or larvae) increased from 12 sites in 2010 to 45 sites in 2013. We found that bullfrogs were associated with deeper waters, emergent vegetation and public-access sites, which are habitat features that characterize permanent waters and describe human-mediated introductions. Control strategies that reduce the hydroperiod of breeding sites may help to limit bullfrog persistence and spread, while an increase in public outreach and education may help prevent further bullfrog introductions at public-access sites.

Montana↗

Integrating early detection with DNA barcoding: species identification of a non-native monitor lizard (Squamata: Varanidae) carcass in Mississippi, U.S.A.

Early detection of invasive species is critical to increasing the probability of successful management. At the primary stage of an invasion, invasive species are easier to control as the population is likely represented by just a few individuals. Detection of these first few individuals can be challenging, particularly if they are cryptic or otherwise characterized by low detectability. The engagement of members of the public may be critical to early detection as there are far more citizen s on the landscape than trained biologists. However, it can be difficult to assess the credibility of public reporting, especially when a diagnostic digital image or a physical specimen in good condition are lacking. DNA barcoding can be used for verification when morphological identification of a specimen is not possible or uncertain (i.e., degraded or partial specimen). DNA barcoding relies on obtaining a DNA sequence from a relatively small fragment of mitochondrial DNA and comparing it to a database of sequences containing a variety of expertly identified species. He rein we report the successful identification of a degraded specimen of a non-native, potentially invasive reptile species ( Varanus niloticus ) via DNA barcoding, after discovery and reporting by a member of the public.

Mississippi↗

Outcomes of control and monitoring of a widespread riparian invader (Tamarix spp.): A comparison of synthesis approaches

Effective ecological restoration requires empirical assessment to determine outcomes of projects, but conclusions regarding the effects of restoration treatments on the whole ecosystem remain rare. Control of invasive shrubs and trees in the genus Tamarix and associated riparian restoration in the American Southwest has been of interest to scientists and resource managers for decades; dozens of studies have reported highly variable outcomes of Tamarix control efforts, as measured by a range of response variables, temporal and spatial scales and monitoring strategies. We conducted a literature search and review, meta-analysis and vote count (comparison of numerical outcomes lacking reported variances and/or sample sizes) on published papers that quantitatively measured a variety of responses to control of Tamarix . From 96 publications obtained through a global search on terms related to Tamarix control, we found 52 publications suitable for a meta-analysis (n = 777 comparisons) and 63 publications suitable for two vote counts (n = 1,460 comparisons total; 622 comparisons reported as statistically significant) of response to Tamarix control. We estimated responses to control by treatment type (e.g. cut-stump treatment, burning, biocontrol) and ecosystem component (e.g. vegetation, fauna, fluvial processes). Finally, we compared results of the various synthesis methods to determine whether the increasingly stringent requirements for inclusion led to biased outcomes. Vegetation metrics, especially measures of Tamarix response, were the most commonly assessed. Ecosystem components other than vegetation, such as fauna, soils and hydrogeomorphic dynamics, were under-represented. The meta-analysis showed significantly positive responses by vegetation overall to biocontrol, herbicide and cut-stump treatments. This was primarily due to reduction of Tamarix cover; impacts on replacement vegetation were highly variable. We found concordance amongst our varied synthesis approaches, indicating that increased granularity from stricter quantitative techniques does not come at the cost of a biased sample. Overall, our results indicate that common control methods are generally effective for reducing Tamarix , but the indirect effects on other aspects of the ecosystem are variable and remain understudied. Given that this is a relatively well-studied invasive plant species, our results also illustrate the limitations of not only individual studies, but also of reviews for measuring the impact of invasive species control. We call on researchers to investigate the less commonly studied responses to Tamarix control and riparian restoration including the effects on fauna, soil and hydrogeomorphic characteristics.

