SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Natural Resources”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 667 records · Page 37Linked to original sources

USGS2007

Klamath Basin: A watershed approach to support habitat restoration, species recovery, and water resource planning

Water allocation among human and natural resource uses in the American West is challenging. Western rivers have been largely managed for hydropower, irrigation, drinking water, and navigation. Today land and water use practices have gained importance, particularly as aging dams are faced with re-licensing requirements and provisions of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. Rising demand for scarce water heightens the need for scientific research to predict consequences of management actions on habitats, human resource use, and fish and wildlife. Climate change, introduction of invasive species, or restoration of fish passage can have large, landscape-scaled consequences - research must expand to encompass the appropriate scale and by applying multiple scientific disciplines to complex ecosystem challenges improve the adaptive management framework for decision-making.

Oregon; California↗

USGS2018

Current research in land, water, and agroecosystems: ASABE journals 2017 year in review

This article highlights current research into land and water resources, agroecosystems, and agricultural production systems published by the Natural Resources and Environmental Systems (NRES) community of ASABE journals (Transactions of the ASABE and Applied Engineering in Agriculture) in 2017. This article reviews the context, scope, and key results of the published articles and perhaps more importantly recommends areas for increased research attention. Experimental and modeling advances were described in hydrology, agroecosystems, climate-change effects, soil erosion, irrigation, drainage, forest resources, livestock systems, natural treatment systems, international water issues, and water quality topic areas. Three special collections were published (International Watershed Technology, Crop Modeling to Optimize Water Use, and Advances in Drainage). Other focal areas included 14 articles relating to livestock waste management, 13 concerning irrigated agricultural systems, 8 addressing climate change effects on land and water resources, and 16 on various aspects of soil erosion measurement and modeling. Building on the articles reviewed from 2017 and toward a vision of future agroecosystems research, the NRES community of ASABE journals strives to grow its role in making new knowledge accessible to sustain agricultural and natural systems in a changing world. In this vane, recommendations for future research direction are discussed with an emphasis on increased application of remote sensing data to agroecosystems research, improved assessment of agroecosystem resiliency and vulnerability to land and climate change, development of integrated models of agroecosystem services, meeting stubborn water management challenges in agricultural production systems, and focusing on publishing fully reproducible model results.

Transactions of the ASABE↗

USGS2014

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Montana

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Montana, elevation data are critical for flood risk management, infrastructure and construction management, agriculture and precision farming, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, natural resources conservation, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States and quality level 5 ifsar data for Alaska with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The new 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Montana↗

USGS2016

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Hawaii

Elevation data are essential to a broad range of applications, including forest resources management, wildlife and habitat management, national security, recreation, and many others. For the State of Hawaii, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, flood risk management, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, natural resources conservation, coastal zone management, and other business uses. Today, high-density light detection and ranging (lidar) data are the primary sources for deriving elevation models and other datasets. Federal, State, Tribal, U.S. territorial, and local agencies work in partnership to (1) replace data that are older and of lower quality and (2) provide coverage where publicly accessible data do not exist. A joint goal of State and Federal partners is to acquire consistent, statewide coverage to support existing and emerging applications enabled by lidar data. The National Enhanced Elevation Assessment evaluated multiple elevation data acquisition options to determine the optimal data quality and data replacement cycle relative to cost to meet the identified requirements of the user community. The evaluation demonstrated that lidar acquisition at quality level 2 for the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and selected U.S. territories, and quality level 5 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR) data for Alaska, all with a 6- to 10-year acquisition cycle, provided the highest benefit/cost ratios. The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) initiative selected an 8-year acquisition cycle for the respective quality levels. 3DEP, managed by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–16 lead agency for terrestrial elevation data, responds to the growing need for high-quality topographic data and a wide range of other three-dimensional (3D) representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2016

Kriging and local polynomial methods for blending satellite-derived and gauge precipitation estimates to support hydrologic early warning systems

