Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “New Review of Information Networking”

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.

33 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

The roles of large top predators in coastal ecosystems: new insights from long term ecological research

During recent human history, human activities such as overhunting and habitat destruction have severely impacted many large top predator populations around the world. Studies from a variety of ecosystems show that loss or diminishment of top predator populations can have serious consequences for population and community dynamics and ecosystem stability. However, there are relatively few studies of the roles of large top predators in coastal ecosystems, so that we do not yet completely understand what could happen to coastal areas if large top predators are extirpated or significantly reduced in number. This lack of knowledge is surprising given that coastal areas around the globe are highly valued and densely populated by humans, and thus coastal large top predator populations frequently come into conflict with coastal human populations. This paper reviews what is known about the ecological roles of large top predators in coastal systems and presents a synthesis of recent work from three coastal eastern US Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites where long-term studies reveal what appear to be common themes relating to the roles of large top predators in coastal systems. We discuss three specific themes: (1) large top predators acting as mobile links between disparate habitats, (2) large top predators potentially affecting nutrient and biogeochemical dynamics through localized behaviors, and (3) individual specialization of large top predator behaviors. We also discuss how research within the LTER network has led to enhanced understanding of the ecological roles of coastal large top predators. Highlighting this work is intended to encourage further investigation of the roles of large top predators across diverse coastal aquatic habitats and to better inform researchers and ecosystem managers about the importance of large top predators for coastal ecosystem health and stability.

Florida;Georgia;Massachusetts↗

PFReports: A program for systematic checking of annual peaks in NWISWeb

The accuracy, characterization, and completeness of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) peak-flow data drive the determination of flood-frequency estimates that are used daily to design water and transportation infrastructure, delineate flood-plain boundaries, and regulate development and utilization of lands throughout the Nation and are essential to understanding the implications of climate change on flooding. Indeed, this high-profile database reflects and highlights the quality of USGS water-data collection programs. Its extension and improvement are essential to efforts to strengthen USGS networks and science leadership and is worthy of the attention of Water Science Center (WSC) hydrographers. This document describes a computer program, PFReports, and its output that facilitates efficient and robust review and correction of data in the USGS Peak Flow File (PFF) hosted as part of NWISWeb (the USGS public Web interface to much of the data stored and managed within the National Water Information System or NWIS). Checks embedded in the program are recommended as part of a more comprehensive assessment of peak flow data that will eventually include examination of possible regional changes, seasonal changes, and decadal variations in magnitude, timing, and frequency. Just as important as the comprehensive assessment, cleaning up the database will increase the likelihood of improved WSC regional flood-frequency equations. As an example of the value of cleaning up the PFF, data for 26,921 sites in the PFF were obtained. Of those sites, 17,542 sites had peak streamflow values and daily values. For the 17,542 sites, 1,097 peaks were identified that were less than the daily value for the day on which the peak occurred. Of the 26,921 sites, 11,643 had peak streamflow values, concurrent daily values, and at least 10 peaks. At the 11,643 sites, 2,205 peaks were identified as potential outliers in a regression of peak streamflows on daily values. Previous efforts to identify problems with the PFF were time consuming, laborious, and often ineffective. This new suite of checks represents an effort to automate identification of specific problems without plotting or printing large amounts of data that may not have problems. In addition, the results of the checks of the peak flow files are delivered through the World Wide Web with links to individual reports so that WSCs can focus on specific problems in an organized and standardized fashion. Over the years, technical reviews, regional-flood studies, and user inquiries have identified many minor and some major problems in the PFF. However, the cumbersome nature of the PFF editor and a lack of analytical tools have hampered efforts at quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and subsequently to make needed revisions to the database. This document is organized to provide information regarding PFReports, especially those tests involving regression and to provide an overview of the review procedures for utilizing the output. It also may be used as a reference for the data qualification codes and abbreviations for the tests. Results of the checks for all peak flow files (March 2008) are available at http://nd.water.usgs.gov/internal/pfreports/.

Open-File Report↗

Observing systems, modeling, and forecasting

Predicting harmful algal blooms (HABs) requires integrating physical, chemical, and biological data collected from observing networks and then assimilating these data into models, which are used to generate forecasts. In 2005, the Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015 (HARRNESS, 2005) made recommendations on how to improve HAB modeling and forecasting over the next decade. Key HARRNESS recommendations related to sensing, networking, and modeling HABs included: ● Support the development and validation of new and improved technologies for remote cell and toxin detection, and for modeling and forecasting, ● Improve coordination of monitoring/ and modeling efforts, both at national and regional levels, ● Improve the use of networking technologies for monitoring and modeling efforts, ● Conduct sustained time series measurements of the biotic, chemical, and physical environments impacted by HABs, ● Develop food web models on the ecosystem fate and effects of toxins, ● Develop and improve species-specific models that link to physical-biological models. Here we review HAB observing, modeling, and forecasting advances and technologies and recommend research and management priorities for the next decade and beyond. Our report encompasses sensing technologies, sensor networking and data management, models and forecasts, and the paths to operationalize forecasts. Continued improvements of deployable sensors are foundational to improving early warning indicators, models, and forecasts, which are only as good as the underlying data. Sensing technology has advanced considerably in the last decade; for example, more capable fluorometric pigment sensors can track changes in bloom biomass in real-time. Additionally, automated imaging/classifying systems to identify and quantify key harmful algal (HA) taxa are being routinely deployed. However, deployable toxin sensors are available for only some HAB toxins and continue to be identified as a critical need by researchers and managers. As more and improved sensors and technologies become available, the data quality associated with each sensor needs to be assessed. Data quality encompasses the reliability, accuracy, and uncertainty associated with sensor-generated data. These data need to be of known quality so that researchers, managers, and end-users can reliably determine if the information is appropriate for their intended applications. Many of the data quality recommendations from HARRNESS (2005) are still relevant and have been reiterated within the management community. Understanding and documenting data quality, and when applicable, standardizing best practices for sensor use, continue to be recommended.

