Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

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 1,333 records · Page 74Linked to original sources
USGS1956

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↗
USGS2011

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↗
USGS1988

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↗
USGS2013

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↗
USGS1993

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↗
USGS2015

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 “it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,” 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 “spillover” of human diseases to great ape populations (Köndgen 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 “villains” or reservoirs as well as “victims” 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↗
USGS2016

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↗
USGS2003

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↗
USGS2005

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’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↗
USGS2007

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, 69853–69884) 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 82:493–501. 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 1997–2000 showed a decline in fish use by grizzly bears when compared to earlier work conducted by Reinhart (1990) in 1985–1987. 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↗
USGS2002

Bear reintroduction: Lessons and challenges

Reintroduction is defined as an attempt to establish a species in an area that was once part of its historical range, but from which it has been extirpated or become extinct. Historically, one of the most successful programs was the reintroduction of 254 American black bears ( Ursus americanus ) from Minnesota to the Interior Highlands of Arkansas in the 1960s; that population has grown to >2,500 today. More recent efforts have involved fewer but better monitored animals and have sometimes employed techniques to improve site fidelity and survival. In Pennsylvania, for example, pregnant female American black bears were successfully translocated from winter dens, the premise being that the adult females would be less likely to return because of the presence of young cubs. That winter-release technique was compared to summer trapping and release in Tennessee; winter releases resulted in greater survival and reduced post-release movements. Homing has not been a problem for small numbers of brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) reintroduced to the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in Montana and Idaho and to the mountains of Austria and France. Reintroduction success appears to be correlated with translocation distance and is greater for subadults and females. As with any small population, reintroduced bear populations are susceptible to environmental variation and stochastic demographic and genetic processes. Although managers have focused on these biological barriers, sociopolitical impediments to bear reintroduction are more difficult to overcome. Poor public acceptance and understanding of bears are the main reasons some reintroduction programs have been derailed. Consequently, the public should be involved in the reintroduction process from the outset; overcoming negative public perceptions about bear reintroduction will be our greatest challenge.

Ursus↗
USGS2014

Collaborative socioeconomic tool development to address management and planning needs

Public lands and resources managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and other land management agencies provide a wide range of social and economic benefits to both nearby local communities and society as a whole, ranging from job creation, to access to unique recreational opportunities, to subsistence and tribal uses of the land. Over the years, there has been an increased need to identify and analyze the socioeconomic effects of the public’s use of NPS lands and resources, and the wide range of NPS land management decisions. This need stems from laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), increased litigation and appeals on NPS management decisions, as well as an overall need to demonstrate how parks benefit communities and the American public. To address these needs, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NPS have an ongoing partnership to collaboratively develop socioeconomic tools to support planning needs and resource management. This article discusses two such tools. The first, Assessing Socioeconomic Planning Needs (ASPN), was developed to help NPS planners and managers identify key social and economic issues that can arise as a result of land management actions. The second tool, the Visitor Spending Effects (VSE) model, provides a specific example of a type of analysis that may be recommended by ASPN. The remainder of this article discusses the development, main features, and plans for future versions and applications of both ASPN and the VSE.

George Wright Society Forum↗
USGS2009

Water security - Nation state and international security implications

A terrorist attack such as poisoning and sabotage of the national water supply and water-quality infrastructure of the continental United States or any country, could disrupt the delivery of vital human services, threaten both public health and the environment, potentially cause mass casualties and pose grave public concern for homeland security. Most significantly, an attack on water resources would weaken social cohesion and trust in government. A threat to continuity of services is a potential threat to continuity of government since both are necessary for continuity of operations. Water infrastructure is difficult to protect, as it extends over vast areas across the U.S. and for which ownership is overwhelmingly nonfederal (approximately 85 percent). Since the 9111 attacks, federal dam operators and water and wastewater utilities have established counter measures. Similar measures have been taken in countries around the world. These include enhanced physical security, improved coordination between corporate ownership, Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement, and research into risk assessment and vulnerability analysis to ensure greater system safety. A key issue is the proportionate additional resources directed at public and private sector specific priorities. Agencies that have the scientific and technological ability to leverage resources, exploit integrated science approaches, focus on interdisciplinary practices, utilize informatics expertise and employ a wide use of evolving technologies should play a key role in water security and related issues.