NeoBiota↗

Habitat selection by Rocky Mountain Population greater Sandhill Cranes (Antigone canadensis tabida) during spring and autumn migration at a key stopover area

The San Luis Valley (SLV), Colorado is a critical stopover area for Rocky Mountain Population greater Sandhill Cranes ( Antigone canadensis tabida ). During spring and autumn, cranes use crops for foraging and water resources adjacent to foraging areas for roosting and loafing. However, surface water is becoming increasingly limited in the SLV. Understanding the factors that affect use by roosting, loafing, and foraging cranes and where habitat is the most limiting will inform water and habitat management under changing conditions. We used mixed-effects models to determine the effects of habitat variables, ownership, and landcover type on the selection of roosting, loafing, and foraging areas by cranes marked with GPS transmitters (2015–2021). We found that Sandhill Cranes selected for areas with a high amount of water, relatively short vegetation (< 5 m in autumn, < 10 m in spring), close to grain fields (< 5 km), and areas identified as open water for roosting. Loafing Sandhill Cranes also selected for areas with short vegetation and close to grain fields but that had less water and more sandbar and were identified as pastures or wetlands. Although selection was higher for private land overall, we found evidence of avoidance of private lands and a stronger preference for public lands with increasing surface water for roosting in spring. For foraging areas, selection was highest for barley in both seasons, but triticale and other grains had relatively high selection in autumn. Our research confirms the importance of providing roosting and loafing areas on both private and public lands close to foraging areas and provides evidence that roosting and loafing opportunities may be most limited on public lands in the SLV.

Colorado↗

Estimating total human-caused mortality from reported mortality using data from radio-instrumented grizzly bears

Tracking mortality of the Yellowstone grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) is an essential issue of the recovery process. Problem bears removed by agencies are well documented. Deaths of radiocollared bears are known or, in many cases, can be reliably inferred. Additionally, the public reports an unknown proportion of deaths of uncollared bears. Estimating the number of non-agency human-caused mortalities is a necessary element that must be factored into the total annual mortality. Here, we describe a method of estimating the number of such deaths from records of reported human-caused bear mortalities. We used a hierarchical Bayesian model with a non-informative prior distribution for the number of deaths. Estimates of reporting rates developed from deaths of radio-instrumented bears from 1983 to 2000 were used to develop beta prior probability distributions that the public will report a death. Twenty-seven known deaths of radio-instrumented bears occurred during this period with 16 reported. Additionally, fates of 23 radio-instrumented bears were unknown and are considered possible unreported mortalities. We describe 3 ways of using this information to specify prior distributions on the probability a death will be reported by the public. We estimated total deaths of noninstrumented bears in running 3-year periods from 1993 to 2000. Thirty-nine known deaths of non-instrumented bears were reported during this period, ranging from 0 to 7/year. Seven possible mortalities were recorded. We applied the method to both sets of mortality data. Results from this method can be combined with agency removals and deaths of collared bears to produce defensible estimates of total mortality over relevant periods and to incorporate uncertainty when evaluating mortality limits established for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Assumptions and limitations of this procedure are discussed.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Informing the network: Improving communication with interface communities during wildland fire

An interagency research team studied fire communications that took place during different stages of two wildfires in southern California: one small fire of short duration and one large fire of long duration. This "quick- response" research showed that pre-fire communication planning was particularly effective for smaller fire events and parts of that planning proved invaluable for the large fire event as well. Information seeking by the affected public relied on locally convenient sources during the small fire. During the large fire, widespread evacuations disrupted many of the local informal communication networks. Residents' needs were for "real-time, " place-specific information: precise location, severity, size, and direction of spread of the fires. Fire management agencies must contribute real-time, place-specific fire information when it is most needed by the affected public, as they try to make sense out of the chaos of a wildland fire. Disseminating fire information as broadly as possible through multiple pathways will maximize the probability of the public finding the information they need. ?? Society for Human Ecology.

