Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Annual 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 847 records · Page 47Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2021

Supporting the development and use of native plant materials for restoration on the Colorado Plateau (Fiscal Year 2020 Report)

A primary focus of the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program (CPNPP) is to identify and develop appropriate native plant materials (NPMs) for current and future restoration projects. Multiple efforts have characterized the myriad challenges inherent in providing appropriate seed resources to enable effective, widespread restoration and have identified a broad suite of research activities to provide the information necessary to overcome those challenges (e.g., Plant Conservation Alliance 2015; Breed et al. 2018; Winkler et al. 2018). Many of the most complex information needs relate to identifying the appropriate sources of plant species that can successfully establish in dryland environments, like the Colorado Plateau, where precipitation is generally low and highly variable. Providing this information requires synergistic research efforts that build upon insight gained from earlier investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Southwest Biological Science Center’s (SBSC’s) research activities that supported CPNPP in FY20 followed the FY20 Statement of Work to support a research framework that is continually adapting based on the needs of the restoration community and results from previous investigations; the long-term research framework is outlined in the 2019-2023 5-Year Research Strategy (hereafter referred to as the 5-year plan). This research framework provides support for the National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration (Plant Conservation Alliance, 2015), Department of Interior Secretarial Order #3347 ( Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation ), and Bureau of Land Management Leadership Priority #1 ( Create a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt ). Research activities in FY20 centered on landscape genomics, implementing a common garden experiment near Vernal, UT, conducting experimental treatments using the GRID (Germination for Restoration Information and Decision-making) framework, and collecting seeds and leaf tissues in the field in preparation for future experiments. These activities were supported by five biological science technicians. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic delayed some aspects of the FY20 workplan, especially for contract laboratory services and the construction of the GRID garden in Flagstaff, AZ. However, goals were largely met, and the overall progress of research remains on track with respect to the 5-year plan. While Dr. Rob Massatti was the only scientist supported by the SBSC-CPNPP agreement in FY20, other scientists, including Drs. John Bradford, Seth Munson, Mike Duniway, Sasha Reed, Matt Jones, and Daniel Winkler, spent a considerable amount of time providing expertise and support for individual projects. Work activities performed in support of each goal are discussed in turn.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah↗
USGS2001

Sea otter studies in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Aerial surveys, foraging observations, and intertidal clam sampling

Following translocations to the outer coast of Southeast Alaska in 1965, sea otters have been expanding their range and increasing in abundance. We began conducting surveys for sea otters in Cross Sound, Icy Strait and Glacier Bay, Alaska in 1994, following initial reports of their presence in Glacier Bay in 1993. Since 1995, the number of sea otters in Glacier Bay proper has increased from about 5 to more than 500. Between 1993 and 1997 sea otters were apparently only occasional visitors to Glacier Bay, but in 1998 long-term residence was established as indicated by the presence of adult females and their dependent pups. Sea otter distribution is limited to the Lower Bay, south of Sandy Cove, and is not continuous within that area. Concentration occur in the vicinity of Sita Reef and Boulder Island and between Pt. Carolus and Rush Pt. on the west side of the Bay (Figure 1). We describe the diet of sea otters in Glacier Bay and south Icy Strait through visual observations of prey during >4,000 successful forage dives. In 2,399 successful foraging dives observed in Glacier Bay proper, diet consisted of 40% clam, 21% urchins, 18% mussel, 4% crab, 5% other and 12% unidentified. Most prey recovered by sea otters are commercially, socially, or ecological important species. Species of clam are primarily Saxidomus gigantea , Protothaca staminea , and Serripes groenlandicus . Urchins are primarily Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis while both mussles, Modiolus modiolus and Mytilus trossulus , are taken. Crabs include species of Cancer, Chinoecetes, Paralithodes, and Telmessus. Although we characterize diet at broad geographic scales, we found diet to vary between sites separated by as little as several hundred meters. Dietary variation among and within sites can reflect differences in prey availability and individual choice. We estimated species composition, density, biomass, and sizes of intertidal clams at 59 sites in Glacier Bay, 14 sites in Idaho Inlet, 12 sites in Port Althorp and 2 sites in Dundas Bay. There is no direct evidence of otter foraging at any of our clam sampling sites except at Port Althorp where sea otters have been present for >20 years and regularly forage intertidally. There is some indication of intertidal foraging in Idaho Inlet, based on reduced mean size of preferred clam species. Sea otters have been present in Idaho Inlet for at least 12 years. We sampled 48 systematically selected sites to allow inference throughout Glacier Bay intertidal areas and 12 preferred habitat intertidal sites to estimate maximum clam densities in the Bay. We also sampled 14 and 12 random sites in Idaho Inlet and Port Althorp, respectively, to provide contrast between sites with and without sea otters. Densities and biomass of intertidal clams were greater in the Lower Bay than either the East or West Arms. Mean densities (#/0.25m 2 ) of all species of clams > 10.0 mm total length were 96.5 at preferred sites, 32.8 in the Lower Bay, 12.2 in the East Arm, 6.6 in the West Arm, 11.32 at Port Althorp and 27.1 at Idaho Inlet. Clam densities were lower in the Upper Arms of Glacier Bay, compared to the Lower Bay and were similar to densities at Port Althorp. In the Lower Bay, clam densities were nearly twice as high at preferred clam sites compared to those systematically sampled. Species of Macoma were the numerically dominant intertidal clam at most sites in Glacier Bay, while Protothaca staminea was dominant at Idaho Inlet and Port Althorp. Biomas (g/0.25m 2 ) was higher in the Lower Bay (23.5) than either Arm (2.1 and .91) and higher at preferred sites (73.4) than systematically selected sites in Glacier Bay. Biomass estimates at Port Althorp were 5.2 and 9.7 at Idaho Inlet. Biomass estimates were dominated by species of Saxidomus , Protothaca and Mya in Glacier Bay and by Protothaca and Saxidomus at Idaho Inlet and Port Althrop. We suspect differences in density and biomass relate to habitat differences between areas within Glacier Bay