Disaster Advances↗
USGS2007

An overview of the Valles Caldera National Preserve: the natural and cultural resources

The Valles Caldera National Preserve is one of New Mexico’s natural wonders and a popular area for public recreation, sustainable natural resource production, and scientific research and education. Here, we provide a concise overview of the natural and cultural history of the Preserve, including descriptions of the ecosystems, flora and fauna. We note that, at the landscape scale, the Valles caldera appears to be spectacularly pristine; however, humans have extracted resources from the Preserve area for many centuries, resulting in localized impacts to forests, grasslands and watersheds. The Valles Caldera Trust is now charged with managing the Preserve and providing public access, while preserving and restoring these valuable public resources.

New Mexico↗
USGS1926

Stream measurement work: Chapter 7 in Fifteenth biennial report of the State Engineer to the governor of Utah: 1925-1926

The general stream measurement work has been continued during the biennium by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State Engineer. This agreement is essentially the same as that outlined in previous reports and the details of the stream gauging operations carried on under these agreements can be found in the biennial reports of the State Engineer. The data collected are published in the annual water supply papers of the United States Geological Survey which contain stream flow records for the whole United States including Alaska and Hawaii. For convenience and uniformity in publications the United States has been divided into 12 primary drainage basins and the results of stream measurements are published annually in a series of progress reports that correspond to these twelve divisions. Data for Utah appear in two of these: the Great Basin and the Colorado River basin reports. A complete set of these publications is on fine at the district office of the Geological Survey, 313 Federal Building, Salt Lake City, where the data in advance of publication are also available.

Utah↗
USGS2003

Natural gas hydrate in oceanic and permafrost environments

THE BEGINNINGS OF HYDRATE RESEARCH Until very recently, our understanding of hydrate in the natural environment and its impact on seafloor stability, its importance as a sequester of methane, and its potential as an important mechanism in the Earth's climate change system, was masked by our lack of appreciation of the vastness of the hydrate resource. Only a few publications on naturally occurring hydrate existed prior to 1975. The first published reference to oceanic gas hydrate (Bryan and Markl, 1966) and the first publication in the scientific literature (Stoll, et a1., 1971) show how recently it has been since the topic of naturally occurring hydrate has been raised. Recently, however, the number of hydrate publications has increased substantially, reflecting increased research into hydrate topics and the initiation of funding to support the researchers. Awareness of the existence of naturally occurring gas hydrate now has spread beyond the few scientific enthusiasts who pursued knowledge about the elusive hydrate because of simple interest and lurking suspicions that hydrate would prove to be an important topic. The first national conference on gas hydrate in the U.S. was held as recently as April, 1991 at the U.S. National Center of the U.s. Geological Survey in Reston Virginia (Max et al., 1991). The meeting was co-hosted by the U.s. Geological Survey, the Naval Research Laboratory, and the U.S.

Book↗
USGS1996

A watershed-scale approach to tracing metal contamination in the environment

Introduction Public policy during the 1800's encouraged mining in the western United States. Mining on Federal lands played an important role in the growing economy creating national wealth from our abundant and diverse mineral resource base. The common industrial practice from the early days of mining through about 1970 in the U.S. was for mine operators to dispose of the mine wastes and mill tailings in the nearest stream reach or lake. As a result of this contamination, many stream reaches below old mines, mills, and mining districts and some major rivers and lakes no longer support aquatic life. Riparian habitats within these affected watersheds have also been impacted. Often, the water from these affected stream reaches is generally not suitable for drinking, creating a public health hazard. The recent Department of Interior Abandoned Mine Lands ( AML ) Initiative is an effort on the part of the Federal Government to address the adverse environmental impact of these past mining practices on Federal lands. The AML Initiative has adopted a watershed approach to determine those sites that contribute the majority of the contaminants in the watershed. By remediating the largest sources of contamination within the watershed, the impact of metal contamination in the environment within the watershed as a whole is reduced rather than focusing largely on those sites for which principal responsible parties can be found. The scope of the problem of metal contamination in the environment from past mining practices in the coterminous U.S. is addressed in a recent report by Ferderer (1996). Using the USGS 1:2,000,000-scale hydrologic drainage basin boundaries and the USGS Minerals Availability System ( MAS ) data base, he plotted the distribution of 48,000 past-producing metal mines on maps showing the boundaries of lands administered by the various Federal Land Management Agencies ( FLMA ). Census analysis of these data provided an initial screening tool for prioritization of watersheds in the western U.S. A different approach to the scope of the abandoned mine problem (Church et al., 1996a) is shown by the water quality data collected by the States under the Clean Water Act, section 305(b). These data document the stream reaches affected by metals from naturally occurring sources as well as from mining, or mineral resource extraction. Permitted discharges from active industrial and mine sites are not covered in the 305(b) data base. Local citizens and state and federal agencies are all part of the collaborative decision process used to select the drainage basins chosen for the AML Initiative pilot studies. Data gathered by these three entities were brought to bear on the watershed selection process. The USGS prepared data available from Federal data bases in the form of interpretative GIS products. Maps of the states of Colorado (Plumlee et al., 1995) and a similar study of the state of Montana ( USGS , unpublished data) were used to select the Animas watershed in southwestern Colorado and the Boulder watershed southwest of Helena Montana as the pilot study areas for the AML Initiative. Thus, the watersheds selected for study were public decisions made on the basis of available scientific data. The role of the U.S. Geological Survey in the Abandoned Mine Land Initiative is outlined in Buxton et al. (1997). The watershed approach to metals contamination in the environment has been studied in several drainage basins (Church et al., 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996b; Kimball et al., 1995). The underlying principles used to successfully discriminate between sources and to quantify the impact of these sources on the environment are the subject of this report.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2017