Human Ecology Review↗

Water resources inventory of Connecticut Part 6: Upper Housatonic River basin

The upper Housatonic River basin report area has an abundant supply of water of generally good quality, which is derived from precipitation on the area and streams entering the area. Annual precipitation has averaged about 46 inches over a 30-year period. Of this, approximately 22 inches of water is returned to the atmosphere each year by evaporation and transpiration; the remainder flows overland to streams or percolates downward to the water table and ultimately flows out of the report area in the Housatonic River or in smaller streams tributary to the Hudson River. During the autumn and winter precipitation normally is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the amount of water stored in surface reservoirs and in aquifers, whereas in the summer, losses through evaporation and transpiration result in sharply reduced streamflow and lowered ground-water levels. Mean monthly storage of water in November is 2.8 inches more than it is in June. The amount of water that flows into, through, and out of the report area represents the total amount potentially available for use ignoring reuse. For the 30-year period 1931 through 1960, the annual runoff from precipitation has averaged 24 inches (294 billion gallons). During the same period, inflows from Massachusetts and New York have averaged 220 and 64 billion gallons per year, respectively. A total average annual runoff of 578 billion gallons is therefore available. Although runoff indicates the total amount of water potentially available, it is rarely feasible to use all of it. On the other hand, with increased development, some water may be reused several times. The water availability may be tapped as it flows through the area or is temporarily stored in streams, lakes, and aquifers. The amounts that can be developed differ from place to place and time to time, depending on the amount of precipitation, on the size of drainage area, on the thickness, transmissivity, and areal extent of aquifers, and on the variations in chemical and physical quality of water. Differences in precipitation cause differences in the amount of streamflow whereas differences in the proportion of stratified drift affect its timing. Water can be obtained from wells almost anywhere in the area, but the amount obtainable at any particular point depends on the type and water-bearing properties of the aquifers tapped. Stratified-drift aquifers are the only ones generally capable of yielding more than 100 gpm (gallons per minute) to individual wells. Drilled, screened wells tapping this unit yield from 17 to 1,400 gpm, with a median yield of 200 gpm. Till and bedrock are widespread but generally provide only small supplies of water. Till is tapped in a few places by dug wells, which can yield small supplies of only a few hundred gallons per day throughout all or most of the year. Bedrock is the chief aquifer for privately owned domestic and rural supplies; it is tapped by drilled wells, about 90 percent of which will supply at least 2 gpm. Only 1 of 10 bedrock wells, however, will supply more than 30 gpm. The amount of ground water potentially available in the report area depends upon the thickness and hydraulic properties of aquifers, the amount of salvageable natural discharge of ground water, and the quantity of water available by induced infiltration from streams and lakes. From data on transmissivity, thickness, recharge, well performance, and streamflow, preliminary estimates of ground-water availability can be made for most stratified-drift aquifers in the report area. Long-term yields estimated for eight areas of stratified drift especially favorable for development of large ground-water supplies ranged from 0.6 to 5 mgd (million gallons per day). Detailed site studies are needed to verity these estimates and to determine optimum yields, drawdowns, and spacing of individual wells before major ground-water development is undertaken in these or other areas. The chemical quality of water in the report area is generally good; carbonate-bedrock units exert considerable local influence on water quality. Samples of naturally occurring surface water collected at 24 sites during low flow averaged 90 mg/l (milligrams per liter) dissolved solids and 60 mg/l hardness. Water from wells is generally more highly mineralized than naturally occurring water from streams. About 37 percent of the wells sampled yielded water with more than 200 mg/l dissolved solids and 50 percent yielded water with more than 120 mg/l hardness. These concentrations reflect the high degree of mineralization of ground water in carbonate bedrock and unconsolidated deposits derived from this bedrock. The larger streams, which transport varying amounts of industrial and domestic effluents, averaged about 150 mg/l dissolved solids and 90 mg/l hardness. Iron and manganese concentrations in both ground water and surface water at some places exceed recommended limits for domestic and industrial use. Most wells in the report area yield water with little or no iron or manganese. In certain localities however, the probability is high of encountering water with excessive concentrations of these constituents. Schists, especially the unit in the northwestern corner of the basin, are the likely sources of water with excessive iron and manganese. Iron concentrations in naturally occurring stream water exceed 0.3 mg/l under low-flow conditions at 29 percent of the sites sampled. These excessive concentrations result from discharge of iron-bearing water from aquifers or from swamps where iron is released from decaying vegetation. Water temperature in the larger streams ranges from 0°C (degrees Celsius) to about 28°C. Ground water between 30 feet and 200 feet below the land surface has a relatively constant temperature, usually between 8°C and 11°C. The quantity of suspended sediment transported by streams under natural conditions is negligible. Even in streams affected by man, turbidity is rarely a problem. The total amount of water used in the report area for all purposes during 1967 was about 6,360 million gallons, or 140 gpd per person. Public supplies furnished the domestic needs of nearly half the population of the area. All of the 14 public supplies sampled provided water that meets the drinking water standards of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Connecticut↗