Report↗

Invasive species in southern Nevada

Southern Nevada contains a wide range of topographies, elevations, and climactic zones emblematic of its position at the ecotone between the Mojave Desert, Great Basin, and Colorado Plateau ecoregions. These varied environmental conditions support a high degree of biological diversity (Chapter 1), but they also provide opportunities for a wide range of invasive species. In addition, the population center of the Las Vegas valley, and the agricultural area scattered throughout Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties, all connected by a network of roads and highways, plus ephemeral and perennial watercourses, provide abundant opportunities for new invaders to be transported into and within southern Nevada (Brooks 2009; Brookes and Lair 2009). Invasive species are a concern for land managers because they can compete directly with native species (Brooks 2000; Chambers and others 2007; DeFlaco and others 2003, 2007; Mazzola and others 2010), change habitat conditions (Brooks and Esque 2002; Esque and others 2010; Miller and others 2011), and alter ecosystems properties (Brooks and Matchett 2006; Brooks and Pyke 2001; Evans and others 2001). Many invasive species have already established and spread to the point that they are now considered to pose significant problems in southern Nevada. However, there are likely many more than have wither not been transported to or colonized the region, or have established by for various reasons not spread or increased in abundance to the point where they have a significant impact. Land managers must understand both current and potential future problems posed by invasive species to appropriately prioritize management actions. This chapter addressed Sub-goal 1.2 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009), which is to protect southern Nevada's ecosystems from the adverse impacts of invasive species. It provides a brief overview of the key concepts associated with the ecology and management of invasive species, and includes information relevant to all five strategic goals identified by the National Invasive Species Council: prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and management, restoration, and organization collaboration (National Invasive Species Council 2001, 2008). Restoration also is discussed in a broader context in Chapter 5 and 7. This chapter does not present a comprehensive review of all invasive species associated land management issues in southern Nevada, but rather uses key species of concern to illustrate invasion ecology concepts and management strategies. It is focused on terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, and does not address potential invasive taxa from the other Kingdoms. The information presented herein is intended to provide a foundation upon which land management plans can be developed and project-level decisions can be made relative to the management of invasive species in southern Nevada.

Nevada↗

U.S. Geological Survey Science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative-2010 Annual Report

This is the third report produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) to detail annual work activities. The first report described activities for 2007 and 2008, and the second report covered work activities for FY09. This third report covers work activities conducted in FY2010, and it continues the 2009 approach of reporting on all the individual activities to help give WLCI partners and other readers the full scope of what has been accomplished. New in this year's report is an additional section for each work activity that outlines the work planned for the following fiscal year. In FY2010, there were 35 ongoing/expanded, completed, or new projects conducted under the five major multi-disciplinary science and technical-assistance activities: (1) Baseline Synthesis; (2) Targeted Monitoring and Research; (3) Data and Information Management; (4) Integration and Coordination; and (5) Decisionmaking and Evaluation. The three new work activities were to (1) compile existing water data for the entire WLCI region and (2) develop regional curves (statistical models) for relating bankfull-channel geometry and discharge to drainages in the WLCI region, both of which will help guide long-term monitoring of water resources; and (3) initiate a groundwater-monitoring network to evaluate potential effects of energy-development activities on groundwater quality where groundwater is an important source of public/private water supplies. Results of the FY2009 work to develop methods for assessing soil organic matter and mercury indicated that selenium and arsenic levels may be elevated in the Muddy Creek Basin; thus, the focus of that activity was shifted in FY2010 to evaluate biogeochemical cycling of elements in the basin. In FY2010, two ongoing activities were expanded with the addition of more sampling plots: (a) the study of how greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) use vegetation-treatment areas (sites added to the Moxa Arch Natural Gas Development area) and (2) the study of cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) occurrence in burn treatments of the Little Mountain Ecosystem. The activity that entails evaluating relationships between ungulate herbivory and fire on aspen (Populus tremuloides) recruitment also was expanded to include relationships between stand characteristics of and herbivory on aspen in various ecohydrological settings. The USGS continued compiling data and developing geospatial products from all of its WLCI activities to support (1) ranking and prioritizing of proposed conservation projects, (2) developing the WLCI Integrated Assessment, and (3) developing the WLCI 5-year Conservation Action Plan. Two activities were completed in FY2010: (1) the conceptual modeling and indicator selection for monitoring resource conditions across the WLCI region, and (2) the literature review on effects of oil and gas development in western regions of the United States, both of which are in the last stages of publication.

Open-File Report↗

Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to advance Chesapeake Bay research and management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities

The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (hereafter “Chesapeake Bay region”) have been the focus of extensive restoration efforts for several decades. These restoration efforts are guided by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2014) which outlines 10 goals and 31 measurable outcomes. The Chesapeake Bay is globally recognized as a model for coastal restoration due to long-term investments in monitoring, modeling, implementation and research by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership. These monitoring network spans tidal and non-tidal regions and provides data across multiple scales. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine-learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing large, complex datasets. These techniques have gained widespread adoption across various disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, and environmental science. In the Bay context, AI/ML is increasingly being used to explore drivers of environmental change, analyze system dynamics, and predict conditions in areas with limited monitoring. The CBP partnership, particularly its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), has increasingly recognized the growing role of AI/ML in watershed and estuarine management. Recent Chesapeake Community Research Symposium sessions and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Global Collaboratory highlight increasing regional momentum to apply big data and AI/ML for environmental solutions. Together, these developments underscore the timely need to explore how AI/ML can help advance Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. This STAC workshop, titled “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to Advance Chesapeake Bay Research and Management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities,” was held from February 24-25, 2025, in Edgewater, Maryland to bring together over 50 federal, state, and academic scientists and partners to synthesize the current state of AI/ML applications and identify research gaps in Chesapeake Bay research and management. The workshop focused on three main objectives: 1. Summarize recent AI/ML applications and lessons learned in both tidal and nontidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay region. 2. Identify challenges and gaps in applying AI/ML approaches to Chesapeake Bay data. Such challenges and gaps may include data limitations, harmonization issues, ineffective communication of AI/ML insights, and a lack of coordination among research and management institutions. 3. Develop recommendations and identify opportunities for leveraging AI/ML to address issues across the Chesapeake Bay region. Key areas of focus may include generating new information to support watershed management, delivering AI/MLgenerated insights to managers in a clear and actionable way, and fostering greater collaboration among stakeholders within the CBP Partnership. Workshop participants engaged in science presentations and breakout sessions to develop recommendations for advancing the integration of AI/ML techniques into research and management across the Chesapeake Bay region. By synthesizing current applications, identifying challenges, and exploring new opportunities, the workshop has provided valuable insights and recommendations for better leveraging AI/ML approaches to support the success of Bay restoration efforts. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for enhancing data-driven, science-based decision making aligned with the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

