Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “National Wildlife”

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 1,243 records · Page 69Linked to original sources
USGS2005

Attitudinal survey component of the study Quantity, quality, and support for research in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: An organizational assessment : Report of methods and frequencies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Climate adaptation Science Centers—Annual report for 2018

2018 marked the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center! With the passage of the fiscal year 2018 budget on March 23, 2018, our program name was changed from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to the National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC). The eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers were renamed Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs). The name changes more clearly align the national and regional centers and emphasize their focus on meeting natural resource adaptation needs. Although the program has a new name, our mission has not changed. We are still hard at work delivering science to help fish, wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a changing climate. During the past 10 years, the NCASC and the eight regional CASCs funded over 425 science projects and built a network of research partners, resource management stakeholders, interdisciplinary staff, fellows, and early career researchers. In celebration of our work and accomplishments over the last 10 years, the NCASC began a monthly web post series on “10 Things You May Not Know” about topics our science has focused on, including drought, glaciers, and wildfire. Additionally, CASCs that had completed their initial hosting agreement with the USGS underwent a formal review and recompetition process. New hosting agreements were awarded to the Southwest and North Central CASCs in 2018. Read the 2018 annual report to learn more about the CASCs' great science, partnerships, capacity building, and more from 2018.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Field surveys of Midwestern and Northeastern Fish and Wildlife Service lands for the presence of abnormal frogs and toads

The national distribution of information on the discovery of malformations in Minnesota frogs in 1995 stimulated collection and examination of newly metamorphosed frogs during 1996. By late summer and early fall of 1996, malformed frogs and toads were reported on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lands in Vermont (Northeast, Region 5) and Minnesota (Midwest, Region 3). In response to these reports, biologists in USFWS Regions 3 and 5 conducted a survey, during the summer of 1997 to determine the distribution and type of malformations in frogs and toads on selected federal lands. Region 3 personnel surveyed 38 field stations at National Wildlife Refuges (NWR's) and Wetland Management Districts. Malformed frogs and toads were collected at 23 (61%) of the Region 3 sites. External malformations were detected in 110 of 6632 individuals representing seven of 13 frog species and one of three toad species examined for an overall of 1.7% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 0.4-5.2%). In Region 5, 17 NWR's and one National Park were surveyed. Malformed frogs were collected at 10 (56%) of the Region 5 sites. External malformations were detected in 58 of 2267 individuals representing six of 11 frog species and one of two toad species examined for an overall total of 2.6% affected (percentages for affected species ranged from 1.8-15.6%). The majority of malformations observed in frogs and toads collected in Regions 3 and 5 were partially or completely missing hind limbs and digits (50%)or malformed hind limbs and digits (14%). A few individuals had an extra limb or toe, missing or malformed front limb, missing eye, or malformation of the mandible. Despite small sample sizes at some sites, malformations were confirmed to be present in eight species of frogs and two species of toads on Federal lands in USFWS Regions 3 and 5. Further study is needed to determine the extent and distribution of amphibian malformations in these Regions. Data from this study were provided to the national database on distribution of malformed amphibians.

Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesnowta, Missouri, O↗
USGS2002

A critique of wildlife radio-tracking and its use in National Parks: a report to the National Park Service

Because of the naturalness of National Parks and because of the public’s strong interest in the parks, the National Park Service (NPS) must gather as much information as needed to help understand and preserve the natural functioning of its ecosystems, and especially of its wildlife. The most useful technique for studying wildlife is radio-tracking, or wildlife telemetry. Radio-tracking is the technique of determining information about an animal through the use of radio signals from or to a device carried by the animal. The basic components of a traditional radio-tracking system are (1) a transmitting subsystem consisting of a radio transmitter, a power source and a propagating antenna, and (2) a receiving subsystem including a “pick-up” antenna, a signal receiver with reception indicator (speaker and/or display) and a power source. Most radio tracking systems involve transmitters tuned to different frequencies (analogous to different AM/FM radio stations) that allow individual identification. Three distinct types of radio-tracking are in use today: (1)conventional, very-high-frequency (VHF) radio tracking, (2) satellite tracking, and (3) Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking. VHF radio-tracking is the standard technique that has been in use since 1963. However, radio-tracking can be considered intrusive in that it requires live-capturing animals and attaching a collar or other device to them. A person must then monitor signals from the device, thus usually requiring people in the field in vehicles, aircraft, and on foot. Nevertheless, most national parks have recognized the benefits of radio-tracking and have hosted radio-tracking studies for many years; in some parks, hundreds of animals have been, or are being, so studied. As a result, some NPS staff are concerned about actual or potential intrusiveness of radio-tracking. Ideally, wildlife studies would still be done but with no intrusion on animals or conflict with park visitors. Thus the NPS has decided to closely examine the technique and use of radio-tracking to determine (1) if any less-intrusive method could supply the same information, (2) what the full range of radio-tracking technology is, to determine if the least-intrusive techniques are being used, and (3) whether future technological improvements might lead to less-intrusive techniques. The present review is the result. We first present a simple overview of radio-tracking technology, its benefits, variety, cost, and availability, advantages and disadvantages, and recent refinements that, if used, could reduce research intrusiveness. Then we consider whether any less-intrusive, non-radio-tracking techniques could supply the same information. Next we discuss possible future improvements and suggest some that would help reduce intrusion during wildlife research in national parks. Last, we review radio-tracking technology in detail for readers who want a more complete understanding. This review should also allow administrators and scientists to determine whether the least-intrusive radio-tracking techniques are currently being used. We conclude that no substitute for radio-tracking appears to be on the horizon but that a few recent improvements in the technology can reduce some of its intrusiveness. Further, we recommend that the NPS (1) formally assess the extent of park visitors’ perceptions and concerns about any intrusiveness caused by wildlife radio-tracking studies (2) help minimize visitor concern about the technique by educating the public about radio-tracking and some of its findings in the parks, (3) promote use of the most up-to-date refinements and improvements in radio-tracking technology, and (4) encourage funding projects using such technology.

