SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Environmental Research”

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 775 records · Page 43Linked to original sources

USGS2001

Landscape pattern metrics and regional assessment

The combination of remote imagery data, geographic information systems software, and landscape ecology theory provides a unique basis for monitoring and assessing large-scale ecological systems. The unique feature of the work has been the need to develop and interpret quantitative measures of spatial pattern-the landscape indices. This article reviews what is known about the statistical properties of these pattern metrics and suggests some additional metrics based on island biogeography, percolation theory, hierarchy theory, and economic geography. Assessment applications of this approach have required interpreting the pattern metrics in terms of specific environmental endpoints, such as wildlife and water quality, and research into how to represent synergystic effects of many overlapping sources of stress.

Ecosystem Health↗

USGS2020

Storm impacts on phytoplankton community dynamics in lakes

In many regions across the globe, extreme weather events such as storms have increased in frequency, intensity, and duration due to climate change. Ecological theory predicts that such extreme events should have large impacts on ecosystem structure and function. High winds and precipitation associated with storms can affect lakes via short‐term runoff events from watersheds and physical mixing of the water column. In addition, lakes connected to rivers and streams will also experience flushing due to high flow rates. Although we have a well‐developed understanding of how wind and precipitation events can alter lake physical processes and some aspects of biogeochemical cycling, our mechanistic understanding of the emergent responses of phytoplankton communities is poor. Here we provide a comprehensive synthesis that identifies how storms interact with lake and watershed attributes and their antecedent conditions to generate changes in lake physical and chemical environments. Such changes can restructure phytoplankton communities and their dynamics, as well as result in altered ecological function (e.g., carbon, nutrient and energy cycling) in the short‐ and long‐term. We summarize the current understanding of storm‐induced phytoplankton dynamics, identify knowledge gaps with a systematic review of the literature, and suggest future research directions across a gradient of lake types and environmental conditions.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2008

A Compilation of Provisional Karst Geospatial Data for the Interior Low Plateaus Physiographic Region, Central United States

Geospatial data needed to visualize and evaluate the hydrogeologic framework and distribution of karst features in the Interior Low Plateaus physiographic region of the central United States were compiled during 2004-2007 as part of the Ground-Water Resources Program Karst Hydrology Initiative (KHI) project. Because of the potential usefulness to environmental and water-resources regulators, private consultants, academic researchers, and others, the geospatial data files created during the KHI project are being made available to the public as a provisional regional karst dataset. To enhance accessibility and visualization, the geospatial data files have been compiled as ESRI ArcReader data folders and user interactive Published Map Files (.pmf files), all of which are catalogued by the boundaries of surface watersheds using U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) eight-digit hydrologic unit codes (HUC-8s). Specific karst features included in the dataset include mapped sinkhole locations, sinking (or disappearing) streams, internally drained catchments, karst springs inventoried in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) database, relic stream valleys, and karst flow paths obtained from results of previously reported water-tracer tests.

Data Series↗

USGS2022

Eastern Ecological Science Center — Fish and aquatic animal health

Science provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Eastern Ecological Science Center (EESC) helps to protect fish and aquatic animal health and support disease management of our Nation’s fisheries and aquatic animal populations. Our capabilities and expertise span diverse, yet highly integrated disciplines related to all aspects of biology, ecology, and animal health. Our scientists work to identify novel and emerging pathogens and diseases to assess fish and aquatic animal responses to parasites, pathogens, adverse environmental conditions, and chemical exposures. Eastern Ecological Science Center research is conducted both in laboratories and in the field in various aquatic environments ranging from headwater streams to the ocean. The EESC team provides science leadership and support for fisheries and aquatic species specialists nationwide.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2025

Spatiotemporal risk avoidance varies seasonally, relative to risk intensity, in a reestablishing predator–prey system

Predation establishes risk, which can indirectly influence prey behavior and ecology. We evaluated the influence of Mexican gray wolves ( Canis lupus baileyi ) on habitat selection and spatiotemporal predator avoidance strategies of elk ( Cervus canadensis ). We fit 866 adult female elk with GPS collars across areas of varying wolf densities within the Mexican wolf experimental population area of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico between 2019−2021. Using step-selection functions we examined relative intensity of elk use in relation to landscape attributes, estimated predator/prey diel activity, and measures of risk. Risk metrics included predicted wolf presence, habitat openness, and predicted risky places modeled from attributes of locations where wolves killed elk. Wolf activity varied across seasons and increased midday and night in fall and monsoon seasons. Relative use by elk was best explained by incorporating an interaction between diel period and predicted risky places across all seasons. Elk utilized risky places more in times of nutritional deficit associated with high energetic demands of the third trimester pregnancy and lactation and when forage quality was best, during spring and monsoon season. Particularly, use of risky places increased at less risky times in areas with more established wolf presence, suggesting use of risky places varied relative to exposure to Mexican wolves. These behaviors highlight the importance of temporal avoidance when predators and prey are highly mobile and largely overlap in space. Our research suggests temporally responding to predictable and relatively static environmental characteristics associated with encounter and kill rates may better balance energetic trade-offs than anticipating changes in wolf activity or spatially avoiding areas with higher wolf presence. Thus, elk appear to be more willing to take chances and mitigate cursorial predation risk with a more immediate, reactive approach and make proactive trade-offs during the seasons they can best increase fitness.