Robust estimates of precipitation in space and time are important for efficient natural resource management and for mitigating natural hazards. This is particularly true in regions with developing infrastructure and regions that are frequently exposed to extreme events. Gauge observations of rainfall are sparse but capture the precipitation process with high fidelity. Due to its high resolution and complete spatial coverage, satellite-derived rainfall data are an attractive alternative in data-sparse regions and are often used to support hydrometeorological early warning systems. Satellite-derived precipitation data, however, tend to underrepresent extreme precipitation events. Thus, it is often desirable to blend spatially extensive satellite-derived rainfall estimates with high-fidelity rain gauge observations to obtain more accurate precipitation estimates. In this research, we use two different methods, namely, ordinary kriging and κ-nearest neighbor local polynomials, to blend rain gauge observations with the Climate Hazards Group Infrared Precipitation satellite-derived precipitation estimates in data-sparse Central America and Colombia. The utility of these methods in producing blended precipitation estimates at pentadal (five-day) and monthly time scales is demonstrated. We find that these blending methods significantly improve the satellite-derived estimates and are competitive in their ability to capture extreme precipitation.

IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing↗

USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2019

Economic Impacts of Restoration in National Parks

The National Park Service’s (NPS) Resource Protection Branch (RPB) works with parks under the authority of the System Unit Resource Protection Act (SURPA) and the Oil Pollution Act, among others, to conduct damage assessment and restoration activities for NPS resources that have been injured. Funds used for restoration support jobs in local economies across the Nation. This report demonstrates the economic impacts associated with RPB-administered restoration projects through an analysis of small-scale (less than $1,000,000 spent per project) and large-scale (more than $1,000,000 spent per project) projects. Using a national-level economic input-output model, direct and secondary jobyears, labor income, value added, and total economic output were estimated for a sample of restoration projects; impacts from these sampled projects were used to estimate average economicimpacts-per-million-dollars-spent on RPB restoration. In 2017 RPB administered 49 small-scale projects; expenditures for these projects ranged in cost from $200 to $800,000 and totaled $1,686,000 ($923,000 in cultural resource projects, $618,000 in natural resource projects, and $145,000 in facilities projects). Based on the economic-impacts-per million estimates, small-scale RPB projects were found to support an estimated total of 29 job-years, $1,963,000 in labor income, $2,690,000 in value added, and $4,458,000 in total economic output within the national economy in 2017. Economic impacts were also calculated for two large-scale projects: one a $3,900,000 (2017$) hillside stabilization project and the other a $5,574,000 (2017$) ferries (two) fabrication project.

Report↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗

USGS2014

Getting the message across: using ecological integrity to communicate with resource managers

This chapter describes and illustrates how concepts of ecological integrity, thresholds, and reference conditions can be integrated into a research and monitoring framework for natural resource management. Ecological integrity has been defined as a measure of the composition, structure, and function of an ecosystem in relation to the system’s natural or historical range of variation, as well as perturbations caused by natural or anthropogenic agents of change. Using ecological integrity to communicate with managers requires five steps, often implemented iteratively: (1) document the scale of the project and the current conceptual understanding and reference conditions of the ecosystem, (2) select appropriate metrics representing integrity, (3) define externally verified assessment points (metric values that signify an ecological change or need for management action) for the metrics, (4) collect data and calculate metric scores, and (5) summarize the status of the ecosystem using a variety of reporting methods. While we present the steps linearly for conceptual clarity, actual implementation of this approach may require addressing the steps in a different order or revisiting steps (such as metric selection) multiple times as data are collected. Knowledge of relevant ecological thresholds is important when metrics are selected, because thresholds identify where small changes in an environmental driver produce large responses in the ecosystem. Metrics with thresholds at or just beyond the limits of a system’s range of natural variability can be excellent, since moving beyond the normal range produces a marked change in their values. Alternatively, metrics with thresholds within but near the edge of the range of natural variability can serve as harbingers of potential change. Identifying thresholds also contributes to decisions about selection of assessment points. In particular, if there is a significant resistance to perturbation in an ecosystem, with threshold behavior not occurring until well beyond the historical range of variation, this may provide a scientific basis for shifting an ecological assessment point beyond the historical range. We present two case studies using ongoing monitoring by the US National Park Service Vital Signs program that illustrate the use of an ecological integrity approach to communicate ecosystem status to resource managers. The Wetland Ecological Integrity in Rocky Mountain National Park case study uses an analytical approach that specifically incorporates threshold detection into the process of establishing assessment points. The Forest Ecological Integrity of Northeastern National Parks case study describes a method for reporting ecological integrity to resource managers and other decision makers. We believe our approach has the potential for wide applicability for natural resource management.