Introduction to recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States

Introduction The National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) was authorized and partially funded by the U.S. Government in 2019. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program asked its scientists to reflect on and summarize their views of best practices for volcano monitoring. The goal was to review and update the recommendations of a previous report (Moran and others, 2008) and to provide a more detailed analysis of capabilities and instrumentation for monitoring networks for U.S. volcanoes. This Scientific Investigations Report and its chapters reflect those USGS scientists’ views and summaries and will serve as a guide for future network upgrades funded through NVEWS. Given the well-documented hazards posed by volcanoes to population centers and aviation (for example, Blong, 1984; Scott, 1989; Neal and others, 1997, 2019; Guffanti and others, 2010; Shroder and Papale, 2014; Prata and Rose, 2015; Palmer, 2020), volcano monitoring is critical for ensuring public safety and for mitigating the impacts of volcanic activity. Accurate and timely forecasts are facilitated by well-designed monitoring networks that are in place long enough to allow for background behavior to be recognized and understood. Because precursory signals may be limited and unrest may progress rapidly to an eruption, our goal is to deploy monitoring systems that enable detection of the reactivation of dormant volcanoes as early as possible, allowing for public safety and risk mitigation. NVEWS planning is also informed by the results of Ewert and others (2005, 2018), whereby 161 U.S. volcanoes are currently categorized and ranked commensurate with their relative threat. In each chapter, author(s) considered the need for some redundancy of instrumentation and telemetry, given the likelihood of occasional equipment failure, particularly in extreme and remote environments. Establishing digital telemetry networks requires advanced planning, sighting, radio-shot testing, and, inevitably, troubleshooting in the field. This is harder to achieve rapidly during a crisis; thus, an important goal for monitoring U.S. volcanoes is to establish digital telemetry backbones with redundancy and extra capacity to absorb additional instruments should a volcano begin to exhibit signs of unrest (fig. A1). The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) imposed new regulations in the United States, eliminating the use of older analog radios for many purposes, which had been one previous means for redundant data delivery. However, the resulting conversion from analog to digital systems usefully enables stations to accommodate new and multivariate real-time data streams (for example, Global Navigation Satellite System [GNSS] receivers, infrasound arrays, gas spectrometers, visible and infrared cameras, and broadband seismometers). We note that other USGS and broader national and international hazard programs can leverage NVEWS instrumentation plans. Examples of this include the following: Improved seismic coverage of volcanoes will increase the capability of the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program to detect and locate earthquakes, estimate ground shaking, and provide timely early warnings through the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System (Given and others, 2018). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Tsunami Program will benefit from additional seismic stations, particularly within the sparsely instrumented Aleutian Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Infrasound stations can detect signals from landslides, debris flows and lahars, floods, and weather events, providing benefits to the National Weather Service and the USGS Landslide Hazards Program.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey spatial data access

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has done a progress review on improving access to its spatial data holdings over the Web. The USGS EROS Data Center has created three major Web-based interfaces to deliver spatial data to the general public; they are Earth Explorer, the Seamless Data Distribution System (SDDS), and the USGS Web Mapping Portal. Lessons were learned in developing these systems, and various resources were needed for their implementation. The USGS serves as a fact-finding agency in the U.S. Government that collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific information about natural resource conditions and issues. To carry out its mission, the USGS has created and managed spatial data since its inception. Originally relying on paper maps, the USGS now uses advanced technology to produce digital representations of the Earth’s features. The spatial products of the USGS include both source and derivative data. Derivative datasets include Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQ), Digital Elevation Models, Digital Line Graphs, land-cover Digital Raster Graphics, and the seamless National Elevation Dataset. These products, created with automated processes, use aerial photographs, satellite images, or other cartographic information such as scanned paper maps as source data. With Earth Explorer, users can search multiple inventories through metadata queries and can browse satellite and DOQ imagery. They can place orders and make payment through secure credit card transactions. Some USGS spatial data can be accessed with SDDS. The SDDS uses an ArcIMS map service interface to identify the user’s areas of interest and determine the output format; it allows the user to either download the actual spatial data directly for small areas or place orders for larger areas to be delivered on media. The USGS Web Mapping Portal provides views of national and international datasets through an ArcIMS map service interface. In addition, the map portal posts news about new map services available from the USGS, many simultaneously published on the Environmental Systems Research Institute Geography Network. These three information systems use new software tools and expanded hardware to meet the requirements of the users. The systems are designed to handle the required workload and are relatively easy to enhance and maintain. The software tools give users a high level of functionality and help the system conform to industry standards. The hardware and software architecture is designed to handle the large amounts of spatial data and Internet traffic required by the information systems. Last, customer support was needed to answer questions, monitor e-mail, and report customer problems.

