Geology topics

Glenn E. Griffith

Publications and source records attributed to Glenn E. Griffith.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2017

Forest harvest patterns on private lands in the Cascade Mountains, Washington, USA

Forests in Washington State generate substantial economic revenue from commercial timber harvesting on private lands. To investigate the rates, causes, and spatial and temporal patterns of forest harvest on private tracts throughout the Cascade Mountains, we relied on a new generation of annual land-use/land-cover (LULC) products created from the application of the Continuous Change Detection and Classification (CCDC) algorithm to Landsat satellite imagery collected from 1985 to 2014. We calculated metrics of landscape pattern using patches of intact and harvested forest in each annual layer to identify changes throughout the time series. Patch dynamics revealed four distinct eras of logging trends that align with prevailing regulations and economic conditions. We used multiple logistic regression to determine the biophysical and anthropogenic factors that influence fine-scale selection of harvest stands in each time period. Results show that private lands forest cover became significantly reduced and more fragmented from 1985 to 2014. Variables linked to parameters of site conditions, location, climate, and vegetation greenness consistently distinguished harvest selection for each distinct era. This study demonstrates the utility of annual LULC data for investigating the underlying factors that influence land cover change.

Washington↗

USGS2017

How misapplication of the hydrologic unit framework diminishes the meaning of watersheds

Hydrologic units provide a convenient but problematic nationwide set of geographic polygons based on subjectively determined subdivisions of land surface areas at several hierarchical levels. The problem is that it is impossible to map watersheds, basins, or catchments of relatively equal size and cover the whole country. The hydrologic unit framework is in fact composed mostly of watersheds and pieces of watersheds. The pieces include units that drain to segments of streams, remnant areas, noncontributing areas, and coastal or frontal units that can include multiple watersheds draining to an ocean or large lake. Hence, half or more of the hydrologic units are not watersheds as the name of the framework “Watershed Boundary Dataset” implies. Nonetheless, hydrologic units and watersheds are commonly treated as synonymous, and this misapplication and misunderstanding can have some serious scientific and management consequences. We discuss some of the strengths and limitations of watersheds and hydrologic units as spatial frameworks. Using examples from the Northwest and Southeast United States, we explain how the misapplication of the hydrologic unit framework has altered the meaning of watersheds and can impair understanding associations between spatial geographic characteristics and surface water conditions.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2017

Understanding recurrent land use processes and long-term transitions in the dynamic south-central United States, c. 1800 to 2006

Forests have historically been under significant land use pressures that cause periods of degradation, clearance, and recovery. To understand these changes, studies are needed that place trends in a historical landscape context and also examine recent dynamics. Here, we use historical investigation (c. 1800) and an examination of land use and land cover change between 1973 and 2006 to establish a baseline trajectory of the forested system of the south-central United States (US) plains. The study culminates in a highly detailed accounting of the processes and causes of land change between 2001 and 2006. In the study region, the forest transitioned from early low-intensity use, to clearance for farming and timber, to widespread recovery from degradation beginning in the 1930s. By 1970, the region was transitioning from recovered woodlands to an intensive regime of recurrent timber harvest and replanting. The recurring cycle inherent in intensive silviculture has been the main cause of land change for the past several decades, accounting for more than 95% of the total extent of change between 2001 and 2006. The transition to forest recovery in the south-central US was an important historical occurrence. However, the dynamic post-transition landscape needs to be better understood.

Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas↗

USGS2016

Regional patterns of total nitrogen concentrations in the National Rivers and Streams Assessment

Patterns of nitrogen (N) concentrations in streams sampled by the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) were examined semiquantitatively to identify regional differences in stream N levels. The data were categorized and analyzed by watershed size classes to reveal patterns of the concentrations that are consistent with the spatial homogeneity in natural and anthropogenic characteristics associated with regional differences in N levels. Ecoregions and mapped information on human activities including agricultural practices were used to determine the resultant regions. Marked differences in N levels were found among the nine aggregations of ecoregions used to report the results of the NRSA. We identified distinct regional patterns of stream N concentrations within the reporting regions that are associated with the characteristics of specific Level III ecoregions, groups of Level III ecoregions, groups of Level IV ecoregions, certain geographic characteristics within ecoregions, and/or particular watershed size classes. We described each of these regions and illustrated their areal extent and median and range in N concentrations. Understanding the spatial variability of nutrient concentrations in flowing waters and the apparent contributions that human and nonhuman factors have on different sizes of streams and rivers is critical to the development of effective water quality assessment and management plans. This semi-quantitative analysis is also intended to identify areas within which more detailed quantitative work can be conducted to determine specific regional factors associated with variations in stream N concentrations.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation↗