Geographic names of Antarctica

The geographic nomenclature of Antarctica was long in need of an overall systematic treatment, objective in approach and based upon thorough examination of all the evidence. The results of such treatment over a period of about three years were presented in Geographical Names of Antarctica, Special Publication No. 86 of the Board on Geographical Names, in May 1947, two supplements to which were issued in 1949 and 1951. The continuing program since that publication has now covered most of the geographic naming in Antarctica. As research has filled in many of the previous gaps in knowledge, a number of names have been modified and minor amendments have been made in the policies. This revised publication brings together the greatly enlarged body of names officially standardized for use by the United States Government, together with new pertinent background information.

Gazetteer↗

Elk Monitoring Protocol for Lewis and Clark National Historical Park, Version 1.0

Maintaining elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) herds that frequent Lewis and Clark National Historical Park (NHP) is central to the park’s purpose of preserving the historic, cultural, scenic, and natural resources. Elk were critical to sustaining the members of the Lewis and Clark expedition by providing food and clothing over the winter of 1805-1806. Today, elk viewing opportunities in the park and surrounding region generate broad appeal with the visiting public, which number over 250,000 per year at the Fort Clatsop visitor center. This protocol describes procedures for monitoring trends in the use of the Fort Clatsop area by Roosevelt elk. Specific objectives of elk monitoring in Lewis and Clark NHP are to measure the relative use and proportion of area used by elk during winter in the Fort Clatsop Unit of the park, and the rate at which elk are sighted from roads in and around the park. Relative use and the proportion of area used by elk are determined from elk fecal pellet surveys conducted every other year in the Fort Clatsop park unit. Pairs of observers visit a systematic array of permanent plots in the fall to clear them of elk fecal pellets, and return to the plots in late winter to count elk fecal pellets that have accumulated during winter. Half of the subplots are counted by two independent observers, which allows for the estimation of relative use and proportion of area occupied by elk with analyses of detection biases that account for unseen elk pellet groups. Standardized road surveys are conducted in and near the Fort Clatsop park unit three or four times monthly during alternate months. Data from road surveys are used to quantify the rate that park visitors would be expected to see elk, when driving the selected set of routes. The monitoring protocol is based on three field seasons of development and testing. The protocol narrative describes the background, rationale, sampling design, field methods, analytical methods, data management, reporting, personnel requirements, and operational requirements for elk monitoring in Lewis and Clark NHP. The sampling design reflects tradeoffs between statistical and ecological considerations, safety, and current budget considerations. The protocol provides adequate power to detect a doubling or halving of elk use in the Fort Clatsop unit and surrounding areas within 15 years. Step-by-step guidance for planning and completing the monitoring tasks are in the attached standard operating procedures (SOPs). Information on the status and trends of elk use in Lewis and Clark NHP will allow park managers to assess the effects on elk of restoration programs within the park, build community partnerships, and identify potential linkages between regional land use changes and elk use of the Park. Lewis and Clark NHP has an active ecological restoration program that aims to recreate, where possible, ecological conditions that Lewis and Clark encountered. The restoration program includes an extensive exotic plant removal program, wetland restoration, and silvicultural treatments that will hasten development of late-seral conditions in recently acquired forest lands of the Fort Clatsop park unit. In the future, monitoring results can be used to test for spatial associations between ecological restoration treatments and relative use by elk. The park also plans to feature results from elk monitoring prominently in its educational outreach activities to help interpret the historical and current ecological context of the Lewis and Clark story, and engender public support for the park mission and management activities. Although NPS does not manage non-park lands, information about trends in the distribution of elk use will be valuable in public outreach and discussions with other partnering agencies and regional private landowners.

