Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research

Units Program— 2019Year in Review

Circular 1463

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Front cover. A female Florida panther photographed in the wild at the National Audubon Society’s Corkscrew 

Swamp Sanctuary, Florida. Photograph by Carlton Ward, Jr.; used with permission. 

Inside front cover. American paddlefish and pallid sturgeon. Photograph by Doug Canfield, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Back cover. A male Florida panther photographed on Babcock Ranch, Florida, by using a custom-made camera 

trap. Photograph by Carlton Ward, Jr.; used with permission.
Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units 

Program—2019 Year in Review

By John D. Thompson, Donald E. Dennerline, and Dawn E. Childs

Circular 1463

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

James F. Reilly II, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit https://store.usgs.gov.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Thompson, J.D., Dennerline, D.E., and Childs, D.E., 2020, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units 

program—2019 year in review: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1463, 22 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1463.

ISSN 1067-084X (print) 

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)

ISBN 978-1-4113-4363-4
iii

Contents

Acting Chief’s Message ................................................................................................................................v

About the Cooperative Research Units Program .....................................................................................1

Performance of the Cooperative Research Units Program ....................................................................2

Budget and Staffing ..............................................................................................................................2

Productivity and Leveraging Resources ...........................................................................................3

Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program .............................................................................4

Graduate Education To Develop the Conservation Workforce .....................................................4

Applied Research To Meet Cooperators’ Science Needs .............................................................5

Threatened and Endangered Species .....................................................................................6

Fish and Wildlife Health and Disease .......................................................................................8

Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................10

Species of Greatest Conservation Need ..............................................................................12

Technical Assistance to Cooperators ............................................................................................14

Cooperator Success Stories ......................................................................................................................16

Louisiana Unit: Growth and Mortality of Eastern Oysters ............................................................16

Montana Wildlife Unit: Wolf Harvest Management and Monitoring ........................................17

Idaho Unit: Effects of Catch-and-Release Fishing on Survival of 

Native Trout and Steelhead .................................................................................................18

Pennsylvania Unit: Identifying Optimal Harvest Regulations for Fall 

Wild Turkey Hunting Seasons .............................................................................................19

Awards and Accolades ..............................................................................................................................20

Professional Services .................................................................................................................................20

Cooperators of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program ....................................21
iv

Abbreviations

app application

BCWD bacterial coldwater disease

BKD bacterial kidney disease

CRU Cooperative Research Unit

CWD chronic wasting disease

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

ESA Endangered Species Act

M.S. master of science degree

NGOs nongovernmental organizations

Ph.D. doctor of philosophy degree

SDM structured decision making

SGCN species of greatest conservation need

SSA species status assessment

SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
v

Acting Chief’s Message

Dear Cooperators:

Members of the Cooperative Research Units are pleased to provide you with the 

“2019 Year in Review” report for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units 

(CRUs). You will first note that this report looks a little different than those published 

in the past few years, as we opted for a shorter, more concise format this year. Inside 

you will find brief descriptions of just a few highlighted activities of unit scientists, 

students, and cooperators in support of our joint mission. Because of the shorter 

format, we are not able to include activities from every unit or State, but rest assured 

that we continue to value the great work that all of you do across the country and 

around the world.

In fiscal year 2019, the CRU program was very productive despite challenging 

conditions, including budget uncertainty, a month-long furlough, and hiring delays. 

John Organ, Chief of the CRU program, retired in January 2019. The process to 

replace John was delayed several times, but as I write this, the position has been 

announced on the Federal Government recruitment site. I am hopeful that by the time 

you read this, we will have a new permanent chief. Congress provided an increase of 

$1 million in our allocation for the express purpose of filling some of the vacancies 

in our scientific workforce. Since receiving that increase, the management team has 

been working to fill vacancies. 

The program is fortunate to have excellent research scientists, dedicated leadership, 

and an outstanding administrative staff. However, our accomplishments depend on 

the tremendous support from all of you. We look forward to a productive 2020. 

 John D. Thompson

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units 

Program—2019 Year in Review

By John D. Thompson, Donald E. Dennerline, and Dawn E. Childs

About the Cooperative Research Units Program

Established in 1935, the Cooperative Research Units 

program is a unique cooperative partnership among the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), universities, State fish and wildlife agencies, and the Wildlife Management Institute. Designed to meet 

the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies 

and the need for trained professionals in the growing field 

of wildlife management, the program has grown from the 

original 9 wildlife-only units and today includes 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units located on university 

campuses in 38 States. Signatory cooperators forming the 

individual units include 41 universities and 44 State fish and 

wildlife agencies. The partnerships that form each unit are 

some of the USGS’s strongest links to Federal and State land 

and natural resource agencies as mandated by the Cooperative 

Research and Training Units Act of 1960 (P.L. 86–686).

Details about the program follow:

• The research agenda for each unit is approved by 

the Coordinating Committee, which includes the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, the State fish and 

wildlife agency, the university, and the Wildlife 

Management Institute

• Each unit is staffed by two to five Federal research 

scientists employed by the USGS

• If fully staffed, units would be served by 119 Federal 

employees. Unit scientists hold faculty rank at their host 

university, teach graduate-level courses, and conduct 

research on a wide variety of fish and wildlife issues

• Research projects typically support graduate students or 

postdoctoral researchers

• USGS employees in the units work with State fish and 

wildlife agencies and Federal natural resource agencies, 

providing them with the science used in management 

decisions to support sustainable fish and wildlife 

populations for wildlife watching, fishing, and hunting

WASHINGTON

OREGON

CALIFORNIA

ALASKA

NEVADA

NEW

MEXICO

ARIZONA

UTAH

COLORADO

WYOMING

MONTANA

TEXAS

NEBRASKA

KANSAS

OKLAHOMA

MINNESOTA

MISSOURI

LOUISIANA

FLORIDA

GEORGIA

SOUTH

CAROLINA

SOUTH

DAKOTA

IDAHO

TENNESSEE

KENTUCKY

NEW 

YORK

OHIO

ARKANSAS

IOWA

WISCONSIN

ILLINOIS

MICHIGAN INDIANA

ALABAMA

MISSISSIPPI

MAINE

NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

HAWAII

NORTH

DAKOTA

NORTH

CAROLINA

Unit location

VIRGINIA

WEST

VIRGINIA

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW JERSEY

RHODE ISLAND

MASSACHUSETTS

DELAWARE

MARYLAND

CONNECTICUT

Locations of 40 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units in fiscal year 2019.
Performance of the Cooperative Research Units Program

Budget and Staffing

Congress provided an increase of $1 million for the 

Cooperative Research Units program in the 2019 allocation for 

the express purpose of filling vacancies. While we have been 

working to fill positions, delays in the allocation and hiring 

process coupled with retirements and resignations resulted in 

no net increase in scientific staff by the end of the fiscal year. 