USGS2016

Ecoregions of California

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across Federal agencies, State agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources in the same geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions are hierarchical and can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions (Commission for Environmental Cooperation Working Group, 1997, map revised 2006). At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Level IV, depicted here for California, is a further refinement of level III ecoregions. Explanations of the methods used to define these ecoregions are given in Omernik (1995), Omernik and others (2000), and Omernik and Griffith (2014). California has great ecological and biological diversity. The State contains offshore islands and coastal lowlands, large alluvial valleys, forested mountain ranges, deserts, and various aquatic habitats. There are 13 level III ecoregions and 177 level IV ecoregions in California and most continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent States of the United States or Mexico (Bryce and others, 2003; Thorson and others, 2003; Griffith and others, 2014). The California ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). This poster is the result of a collaborative project primarily between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region IX, USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of the Interior–Geological Survey (USGS), and other State of California agencies and universities. The project is associated with interagency efforts to develop a common framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service (Bailey and others, 1994; Miles and Goudy, 1997; Cleland and others, 2007), the USEPA (Omernik 1987, 1995), and the NRCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture–Soil Conservation Service, 1981; U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2006). As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Regional collaborative projects such as this one in California, where some agreement has been reached among multiple resource-management agencies, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

California↗

USGS2015

Assessing landscape change and processes of recurrence, replacement, and recovery in the Southeastern Coastal Plains, USA

The processes of landscape change are complex, exhibiting spatial variability as well as linear, cyclical, and reversible characteristics. To better understand the various processes that cause transformation, a data aggregation, validation, and attribution approach was developed and applied to an analysis of the Southeastern Coastal Plains (SECP). The approach integrates information from available national land-use, natural disturbance, and land-cover data to efficiently assess spatially-specific changes and causes. Between 2001 and 2006, the processes of change affected 7.8 % of the SECP but varied across small-scale ecoregions. Processes were placed into a simple conceptual framework to explicitly identify the type and direction of change based on three general characteristics: replacement, recurrence, and recovery. Replacement processes, whereby a land use or cover is supplanted by a new land use, including urbanization and agricultural expansion, accounted for approximately 15 % of the extent of change. Recurrent processes that contribute to cyclical changes in land cover, including forest harvest/replanting and fire, accounted for 83 %. Most forest cover changes were recurrent, while the extents of recurrent silviculture and forest replacement processes such as urbanization far exceeded forest recovery processes. The total extent of landscape recovery, from prior land use to natural or semi-natural vegetation cover, accounted for less than 3 % of change. In a region of complex change, increases in transitory grassland and shrubland covers were caused by large-scale intensive plantation silviculture and small-scale activities including mining reclamation. Explicit identification of the process types and dynamics presented here may improve the understanding of land-cover change and landscape trajectory.

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Lousianna, Mississippi,↗

USGS2014

Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: Evolution of a hierarchical spatial framework

A map of ecological regions of the conterminous United States, first published in 1987, has been greatly refined and expanded into a hierarchical spatial framework in response to user needs, particularly by state resource management agencies. In collaboration with scientists and resource managers from numerous agencies and institutions in the United States, Mexico, and Canada, the framework has been expanded to cover North America, and the original ecoregions (now termed Level III) have been refined, subdivided, and aggregated to identify coarser as well as more detailed spatial units. The most generalized units (Level I) define 10 ecoregions in the conterminous U.S., while the finest-scale units (Level IV) identify 967 ecoregions. In this paper, we explain the logic underpinning the approach, discuss the evolution of the regional mapping process, and provide examples of how the ecoregions were distinguished at each hierarchical level. The variety of applications of the ecoregion framework illustrates its utility in resource assessment and management.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2014

Ecoregions of Arizona (poster)

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The Arizona ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity. These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions. At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions. Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Arizona contains arid deserts and canyonlands, semiarid shrub- and grass-covered plains, woodland- and shrubland-covered hills, lava fields and volcanic plateaus, forested mountains, glaciated peaks, and river alluvial floodplains. Ecological diversity is remarkably high. There are 7 level III ecoregions and 52 level IV ecoregions in Arizona and many continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states. This poster is part of a collaborative project primarily between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), USEPA Region IX, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The Nature Conservancy, and several Arizona state agencies. The project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common national framework of ecological regions. Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service, the USEPA, and the NRCS. As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Collaborative ecoregion projects, such as this one in Arizona, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

Arizona↗

USGS2012

Scenarios of land use and land cover change in the conterminous United States: Utilizing the special report on emission scenarios at ecoregional scales

Global environmental change scenarios have typically provided projections of land use and land cover for a relatively small number of regions or using a relatively coarse resolution spatial grid, and for only a few major sectors. The coarseness of global projections, in both spatial and thematic dimensions, often limits their direct utility at scales useful for environmental management. This paper describes methods to downscale projections of land-use and land-cover change from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Emission Scenarios to ecological regions of the conterminous United States, using an integrated assessment model, land-use histories, and expert knowledge. Downscaled projections span a wide range of future potential conditions across sixteen land use/land cover sectors and 84 ecological regions, and are logically consistent with both historical measurements and SRES characteristics. Results appear to provide a credible solution for connecting regionalized projections of land use and land cover with existing downscaled climate scenarios, under a common set of scenario-based socioeconomic assumptions.

Global Environmental Change↗