Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Historical Biology”

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.

579 records · Page 33Linked to original sources
USGS2000

Cassin's Sparrow (Aimophila cassinii) status assessment and conservation plan

Executive Summary Cassin’s Sparrow ( Aimophila cassinii ) is a grassland species endemic to the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. Its behavior and ecology have been shaped by these arid ecosystems and the health of its populations is dependent on the availability of grasslands that contain a shrub component. Populations of many grassland birds have experienced dramatic declines due to the loss and deterioration of grassland habitats, and there has been concern about the trends in Cassin’s Sparrow populations. Without better information about population trends, ecology, and effects of management activities, and without a stronger emphasis on grassland management, Cassin’s Sparrows and other grassland species may continue to experience declines. Little information exists about historic Cassin’s Sparrow population levels, and current population estimates for states in the breeding range are unknown. Significant survey-wide declines are documented by the Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) between 1966 and 1996. However, closer examination of these data suggest that the survey-wide trends are driven by population declines in the Edwards Plateau and South Texas Brushlands in Texas. No other areas within the core of its range or on the periphery show consistent, significant trends. In fact, there is consensus that in the core of its range in New Mexico Cassin’s Sparrow remains the most abundant breeding bird in grasslands with a shrub component. Understanding of population patterns in this species is complicated by large yearly fluctuations in distribution and numbers at any particular location, apparently in response to precipitation. This is particularly obvious in the periphery of its range. These dramatic fluctuations have hampered a clear assessment of population status, and our understanding has been confounded by the fact that the timing of BBS data collection does not always coincide with the peak breeding season of this species. The lack of information about the Cassin’s Sparrow’s status, ecology, and response to management activities, and the apparent declines indicated by BBS data, have been cause for concern. Habitat disturbance and degradation, mainly due to grazing and rangeland management practices such as shrub control, fire management, and planting of exotics, pose threats to Cassin’s Sparrow populations, as does habitat conversion through suburban development and agriculture. There is evidence that heavy grazing negatively affects populations, but the information is primarily available from the southwestern portion of its range (Arizona) and may not be applicable throughout the Cassin’s Sparrow’s entire range. Any management practice that results in complete removal of the shrub component, or loss of grass cover and an increase in shrub density beyond a threshold preferred by the species, also poses a threat. Lack of standardized or coordinated studies of Cassin’s Sparrow ecology and response to management practices in different geographic portions of its range has made it difficult to assess its status and make specific management recommendations. Limited data are available from the wintering grounds, and from its range (both breeding and wintering) in Mexico. The greatest needs are for determining of the causes of significant declines where they occur, determining of the effects of various management activities on Cassin’s Sparrow throughout its range, improved assessments of population and trends, and a better understanding of the annual population and distribution dynamics of this species, which shows such dramatic annual distributional fluctuations.

Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,Texas, New Mex↗
USGS2013

Aquatic assessment of the Pike Hill Copper Mine Superfund site, Corinth, Vermont

The Pike Hill Copper Mine Superfund site in Corinth, Orange County, Vermont, includes the Eureka, Union, and Smith mines along with areas of downstream aquatic ecosystem impairment. The site was placed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) National Priorities List in 2004. The mines, which operated from about 1847 to 1919, contain underground workings, foundations from historical structures, several waste-rock piles, and some flotation tailings. The mine site is drained to the northeast by Pike Hill Brook, which includes several wetland areas, and to the southeast by an unnamed tributary that flows to the south and enters Cookville Brook. Both brooks eventually drain into the Waits River, which flows into the Connecticut River. The aquatic ecosystem at the site was assessed using a variety of approaches that investigated surface-water quality, sediment quality, and various ecological indicators of stream-ecosystem health. The degradation of surface-water quality is caused by elevated concentrations of copper, and to a lesser extent cadmium, with localized effects caused by aluminum, iron, and zinc. Copper concentrations in surface waters reached or exceeded the USEPA national recommended chronic water-quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life in all of the Pike Hill Brook sampling locations except for the location farthest downstream, in half of the locations sampled in the tributary to Cookville Brook, and in about half of the locations in one wetland area located in Pike Hill Brook. Most of these same locations also contained concentrations of cadmium that exceeded the chronic water-quality criteria. In contrast, surface waters at background sampling locations were below these criteria for copper and cadmium. Comparison of hardness-based and Biotic Ligand Model (BLM)-based criteria for copper yields similar results with respect to the extent or number of stations impaired for surface waters in the affected area. However, the BLM-based criteria are commonly lower values than the hardness-based criteria and thus suggest a greater degree or magnitude of impairment at the sampling locations. The riffle-habitat benthic invertebrate richness and abundance data correlate strongly with the extent of impact based on water quality for both brooks. Similarly, the fish community assessments document degraded conditions throughout most of Pike Hill Brook, whereas the data for the tributary to Cookville Brook suggest less degradation to this brook. The sediment environment shows similar extents of impairment to the surface-water environment, with most sampling locations in Pike Hill Brook, including the wetland areas, and the tributary to Cookville Brook affected. Sediment impairment is caused by elevated copper concentrations, although localized degradation due to elevated cadmium and zinc concentrations was documented on the basis of exceedances of probable effects concentrations (PECs). In contrast to impairment determined by exceedances of PECs, equilibrium-partitioning sediment benchmarks (based on simultaneously extracted metals, acid volatile sulfides, and total organic carbon) predict no toxic effects in sediments at the background locations and uncertain toxic effects throughout Pike Hill Brook and the tributary to Cookville Brook, with the exception of the most downstream Cookville Brook location, which indicated no toxic effects. Acute laboratory toxicity testing using the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus dilutus on pore waters extracted from sediment in situ indicate impairment (based on tests with H. azteca ) at only one location in Pike Hill Brook and no impairment in the tributary to Cookville Brook. Chronic laboratory sediment toxicity testing using H. azteca and C. dilutus indicated toxicity in Pike Hill Brook at several locations in the lower reach and two locations in the tributary to Cookville Brook. Toxicity was not indicated for either species in sediment from the most acidic metal-rich location, likely due to the low lability of copper in that sediment, as indicated by a low proportion of extractable copper (simultaneously extracted metal (SEM) copper only 5 percent of total copper) and due to the flushing of acidic metal-rich pore water from experimental chambers as overlying test water was introduced before and replaced periodically during the toxicity tests. Depositional habitat invertebrate richness and abundance data generally agreed with the results of toxicity tests and with the extent of impact in the watersheds on the basis of sediment and pore waters. The information was used to develop an overall assessment of the impact of mine drainage on the aquatic system downstream from the Pike Hill copper mines. Most of Pike Hill Brook, including several wetland areas that are all downstream from the Eureka and Union mines, was found to be impaired on the basis of water-quality data and biological assessments of fish or benthic invertebrate communities. In contrast, only one location in the tributary to Cookville Brook, downstream from the Smith mine, is definitively impaired. The biological community begins to recover at the most downstream locations in both brooks due to natural attenuation from mixing with unimpaired streams. On the basis of water quality and biological assessment, the reference locations were of good quality. The sediment toxicity, chemistry, and aquatic community survey data suggest that the sediments could be a source of toxicity in Pike Hill Brook and the tributary to Cookville Brook. On the basis of water quality, sediment quality, and biologic communities, the impacts of mine drainage on the aquatic ecosystem health of the watersheds in the study area are generally consistent with the toxicity suggested from laboratory toxicity testing on pore water and sediments.