Report↗
USGS2021

Greater Yellowstone climate assessment: Past, present, and future climate change in the greater Yellowstone watersheds

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is one of the last remaining large and nearly intact temperate ecosystems on Earth. GYA was originally defined in the 1970s as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, which encompassed the minimum range of the grizzly bear. The boundary now includes about 22 million acres (8.9 million ha) in northwestern Wyoming, south central Montana, and eastern Idaho (Figure ES-1). Two national parks, five national forests, three wildlife refuges, 20 counties, and state and private lands lie within the GYA boundary (Figure ES-1). The Tribal Nations of the Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho, Apsa´alooke/Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone, and Bannock have reservations in and near the Greater Yellowstone Area, and 27 Tribes are formally recognized to have historical connections to the lands and resources of the region. Natural resources sensitive to climate change connect many of the major economic activities of the GYA, including tourism and recreation, agriculture, and energy development.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS1986

Wildlife in some areas of New Mexico and Texas accumulate elevated DDE residues, 1983

Over the last decade, data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program have identified an area of elevated DDE contamination in portions of New Mexico and Texas. Extensive wildlife sampling in 1983 confirmed that DDE, the major metabolite of the insecticide DDT, was present at high concentrations in wildlife at selected sites in the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages. DDE in carcasses ranged up to 47 ppm (wet weight) in western kingbirds ( Tyrannus verticalis ), 35 ppm in house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ), 46 ppm in Brazilian free-tailed bats ( Tadarida brasiliensis ), and 104 ppm in whiptail lizards ( Cnemidophorus spp.). DDE was also detected in gut contents from western kingbirds at some of the highest concentrations ever reported, ranging up to 21 ppm in proventricular samples. An average of 40% of the eggs of black-crowned night-herons ( Nycticorax nycticorax ) from two sites along the Pecos River in New Mexico had DDE levels (≥8 ppm) that have been associated in other studies with impaired reproduction. In contrast, wintering mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) and American coots ( Fulica americana ) from the study area did not accumulate elevated DDE levels. DDE in wildlife samples at control sites (nonagricultural areas) was either absent or averaged less than 0.35 ppm. Collectively, these data provide evidence that there is major DDE contamination of several vertebrate species in portions of the Rio Grande and Pecos River drainages, but whether the contamination is recent or residual was not determined. Apparently, the source was not DDE contamination present in dicofol (4-chloro- a -(4-chlorophenyl)- a -(trichloromethyl) benzenemethanol); neither dicofol nor its metabolite, p,p' -dichlorobenzophenone, were detected in wildlife carcasses (0.1 ppm detection limit) or proventricular contents (0.01 ppm detection limit) of western kingbirds.

New Mexico, Texas↗
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↗
USGS2018

Contaminants of emerging concern in the environment: Where we have been and what does the future hold?

In 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring alerted the nation to the dangers of manmade chemicals and indiscriminate use of pesticides. DDT was the culprit and its use threatened a variety of wildlife, including the national bird, bald eagles. In 1969, pressured by scientists and the public, the United States banned almost all uses of DDT; however, DDT was just the tip of the chemical iceberg. In 1996, Theo Colborn’s book, Our Stolen Future, again alerted the public to the dangers of chemical exposure. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals were identified as concerns because exposure to extremely small concentrations can have adverse effects on people and wildlife by interfering with chemical messaging systems, affecting things like sexual development and reproduction.