We hope the staffing situation will improve in 2020.

Cooperators include the following:

State fish and wildlife agencies

Universities

2 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Wildlife Management Institute

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

10

14

18

22

80

90

100

110

120

20032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019

Funding, in millions of dollars

Number of scientists

Fiscal year (October 1–September 30)

CRU budget, in millions of dollars

Full staffing level without vacancies

Actual staffing, in number of scientists at end of fiscal year

EXPLANATION

Graph showing budget and staffing data for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program during 

fiscal years 2003–2019. The full staffing level would mean that 119 U.S. Geological Survey research scientists 

would be employed at the 40 units. In fiscal year 2019, there were 38 vacancies nationwide.
Performance of the Cooperative Research Units Program 3

Productivity and Leveraging Resources

The unique model of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units program allows all cooperators to benefit from 

each other’s strengths. Host universities receive two to five 

Ph.D. Federal scientists who teach classes, advise students, 

provide technical expertise, and bring in Federal and State 

research funding. Every Federally allocated dollar is matched 

on about a 1:3 basis by State and host university contributions and grant funds. State agency cooperators benefit from 

our scientists’ expertise and the direct support of graduate 

student research projects that target their current concerns. 

The USGS directly benefits from unique funding opportunities 

provided by State and Federal cooperators. Also, cooperators gain access to the expertise and research infrastructure 

of our host universities that is invaluable for supporting 

research and training future State and Federal managers and 

scientists. Overall, the program links the research and training mission of all cooperators, thereby providing enhanced 

scientific expertise while training students to enter the 

conservation workforce.

Unit scientists garner

$25 million to $40 million

in State and Federal research funding each year

Federal investment supports about

1,100 students and

university staff members

annually

Universities provide more than

$20 million

through in-kind support, tuition,

and reduced overhead

277

Publications

41

Courses taught Presentations

630

29

Seminars

10

Workshops and

short courses
4 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program

The mission of the Cooperative Research Units program has three parts: (1) develop the workforce of the future 

through applied graduate education, (2) deliver actionable science to cooperating agencies and organizations, and (3) fulfill 

the training and technical assistance needs of the cooperators. 

Accomplishments during fiscal year 2019 for each of these 

parts of the mission are described in the following sections.

Graduate Education To Develop the 

Conservation Workforce

The Cooperative Research Units program educates 

more than 500 graduate students annually in natural resource 

management and conservation. Students are advised by unit 

scientists and conduct applied research projects that directly 

address current natural resource concerns of our State and 

Federal cooperators. Students receive cutting-edge academic 

408

Active graduate students 

(254 M.S. and 

154 Ph.D. students)

74

Graduate degrees 

awarded (51 M.S. and 

23 Ph.D. degrees)

56

Postdoctoral 

researchers

40

Undergraduate 

students

Federal

17%

State

30%

NGO

25%

University

26%

Pie chart showing the types of professional positions obtained by 

recent graduates who participated in the Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Units program. Data are averaged for fiscal 

years 2012–2019. NGO, nongovernmental organization.

training from our university cooperators and develop expertise 

on the issues and policies of State and Federal natural resource 

management and protection agencies. Students who graduate from the program experience are uniquely prepared to be 

effective members of the natural resource workforce, and the 

alumni hold important leadership positions in nearly every 

State and Federal conservation agency. 

Unit scientists teach a variety of graduate-level courses 

including Wildlife Management, Ecology of Running Waters, 

Bayesian Modeling for Conservation Science, Fisheries Techniques and Management, Data Management and R Software 

for Fisheries and Wildlife Applications, Wildlife Conservation, 

Ornithology, Marine Mammalogy, and Communication Skills 

in Conservation.

One of the greatest legacies of the program is the placement of our students in natural resource agencies and organizations. A pillar of the program’s mission is to develop the 

workforce of the future through graduate education.
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 5

Applied Research To Meet Cooperators’ Science Needs

We lead research that can provide objective science for the management needs of cooperators and inform decision making. Research 

conducted by unit scientists addresses the broad themes that are important to both our State and Federal cooperators. In this report, we have 

chosen to highlight just a few of these themes with selected examples 

of the many management-oriented research projects conducted with 

our State and Federal cooperators. Many more examples are available 

online. Each of these examples demonstrates the importance of this 

cooperative effort and what it can yield.

“Many biologists working for the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Division of Sport Fish pursued their graduate 

student education through the Alaska 

Unit. The knowledge and skills they gained 

through the Unit program have proved and 

are invaluable in planning and conducting 

research projects to improve sciencebased management decisions made by the 

department. Many of them have become 

leaders who mentor others to maintain and 

improve the fisheries professional credibility 

of the division to achieve the department’s 

State constitutional mandate to manage 

fish resources in the best interest of the 

economy and well-being of the people of 

the state, consistent with the sustained 

yield principle.”

James Hasbrouck

Chief Fisheries Scientist 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game
6 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Scientists in the Cooperative Research Units program 

work with Federal and State cooperators to answer science questions about endangered species and those species 

petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). Research results inform listing decisions under the ESA and also are used for prelisting 

conservation. Three studies are summarized below.

Using remote videography to investigate behavior in 

Devils Hole pupfish in Devils Hole, Death Valley National 

Park, Nevada: The monitoring of threatened and endangered 

fishes in remote environments continues to challenge fisheries biologists. The endangered Devils Hole pupfish, which 

is confined to a single warm spring in the Nevada part of 

Death Valley National Park, has recently experienced record 

declines, spurring renewed conservation and recovery efforts. 