Book chapter↗

USGS2002

Strategic vision for the U. S. Geological Survey in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region, 2001-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) strategic vision for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region is that of a healthy ecosystem, whose ecological integrity and economic health are nurtured and sustained through sound resource-management decisions based on reliable, timely, and objective scientific information and data. The USGS is a leader in providing reliable, relevant, timely, and objective scientific data and information at local, statewide, regional, national, and international scales to assist in the management and restoration of the natural resources in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region. The mission of the USGS in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region is to provide natural science information to the broad community of policymakers, resource managers, regulators, scientists, and private citizens who contribute to informed decisions concerning natural-resource management practices and ecosystem quality and integrity. The strategic vision for the USGS in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region is a plan to address complex issues that require integrated natural-science information. The strategic vision describes how the USGS will coordinate existing programs and draw upon the strengths of the entire organization. It provides the framework for long-term coordination and integration of USGS Programs and activities over the next decade (2001-10). The strategic vision describes the role of the USGS in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Region, the coordination of activities within and outside the Bureau and Department of Interior, and interactions between the USGS and its cooperators, partners, and stakeholders in the Region.

Great Lakes-St. Lawrence region↗

USGS2026

Regional conservation planning tool: A spreadsheet model to support spatial prioritization and resource allocation decisions

Prioritization is a central component of natural resource management because conservation needs routinely exceed available resources. Waterfowl and wetland conservation programs in North America are at the forefront of landscape-scale prioritization and transboundary management decisions due to the migratory nature of ducks, geese, and swans. The growing availability of geographic information systems (GIS) and geospatial technologies has accelerated the development of multi-objective landscape prioritization models, including applications of structured decision making and multi-criteria decision analysis to spatial planning for waterfowl and wetlands at the continental scale. However, regional managers and conservationists could benefit from flexibility in downscaling continental tools, selecting objectives, and assigning weights for rapid production of spatial prioritization models at smaller spatial scales without extensive computer coding or GIS analysis. We developed a spatial value model that prioritizes landscapes at sub-continental scales (e.g., states and provinces, bird conservation regions, etc.) and provides flexibility for users to select waterfowl conservation objectives of interest and weights. Our model can be used for direct downscaling of an existing continental geospatial model or further customized with region-specific geospatial data. We illustrate how regional prioritization can vary with the spatial scale selected by the user. The spatial value modeling framework and the downscaling tool presented here could increase the use of multi-criteria decision analysis and linear value modeling in spatial landscape prioritization, while also providing flexibility for selecting scales, objectives, and weights. Our spreadsheet tool was developed specifically for use by regional biologists, conservationists, and managers and does not require knowledge of GIS software (although results can be exported from the spreadsheet for spatial analysis using GIS). Together, the model outputs and the accompanying spreadsheet tool provide a bridge between continental waterfowl conservation and regional implementation, enabling rapid, stakeholder-driven, value-explicit prioritization.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2014

Baseline groundwater quality from 34 wells in Wayne County, Pennsylvania, 2011 and 2013