Water Resources Impact↗
USGS2012

Assessment of photographs from wildlife monitoring cameras in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California

Between 2007 and 2010, National Park Service (NPS) staff at the Point Reyes National Seashore, California, collected over 300,000 photographic images of Drakes Estero from remotely operated wildlife monitoring cameras. The purpose of the systems was to obtain photographic data to help understand possible relationships between anthropogenic activities and Pacific harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina richardsi ) behavior and distribution. The value of the NPS photographs for use in assessing the frequency and impacts of seal disturbance and displacement in Drakes Estero has been debated. In September 2011, the NPS determined that the photographs did not provide meaningful information for development of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Drakes Bay Oyster Company Special Use Permit. Limitations of the photographs included lack of study design, poor photographic quality, inadequate field of view, incomplete estuary coverage, camera obstructions, and weather limitations. The Marine Mammal Commission (MMC) reviewed the scientific data underpinning the Drakes Bay Oyster Company DEIS in November 2011 and recommended further analysis of the NPS photographs for use in characterizing rates and consequences of seal disturbance (Marine Mammal Commission, 2011). In response to that recommendation, the NPS asked the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to conduct an independent review of the photographs and render an opinion on the utility of the remote camera data for informing the environmental impact analyses included in the DEIS. In consultation with the NPS, we selected the 2008 photographic dataset for detailed evaluation because it covers a full harbor seal breeding season (March 1 to June 30), provides two fields of view (two cameras were deployed), and represents a time period when cameras were most consistently deployed and maintained. The NPS requested that the photographs be evaluated in absence of other data or information pertaining to seal and human activity in the estuary and that we focus on the extent to which the photographs could be used in understanding the relationship between human activity (including commercial oyster production) and harbor seal disturbance and distribution in the estuary.

California↗
USGS1960

The trumpeter swan: its history, habits, and population in the U.S

This report on the trumpeter evolved from studies made from 1948 to 1957 when I served first as an assistant and later as manager, of the Red Rock Lakes Refuge. I have also drawn extensively on the records of the National Park Service, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Museum in Washington, D. C. Other pertinent information bearing on the life history of the trumpeter swan in the United States has been extracted from published articles, unpublished reports and records, firsthand accounts and correspondence. This account includes a historical record of this bird in the United States and Alaska, an outline of its habits and characteristics in its native Rocky Mountain environment, and furnishes information necessary to guide its future.

North American Fauna↗
USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗
USGS2003

A critical look at national monitoring programs for birds and other wildlife species

Concerns?about declines in numerous taxa have created agreat deal of interest in survey development. Because birds have traditionally been monitored by a variety of methods, bird surveys form natural models for development of surveys for other taxa. Here I suggest that most bird surveys are not appropriate models for survey design. Most lack important design components associated with estimation of population parameters at sample sites or with sampling over space, leading to estimates that may be biased, I discuss the limitations of national bird monitoring programs designed to monitor population size. Although these surveys are often analyzed, careful consideration must be given to factors that may bias estimates but that cannot be evaluated within the survey. Bird surveys with appropriate designs have generally been developed as part of management programs that have specific information needs. Experiences gained from bird surveys provide important information for development of surveys for other taxa, and statistical developments in estimation of population sizes from counts provide new approaches to overcoming the limitations evident in many bird surveys. Design of surveys is a collaborative effort, requiring input from biologists, statisticians, and the managers who will use the information from the surveys.

Book chapter↗
USGS1988

Whooping crane recovery: Progress through research

Cooperative efforts of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada, and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center have established a captive flock of whooping cranes, and at least two additional wild populations. Efforts have focused on research, habitat protection, law enforcement, and conservation education programs.

Zooview↗
USGS2020

Movements and habitat use of loons for assessment of conservation buffer zones in the Arctic Coastal Plain of northern Alaska

Oil and gas development in the Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska, may pose threats to wildlife. Management guidelines within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska dictate buffer zones for coastal wildlife habitat and for breeding and foraging sites of yellow-billed loons (YBLOs; Gavia adamsii), a species of conservation concern. However, few data exist to assess the value of these buffer zones for YBLOs or for sympatrically breeding red-throated loons (RTLOs; G. stellata) and Pacific loons (PALOs; G. pacifica). We evaluated movements of these loons on the Arctic Coastal Plain to understand: 1) seasonal timing; 2) marine habitat use; and 3) spatial characteristics of breeding home ranges. We then used those findings to evaluate current management strategies in the context of loon biology. Compared to RTLOs and PALOs, YBLOs nested on larger lakes, stayed on them longer, had larger home ranges, but less frequently used the marine environment in summer. During autumn, YBLOs and PALOs were located farther from shore than during spring or summer, whereas RTLOs used the marine environment similarly during all three seasons. Management buffers established for YBLO nesting areas corresponded well with nest site space use of all three species, suggesting cross-taxa applicability of current management guidelines for nesting habitat. However, the majority of loon locations on the Arctic Coastal Plain were outside of coastal buffer zones established to protect fish and wildlife habitat within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These findings can inform assessment of conservation buffer zones to mitigate anthropogenic disturbance to loons in Alaska.