The Arizona Unit investigated the timing and frequency of 

spawning in the species’ native habitat by using three survey 

methods: underwater videography, above-water videography, 

and in-person surveys. Videography methods incorporated 

fixed-position, solar-powered cameras to record continuous footage of a shallow rock shelf that Devils Hole pupfish 

use for spawning. In-person surveys were conducted from 

a platform placed above the water’s surface. Although the 

overall number of spawning events per sample did not differ 

significantly between underwater videography and in-person 

surveys, underwater videography provided a larger dataset 

with much less variability than data from in-person surveys. 

Fixed videography was more cost efficient than in-person surveys, and underwater videography provided more usable data 

than above-water videography. Furthermore, video data collection was possible even under adverse conditions, such as the 

extreme temperatures of the region, and could be maintained 

successfully with few study site visits. The results suggest that 

self-contained underwater cameras can be efficient tools for 

monitoring remote and sensitive aquatic ecosystems.

Development of a 

species status assessment 

process for decisions under 

the Endangered Species 

Act: Species management 

decisions under the ESA 

require scientific input on 

the risk that the species will 

become extinct in the near 

term and the foreseeable 

future. A series of critiques 

on the role of science in 

ESA decisions has called for 

improved consistency and 

transparency in species risk 

“The Lesser 

Prairie-Chicken 

Habitat Use, 

Survival, and 

Recruitment project 

has generated new 

information and helped 

establish common methodologies that will help 

researchers better understand the factors affecting 

habitat use and life history traits of lesser prairiechickens. The project is one of the most productive 

research projects ever funded by our department 

and it exemplifies the success that can be attained 

when state wildlife agencies, researchers, and 

landowners work together.”

Kent Fricke 

Small Game Coordinator 

Kansas Department of Wildlife 

Parks and Tourism
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 7

assessments and clear distinctions between science input and 

policy application. To address the critiques and document the 

emerging practices of the USFWS, members of the Alabama 

Unit and the USGS Leetown Science Center in West Virginia 

devised an assessment process based on principles of risk 

and decision analyses. The assessment is designed to lead to 

a scientific report on species status called the species status 

assessment (SSA). The process has three successive stages: 

(1) describe the life history and ecological needs of the species 

to provide the foundation for the assessment; (2) describe and 

hypothesize causes for the current condition of the species; 

and (3) incorporate modeling and scenario planning for prediction of extinction risk and apply the conservation biology 

principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to 

evaluate the current and future conditions. The future condition refers to the ability of a species and its populations to 

survive in the wild under plausible future scenarios and the 

potential for conservation methods to be used to improve its 

status. The SSA results in a scientific report separate from the 

policy decisions, which contributes to streamlined, transparent, and consistent decision making and allows for greater 

participation by experts from various agencies and academia.

Assessment of neonicotinoid exposure on U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service high-diversity grasslands in the Prairie 

Pothole Region: Obligate grassland species of butterflies 

are rapidly decreasing in the United States because of habitat fragmentation, destruction, and degradation. The Dakota 

skipper and Poweshiek skipperling—butterflies recently listed 

as threatened and endangered, respectively, under the ESA—

inhabit high-quality grasslands. Additionally, because of significant population declines, the USFWS has initiated a status 

review of the monarch butterfly under the ESA. The South 

Dakota Unit is assessing neonicotinoid pesticide exposure 

on native and restored grasslands and is determining the rate 

of accumulation of neonicotinoids in native flowering plants 

through greenhouse trials. Study results should be important 

to managers working to 

restore populations of 

these three species.

“The staff of 

the Oregon Unit 

have a long and 

rich history of 

collaboration with 

the Oregon Department 

of Fish and Wildlife on the 

key fish and wildlife management issues of the day. 

Whether it was pioneering work on Spotted Owls and 

old growth forest relationships, developing the science 

around the effects of avian predation on juvenile 

salmon and steelhead, resolving critical uncertainties 

around what constrains the recovery of Sage Grouse, 

or ground-breaking research on lesser known species 

such as Pacific Lamprey, the Coop Unit’s work informs 

science decision-making for ODFW that is essential to 

addressing critical economic, human, and ecological 

issues in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.”

Bruce McIntosh 

Deputy Administrator 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Fish Division
8 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Fish and Wildlife Health and Disease

Fish and wildlife diseases pose potential threats to the 

viability of fish and wildlife populations and have potential 

implications for human health and our economy. Scientists in 

the Cooperative Research Units program work with cooperators to better understand the causes of these diseases, the 

effects on wildlife and people, and the means to control, contain, and eradicate them. Three studies are summarized below.

Hatchery-reared rainbow trout stocked into an Ozark 

stream: Pathogens remain one of the most problematic 

aspects of raising fish in a hatchery, and finding solutions to 

controlling or eliminating pathogens is a high priority worldwide. The Colorado Unit is pursuing research to develop 

management options to control two important bacterial 

pathogens of salmon and trout: Renibacterium salmoninarum, 

which causes bacterial kidney disease (BKD), and Flavobacterium psychrophilum, which causes bacterial coldwater disease 

(BCWD). Outbreaks of these diseases can be catastrophic for 

hatchery production. The research focuses on the ecology of 

both pathogens, the resistance of host species, and efficient 

detection of each pathogen. The research on BCWD focuses 

on using BCWD-resistant rainbow trout as a means of reducing the effects of the pathogen in the hatchery and avoiding the 

use of antibiotics. Although antibiotics are currently effective, 

the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a concern. 

The researchers are also assessing crossing BCWD-resistant 

rainbow trout with those that are resistant to whirling disease to allow stocking and reestablishment of rainbow trout 

in the wild. Assessing this hybrid rainbow trout is a priority for Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

The research on BKD has two goals: (1) assessing nonlethal 

sampling techniques to reduce the need to sacrifice valuable hatchery stock and (2) examining how the pathogen is 

transmitted. Transmission can occur from fish to fish or from 

parent to offspring; the type 

and rate of transmission will 

inform best management 

practices to reduce transmission of the disease. The BKD 

research is a high priority for 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife 

as well as the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

“The South Carolina Unit is an integral partner 

with the South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources (SCDNR) in the development and 

delivery of science-based technical assistance 

and resource management information. Scientists 

within the Unit are responsive to requests from 

agency staff and provide invaluable information on 

management and research techniques, species’ 

status, resource threats, and avenues for future 

research. Through collaborative efforts between 

the Unit and SCDNR, new research and survey 

techniques have been developed and tested, 

species’ status determined or verified, and 

ecological relationships validated. Collectively, 

these efforts have resulted in more efficient survey 

techniques, improved resource management 

effectiveness and improved information delivery 

used in adaptive management frameworks to the 

benefit of the citizens and natural resources of 

South Carolina.”