Vermont↗
USGS2021

Toward improved decision-support tools for Delta Smelt management actions

The Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP) has endorsed a goal of reversing the recent downward trajectory of the Delta Smelt population within 5-10 generations, with the long-term aim of establishing a self-sustaining population. An ambitious agenda of management actions is planned, and more management actions are being considered. This White Paper furthers one of the recommendations in the 2019 Delta Smelt Science Plan – the need to predict the potential ecological effects of taking a management action. Existing statistical models can be highly informative in assessing the response of Delta Smelt to changing system conditions and management actions. However, management actions can shift or alter conditions in ways that models based on analysis of historical data may not be able to represent, and short-term or localized effects may be missed with models designed to assess effects at the population level. Decision support tools (DSTs) are computer-based tools developed to assist decision-making, often combining computationally intensive analysis and spatial mapping of environmental relationships. DSTs can be used in planning processes that evaluate an array of actions, such as in Structured Decision Making (SDM), where DSTs are needed to compare among alternatives. DSTs can also be used to explore the potential effects of different approaches to implementing management actions. The goal of this White Paper is to identify plausible options for DSTs that could be developed for future use to evaluate management actions that seek to either reverse the decline of Delta Smelt or minimize or mitigate the effects of other water management actions. Different types of management actions lead to different needs for DSTs. This White Paper was developed using three types of actions currently being considered to enhance the Delta Smelt population: Supplementation with Hatchery Fish, Summer-Fall Habitat, and Food Enhancement actions. These three management actions target different parts of the estuary and different processes, with a variety of possible metrics to gauge performance. Three DSTs are proposed that collectively address management questions related to the management actions considered, with each requiring a slightly different set of processes to be included and producing an array of outputs at varying spatial and temporal scales: DST 1. Modeling Fish Movement, Survival, and Reproduction Across Their Range. This DST can address management questions that require information about Delta Smelt spatial distribution and movement. • DST 1 could be used to compare conditions with and without management actions in place, how the management action performs among different types of water years (with varied flow and associated abiotic conditions), and to assess relative change with different variations and strategies of the management actions. • DST 2. Changes in Habitat Conditions and Delta Smelt Response. This DST is intended to evaluate combinations of conditions that are considered to provide suitable habitat for Delta Smelt, and Delta Smelt response. Delta Smelt habitat is generally described as open water with low salinity (0 to 6), turbidity of at least 12 NTU, suitable temperature conditions, and sufficient food availability to support growth. • DST 3. Regional Effects of Food Subsidy. This DSTs seeks to evaluate effectiveness of food enhancement actions by providing information on responses of the immediate targets of the action (i.e., phytoplankton or zooplankton) and tracing those to projected growth responses of Delta Smelt. There is not a single DST that adequately addresses management questions relevant to all management actions, although there is some overlap in the management questions each of the three DSTs can address. For each of the DSTs a substantial foundation of models and approaches already exists and modeling has already been applied to several of the management actions described. However, a number of outstanding issues remain for further development of the proposed DSTs. These are summarized in this White Paper together with potential approaches that could be applied or tested. Some components for the DSTs are already available and thus development could be relatively easy. However, for several of the topics identified there are gaps in knowledge that currently limit formulation of model structure and process representations. This presents challenges to readily incorporate some needed mechanisms into the models. Eleven next steps, aligned with relevant DSTs, are outlined. The next steps vary in their complexity or technical ‘lift’ required. Many build on existing work, or methods and approaches that have already been developed or are underway, while others require additional thinking to establish a viable approach. Some interim utility for decisions could be gained during initial development of the DSTs with further features added over time. Development of a DST requires engagement of both managers and scientists. Identifying the outputs and resolution needed for management purposes early in development of any DST is essential for effective pursuit of next steps and suitable approaches to address challenges. Dialog between managers and technical experts also informs what process-based simulation can do, and what tradeoffs are acceptable to meet a given purpose. To further develop the DSTs outlined here for application in the estuary requires: - Engagement of a committed group of technical experts with appropriate expertise. - The development of a coordinated workplan including appropriate project management and tracking. - Dialog between potential users (i.e., managers and policy makers) and technical experts. - Resources to pursue DST development including personnel and computational resources. This White Paper demonstrates the potential for moving toward DSTs for a variety of management actions in support of Delta Smelt that include mechanistic representations of physical and biological processes. Through focused effort from technical experts, managers and policy makers, DSTs can be developed to provide quantitative predictions of management effects on the ecosystem, targeting the changes the management actions seek to achieve, how these effects compare to ambient conditions, and how the effects vary among water year types or with timing and location of actions. Importantly, solid foundations exist which can be leveraged, refined, and built upon to specifically inform current and future management decisions.

White Paper↗