Alaska↗
USGS2008

Procedures for collecting and processing streambed sediment and pore water for analysis of mercury as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program

Mercury (Hg) contamination is an issue of national concern, affecting both wildlife and human health. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, in association with the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program and the USGS National Research Program, has initiated two levels of studies to investigate Hg contamination of the Nation's streams: reconnaissance and detailed studies. Reconnaissance studies entailed one-time sampling events at 266 stream sites across the Nation. Detailed studies entailed intensive spatial and temporal sampling of a small number of streams across the Nation in an effort to develop a more complete, process-level understanding of benthic Hg geochemistry and the underlying factors controlling it. This report summarizes the sampling methods used for the collection and processing of streambed sediment and pore water in association with both of these study levels. Bed-sediment characteristics, such as organic content and grain size, strongly influence Hg geochemistry; detailed characterization of these constituents within a stream reach will allow for the extrapolation of related Hg biogeochemical constituents to the reach scale.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey—Energy and wildlife research annual report for 2017

Introduction Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems provide valuable services to humans and are a source of clean water, energy, raw materials, and productive soils. The Nation’s food supply is more secure because of wildlife. For example, native pollinators enhance agricultural crops, and insect-eating bats provide pest control services worth billions of dollars to farmers annually. Fish and wildlife are also vital to a vibrant outdoor recreation and tourism industry. Recreational activities, such as hunting, shooting, boating, and angling, generated \$1.1 billion in excise taxes paid to State wildlife agencies in 2017. National parks, wildlife refuges, and monuments accounted for $35 billion in economic output and 318,000 jobs nationwide in 2016. Additional economic benefits are generated from the use and enjoyment of wildlife in State-owned lands and waters. Although the United States is rich in natural resources, human activity continues to place new pressures on fish and wildlife and the habitats they rely on. The United States became the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas products in 2012, surpassing Russia’s natural gas production levels in 2009 and Saudi Arabia’s petroleum production in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the demand for liquid fuel, natural gas, and renewable energy will show strong growth in the next 20 years. Wind energy has demonstrated consistent growth since 2007 with now more than 53,000 wind turbines contributing to power grids in 41 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Solar energy has seen rapid growth since 2013 and made up nearly one-third of the total electricity generation additions in 2016. Yet as our Nation works to advance energy security and sustain wildlife, some conflicts have surfaced. Impacts of an expanding energy infrastructure include fragmentation and loss of habitat as well as mortality of birds, bats, fish, and other animals from interactions with energy generation facilities. Because energy development can often occur in wildlife habitats, ecological science can help guide project siting and operational decisions to areas that present the lowest risk to wildlife and energy developers. To address these challenges and make the most of new opportunities, the U.S. Geological Survey is producing innovative science to develop workable solutions that can help sustain wildlife and the habitat they rely upon, while allowing informed development.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Proceedings of the 2024 Asia-Pacific Wildlife Health Workshop—Collaborating against shared threats

Emerging diseases of wildlife origin are increasingly transboundary (they spread rapidly across geographic regions and across continents). In recent years, examples include the rapid spread of African swine fever across Europe and Asia with negative effects on food security, and the near global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza which has devastated wildlife populations, caused economic harm, and which threatens public health; consequently, international partnerships and networks are essential to facilitate the sharing of information for improved situational awareness and better preparedness and response. In this regard, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Korea National Institute for Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention have had a long-standing partnership to foster scientific collaboration. A key part of the activities has been annual scientific workshops, which commenced in 2016. The 2024 workshop in Hilo, Hawaii, was the most recent in these series of workshops and included participants from across Asia and the Pacific region, including Thailand, Vietnam, China, Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, and the United States. The goals of the workshop were: to continue to build the wildlife health community of practice in the Asia-Pacific region and expand the participants to agencies and institutions from other countries in the region; and exchange scientific knowledge among the participants to share best practices, create scientific networks, and build capacity in wildlife health science for the Asia-Pacific region. The themes discussed at the workshop included wildlife health risk management, avian Influenza, African swine fever, climate change and emerging diseases, and international cooperation. This report contains the author-submitted abstracts which provide a summary of the presentations and discussions during the workshop. The aim is to share this information to continue to foster international scientific exchange to protect wildlife health, livestock, and public health from the negative impacts of infectious and noninfectious diseases.

Open-File Report↗