Journal of Geospatial Engineering↗

Guidance documents: Continued support to improve operations of fish hatcheries and field sites to reduce the impact or prevent establishment of New Zealand Mudsnails and other invasive mollusks

This project tested and revised a risk assessment/management tool authored by Moffitt and Stockton designed to provide hatchery biologists and others a structure to measure risk and provide tools to control, prevent or eliminate invasive New Zealand mudsnails (NZMS) and other invasive mollusks in fish hatcheries and hatchery operations. The document has two parts: the risk assessment tool, and an appendix that summarizes options for control or management. The framework of the guidance document for risk assessment/hatchery tool combines approaches used by the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) process with those developed by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC), of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, in the Tri-National Risk Assessment Guidelines for Aquatic Alien Invasive Species. The framework approach for this attached first document assesses risk potential with two activities: probability of infestation and consequences of infestation. Each activity is treated equally to determine the risk potential. These two activities are divided into seven basic elements that utilize scientific, technical, and other relevant information in the process of the risk assessment. To determine the probability of infestation four steps are used that have scores reported or determined and averaged. This assessment follows a familiar HACCP process to assess pathways of entry, entry potential, colonization potential, spread potential. The economic, environmental and social consequences are considered as economic impact, environmental impact, and social and cultural influences. To test this document, the Principal Investigator worked to identify interested hatchery managers through contacts at regional aquaculture meetings, fish health meetings, and through the network of invasive species managers and scientists participating in the Western Regional Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species and the 100th Meridian Initiative's Columbia River Basin Team, and the Western New Zealand Mudsnail Conference in Seattle. Targeted hatchery workshops were conducted with staff at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery Complex (ID), Similkameen Pond, Oroville WA, and Ringold Springs State Hatchery (WA). As a result of communications with hatchery staff, invasive species managers, and on site assessments of hatchery facilities, the document was modified and enhanced. Additional resources were added to keep it up to date. The result is a more simplified tool that can lead hatchery or management personnel through the process of risk assessment and provide an introduction to the risk management and communication process. In addition to the typical HACCP processes, this tool adds steps to rate and consider uncertainty and the weight of evidence regarding options and monitoring results . Uncertainty of outcome exists in most tools that can be used to control or prevent NZMS or other invasive mollusks from infesting an area. In additional this document emphasizes that specific control tools and plans must be tailored to each specific setting to consider the economic, environmental and social influences. From the testing and evaluation process, there was a strong recognition that a number of control and prevention tools previously suggested and reported in the literature from laboratory and small scale trials may not be compatible with regional and national regulations, economic constraints, social or cultural constraints, engineering or water chemistry characteristics of each facility. The options for control are summarized in the second document, Review of Control Measures for Hatcheries Infested with NZMS (Appendix A) that provides sources for additional resources and specific tools, and guidance regarding the feasibility and success of each approach. This tool also emphasizes that management plans need to be adaptive and incorporate oversight from professionals familiar with measuring risks of fish diseases, and treatments (e.g. the fish health practitioners and water quality and effluent management teams). Finally, with such a team, the adaptive management approach must be ongoing, and become a regular component of hatchery operations. Although it was the intent that this two part document would be included as part of the revised National Management and Control Plan for the NZMS proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and others, it is provided as a stand-alone document.

Cooperator Science Series↗

Sediment sources and connectivity linked to hydrologic pathways and geomorphic processes: A conceptual model to specify sediment sources and pathways through space and time

Sediment connectivity is a conceptualization for the transfer and storage of sediment among different geomorphic compartments across upland landscapes and channel networks. Sediment connectivity and dysconnectivity are linked to the water cycle and hydrologic systems with the associated multiscale interactions with climate, soil, topography, ecology, and landuse/landcover under natural variability and human intervention. We review current sediment connectivity and modeling approaches evaluating and quantifying water and sediment transfer in catchment systems. Many studies highlight the interaction between sediment and water in defining landscape connectivity, but many efforts to quantify and/or simulate sediment connectivity rely on the topographic/structural controls on sediment erosion and delivery. More recent modeling efforts integrate functional and structural connectivity to capture hydrologic properties influencing sediment delivery. Though the recent modeling development is encouraging, a comprehensive sediment connectivity framework, which integrates geomorphic and hydrologic processes across spatiotemporal scales, has not yet been accomplished. Such an effort requires understanding the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that control sediment source, storage, and transport at different spatiotemporal scales and across various geophysical conditions. We propose a path for developing this new understanding through an integrated hydrologic and sediment connectivity conceptual model that broadly categorizes dominant processes and patterns relevant to understanding sediment flux dynamics. The conceptual model describes hydrologic–sediment connectivity regimes through spatial-temporal feedback between hydrologic processes and geomorphic drivers. We propose that in combining hydrologic and sediment connectivity into a single conceptual model, patterns emerge such that catchments will exist in a single characteristic behavior at a particular instance, which would shift with space and time, and with landscape disturbances. Using the conceptual model as a “thinking” tool, we extract case studies from a multidisciplinary literature review—from hydrology, geomorphology, biogeochemistry, and watershed modeling to remote-sensing technology—that correspond to each of the dominant hydrologic–sediment connectivity regimes. Sediment and water interactions in real-world examples through various observational and modeling techniques illustrate the advancements in the spatial and temporal scales of landscape connectivity observations and simulations. The conceptual model and case studies provide a foundation for advancing the understanding and predictive capability of watershed sediment processes at multiple spatiotemporal scales. Plain language summary: Soil erosion and movement across the landscape are closely linked to rain events and flow pathways. Landscape connectivity is a way to consider how soil erosion from different parts of the landscape is connected to the streams. We explore where soil erosion occurs and how eroded soil moves across the landscape through the interaction with rainfall and drainage. The comprehensive understanding of sediment connectivity and its dependence on rainfall characteristics and watershed hydrology may help to inform the effective distribution of conservation funds and management actions to address water pollution from excess sediment.