Billy Dukes

Chief of Wildlife 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 9

Endangered Indiana bats on National Wildlife Refuges:

Populations of Indiana bats have fallen more than 20 percent 

across their range in the last decade, largely because of a serious disease called white-nose syndrome. Protecting critical 

roosting habitat may help slow the spread of the disease and 

the population decline. The Missouri Unit has partnered with 

the USFWS to examine maternity habitat selection by Indiana bats on National Wildlife Refuges in northern Missouri. 

Results from this study may provide public land managers 

with valuable insight into habitat selection and assist disease 

reduction and recovery efforts for this endangered species. 

Gaining a better understanding of the drivers of habitat selection may allow managers to anticipate future obstacles, prioritize specific habitats, assist efforts to promote new habitat, and 

guide future land acquisitions.

Landscape genetics of white-tailed deer to assess 

population structure for surveillance of chronic wasting 

disease: Research on surveillance strategies that consider 

demographic and environmental factors is lacking in most 

States where chronic wasting disease (CWD) has not been 

found. Developing surveillance strategies to maximize the 

efficiency of sampling white-tailed deer was suggested but 

requires knowledge of deer behavior and movements and the 

spatial connectivity of populations. The Pennsylvania Unit is 

evaluating the effectiveness of targeted removal of white-tailed 

deer groups on CWD occurrence and distribution. Scientists 

are also implementing genetic research to understand patterns 

of disease susceptibility and population connectivity across 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia for targeted CWD mitigation strategies.

“The Wisconsin Wildlife Unit is an essential 

partner in linking research with real-world wildlife 

management. Whether maintaining habitat for 

songbirds or the vexing problem of chronic wasting 

disease, the Unit leverages expertise from across 

campus to bring the best science to bear. The 

emphasis on graduate training ensures that future 

scientists and leaders understand the connection 

between science and management.”

Mark Rickebach

Chair 

Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology 

University of Wisconsin-Madison
10 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Invasive Species

Invasive species cost the United States more than $120 

billion in damages every year, as quoted in a 2012 fact sheet 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (https://www.fws.gov/

home/feature/2012/pdfs/CostofInvasivesFactSheet.pdf). The 

economic, environmental, and health-related costs of invasive 

species exceed those of all other natural disasters combined. 

Invasive species of plants, animals, and microorganisms pose 

substantial risks to native species, ecosystems, and the health 

of humans, fish, and wildlife. 

Asian carp movement through locks and dams in the 

Tennessee River: Invasive Asian carp are a threat to native 

fish and aquatic communities, sport fisheries, recreational 

uses, and tourism. All four species of invasive Asian carp (silver carp, bighead carp, black carp, and grass carp) have been 

captured in the Tennessee River and Cumberland River, which 

are tributaries to the Ohio River. The Tennessee River and 

Cumberland River flow through four States, and increasing 

Asian carp populations have created concerns about ecosystem 

health and value across the Southeast. The Tennessee River 

also has connectivity to the Tennessee-Tombigee Waterway 

that connects to the Mobile River Basin. The Tennessee Unit 

and the Mississippi Unit are working with multiple State agencies and universities to understand the movement of Asian 

carp by using acoustic telemetry. Acoustic telemetry provides 

movement data from fish that are surgically tagged and can 

inform how control and prevention strategies could be used 

to stop further invasion. In these systems, there is significant 

potential for limiting further invasion of Asian carp at navigation locks and dams. The Units and their partners are working 

with the USFWS and USGS Science Centers (Columbia Environmental Research Center and Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center) to propose and plan for barriers that could 

be deterrents to further invasion. This effort supports national 

and regional goals for the control of expansion of Asian carp 

in the United States.

“The Arkansas Unit is an integral partner 

in the Department of Biological Sciences at the 

University of Arkansas. The COOP faculty recruit 

and train outstanding graduate students, and they 

generously contribute to the teaching mission 

of our department through course offerings in 

applied ecology, fish and wildlife management 

techniques and biometry. Moreover, the COOP 

faculty provide valuable expertise in statistical 

data analyses for members of the Department of 

Biological Sciences.”

Dr. David McNabb

Departmental Chair, Biological Sciences 

University of Arkansas
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 11

Do exotic conifer plantations contribute to avian biodiversity? Exotic Norway spruce plantations remain widespread across the northeastern United States. The effects of 

these plantations on native wildlife are not fully understood, 

and best practices for managing them to promote biodiversity 

are often unclear. In Massachusetts, the decline of eastern 

hemlock due to the invasive hemlock woolly adelgid lends 

urgency to the need to preserve conifer-dominant habitat. 

Understanding how Norway spruce supports wildlife species 

relative to native forest stands is key to determining how these 

exotic plantations should be managed. In a study conducted 

by the Massachusetts Unit in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, University of 

Massachusetts-Amherst, and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, scientists compared biodiversity among Norway spruce plantations and various native forest stand types 

using birds as indicators. The comparison between spruce 

and hemlock was of particular interest due to the structural 

similarities between the two and the potential for spruce to 

support species commonly associated with declining hemlock 

habitat. According to the research, Norway spruce plantations 

in Massachusetts supported bird species and communities like 

those in surrounding native stands. Species richness within 

spruce plantations was not significantly lower when compared 

to richness in native forests, including hemlock stands. This 

graduate research study was designed to provide science-based 

information to State wildlife and land management agencies, 

who were then able to apply our findings to on-the-ground 

forest management.

Lake trout suppression in Yellowstone Lake: Yellowstone cutthroat trout are an important species for the Yellowstone ecosystem because they are a food resource for many 

terrestrial species (such as grizzly bears, otters, and osprey). 

Unfortunately, the Yellowstone cutthroat trout population 

collapsed after invasive lake trout were first discovered in Yellowstone Lake in 1994. Original suppression efforts focused 

on younger smaller lake trout; 

however, in recent years, the 

effort to remove larger mature 

fish has intensified. Targeting known spawning grounds 

has proven to be a successful 

strategy for removing large 

quantities of mature fish. The 

Montana Fishery Unit is identifying spawning sites in Yellowstone Lake, and this information could be used to increase 

the efficacy of the suppression 

program and aid the recovery 

of Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

in this important ecosystem. 