Natural Resource Report↗

Book review of Wildlife 2000: Modeling relationships of terrestrial vertebrates, edited by J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph

"Wildlife 2000" is the proceedings of a conference held 7-11 October 1984, near Lake Tahoe, California, the objective of which was to present an up-to-date synthesis of models that predict the responses of wildlife to habitat change. This extremely attractive, well-produced volume has been well received by the wildlife management profession; the editors received an outstanding publication award from The Wildlife Society for this publication. The accolades are deserved. The symposium was purposely integrated in terms of research and management perspectives. Each of the six sections is summarized by both research and management points of view. A majority of the 60 papers presented deal with birds. Although many chapters require a strong quantitative background, especially in multivariate statistics, many others do not. When one compares this publication with previous habitat-modeling symposia proceedings, one realizes what a superior contribution "Wildlife 2000" is, and how incredible far wildlife-habitat modelers have come in a short time. There are very few redundant papers of "nonpapers" in this volume. The wide array of modeling procedures, statistical methods, and computer software developed and used by the authors is impressive; we have indeed learned how to build models. Whether or not we have learned how to build good models is another question.

The Wilson Bulletin↗

A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 11a: giant sequoias

For natural resource managers in the southern Sierra Nevada, giant sequoia requires very little introduction. It receives great attention as an icon of western forests and as a common namesake with the areas where it occurs. While it is a single component of a very complex system, its attention in this assessment and in general is well deserved. Giant sequoia is one of the few "destination species" that attracts a wide swath of the public by nature of it simply being present. It draws people, who otherwise may not travel, to a natural environment. The result is an expansion of the public’s sense of natural resource stewardship. Because park managers could not achieve their mission without public support, this fostering role of giant sequoia is critical for park natural resources and is important for natural resources in general. Despite its social relevance and physical size, we re-emphasize here that the giant sequoia resource is a relatively small component of the ecosystems of the southern Sierra Nevada. As is the case with all of the resources assessed in the NRCA, we focus on giant sequoia with the understanding that other resources will be considered simultaneously when evaluating management decisions that impact giant sequoia. While we attempt to explicitly address the interaction of giant sequoia with other resources and stressors, we also realize that ultimately managers will integrate much more information than is presented here when making decisions that influence giant sequoia. The autecology and management issues surrounding giant sequoia have been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere (Harvey et al. 1980, Aune 1994, Stephenson 1996). Stephenson (1996), in particular, should be reviewed when considering any management decisions that potentially impact giant sequoia. For those who may not be familiar with giant sequoia ecology, a summary of basic information is provided in a table below. In some parts of this assessment, we reproduce text from Stephenson’s review because it is still relatively current for addressing some of the stressors. Numerous recent studies reported since 1996 have confirmed and expanded the understanding of giant sequoia, especially in areas related to ecophysiology and the effectiveness of restoration treatments. These recent studies are integrated into this assessment. Additionally, much unpublished work has been done that is useful for establishing baselines and evaluating trends. This work is presented in detail in order to expand upon previous work and to inform the final assessments. Instead of providing an introductory description of giant sequoia distribution and the various landowners who manage groves, we refer readers to the more recent descriptions provided by Stephenson (1996) and Willard (2000). Some of the relevant points from these descriptions with respect to giant sequoia within SEKI and Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM) include: - Of the native giant sequoia grove area in SEKI and GSNM approximately 38% is within SEKI and 62% is within GSNM. - 35 of the groves that make up the entire population are all or partially managed by SEKI and 33 are managed by GSNM. - As we have done above, reviewers addressing giant sequoia widely recognize its transcendence beyond an ecologically important species to one with considerable added cultural value.