Frontiers in Water↗

Test and calibration of the Digital World-Wide Standardized Seismograph

During the past decade there has been steady progress in the modernization of the global seismograph network operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN) has been augmented by new stations with advanced instrumentation, including the Seismic Research Observatories (SRO) and the modified High-Gain Long-Period (ASRO) stations. One goal in the modernization effort has been to improve signal resolution in the long-period band. A second goal has been to generate a global digital data base to support contemporary computer-based analysis and research. In 1976, a Panel on Seismograph Networks was established by the Committee on Seismology of the National Academy of Sciences to review progress in network seismology and recommend actions that would lead to an improved global data base for seismology. One recommendation in the Panel report (Engdahl, 1977) called for upgrading selected WWSSN stations by the installation of digital recorders. This was viewed as an economical way of expanding the digital network, which had proven itself to be a very promising new tool for earthquake and explosion research. Funds for the development and assembly of 15 digital recorders were provided to the USGS by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and an ad Inoc panel of scientists was convened by the Committee on Seismology to advise the USGS on the selection of stations to be upgraded and on data recording requirements, A total of 19 digital World-Wide Standardized Seismograph (DWWSS) systems will be operational when all are installed. The additional systems were made available through purchase by the USGS and other organizations; for example, the University of Bergen purchased and installed a DWWSS-type recorder and agreed to furnish the USGS with the data. A list of operational and planned DWWSS network stations is given in Table 1.1. As one might expect, the digital recorder turned out to be somewhat more sophisticated than the original concept. It was decided to record three components of long-period data continuously, three components of intermediateperiod data in an event mode, and the vertical-component short-period data in and event mode (with the capability of adding short-period horizontal channels in the future). Special amplifiers were developed for use with the WWSS seismometers, and a 16-bit fixed-point analog-to-digital converter was chosen to provide increased resolution (as opposed to a 16-bit gain-ranged encoder). The microprocessor-based digital recording systems were developed and assembled at the USGS Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) and ASL-based technicians began installation at WWSSN stations in 1980. The current and proposed locations of the DWWSSN stations, together with other stations in the Global Digital Seismograph Network (GDSN), are shown on the map in Figure 1.1. A system was operated at Albuquerque for about 18 months, serving as a test bed for evaluation studies. Although the network hardware has been available for some time, the installation of the DWWSSN has proceeded slowly. The National Science Foundation supported installation of six stations and the USGS is funding installation of most of the others; however, the network completion date is conjectural because of funding uncertainties. The DWWSSN stations are supported with supplies and technical assistance from ASL (subject to availability of funds). Data recorded on magnetic tapes are mailed to ASL where they are reviewed for quality, then merged with other GDSN station data on the network-day tapes. Hoffman (1980) provides a description of the network-day tape format. Zirbes and Buland (1981) have developed and published user software for reading and interpreting the day tapes. This report will serve several purposes. One is to provide nominal system transfer functions and calibration information that are needed in the analysis of DWWSSN data. A second purpose is to report on an evaluation of operating characteristics (calibration stability, noise levels, and linearity) that may limit the usefulness of the data and to determine if modifications may be needed to improve the data. It is not an exhaustive study in this respect. We continue to depend mostly on data user feedback to point out deficiencies and we solicit comments whenever anomalies are observed in the data.

Open-File Report↗

Annotated bibliography of scientific research relevant to oil and gas reclamation best management practices in the western United States, published from 1969 through 2020

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey has created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for lands in the western United States (U.S.). Oil and gas development on public lands is a long-standing and substantial component of local and regional economies and has expanded in recent decades, particularly on public lands in the western U.S. This development is associated with extensive networks of pipelines, roads, and processing facilities, across which reclamation is Federally mandated following initial well pad development (“interim” reclamation) and once resource extraction is complete (“final” reclamation). Reclamation is critical for recovering ecological services to energy-affected lands, including vegetation productivity, wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and soil stability (for example, resistance to wind and water erosion). However, reclamation of oil and gas affected lands in the western U.S. has proved challenging due to an array of regulatory and environmental factors, such as minimally developed soils, short growing seasons, herbivory, high winds, invasive species, rugged terrain, and in particular, arid climates associated with low total precipitation, high evapotranspiration rates, and highly variable precipitation patterns. We compiled and summarized journal articles, government reports, technical reports, proceedings, and theses and dissertations relevant to oil and gas reclamation. We constrained our search to products published on or before December 31, 2020 but did not limit our search by a starting date; the earliest product resulting from this effort was published in March 1969. Second, we manually scanned the last 15 years (2005-2020) of tables of contents in journals, bibliographies, and proceedings of which we were aware would contain articles highly relevant to this bibliography. We carried out the search for these products through multiple means: (1) performing a structured search of two reference databases, (2) examining articles published since 2005 in highly relevant scientific journals and conference proceedings, and (3) reviewing additional material suggested by authors of products identified in steps 1 and 2. Our search was intentionally broad in order to identify as much relevant work as possible, much of which is professionally applied and tested within the industry of oil and gas reclamation, but which remains unpublished in scientific journals. We refined the initial list of products by removing: (1) duplicates, (2) products not written in English, (3) products that were not relevant to the arid ecosystems of western North America, (4) products that were not released as research, data products, or review articles in journals or as formal scientific reports, and (5) products with data which were not relevant to reclamation of oil and gas-affected lands, or for which the study did not present new data, findings, or syntheses relevant to reclamation of oil and gas-affected lands. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assigned standardized management topics to each. Management topics are intended to aid online searching within the bibliography and are described in more detail in the Methods Section of this report; they include what type of disturbance the product addresses (well pads, mining, pipelines), what aspect of oil and gas reclamation they pertain to (practices, standards, monitoring), what type of data are present in the product (for instance soil or vegetation recovery data), and an indication if the product were from a source other than a published, peer-reviewed outlet (such as dissertations or unpublished professional reports – these are identified as grey literature). The review process for this annotated bibliography included an initial internal colleague review of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original product, and a formal peer-review. Our initial searches resulted in 3,197 total products, of which 290 met our criteria for inclusion. “Reclamation Practices” is by far the management topic most addressed, followed by “Reclamation Monitoring,” for example, products assessing what and how monitoring methods are used to track and measure reclamation outcome. This document may be accessed at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231068 or from the U.S. Geological Survey Publication Warehouse ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/ ). The 1-page product summaries herein will also be used to create a bibliography at https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers that includes links to each original product, where available, and in which subject matter will be searchable by topic, location, and year. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to reclaim landscapes across the western U.S. which have been affected by oil and gas development.