Wayne County, Pennsylvania, is underlain by the Marcellus Shale, which currently (2014) is being developed elsewhere in Pennsylvania for natural gas. All residents of largely rural Wayne County rely on groundwater for water supply, primarily from bedrock aquifers (shales and sandstones). This study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey (Pennsylvania Geological Survey), provides a groundwater-quality baseline for Wayne County prior to development of the natural gas resource in the Marcellus Shale. Selected wells completed in the Devonian-age Catskill Formation, undifferentiated; the Poplar Gap and Packerton Members of the Catskill Formation, undivided; and the Long Run and Walcksville Members of the Catskill Formation, undivided, were sampled. Water samples were collected once from 34 domestic wells during August 2011 and August and September 2013 and analyzed to characterize their physical and chemical quality. Samples were analyzed for 45 constituents and properties, including nutrients, major ions, metals and trace elements, radioactivity, and dissolved gases, including methane and radon-222. The quality of the sampled groundwater was generally within U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) drinking-water standards, although in some samples, the concentrations of a few constituents exceeded USEPA drinking-water standards and health advisories. The pH of water samples ranged from 5.5 to 9.3 with a median of 7.0. The pH was outside the USEPA secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) range of 6.5 to 8.5 in water samples from 14 of the 34 wells (41 percent). Eleven samples had a pH less than 6.5, and three samples had a pH greater than 8.5. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 0.2 to 11.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L) with a median of 4.7 mg/L. The dissolved oxygen concentration was less than 1 mg/L in water samples from 6 wells; 5 of these 6 water samples had a pH greater than 7.7. Concentrations of dissolved methane ranged from less than 0.00006 to 3.3 mg/L. Methane was detectable in 22 of the 34 wells sampled (65 percent). Methane concentrations were greatest in the 5 samples with pH of 7.8 or higher, ranging from 0.040 to 3.3 mg/L. These samples also had among the lowest concentrations of dissolved oxygen. Three water samples, which had sufficient dissolved methane concentrations (greater than 0.9 mg/L), were analyzed for isotopes of carbon and hydrogen in the methane. The isotopic ratio values fell within (two samples) or close to (one sample) the range for a thermogenic natural gas source. The total dissolved solids concentration ranged from 33 to 346 mg/L; the median concentration was 126 mg/L. Sodium concentrations ranged from 1.07 to 116 mg/L; the median concentration was 9.42 mg/L. The sodium concentration exceeded the USEPA health advisory for sodium of 20 mg/L in water samples from 7 of the 34 wells (21 percent). Concentrations of dissolved arsenic ranged from less than 0.06 to 21.8 micrograms per liter (µg/L); the median concentration was 0.59 µg/L. Water samples from 2 of the 34 wells (6 percent) exceeded the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 µg/L for arsenic. Concentrations of dissolved manganese ranged from less than 0.15 to 61.5 µg/L; the median concentration was 0.42 µg/L. A water sample from 1 of the 34 wells (3 percent) exceeded the USEPA SMCL of 50 µg/L for manganese; the concentration was less than the USEPA lifetime health advisory of 300 µg/L for manganese. Activities of radon-222 in water from the 34 sampled wells ranged from 110 to 7,180 picocuries per liter (pCi/L); the median activity was 2,105 pCi/L. Water samples from 33 of the 34 wells (97 percent) exceeded the proposed USEPA MCL of 300 pCi/L, and 4 water samples (12 percent) exceeded the USEPA proposed alternative MCL of 4,000 pCi/L for radon-222. Differences in groundwater chemistry were related to pH. Water with a pH greater than 7.6 generally had low dissolved oxygen concentrations, indicating reducing conditions in the aquifer. These high pH waters also had relatively elevated concentrations of methane, arsenic, boron, bromide, fluoride, lithium, and sodium but low concentrations of copper, nickel, and zinc. Water samples with a pH greater than 7.8 had methane concentrations equal to or greater than 0.04 mg/L.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2007

Tag return models allowing for harvest and catch and release: Evidence of environmental and management impacts on striped bass fishing and natural mortality rates

Catch-and-release fisheries have become very important in the management of overexploited recreational fish stocks. Tag return studies, where the tag is removed regardless of fish disposition, have been used to assess the effectiveness of restoration efforts for these fisheries. We extend the instantaneous rate formulation of tag return models to allow for catch and release as well as harvest. The key point of our methods is that, given an estimate of the tag reporting rate, the fishing mortality rate (F) is separated into two components: the mortality on harvested fish and the "mortality" on tags (because the lags are removed) of fish released alive. The total fishing mortality rate for untagged fish is the sum of the Fs due to harvest and hooking mortality suffered by fish released alive. Natural mortality rates can also be estimated. Both age-independent models and age-dependent models are constructed, and the age-dependent models are illustrated by application to data from a study of striped bass Morone saxatilis in Chesapeake Bay from 1991 to 2003 by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. By fitting models of the natural mortality rate with limited age and year dependence, we demonstrate an overall decrease in natural mortality rates as fish age and provide evidence of an increase in natural mortality beginning in the late 1990s, when an outbreak of the disease mycobacteriosis is thought to have begun. Our results indicate that fishing mortality is age dependent; selectivity increases up to age 6, when fish appear to be fully recruited to the fishery. There is also evidence of an increase in fishing mortality since 1995, when regulations were relaxed. ?? Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2007.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management↗

USGS2008

Estimating the Effects of Conversion of Agricultural Land to Urban Land on Deep Percolation of Irrigation Water in the Grand Valley, Western Colorado