“We are proud of the partnership we have 

with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma 

Department of Wildlife Conservation (ODWC) that 

supports the Oklahoma Unit at Oklahoma State 

University (OSU). Our Unit faculty collaborate 

closely with ODWC managers and other OSU 

faculty in seeking research-based approaches 

to management decisions. Most importantly, the 

Unit helps us to produce advanced graduates 

who are ready to serve the fisheries and wildlife 

management professions.”

Thomas G. Coon 

 Vice President of Agriculture Programs 

Oklahoma State University
12 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Species of Greatest Conservation Need 

Every State has a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP) 

mandated by Congress as a requirement for obtaining funding 

under the State Wildlife Grant program. Each SWAP contains 

a list of “species of greatest conservation need” (SGCN) 

and identifies information needs, threats, and conservation 

actions. Species on an SGCN list have experienced a population decline or are likely to experience a population decline in 

the next 10 years and require conservation actions to stabilize 

their populations. Unit scientists work with State cooperators 

to develop the science needed to inform conservation actions 

for species on SGCN lists.

Burrowing owl research on U.S. Department of Defense 

lands: The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is responsible 

for managing species found on DoD lands. The burrowing 

owl, a declining species, is found on numerous DoD installations throughout the western United States, but scientific 

information on burrowing owls is needed to successfully 

manage owl populations. Researchers at the Idaho Unit have 

attached geolocators to 200 burrowing owls to identify their 

migratory routes and wintering grounds. The project represents a large collaborative partnership among 17 organizations 

and 3 countries. This project integrates the goals of DoD’s 

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans and SWAPs 

for improving management of at-risk species and helping to 

identify priority management needs.

“The Virginia Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Unit, through its training of graduate 

students and provisioning of technical assistance, 

informs science decision-making and helps address 

economic, human, and ecological issues in the 

state, region, and nation settings, ultimately making 

it possible for both state and federal agencies as 

well as NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] 

and the private sector [to] fulfill their management 

needs.”

Joel W. Snodgrass 

Department Head & Professor 

Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

College of Natural Resources and Environment 

Virginia Tech.
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 13

Commercial harvest of turtles in the Mississippi Delta 

ecoregion: Commercial harvest of aquatic turtles in Arkansas 

has historically been unregulated; from 2004 to 2017, approximately 1.3 million wild aquatic turtles were commercially 

harvested, of which 95 percent were taken in the Mississippi 

Delta ecoregion. Turtles are sold to meet global demands for 

use as food, pets, and curatives in folk medicine. At present, 

10 species of aquatic turtles can be legally harvested with 

no daily or annual bag limits, no size class restrictions, and 

no specified harvest season(s). The Arkansas Unit is leading 

research on the effects of commercial harvest on turtle populations across the Mississippi Delta ecoregion. Using a combination of population modeling and field research, researchers 

plan to quantify the impact of harvest, assess the current 

population levels of turtles in the delta, and explore potential 

management options to ensure the long-term sustainability of 

freshwater turtles in Arkansas.

Effects of forest management practices on bird communities in the northern deciduous and coniferous forest 

of Maine: The Maine and West Virginia Units are evaluating 

the effects of Maine’s forest harvest practices in the northern 

deciduous and coniferous forest on forest bird diversity and 

abundance. The plan is to document birds (such 

as bay-breasted warbler, Blackburnian warbler, 

and Cape May warbler) in manipulated stands 

compared to birds in reference stands and 

within the larger landscape context. The 

goal is to inform our understanding of avian 

responses to stand age and structure as relates 

to habitat quality and in the context of changing land use practices in the northern 

forest landscape. The results may help 

guide future management actions for 

bird populations.

“The Hawaii Cooperative Fishery Research 

Unit has been primarily responsible for the most 

recent discussions and planning initiatives for 

Fisheries Research priorities among agency and 

institutional scientists and managers in Hawaii. 

This has been an important management need 

within Hawaii as fisheries issues have increased 

(recreation and aquarium trade harvest) and habitat 

degradation concerns (coral bleaching/disease, 

nutrient enrichment) are recognized. The HCFRU 

has provided valuable research and analytical 

reports on fisheries data needed for scientifically 

sound management decisions.”

Jim Beets 

Research Ecologist 

University of Hawaii at Hilo
14 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Technical Assistance to Cooperators 

Technical assistance to our cooperators is an integral part 

of the mission of the Cooperative Research Units program, 

and both State and Federal cooperators rely on the scientific 

and technical expertise of Unit personnel. Unit scientists are 

frequently asked to provide scientific and technical assistance,

including data analysis and interpretation; to give workshops 

about advanced analytical tools for management; and to 

consult on a wide variety of natural resource issues. When 

appropriate, students are encouraged to engage in technical assistance activities as part of their graduate education to 

further prepare them for entering the State and Federal workforce. Below are just a few examples of this important part of 

our mission.

Species distribution modeling training: Tom Edwards 

from the Utah Unit developed training platforms for the 

creation and assessment of decision-quality plant and animal 

species distribution and habitat models for use in management. 

Three 40-hour (5-day) and two 24-hour (3-day) training and 

education courses were developed and taught in fiscal year 

2019; they had 72 and 95 participants, respectively. 

Fish identification application (app): Researchers Chris 

Guy, Alexander Zale, and Thomas McMahon at the Montana 

Fishery Unit have developed a fish identification application 

in collaboration with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The 

“Fishes of Montana” app is a 21st century update to the 1971 

book “Fishes of Montana” by C.J.D. Brown. The app includes 

information on 90 native and invasive species and is available 

for Android and iOS devices.

Ring-necked pheasant app: A new web-based application from the Nebraska Unit allows the State’s wildlife 

managers to examine virtually how manipulating land cover 

in a region could affect populations of ring-necked pheasants 

and to estimate how much the changes might cost. The Pheasant Habitat Simulator was created to help the Nebraska Game 

and Parks Commission manage the species. Lyndsie Wszola 

(research associate at the Nebraska Unit) and her colleagues 

built it as an open-source app.