Hydrogeology, groundwater flow, and groundwater quality of an abandoned underground coal-mine aquifer, Elkhorn Area, West Virginia

The Pocahontas No. 3 coal seam in southern West Virginia has been extensively mined by underground methods since the 1880’s. An extensive network of abandoned mine entries in the Pocahontas No. 3 has since filled with good-quality water, which is pumped from wells or springs discharging from mine portals (adits), and used as a source of water for public supplies. This report presents results of a three-year investigation of the geology, hydrology, geochemistry, and groundwater flow processes within abandoned underground coal mines used as a source of water for public supply in the Elkhorn area, McDowell County, West Virginia. This study focused on large (> 500 gallon per minute) discharges from the abandoned mines used as public supplies near Elkhorn, West Virginia. Median recharge calculated from base-flow recession of streamflow at Johns Knob Branch and 12 other streamflow gaging stations in McDowell County was 9.1 inches per year. Using drainage area versus mean streamflow relationships from mined and unmined watersheds in McDowell County, the subsurface area along dip of the Pocahontas No. 3 coal-mine aquifer contributing flow to the Turkey Gap mine discharge was determined to be 7.62 square miles (mi2), almost 10 times larger than the 0.81 mi2 surface watershed. Results of this investigation indicate that groundwater flows down dip beneath surface drainage divides from areas up to six miles east in the adjacent Bluestone River watershed. A conceptual model was developed that consisted of a stacked sequence of perched aquifers, controlled by stress-relief and subsidence fractures, overlying a highly permeable abandoned underground coal-mine aquifer, capable of substantial interbasin transfer of water. Groundwater-flow directions are controlled by the dip of the Pocahontas No. 3 coal seam, the geometry of abandoned mine workings, and location of unmined barriers within that seam, rather than surface topography. Seven boreholes were drilled to intersect abandoned mine workings in the Pocahontas No. 3 coal seam and underlying strata in various structural settings of the Turkey Gap and adjacent down-dip mines. Geophysical logging and aquifer testing were conducted on the boreholes to locate the coal- mine aquifers, characterize fracture geometry, and define permeable zones within strata overlying and underlying the Pocahontas No. 3 coal-mine aquifer. Water levels were measured monthly in the wells and showed a relatively static phreatic zone within subsided strata a few feet above the top of or within the Pocahontas No. 3 coal-mine aquifer (PC3MA). A groundwater-flow model was developed to verify and refine the conceptual understanding of groundwater flow and to develop groundwater budgets for the study area. The model consisted of four layers to represent overburden strata, the Pocahontas No. 3 coal-mine aquifer, underlying fractured rock, and fractured rock below regional drainage. Simulation of flow in the flooded abandoned mine entries using highly conductive layers or zones within the model, was unable to realistically simulate interbasin transfer of water. Therefore it was necessary to represent the coal-mine aquifer as an internal boundary condition rather than a contrast in aquifer properties. By representing the coal-mine aquifer with a series of drain nodes and optimizing input parameters with parameter estimation software, model errors were reduced dramatically and discharges for Elkhorn Creek, Johns Knob Branch, and other tributaries were more accurately simulated. Flow in the Elkhorn Creek and Johns Knob Branch watersheds is dependent on interbasin transfer of water, primarily from up dip areas of abandoned mine workings in the Pocahontas No. 3 coal-mine aquifer within the Bluestone River watershed to the east. For the 38th, 70th, and 87th percentile flow duration of streams in the region, mean measured groundwater discharge was estimated to be 1.30, 0.47, and 0.39 cubic feet per square mile (ft3/s/mi2

West Virginia↗