Annual Report↗
USGS2002

Sea otter studies in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve

Following translocations to the outer coast of Southeast Alaska in 1965, sea otters have been expanding their range and increasing in abundance. We began conducting surveys for sea otters in Cross Sound, Icy Strait, and Glacier Bay, Alaska in 1994, following initial reports (in 1993) of their presence in Glacier Bay. Since 1995, the number of sea otters in Glacier Bay proper has increased from around 5 to more than 1500. Between 1993 and 1997 sea otters were apparently only occasional visitors to Glacier Bay, but in 1998 long-term residence was established as indicated by the presence of adult females and their dependent pups. Sea otter distribution is limited to the Lower Bay, south of Sandy Cove, and is not continuous within that area. Concentrations occur in the vicinity of Sita Reef and Boulder Island and between Pt. Carolus and Rush Pt. on the west side of the Bay (Figure 1). We describe the diet of sea otters during 2001 in Glacier Bay based on visual observations of prey during 456 successful forage dives. In Glacier Bay, diet consisted of 62% clam, 15% mussel, 9% crab, 7% unidentified, 4& urchins, and 4% other. Most prey recovered by sea otters are commercially, socially, or ecologically important species. Species of clam include Saxidomus gigantea, Protothaca staminea, and Mya truncata. Urchins are primarily Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis and the mussel is Modiolus modiolus. Crabs include species of three genera: Cancer, Chinoecetes, and Telmessus. Although we characterize diet at broad geographic scales, we found diet to vary between sites separated by as little as several hundred meters. Dietary variation among and within sites can reflect differences in prey availability and individual specialization. We estimated species composition, density, biomass, and sizes of subtidal clams, urchins, and mussels at 9 sites in lower Glacier Bay. All sites were selected based on the presence of abundant clam siphons. Sites were not selected to allow inference to any area larger than the sampling area (approx 400 m^2). Sites were selected to achieve a broad geographic sample of dense subtidal clam beds within Glacier Bay prior to occupation and foraging by sea otters. There was no direct evidence of otter foraging at any of our clam sampling sites. We sampled 11,568 bivalves representing 14 speces of clam and 2 species of mussel. We sampled 4,981 urchins, all Strongylocentrotus droeobachiensis. Only four species of clam (littleneck clams, Protothaca staminea; butter clams, Saxidomus gigantea; soft-shell claims, Mya truncata; and Macoma sp.) accounted for 91.6% of all clams sampled. Mean total clam density (#/0.25 m^2) across the 9 sites was 62.3. Densities (and se ) of P. staminea averaged 22.6 (1.6) and ranged from 0 to 97. Densities of S. gigantea averaged 14.4 (1.0) and ranged from 0 to 63. Densities of Macoma sp. averaged 14.5 (1.2) and ranged from 0 to 78. Densities of S. droebachiensis averaged 27.3 (1.7) and ranged from 0 to 109. Mean S. droebachiensis sizes ranged from 16 to 30 mm by site. Mean P. staminea sizes ranged from 30 to 53 mm, mean S. gigantea sizes ranged from 51 to 85 mm, and mean Macoma sp. sizes ranged from 14 to 19 mm. Although not the most abundant clam, S. gigantea contributed the greatest proportion to total clam biomass (63%), followed by P. staminea (24%). Sea otters are now well established in limited areas of the lower portions of Glacier Bay. It is likely that distribution and numbers of sea otters will continue to increase in Glacier Bay in the near future. Glacier Bay supports large and diverse populations of clams that are largely unexploited by sea otters presently. It is predictable that the density and sizes of clam populations will decline in response to otter predation. This will result in fewer opportunities for human harvest, but will also trigger ecosystem level changes, as prey for other predators, such as octopus, sea stars, fishes, birds and mammals are modified. Sea ott