California↗

Proceedings of the fourth conference on research in California's National Parks

The papers in this proceedings were selected from the 63 presentations given at the Fourth Biennial Conference on Research in National Parks in California. The overall theme for this meeting was a recurring one: “The Integration of Research into National Park Service Resource Management Decisions.” The conference was held at the University of California, Davis, on 10-12 September 1991 and was sponsored by the National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit and the Institute of Ecology at the University of California, Davis. This proceedings highlights a variety of research and resource management efforts to improve the stewardship of our most treasured landscapes. In the future, it will become increasingly more important for federal and state agencies, university scientists and students, and the public to cooperate fully to improve the quantity and quality of science and resource management programs in units of the National Park System. As many of the papers in this proceedings attest, we must look beyond the political boundaries of protected landscapes to incorporate entire ecosystems. Competing resource uses inside and outside parklands must be reexamined to weave a common thread of biological conservation. As scientists, our studies must bridge the gap from plots to landscapes and from landscapes to regions. Our studies must built on information from species and populations to ecosystems and the processes that influence them. The papers in this proceedings are modest but important contribution to those ideals. Each paper represents original research and has been peer-reviewed. Many agencies, institutions, and individuals contributed in the development of this product. In the planning stages, National Park Service Western Region scientists provided advice and assistance in structuring the conference format. University of California, Davis, graduate students, directed by Sharon Lynch, assisted with logistics at the meeting, and provided general assistance with the paper sessions. We thank the students, technicians, and support staff who labored unselfishly behind the scenes to collect data and transfer information important to the completion of each paper. Financial support for this publication was provided with funds from the Western Region Resource Management and Resource Program and the Washington Office Servicewide Publications Program of the National Park Service. We thank Denny Fenn, Stan Albright, Bruce Kilgore, Dave Cherry, Gene Hester, and Donna O'Leary of the National Park Service and Charles Goldman of the University of California, Davis, Institute of Ecology for their support throughout the development of the proceedings. Finally, we are entering into a new age of research in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Recently, plans were announced for the creation of the National Biological Survey, dedicated to improving the quantity and quality of research necessary for the wise stewardship of our natural resources and wildlands. We welcome our new partners and pledge our full support to both the new and old agencies. The papers presented here--and past research efforts in national parks--provide an important stepping stone to the future. While many of us will be transferred administratively to the National Biological Survey, our emotional ties to the National Park Service mission of preserving resources for future generations will remain with us forever.

California↗

Global trends in emerging viral diseases of wildlife origin

Fifty years ago, infectious diseases were rarely considered threats to wildlife populations, and the study of wildlife diseases was largely a neglected endeavor. Furthermore, public health leaders at that time had declared that &ldquo;it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,&rdquo; a quote attributed to Dr. William H. Stewart in 1967. There is some debate whether he actually said these words; however, they reflect the widespread belief at that time (Spellberg, 2008). Leap forward to today, and the book on infectious diseases has been dusted off. There is general consensus that the global environment favors the emergence of infectious diseases, and in particular, diseases of wildlife origin (Taylor et al., 2001). Examples of drivers of these infectious diseases include climate and landscape changes, human demographic and behavior changes, global travel and trade, microbial adaptation, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for wildlife disease control and prevention (Daszak et al., 2001). The consequences of these emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy and food security, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecosystem integrity. For example, 35 million people are currently living with HIV infection globally (http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en); 400 million poultry have been culled since 2003 as a result of efforts to control highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/index.html), and there are increasing biological and ecological consequences. Examples of health threats to biodiversity include the &ldquo;spillover&rdquo; of human diseases to great ape populations (K&ouml;ndgen et al., 2008), the near-extirpation of the black-footed ferret from canine distemper and sylvatic plague (for a review see Abbott et al., 2012), and threats to Hawaiian forest birds from introduced pathogens such as avian malaria and avian pox (van Riper et al., 1986, 2002). There are also newly discovered pathogens or diseases that have resulted in population declines, and global extinctions of several species. Examples include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally (Kriger and Hero, 2009); and recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans, the etiologic agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species (Blehert et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of the subsequent impacts on human and ecosystem health; for example, increasing risk of exposure to Lyme disease as a consequence of decreased biodiversity (LoGiudice et al., 2003) as well as the economic cost of the loss of bats due to decreased insect control services (Boyles et al., 2011). Figure A12-1 is a timeline of important diseases investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey since the 1970s, which illustrates three factors: 1. The unprecedented emergence of new pathogens and geographic spread of known pathogens since the 1990s; 2. Diseases are increasingly causing large-scale, negative impacts on wildlife populations and spreading over larger geographic areas rather than remaining localized; and 3. Diseases are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors, including public health, agriculture and wildlife management agencies. Of increasing concern are these novel diseases such as WNS as they are hard to anticipate, particularly devastating to human health or wildlife populations, challenging to manage, spread over large geographic areas in short time periods, and may result in ecological ripple effects that are difficult to predict. The following article provides examples of recently emerged viral diseases of wildlife origin. The examples have been selected to illustrate the drivers of emerging viral diseases, both novel pathogens and previously known diseases, the impacts of these diseases, as well as the role of wildlife both as &ldquo;villains&rdquo; or reservoirs as well as &ldquo;victims&rdquo; of these viral diseases. The article also discusses potential management strategies for emerging viral diseases in wildlife populations and future science directions in wildlife health to prevent, prepare, respond to, and recover from these disease events. Finally, the concept of One Health and its potential role in developing solutions to these issues of mutual concern is discussed.