Open-File Report↗

Connectivity of Mojave Desert tortoise populations—Management implications for maintaining a viable recovery network

Executive Summary The historic distribution of Mojave desert tortoises ( Gopherus agassizii ) was relatively continuous across the range, and the importance of tortoise habitat outside of designated tortoise conservation areas (TCAs) to recovery has long been recognized for its contributions to supporting gene flow between TCAs and to minimizing impacts and edge effects within TCAs. However, connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise populations has become a concern because of recent and proposed development of large tracts of desert tortoise habitat that cross, fragment, and surround designated conservation areas. This paper summarizes the underlying concepts and importance of connectivity for Mojave desert tortoise populations by reviewing current information on connectivity and providing information to managers for maintaining or enhancing desert tortoise population connectivity as they consider future proposals for development and management actions. Maintaining an ecological network for the Mojave desert tortoise, with a system of core habitats (TCAs) connected by linkages, is necessary to support demographically viable populations and long-term gene flow within and between TCAs. There are four points for wildlife and land-management agencies to consider when making decisions that could affect connectivity of Mojave desert tortoise populations (for example, in updating actions in resource management plans or amendments that could help maintain or restore functional connectivity in light of the latest information): Management of all desert tortoise habitat for persistence and connectivity . Desert tortoise populations continue to decline within most TCAs, and it is unlikely that trends are better in populations outside protected areas. Fragmentation exacerbates negative population trends by breaking large continuous populations into smaller isolated populations. Connectivity within large populations can enhance resilience to localized disturbances due to rescue by neighboring individuals. In contrast, smaller fragmented populations are resistant to rescue by their isolation and thus could suffer irreversible declines to extirpation from a variety of threats and stochastic events. Enhanced threat reduction to reverse declines within TCAs and to maintain occupied habitat in the surrounding matrix would help reduce the variability in population growth rates and improve the resilience of protected populations even while implementing efforts to improve connectivity. Each TCA has unique strengths and weaknesses regarding its ability to support minimum sustainable populations based on areal extent and its ability to support population increases based on landscape connection with adjacent populations. Considering how proposed projects (inside or outside of TCAs) affect connectivity and the ability of TCAs to support at least 5,000 adult tortoises (the numerical goal for each TCA) could help managers to maintain the resilience of TCAs to population declines. The same project, in an alternative location, could have very different impacts on local and regional populations. For example, within the habitat matrix surrounding TCAs, narrowly delineated corridors may not allow for natural population dynamics if they do not accommodate overlapping home ranges along most of their widths so that tortoises reside, grow, find mates, and produce offspring that can replace older tortoises. In addition, most habitat outside TCAs may receive more surface disturbance than habitat within TCAs. Therefore, managing the entire remaining matrix of desert tortoise habitat for permeability may be better than delineating fixed corridors. These concepts apply, especially given uncertainty about long-term condition of habitat, within and outside of TCAs under a changing climate. Ultimately, questions such as “ What are the critical linkages that need to be protected ?” could be better framed as “ How can we manage the remaining habitat matrix in ways that sustain ecological processes and habitat suitability for special status species ?” Land-management decisions made in the context of the latter question may be more conducive to maintenance of a functional ecological network. Limitations on landscape-level disturbance across habitat managed for the desert tortoise Clearly delineating habitat linkages and differentiating them from non-delineated areas by the uses that are permitted or prohibited within them by specific management guidelines can help achieve functional connectivity. Such guidelines would be most effective if they considered and accounted for all surface disturbances (for example, temporary disturbances such as fiberoptic lines or off-highway vehicle routes, right-of-ways, utility-scale solar development, urbanization) to the extent possible. A weighted framework that varies with the permanence or severity of the disturbance, and can be additive to quantify cumulative effects, could be useful (Xiong, 2020). For example, minor roads can alter tortoise movements independently of other features (Peaden and others, 2017; Hromada and others, 2020), but if the isolated dirt road is accompanied by a powerline that encourages raven predation (Xiong, 2020), then the two features together may be additive. Ignoring minor or temporary disturbance on the landscape could result in a cumulatively large impact that is not explicitly acknowledged (Goble, 2009); therefore, understanding and quantifying all surface disturbance on a given landscape is prudent. In California, the Bureau of Land Management established 0.1–1.0 percent caps on new surface-disturbance for TCAs and mapped linkages that address the issues described in number 1 of this list. Nevada, Utah, and Arizona currently do not have surface-disturbance limits. Limits comparable to those in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP) would be 0.5 percent within TCAs and 1 percent within the linkages modeled by Averill-Murray and others (2013). Limits in some areas of California within the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, such as Ivanpah Valley, are more restrictive, at 0.1 percent. Continuity across the state line in Nevada could be achieved with comparable limits in the adjacent portion of Ivanpah Valley, as well as the Greater Trout Canyon Translocation Area and the Stump Springs Regional Augmentation Site. These more restrictive limits would help protect remaining habitat in the major interstate connectivity pathway through Ivanpah Valley and focal areas of population augmentation that provide additional population connectivity along the western flank of the Spring Mountains. In a recent study that analyzed 13 years of desert tortoise monitoring data, nearly all desert tortoise observations were at sites in which 5 percent or less of the surrounding landscape within 1 kilometer was disturbed (Carter and others, 2020a). To help maintain tortoise habitability and permeability across all other non-conservation-designated tortoise habitat, all surface disturbance could be limited to less than 5-percent development per square kilometer because the 5-percent threshold for development is the point at which tortoise occupation drops precipitously (Carter and others, 2020a). However, although individual desert tortoises were observed at development levels up to 5 percent, we do not know the fitness or reproductive characteristics of these individuals. This level of development also may not allow for long-term persistence of healthy populations that are of adequate size needed for demographic or functional connectivity; therefore, a conservative interpretation suggests that, ideally, development could be lower. Lower development levels would be particularly useful in areas within the upper 5th percentile of connectivity values modeled by Gray and others (2019). Reducing ancillary threats in places where connectivity is restricted to narrow strips of habitat, for example, narrow mountain passes or vegetated strips between solar development, could enhance the functionality of these vulnerable linkages. In such areas, maintaining multiple, redundant linkages could further enhance overall connectivity. Minimization of mortality from roads and maximization of passage under roads . Roads pose a significant threat to the long-term persistence of local tortoise populations, and roads of high traffic volume lead to severe population declines, which ultimately fragments populations farther away from the roads. Three points (a.–c.) pertain to reducing direct mortality of tortoises on the many paved roads that cross desert tortoise habitat and to maintaining a minimal level of permeability across these roads: Tortoise-exclusion fencing tied into culverts, underpasses, overpasses, or other passages below roads in desert tortoise habitat, would limit vehicular mortality of tortoises and provide opportunities for movement across the roads. Installation of shade structures on the habitat side of fences installed in areas with narrow population-depletion zones would limit overheating of tortoises that may pace the fence. Passages below highways could be maintained or retrofitted to ensure safe tortoise access, for example, by filling eroded drop-offs or modifying erosion-control features such as rip-rap to make them safer and more passable for tortoises. Wildlife management agencies could work with transportation departments to develop construction standards that are consistent with hydrologic/erosion management goals, while also incorporating a design and materials consistent with tortoise survival and passage and make the standards widely available. The process would be most effective if the status of passages was regularly monitored and built into management plans. Healthy tortoise populations along fenced highways could be supported by ensuring that land inside tortoise-exclusion fences is not so degraded that it leads to degradation of tortoise habitat outside the exclusion areas. For example, severe invasive plant infestations inside a highway exclusion could cause an increase of invasive plants outside the exclusion area and degrade habitat; therefore, invasive plants inside road rights of way could be mown or treated with herbicide to limit their spread into adjacent tortoise habitat and minimize the risk of these plants carrying wildfires into adjacent habitat. Adaptation of management based on new information . Future research will continue to build upon and refine models related to desert tortoise population connectivity and develop new ones. New models could consider landscape levels of development and be constructed such that they share common foundations to support future synthesis efforts. If model development was undertaken in partnership with entities that are responsible for management of desert tortoise habitat, it would facilitate incorporation of current and future modeling results into their land management decisions. There are specific topics that may be clarified with further evaluation: The effects of climate change on desert tortoise habitat, distribution, and population connectivity; The effects of large-scale fires, especially within repeatedly burned habitat, on desert tortoise distribution and population connectivity; The ability of solar energy facilities or similar developments to support tortoise movement and presence by leaving washes intact; leaving native vegetation intact whenever possible, or if not possible, mowing the site, allowing vegetation to re-sprout, and managing weeds; and allowing tortoises to occupy the sites; and The design and frequency of underpasses necessary to maintain functional demographic and genetic connectivity across linear features, like highways.