Annual Report↗
USGS2020

The catastrophic decline of tortoises at a fenced natural area

Agassiz’s desert tortoise ( Gopherus agassizii ), a threatened species of the southwestern United States, has severely declined to the point where 76% of populations in critical habitat (Tortoise Conservation Areas) are below viability. The potential for rapid recovery of wild populations is low because females require 12–20 years to reach reproductive maturity and produce few eggs annually. We report on a 34‐year mark‐recapture study of tortoises initiated in 1979 at the Desert Tortoise Research Natural Area in the western Mojave Desert, California, USA, and provide substantive data on challenges faced by the species. In 1980, the United States Congress designated the Research Natural Area and protected the land from recreational vehicles, livestock grazing, and mining with a wildlife‐permeable fence. The 7.77‐km 2 study area, centered on interpretive facilities, included land both within the Natural Area and outside the fence. We expected greater benefits to accrue to the tortoises and habitat inside compared to outside. Our objectives were to conduct a demographic study, analyze and model changes in the tortoise population and habitat, and compare the effectiveness of fencing to protect populations and habitat inside the fence versus outside, where populations and habitat were unprotected. We conducted surveys in spring in each of 7 survey years from 1979, when the fence was under construction, through 2012. We compared populations inside to those outside the fence by survey year for changes in distribution, structure by size and relative age, sex ratios, death rates of adults, and causes of death for all sizes of tortoises. We used a Bayesian implementation of a Jolly Seber model for mark‐recapture data. We modeled detection, density, growth and transition of tortoises to larger size‐age classes, movements from inside the protective fence to outside and vice versa, and survival. After the second and subsequent survey years, we added surveys to monitor vegetation and habitat changes, conduct health assessments, and collect data on counts of predators and predator sign. At the beginning of the study, counts and densities for all sizes of tortoises were high, but densities were approximately 24% higher inside the fence than outside. By 2002, the low point in densities, densities had declined 90% inside the fence and 95% outside. Between 2002 and 2012, the population inside the fence showed signs of improving with a 54% increase in density. Outside the fence, densities remained low. At the end of the study, when we considered the initial differences in location, densities inside the fence were roughly 2.5 times higher than outside. The pattern of densities was similar for male and female adults. When evaluating survival by blocks of years, survivorship was higher in 1979–1989 than in 1989–2002 (the low point) and highest from 2002 to 2012. Recruitment and survival of adult females into the population was important for growing the population, but survival of all sizes, including juveniles, was also critical.

California↗
USGS2012

Mate loss affects survival but not breeding in black brant geese

For birds maintaining long-term monogamous relationships, mate loss might be expected to reduce fitness, either through reduced survival or reduced future reproductive investment. We used harvest of male brant during regular sport hunting seasons as an experimental removal to examine effects of mate loss on fitness of female black brant (Branta bernicla nigricans; hereafter brant). We used the Barker model in program MARK to examine effects of mate loss on annual survival, reporting rate, and permanent emigration. Survival rates decreased from 0.847 ± 0.004 for females who did not lose their mates to 0.690 ± 0.072 for birds who lost mates. Seber ring reporting rate for females that lost their mates were 2 times higher than those that did not lose mates, 0.12 ± 0.086 and 0.06 ± 0.006, respectively, indicating that mate loss increased vulnerability to harvest and possibly other forms of predation. We found little support for effects of mate loss on fidelity to breeding site and consequently on breeding. Our results indicate substantial fitness costs to females associated with mate loss, but that females who survived and were able to form new pair bonds may have been higher quality than the average female in the population.

Behavioral Ecology↗
USGS2006

Measurements of bed load transport on Pacific Creek, Buffalo Fork and The Snake River in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming

Dams disrupt the flow of both of water and sediment through a watershed. Channel morphology is a function of discharge and sediment load, and perturbations caused by dams often alter channel form, causing significant geomorphic and, potentially, ecological changes (e.g. Petts and Gurnell, 2005). At the first order, dams often produce a flow regime that is profoundly altered in the timing, magnitude, and frequency of flows (Magilligan and Nislow, 2005). Yet, the nature of channel adjustments will be specific to both the physical setting, size of the river, dam characteristics, and nature and severity of the flow regulation (Church 1995; Knighton, 1998).

Wyoming↗
USGS1883

The tertiary lake-basin at Florissant, Colorado, between South and Hayden Parks

The following remarks are based upon collections and notes made during a visit to Florissant, in the summer of 1877, in company with Messrs. Arthur Lakes, of Golden, Colo., and F. C. Bowditch, of Boston, Mass. As five days only were spent in the place, most of the time was given up to the collection and care of specimens, so that only a general survey of the locality was possible. Mr. Lakes especially gave himself to the study of the geology of the district, and as he was previously familiar with the structure of the surrounding country, and placed his notes at my disposal, the first part of this paper should be considered our joint production.

Colorado↗