Conference Paper↗

Northwest Boreal Landscape Conservation Cooperative strategic plan 2015 - 2025

The Northwest Boreal Landscape Conservation Cooperative (NWB LCC) is a voluntary, diverse, self-directed management-science partnership, informing and promoting integrated science, sustainable natural and cultural resource management, and conservation to address impacts of climate change and other stressors within and across ecosystems. The NWB LCC area includes parts of Alaska, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and British Columbia. Our partnership reflects both the broad geographic scope and an extensive array of active and engaged participants including resource management organizations, government representatives, policy makers, Tribes and First Nations, industry leaders, researchers, non-governmental organizations, and research/education institutions. Bringing together diverse partners will help assure the northwest boreal is a functioning, sustainable landscape. We live in an era of profound conservation challenges, including the loss and fragmentation of habitats, genetic isolation, invasive species, and unnatural wildfire. The effects of rapidly changing climate are already evident on the landscape. In these circumstances, it is imperative that natural resource management agencies, science providers, Tribes, First Nations, conservation organizations, and other stakeholders work together to understand the drivers and impacts of landscape change and to determine how best to address those challenges. Further, it is essential that the public and communities receive clear communication about the vision and activities of the NWB LCC. Open public access to NWB LCC activities and products will promote acceptance and support of the science that guides potential changes in management action and conservation strategy. This strategic plan provides a great opportunity for the NWB LCC to share our approach and intentions to the LCC members, collaborators, communities, and the public at large.

Report↗

Large carnivores, moose, and humans: A changing paradigm of predator management in the 21st century

We compare and contrast the evolution of human attitudes toward large carnivores between Europe and North America. In general, persecution of large carnivores began much earlier in Europe than North America. Likewise, conservation programs directed at restoration and recovery appeared in European history well before they did in North America. Together, the pattern suggests there has been an evolution in how humans perceive large predators. Our early ancestors were physically vulnerable to large carnivores and developed corresponding attitudes of respect, avoidance, and acceptance. As civilization evolved and man developed weapons, the balance shifted. Early civilizations, in particular those with pastoral ways, attempted to eliminate large carnivores as threats to life and property. Brown bears (Ursus arctos) and wolves (Canis lupus) were consequently extirpated from much of their range in Europe and in North America south of Canada. Efforts to protect brown bears began in the late 1880s in some European countries and population reintroductions and augmentations are ongoing. They are less controversial than in North America. On the other hand, there are no wolf introductions, as has occurred in North America, and Europeans have a more negative attitude towards wolves. Control of predators to enhance ungulate harvest varies. In Western Europe, landowners own the hunting rights to ungulates. In the formerly communistic Eastern European countries and North America, hunting rights are held in common, although this is changing in some Eastern European countries. Wolf control to increase harvests of moose (Alces alces) occurs in parts of North America and Russia; bear control for similar reasons only occurs in parts of North America. Surprisingly, bears and wolves are not controlled to increase ungulates where private landowners have the hunting rights in Europe, although wolves were originally exterminated from these areas. Both the inability of scientific research to adequately predict the effect of predator control on ungulate populations and a shift in public attitudes toward large carnivores have resulted in an accelerating number of challenges to predator management in places where it is still espoused. Utilitarian attitudes towards wildlife are declining in Western cultures and people now increasingly recognize the intrinsic value of wildlife, including large predators. In the future, agencies responsible for managing resident wildlife will face increased pressure to balance the needs of the hunting public with the desires of non-hunting publics. We suggest that in the next century we will witness a continued shift in how wildlife agencies manage both moose and large carnivores. More attention will be paid to maintaining and restoring intact ecosystems and less toward sustainable yield of meat.

Alces↗

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

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

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

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&ndash;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&ndash;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&ndash;2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985&ndash;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↗