Arizona, New Mexico↗

USGS2021

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Great Smoky Mountains National Park vegetation mapping project

The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program is an effort to classify, describe, and map existing vegetation communities in national park units throughout the United States. The NPS VMI Program is managed by the NPS Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Inventory and Monitoring Program and provides baseline vegetation information to natural resource managers, researchers, and ecologists. The U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, and NPS Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM, also referred to as the “Park”) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of GRSM, including the Foothills Parkway, for the NPS VMI Program. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to affirm vegetation types of GRSM and to determine how best to map the vegetation types by using aerial imagery. A vegetation classification developed in 2003 by NatureServe and the NPS served as a foundation to further classify and map the vegetation types of the Park. Data from an additional 10 vegetation plots supported vegetation types either rare or not documented in the 2003 classification. Data from 203 verification sites were collected to test the field key to vegetation types and the application of vegetation types to a sample set of map polygons. Furthermore, data from 972 accuracy assessment (AA) sites were collected (of which 966 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer). This GRSM vegetation mapping project identified 112 vegetation types consisting of 105 association types in the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC), 2 “park-special” types, 1 “map-special” type, and 4 cultural types in the USNVC. To map the vegetation and land cover of GRSM, 52 map classes were developed. Of these 52 map classes, 46 represent natural (including ruderal) vegetation types, most of which types are recognized in the USNVC. For the remaining 6 of the 52 map classes, 4 represent USNVC cultural types for agricultural and developed areas, and 2 represent non-USNVC types for nonvegetated open water and nonvegetated rock. Features were interpreted from viewing four-band digital aerial imagery using digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems; digital aerial imagery was collected during September 23–October 30, 2015. The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial-database layers usable in a geographic information system. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5- or 0.25- hectare (ha) minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type. A geodatabase containing several feature-class layers and tables provides the locations and data of USNVC vegetation types (vegetation map layer), vegetation plots, verification sites, AA sites, project boundary extent, and aerial image centers and flight lines. Covering 210,875 ha, the feature-class layer and related tables for the vegetation map layer provide 34,084 polygons of detailed attribute data when special modifiers are not considered (average polygon size of 6.2 ha) and 36,589 polygons of detailed attribute data when special modifiers are considered (average polygon size of 5.8 ha). Each map polygon is assigned a map-class code and name and, when applicable, are linked to USNVC classification tables within the geodatabase. The vegetation map extent includes the administrative boundary for GRSM and the Foothills Parkway. A summary report, generated from the vegetation map layer, concludes that the 46 map classes representing natural (including ruderal) vegetation types apply to 99.2% of polygons (33,797 polygons; average size of 6.2 ha) and cover 98.6% of the Park (207,971.4 ha). Further broken down, map classes representing natural vegetation types indicate that the Park is 97.7% forest and woodland (205,882.5 ha), 0.6% shrubland (1,174.6 ha), and 0.4% herbaceous (914.3 ha). Map classes representing cultural vegetation types apply to 0.8% of polygons (259 polygons; average size of 4.9 ha) and cover 0.6% of the Park (1,277.4 ha). Map classes representing nonvegetation open and flowing water and unvegetated rock apply to 0.08% of polygons (28 polygons; average size of 58.1 ha) and cover 0.8% of the Park (1,625.9 ha). A thematic AA study was completed of map classes representing the natural (including ruderal) vegetation types of the Park. Initial AA results were discussed with NPS staff from the Park. Following input from NPS staff on how to handle map classes that fell below accuracy standards, adjustments were made to the vegetation map layer. Final results indicate an overall accuracy of 80.64% (kappa index of 79.96% for chance agreements) based on data from 966 of the 972 AA sites. Most individual map-class themes exceed the NPS VMI Program standard of 80% with a 90% confidence interval. The GRSM vegetation mapping project delivers many geospatial and vegetation data products, including an in-depth project report discussing methods and results, which includes map classification and map-class descriptions. This suite of products also includes descriptions and a field key to vegetation types; a database of vegetation plots, verification sites, and AA sites; digital images of field sites; field data sheets; digital aerial imagery; hardcopy and digital maps; a geodatabase of vegetation and land cover (map layer), field sites (vegetation plots, verification sites, and AA sites), aerial imagery index, project boundary, and metadata; and a contingency table listing AA results. Geospatial products are projected in the Universal Transverse Mercator, Zone 17 North, by using the North American Datum of 1983. Information on the NPS VMI Program and completed mapping projects are on the internet at https://www.nps.gov/im/vegetation-inventory.htm.