Monarch butterflies app: By using a mobile app, the 

“Monarch Model Validator,” anyone can become a volunteer 

scientist by visiting potential monarch butterfly roosting sites 

from Maine to Georgia and answering questions based on 

their observations. The Maine Unit developed a model that 

predicts areas that have a high suitability as stopover sites for 

monarch butterflies during their fall migration south along the 

U.S. East Coast.
Mission of the Cooperative Research Units Program 15

Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission’s Wildlife 

Diversity Advisory Committee: Clint Boal from the Texas 

Unit is an invited member of the Wildlife Diversity Advisory 

Committee for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. 

Members of the committee provide professional opinions and 

advice to the commission relating to wildlife conservation 

issues in the State of Texas.

Structured decision making to set waterfowl seasons:

Angela Fuller from the New York Unit guides the New York 

State Department of Environmental Conservation in a structured decision making (SDM) framework regarding waterfowl 

season setting. 

Coffee agroecosystems on mountainous landscapes in 

Puerto Rico: The Caribbean area of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCSCaribbean Area) and the Southeast Region of the USFWS 

sought the expertise of the North Carolina Cooperative Fish 

and Wildlife Research Unit to develop a habitat conservation 

strategy that ensures the long-term persistence of resident 

terrestrial fauna in Puerto Rico. The strategy emphasizes 

nonprotected, human-modified habitats. The North Carolina 

Unit summarized relevant information on stakeholders (coffee 

growers) and enumerated key economic factors to finalize 

an integrated (ecological and economic) model to inform 

decision makers. 

Interactive planning tool for inland fisheries management: The Mississippi Unit is constructing an interactive 

planning tool for inland fisheries management. The system 

steers managers through a series of options determined by 

management goals to generate a plan that outlines problems, 

objectives, management actions, implementation, and followup monitoring and evaluation. Branching logic and decision 

analysis guide users through alternative data-entry and optionselection screens. Similar software systems are in use in the 

medical field to arrive at patient diagnosis and health management plans, but the system would be the first of its kind in fish 

and wildlife management.

Green turtle habitats: The Florida Unit is working with 

the Sea Turtle Conservancy to delineate green turtle abundance hotspots and establish multiple long-term capture sites 

in a relatively undisturbed part of Florida that contains the second largest seagrass ecosystem in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

The National Marine Fisheries Service and the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission need this information so they can assess the population structure, abundance, 

movements, health, and genetic diversity of green turtles. 

Additionally, researchers are studying green turtle habitats in 

hotspots and using multivariate models to examine the factors 

that drive abundance. The goal of this effort is to help describe 

critical habitat for the recovery of the species.

“The South Carolina Unit is an integral partner with 

the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

(SCDNR) in the development and delivery of sciencebased technical assistance and resource management 

information. Scientists within the Unit are responsive 

to requests from agency staff and provide invaluable 

information on management and research techniques, 

species’ status, resource threats, and avenues for future 

research. Through collaborative efforts between the Unit 

and SCDNR, new research and survey techniques have 

been developed and tested, species’ status determined 

or verified, and ecological relationships validated. 

Collectively, these efforts have resulted in more efficient 

survey techniques, improved resource management 

effectiveness and improved information delivery used in 

adaptive management frameworks to the benefit of the 

citizens and natural resources of South Carolina.”

Billy Dukes

Chief of Wildlife 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
16 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Cooperator Success Stories

Louisiana Unit: Growth and Mortality of

Eastern Oysters

 Eastern oysters have been an important species, culturally and economically, in Louisiana for over a century, and 

local information on their growth and mortality in relationship to regarding temperature and salinity is needed to make 

long-term, sustainable management decisions. Through the 

Louisiana Unit, a combination of applied research looking 

at long-term data and graduate research was able to describe 

growth and mortality as a function of oyster size and local 

environmental temperature and salinity between two adjacent 

estuaries (Breton Sound-BR, Barataria Bay-BA) in Louisiana. 

The study indicated that growth and mortality differed at small 

spatial scales (immediately east and west of the Mississippi 

River) despite similar environmental conditions, although the 

“

proximal cause of the difference is unknown. The parameters 

studied were also able to refine and improve the Sustainable 

Oyster Shellstock (SOS) budget model. This model and oyster 

stock data collected annually by the Louisiana Department of 

Wildlife and Fisheries are used to have a sustainable harvest at 

no-net-shell-loss reference levels on Louisiana public oyster 

grounds. These data and models can be used to estimate the 

effects of coastal restoration projects, disasters, and harvest 

regimes to help insure successful management of this cultural and commercial species into the future. The Louisiana 

Cooperative Research Unit has been instrumental in helping 

to develop these models, and train graduate students to assist 

the state.” 

Carolina Bourque 

Oyster Program Manager 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries 
Cooperator Success Stories 17

Montana Wildlife Unit: Wolf Harvest 

Management and Monitoring 

One of the best collaborative efforts that we’ve had with 

the Montana Wildlife Unit is in relation to wolf harvest management and monitoring program development. The Montana 

Wildlife Unit has been intimately involved with this effort 

since the initial planning stages for the first ever regulated 

hunting season for wolves in the contiguous United States, 

beginning in 2007. This was hugely controversial because it 

was implemented immediately on the heels of wolf delisting 

under the Endangered Species Act, and the public across the 

country closely scrutinized what transpired as wolves were 

delisted in 2009, relisted, then delisted again in 2011. Over 

the first few years of the program, the public interest within 

Montana was such that Commission meetings to set wolf 

seasons were moved to the Montana Supreme Court Chambers 

to accommodate the large public in attendance. 