Arizona, California, Nevada↗

Global methane budget 2000-2020

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH 4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH 4 emissions compared to those of CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr −1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr −1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr −1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH 4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH 4 yr −1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty ( ∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH 4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH 4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH 4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH 4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH 4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning.

Earth System Science Data↗

Managed aquifer recharge in snow-fed river basins: What, why and how?

What does climate change mean for snow-fed river basins? Climate change poses unique challenges in snow-fed river basins across the western United States because the majority of water supply originates as snow (Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015). In the Sierra Nevada, recent observations include changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt, and shifts in peak streamflow timing (Barnhart et al., 2016; Hatchett et al., 2017; Kim & Jain, 2010; McCabe, Wolock, & Valentin, 2018; Mote, Li, Lettenmaier, Xiao, & Engel, 2018). Such changes upstream alter surface water deliveries downstream, as well as groundwater recharge utilized as both primary and supplemental water supply (Godsey et al., 2014; Harpold, 2016; Jasechko et al., 2014). basin where snowmelt runoff produces substantial water supply to meet diverse agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the Carson Valley, a rich agricultural region (40,000 acres) that grows primarily alfalfa hay. The majority of irrigators rely on surface water delivered through a network of earthen ditches constructed in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Flow through these earthen networks and the practice of flood irrigation contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Because no upstream surface water reservoirs exist, snowpack that accumulates through winter and melts slowly through spring has acted as a “natural” reservoir, providing ample supply through the summer irrigati agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the season. Some irrigators have permitted access to supplemental groundwater that is useful during periods of drought for augmenting shortfalls in surface water delivery. Groundwater is the primary source of municipal and industrial water supply for surrounding communities (e.g., Carson City, Minden, Gardnerville, Dayton). Across the basin, water use is highly regulated through federal, tribal, state and local water-sharing agreements based on prior appropriation doctrine (Wilds, 2014). Carson River surface water allocations follow the Alpine Decree, initiated by the United States Department of Interior in 1925 and signed into law in 1980, following 55 years of litigation, to adjudicate surface water rights to individual parties (NDWP, 1999). The Alpine Decree acknowledges return flows to lower river segments, and thus each river segment is distributed autonomously. This means that the most junior water right on an upper segment can be fulfilled before considering the most senior water right on a lower segment. Ultimately, the ruling is at the discretion of the Federal Water Master to satisfy the needs of each water right Downstream of Carson Valley, surface water flows are stored in Lahontan Reservoir, the nation’s first desert reclamation project (est. 1906), where releases are managed to meet the Newland’s Project irrigation water demand and for environmental use on the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Flows from the Carson River are supplemented through diversions from the Truckee River via the Truckee Canal, resulting in a trans-basin water supply system. How is the Water for the Seasons research program informing snow-fed river basin communities? In the Truckee-Carson River System, researchers and local water managers are working together to assess climate change impacts to water supply and explore how model simulations can produce useful information to support local climate adaptation. Twelve key water managers represent agricultural, environmental, urban and regulatory water-use communities, and bring to the table diverse input and perspectives on how to adapt to climate change. Hydrologists use this input to craft scenarios and simulations that meet the information needs of local water managers. Biannual workshops provide an opportunity for information exchange, where researchers and key water managers generate new knowledge of river system function. That is, researchers share results of models that examine the physical potential, and managers validate the on-the-ground potential, further informing the research process. Coincident to this research program, the region faced a prolonged drought period (2012-2016) with historically low snowpack, followed by a historic wet year (2017) that brought winter and spring flooding as a result of atmospheric river storm events (Sterle et al., 2019). For the Carson River, an important observation made by managers was that peak streamflow that had traditionally coincided with peak irrigation demands, had shifted to earlier in the spring, with summer baseflow also decreasing (Sterle & Singletary, 2017). Managers shared with researchers concerns over potential future impacts that changing snowpack will have on surface water deliveries and reliance on groundwater, as the region’s population and economy continue to grow. During workshops that occurred over this period, local water managers and researchers discussed ways to evaluate water distribution and use that honors the existing legal framework and accounts for changing snowpack regimes (amount, rain versus snow, timing). In response to managers growing interest, researchers introduced the concept of managed aquifer recharge as one potential strategy to adapt and enhance regional water sustainability. What is managed aquifer recharge? Simply stated, managed aquifer recharge is the intentional recharge of structures to spread water over agricultural lands, allowing water to naturally infiltrate into the groundwater system (Bouwer, 1999; Niswonger et al., 2017). The latter may occur during the irrigation season by applying excess water, or during the nonirrigation season when evapotranspiration losses are low. Figure 2 illustrates managed aquifer recharge in a snow-fed river basin, where streamflow generated