The conversion of agricultural land to urban residential land is associated with rapid population growth in the Grand Valley of western Colorado. Information regarding the effects of this land-use conversion on deep percolation, irrigation-water application, and associated salt loading to the Colorado River is needed to support water-resource planning and conservation efforts. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) assessed deep percolation and estimated salt loading derived from irrigated agricultural lands in the Grand Valley in a 1985 to 2002 monitoring and evaluation study (NRCS M&E). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum and the Mesa Conservation District, quantified the current (2005-2006) deep percolation and irrigation-water application characteristics of 1/4-acre residential lots and 5-acre estates, urban parks, and urban orchard grass fields in the Grand Valley, and compared the results to NRCS M&E results from alfalfa-crop sites. In addition, pond seepage from three irrigation-water holding ponds was estimated. Salt loading was estimated for the urban study results and the NRCS M&E results by using standard salt-loading factors. A daily soil-moisture balance calculation technique was used at all urban study irrigated sites. Deep percolation was defined as any water infiltrating below the top 12 inches of soil. Deep percolation occurred when the soil-moisture balance in the first 12 inches of soil exceeded the field capacity for the soil type at each site. Results were reported separately for urban study bluegrass-only sites and for all-vegetation type (bluegrass, native plants, and orchard grass) sites. Deep percolation and irrigation-water application also were estimated for a complete irrigation season at three subdivisions by using mean site data from each subdivision. It was estimated that for the three subdivisions, 37 percent of the developed acreage was irrigated (the balance being impermeable surfaces).

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2022

Value of information and decision pathways: Concepts and case studies

Information used in decision making arises from the structuring of observations and data. The collection, dissemination, and use of information has monetary and non-monetary costs (e.g., competition for attention) and necessitates trade-offs. Understanding the benefits of having information (i.e., the value of information, VOI), including resulting societal outcomes, is useful to information producers/funders and decision makers. Using theory, use cases, and hypotheticals, we describe how information (e.g., geospatial information) is valued and incorporated in decisions and actions related to managing natural resources, environments, and the impacts of natural and anthropogenic hazards. We discuss the nature of information and how it relates to models (conceptual, mental, scientific), beliefs, knowledge, and economic analyses. VOI approaches and behavioral factors that potentially affect information use and value are summarized. Framing of information and VOI through data to decision pathways (DDPs) at first simplifies understanding, then illustrates the benefits of information, and the human and societal challenges encountered in valuing and using it. We present approaches to overcome these challenges. Our transdisciplinary analysis concludes with a summary of critical issues affecting DDPs and VOI, and suggestions for improving both economic analyses and the actionability and use of information.

Frontiers in Environmental Science (Environmental ↗

USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Thresholds for protecting Pacific Northwest ecosystems from atmospheric deposition of nitrogen: state of knowledge report

The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service manage areas in the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington – collectively referred to in this report as the Pacific Northwest - that contain significant natural resources and provide many recreational opportunities. The agencies are mandated to protect the air quality and air pollution-sensitive resources on these federal lands. Human activity has greatly increased the amount of nitrogen emitted to the atmosphere, resulting in elevated amounts of nitrogen being deposited in park and forest ecosystems. There is limited information in the Pacific Northwest about the levels of nitrogen that negatively affect natural systems, i.e., the critical loads. The National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, with scientific input from the U.S. Geological Survey, have developed an approach for accumulating additional nitrogen critical loads information in the Pacific Northwest and using the data in planning and regulatory arenas. As a first step in that process, this report summarizes the current state of knowledge about nitrogen deposition, effects, and critical loads in the region. It also describes ongoing research efforts and identifies and prioritizes additional data needs.

Idaho;Oregon;Washington↗

USGS1970

Ground water in Tooele Valley, Utah

This short report was written by condensing parts of a technical report on the ground water in Tooele Valley, which was prepared as part of a cooperative program between the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights, and the U. S. Geological Survey to study water in Utah. If you would like to read the more detailed technical report, write for a copy of the Utah State Engineer Technical Publication 12, “Reevaluation of the ground-water resources of Tooele Valley, Utah” by J. S. Gates. Copies can be obtained free of charge from the Division of Water Rights, State Capitol, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.

Utah↗