Mike Mitchell and his student at the time (now a scientist 

at the Idaho Unit) helped develop the first simulation model 

used to predict the effects of various hunting season quota 

levels on wolf population sizes. Mike then worked closely 

with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) staff to facilitate a structured decision making process that has framed wolf 

season setting in Montana for every subsequent season. Mike 

has continued to work closely with FWP staff on population 

modeling and evaluating the effects of public harvest, including several back-and-forth exchanges in scientific journals 

with program critics. He helped to develop statistical methods 

to estimate wolf population parameters (breeding pairs) that 

FWP was required to monitor by State and Federal law, saving 

FWP tens of thousands of dollars annually over the intensive, 

field-based monitoring otherwise required. Mike then supervised a master’s student and a post-doctoral scientist through 

development of novel wolf monitoring methods based on 

occupancy modeling of wolf sightings by hunters to replace 

the expensive, field-intensive method of collaring and following individual wolf packs to obtain minimum population counts, saving FWP hundreds of thousands of dollars 

annually. The new monitoring method has officially replaced 

the field-intensive minimum count method with the 2018 

Montana wolf program report, which was just released with 

population estimates generated by the method Mike helped to 

develop and without minimum count statistics. Finally, Mike 

currently has 2 PhD students that are working on evaluating 

the effects of public wolf harvest on key assumptions that 

underpin the accuracy of the occupancy-monitoring approach, 

further developing models to predict the effects of harvest, and 

packaging the monitoring and modeling methods together with 

the decision frame he previously helped to create in an Adaptive Management framework. The key to all of this success is 

that Mike, his staff, and his students at the CRU have worked 

directly with FWP wildlife managers and researchers in a truly 

collaborative way, fostering trust and ownership by everyone 

involved.” 

Justin Gude 

Chief of Research and Technical Services

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

“
18 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Idaho Unit: Effects of Catch-and-Release Fishing 

on Survival of Native Trout and Steelhead

Over the last several years, fish and wildlife agencies 

have been hearing increasing concern by angling and conservation groups over potential mortality associated with anglers 

removing fish from water prior to releasing them. In cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) the 

Idaho Unit recently completed a series of research projects to 

better understand the effects of catch-and-release angling on 

survival and reproductive success of native trout and steelhead. The cornerstone of this work was completed by Michael 

Quist and graduate student Curtis Roth at the University of 

Idaho Unit. They evaluated the relative survival of pre-spawn 

wild Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout caught and exposed to air for 

various durations. Additionally, genetic parentage assignment 

was used to compare progeny production from air-exposed and 

control fish. Finally, covert observation of anglers was used to 

assess actual duration of air exposure in a catch-and-release 

wild trout fishery. Results indicated that air exposure of up to 

one minute had no effect on adult trout survival or reproductive success. Furthermore, angler observation studies demonstrated that wild trout anglers rarely hold fish out of the water 

for a duration that would affect survival. The IDFG conducted 

similar studies of angler-caught hatchery steelhead, measuring 

air exposure duration and the effects on eye-up rates in their 

eggs. Again, there was no measurable effect from air exposure 

durations that typically occur in catch-and-release steelhead 

fisheries. Results of these projects and other similar work in 

Idaho have been shared widely in news articles, peer-reviewed 

literature, interagency and professional meetings, as well as 

with angling and conservation groups across the state. Collectively, these outreach efforts by the Idaho Unit and IDFG were 

recently recognized by the Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies with the Ernest Thompson Seton Award for promoting public awareness and support for the science and practice 

of fish/wildlife management.” 

Jeff Dillon

Fishery Research Manager 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

“
Cooperator Success Stories 19

Pennsylvania Unit: Identifying Optimal Harvest 

Regulations for Fall Wild Turkey Hunting 

Seasons

Wild turkey populations are a valuable natural resource 

and the second most popular game species in Pennsylvania. 

The Pennsylvania Game Commission’s (PGC) main tool for 

managing wild turkey population levels is through fall hunting 

season regulations, specifically through the regulated harvest 

of hen turkeys, as shown through previous applied research 

with USGS. PGC’s current framework for fall season regulations lacks a standardized decision matrix to predict the effect 

of different season lengths on future turkey populations. The 

current research project utilizes results from 3 previous studies 

with USGS to develop a new wild turkey population dynamics model that predicts the response of turkey populations 

to changes in fall turkey harvest regulations. Through this 

cooperative project, also with North Carolina State University, 

we are integrating the model into a decision-making framework that will allow PGC to identify fall harvest regulations 

that optimize hunting opportunity and wild turkey populations. Model development has been challenging. USGS has 

identified several modifications to data variable collection 

methodology and analyses to improve the model for more 

accurately predicting population response to seasons. This 

research will be incorporated directly into the PGC’s wild 

turkey management program and may serve as a template for 

other state wildlife agencies. 

The Pennsylvania Unit has been integral to wild turkey research and management in Pennsylvania for over two 

decades. The Unit brings expertise in designing research projects that we integrate directly into our management program. 

The Unit developed a new method for estimating survival and 

harvest rates that resulted in significant cost savings for studies 

of both hen and gobbler survival and harvest rates. Dr. Diefenbach also assisted with the design of a research project that 

quantified the effect of fall hunting seasons on turkey harvests. 

The research projects are now being integrated into a decision 

model that will help the agency set fall hunting season regulations with the best objective data available. The Pennsylvania 

Unit has helped greatly in the effort to develop a decision 

model by bringing in collaborators from the Alabama Unit and 

NC State University.” 

Bryan Burhans

Executive Director 

Pennsylvania Game Commission

“
20 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Awards and Accolades 

Unit scientists and their students received approximately 

60 awards in fiscal year 2019 from universities, agencies, 

and societies with recognition at the local, national, and 

international levels. The valuable work done by members of 

the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) 

program is appreciated by many organizations. Some recent 

awards are summarized below.

2019

Wildlife Restoration Award

The Wildlife Society

David Haukos, Kansas CRU

Harry R. Painton Award

American Ornithological Society

Anna Chalfoun, Wyoming CRU

Distinguished Service Award

U.S. Department of the Interior

Sarah Converse, Washington CRU

Fellow

American Fisheries Society

Cecil Jennings, Georgia CRU

Award of Excellence

Nebraska Chapter of the American Fisheries Society

Kevin Pope, Nebraska CRU

Distinguished Alumni Award

University of Maine, Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and 

Conservation Biology

Duane Diefenbach, Pennsylvania CRU

Fellow

The Wildlife Society

Courtney Conway, Idaho CRU

Professional Award of Merit

North Central Section of The Wildlife Society

David Andersen, Minnesota CRU

Ulster University International Collaboration Excellence

Ulster University

Suresh Sethi, New York CRU

Promotion to professor

Oklahoma State University

Shannon Brewer, Oklahoma CRU

Professional Services

CRU scientists give back to their profession in a variety 

of ways including serving professional societies, technical 

committees, working groups, and others.