from snowmelt runoff is diverted to agricultural lands to recharge the aquifer. Such flood irrigation practices, including water delivery through earthen ditch networks, provide incidental but significant aquifer recharge through seepage and deep drainage beneath fields (Niswonger, Allander, & Jeton, 2014). The effects of managed aquifer recharge can vary depending on the location and intensity of practice. For example, implementing managed aquifer recharge water into the groundwater system (Dillon, 2009). This differs from the incidental recharge that may occur as part of normal irrigation practices. Managed recharge may occur by injection into the aquifer through existingwells, or by using existing conveyance adjacent to/along the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance late-season instream flows due to increased return flows, resulting in greater downstream deliveries as well as improving ecological conditions (Niswonger et al., 2017). Implementing managed aquifer recharge away from the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance groundwater supply which is increasingly relied upon during surface water shortage (Green et al., 2011), by storing water in available aquifer space in the deep aquifer. At the basin scale, managed aquifer recharge may lead to regional groundwater sustainability. Is the Carson River Basin a candidate for managed aquifer recharge? The physical limitations to implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin hinges on three key factors. The first factor relates to the physical connectivity between rivers and streams, and the irrigation delivery network of canals and ditches that divert water to agricultural lands (Niswonger et al., 2017). In the Carson River Basin the mechanisms for getting water to fields is already in place. Thus, intentionally routing high flows that occur in wet years through this system during the nonirrigation season would mimic what occurs naturally during the irrigation season. The second factor relates to the occurrence of atmospheric river storm events that deliver large amounts of precipitation to the region, much greater than average (Dettinger et al., 2015). With increased frequency and intensity projected under a warmer climate, such events have the potential to produce excess water over short periods of time that could be stored through mechanisms such as managed aquifer recharge (Niswonger et al., 2017). The third factor relates to the change in snowpack accumulation and shifts in snowmelt timing observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Godsey et al., 2014; Mote et al., 2018). Having a mechanism in place to maximize use of earlier snowmelt and shifts in streamflow timing could be advantageous and enhance regional groundwater sustainability. As part of the Water for the Seasons study, a hypothetical scenario was developed to determine the feasibility of managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin, assuming no legal constraints. During “wet” or above-average water years, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley would divert high flows and spread water over agricultural lands during the nonirrigation season. Assuming flows are abundant and “early,” diversions would begin prior to the growing season, when water would otherwise flow downstream to the Lahontan Reservoir. During “dry” years or drought periods, when surface water availability is less, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley could augment surface water shortages with groundwater, allowing available surface water flows to flow downstream. Researchers hypothesize the amount of water has the potential to boost baseflow to support environmental instream flows, for example. What concerns have local water managers expressed? The hypothetical managed aquifer recharge scenario was presented to water managers in a workshop setting. Presentations included an overview of the hydrologic and operations modeling tools used to evaluate managed aquifer recharge by simulating the timing and distribution of water in the upper watershed. Specifically, in the Upper Carson Valley, a hydrologic model (GSFLOW) simulates streamflow driven by snowmelt, and surface and groundwater interactions, while a river basin operations model (MODSIM) allocates water according to the prior appropriation doctrine in the basin (see Figure 1) (Morway, Niswonger, & Triana, 2016; Niswonger et al., 2017). Integrating these two modeling tools advances the evaluation of climate impacts on water availability in agricultural communities and the resulting impacts of alternative management strategies (Morway et al., 2016). When asked about the viability of managed aquifer recharge, the perspectives of 11 managers varied (Figure 3). Regardless of rating, all managers questioned, “How would thisreally work?” Several managers questioned whether models could simulate the connectivity between surface and groundwater to accurately quantify changes to instream flow. Others raised concerns that managed aquifer recharge violates the Alpine Decree and Nevada Water Law. Still others requested researchers consider alternatives that could work within the confines of current (2019) water law. Managers posed specific questions that should be considered when evaluating the potential for managed aquifer recharge. For example: What triggers implementation of managed aquifer recharge?How “high” or “low” must annual flows be to initiate managed aquifer recharge? When in the water year is this determined? Where exactly in the Carson Valley is managed aquiferre charge possible? For example, what areas away from the floodplain could ensure long-term storage? Can model simulations quantify potential benefits and consequences system-wide?Would this information support decision-making, such as permitting of additional supplemental groundwater rights? How are researchers going to address managers’ research questions? Managers’ perspectives help to validate the on-the-ground potential of particular strategies and further refine alternative management scenarios. For example, understanding that managers are concerned with oversaturated fields helps researchers to define conditions in the model, such as what defines a wet versus “too” wet type of year and where to focus irrigation for managed aquifer recharge. Incorporating these nuances provides more accurate quantification of the potential benefits and consequences for users across the basin. Modeling is underway to simulate managed aquifer recharge scenarios and explore basin-wide implications. Researchers and local water managers will convene to collaboratively review results and further assess whether this or other strategies could work under the confines of existing water law. Subsequent fact sheets will present these findings.

Nevada↗