239

Professional service 

positions

61

Editorial positions
Cooperators of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program 21

Cooperators of the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program

Alabama 

Auburn University

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources

Alaska 

University of Alaska Fairbanks

Alaska Department of Fish and Game

Arizona

University of Arizona

Arizona Game and Fish Commission

Arkansas

University of Arkansas

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

California 

Humboldt State University 

California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife 

Colorado 

Colorado State University 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Florida 

University of Florida 

Florida Game and Fish Commission 

Georgia 

University of Georgia 

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Hawaii—Fishery

University of Hawaii

Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources

Idaho 

University of Idaho 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

Iowa

Iowa State University

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Kansas

Kansas State University

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks

Louisiana

Louisiana State University

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Maine 

University of Maine 

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 

Maryland 

University of Maryland, Eastern Shore 

Maryland Department of Natural Resources

Massachusetts 

University of Massachusetts 

Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries

Minnesota 

University of Minnesota 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Mississippi 

Mississippi State University 

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks

Missouri 

University of Missouri Columbia 

Missouri Department of Conservation

Montana—Fishery

Montana State University 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Montana—Wildlife

University of Montana 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

Nebraska

University of Nebraska Lincoln

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission

New Mexico

New Mexico State University

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

New York

Cornell University 

New York Department of Environmental Conservation

North Carolina

North Carolina State University

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma State University 

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
22 Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review

Oregon 

Oregon State University 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania State University

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

Pennsylvania Game Commission

South Carolina 

Clemson University 

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

South Dakota 

South Dakota State University 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks

Tennessee—Fishery

Tennessee Tech University

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Texas

Texas Tech University

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Utah 

Utah State University 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

Vermont 

University of Vermont

Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department

Virginia 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

Washington 

Washington State University 

University of Washington

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Washington Department of Natural Resources

West Virginia

West Virginia University

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources

Wisconsin—Fishery

University of Wisconsin Stevens Point

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wisconsin—Wildlife

University of Wisconsin Madison 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Wyoming 

University of Wyoming

Wyoming Game and Fish Commission
Photograph Credits

p. i, Green sea turtle. Photograph by Alexander Avila, U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS).

p. iii, White-tailed prairie dog. Photograph by John J. Mosesso, USGS.

p. v, Pelicans and great blue heron (background) at Summer Lake Wildlife 

Area, Oregon. Photograph by Laura J. Hartley, USGS. 

p. vi, White tern. Photograph by C. Cornett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 

p. 3, Burrowing owl. Photograph by Douglas Barnum, USGS. 

p. 5, Female grizzly bear with cub. Photograph by John Way. 

p. 6, Devils Hole pupfish. Photograph from USFWS. 

p. 6, Lesser prairie-chicken. Photograph by Mark Watson, USGS.

p. 6–7, Prairie Pothole Region. Photograph from Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

p. 7, Monarch butterfly specimens. Photograph by Elizabeth A. Sellers. 

p. 7, Northern spotted owl. Photograph from USGS. 

p. 8, Rainbow trout. Photograph by Christopher Mebane, USGS.

p. 8–9, Indiana bats drinking from a seep along a wall in Wyandotte Cave, 

Indiana. Photograph by R. Andrew King, USFWS.

p. 9, Deer with chronic wasting disease. Photograph by Terry Kreeger, 

Wyoming Game and Fish.

p. 10, Three species of Asian carp (from top: bighead carp, silver carp, and 

grass carp) captured on the Missouri River floodplain. Photograph by Colby 

Wrasse, USFWS.

p. 10–11, Norway spruce plantation. Photograph by Calvin Ritter,

Massachusetts Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

p. 11, Juvenile lake trout. Photograph by Brett Billings, USFWS.

p. 12, Burrowing owl nesting pair. Photograph by Douglas Barnum, USGS. 

p. 12–13, Louisiana black bear and cubs. Photograph by Clint Turnage, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture.

p. 13, Red-eared slider turtle. Photograph by Ryan Moehring, USFWS. 

p. 13, Cape May warbler. Photograph from USFWS.

p. 14, Monarch butterfly. Photograph by Karen Oberhauser, 

University of Minnesota.

p. 14, Ring-necked pheasant. Photograph by Tom Koerner, USFWS.

p. 14, Pallid sturgeon. Photograph by Christopher Guy, USGS. 

p. 15, Wood duck. Photograph by Dennis Demcheck, USGS. 

p. 15, Green sea turtle hatchlings. Photograph by Ryan Fura, 

National Park Service. 

p. 16, Eastern oysters. Photographs by Megan La Peyre, Louisiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

p. 17, Wolves in Yellowstone National Park. Photographs by 

Arthur Middleton, USGS. 

p. 18, Yellowstone cutthroat trout. Photograph by Jonny Armstrong, USGS. 

p. 18, School of bull trout. Photograph by Jonny Armstrong, USGS. 

p. 19, Single wild turkey. Photograph by Jamie Velkoverh, USGS. 

p. 19, Rio Grande wild turkeys. Photograph by Robert H. Burton, USFWS. 

p. 20, Chinook salmon. Photograph by Ryan Hagerty, USFWS. 

p. 22, Walrus. Photograph by Ryan Kingsbery, USGS. 

For more information about this report, contact:

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program

U.S. Geological Survey 

12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Mail Stop 303 

Reston, VA 20192

Telephone: 703–648–4260

Fax: 703–648–4269

https://www1.usgs.gov/coopunits/Headquarters/

Anne E. Kinsinger

USGS Associate Director for Ecosystems

akinsinger@usgs.gov

John Thompson

Acting Chief, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units

jthompson@usgs.gov

Mike Tome

Unit Supervisor (North), Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units

mtome@usgs.gov

Kevin Whalen

Unit Supervisor (West), Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Units

kwhalen@usgs.gov

James (Barry) Grand

Unit Supervisor (South), Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units

barry_grand@usgs.gov

Shana Coulby

Administrative Officer, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Units

scoulby@usgs.gov

Don Dennerline

Senior Program Biologist, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units

don_dennerline@usgs.gov

Dawn Childs

Information Specialist, Cooperative Fish and Wildlife

Research Units

dchilds@usgs.gov

Publishing support provided by the Reston and 

Pembroke Publishing Service Centers
Thompson and others—Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2019 Year in Review—Circular 1463

ISSN 1067-084X (print)

ISSN 2330-5703 (online)

https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1463 Printed on recycled paper