North Carolina, Tennessee↗

USGS2021

Invited perspective: What lies beneath a changing Arctic?

As permafrost thaws in the Arctic, new subsurface pathways open for the transport of groundwater, energy, and solutes. We identify different ways that these subsurface changes are driving observed surface consequences, including the potential for increased contaminant transport, modification to water resources, and enhanced rates of infrastructure (e.g. buildings and roads) damage. Further, as permafrost thaws it allows groundwater to transport carbon, nutrients, and other dissolved constituents from terrestrial to aquatic environments via progressively deeper subsurface flow paths. Cryohydrogeology, the study of groundwater in cold regions, should be included in northern research initiatives to account for this hidden catalyst of environmental and societal change.

The Cryosphere↗

USGS2002

Sea otter population structure and ecology in Alaska

Sea otters are the only fully marine otter. They share a common ancestry with the Old World land otters, but their route of dispersal to the New World is uncertain. The historic range of the species is along the northern Pacific Ocean rim, between central Baja California and the islands of northern Japan. Because they forage almost exclusively on bottom-dwelling marine invertebrates such as clams, snails, crabs, and sea urchins, they predominantly occur near shore. Their offshore distribution is limited by their diving ability; although they are capable of diving to more than 100 meters deep, most of their feeding takes place between the shoreline and depths of 40 meters. They are social animals, generally resting in protected bays or kelp forests in groups, commonly referred to as rafts. Because they are gregarious, possess a fine fur, and occur primarily near shore, they have been exploited by humans for as long as they have co-occupied coastal marine communities. During the late Pleistocene, glacial advances and retreats in the northern latitudes likely influenced genetic exchange within the sea otter’s northern range. When the glaciers were at their maximum, ice sheets extended over large coastal areas, isolating sea otter populations and causing local extinctions. During periods of glacial retreat, sea otters likely recolonized the newly available habitats, allowing exchange of individuals and gene flow between populations. Beginning in about 1750, sea otter populations underwent dramatic declines as a direct result of commercial harvest for their furs. Explorations by Vitus Bering led to the discovery of abundant sea otter populations in the Aleutian Islands. The early harvest, conducted by Russians with enslaved Aleut hunters, began in the eastern Aleutians. Eventually the harvest became multinational and contributed significantly to the exploration and settlement of the North Pacific coastline by Europeans. There were two distinct periods of harvest—one reaching its peak about 1800 and averaging about 15,000 per year and a second about 1870, averaging about 4,000 per year. The causes for this harvest pattern are unknown, but it may represent two distinct periods of overexploitation separated by a brief period of population recovery. By 1890 the species had been eliminated throughout most of its range, persisting in small numbers at 13 isolated locations in California, Alaska, and Russia. The number of sea otters that survived the fur trade is unknown, but available data suggest that some remnant populations may have been as small as a few dozen individuals. In 1911, sea otters were afforded protection under the International Fur Seal Treaty, and populations apparently responded by gradually increasing in abundance. The rates of population recovery varied among locations, averaging 9% annually and ranging from 6 to 13%. The population at Amchitka Island in the central Aleutians had the highest growth rate among those surviving, apparently reaching carrying capacity by about 1950. Efforts to aid the recovery of the species into the vast unoccupied habitats between California and Prince William Sound began in 1965. Sea otters from Amchitka and Prince William Sound were translocated to Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and several locations in southeastern Alaska. With the exception of Oregon, these translocations have resulted in the establishment of successful colonies. Population growth rates of translocated sea otters have been significantly greater than among remnant populations, averaging 21% and ranging from 18 to 24%. We don’t know why the growth rates of the remnant and translocated populations are so different, but it may be partly because of the abundant food and space available at the translocated sites. The varying patterns of sea otter population decline and recovery provide a unique and powerful tool for studying the effects of historic reductions on populations, as well as how populations respond to varying environmental conditions. During the past decade, using molecular genetics, researchers have been trying to understand how sea otter populations might differ throughout the North Pacific and what effects population reductions and recovery have had on population genetics. Also, as a result of the varying degree of recovery among isolated populations, we have the opportunity to contrast life history attributes (such as condition, reproduction, and survival) among populations throughout their range. These contrasts may be useful in developing methods to assess the status of populations where traditional methods of surveying abundance are difficult and expensive.

Alaska↗

USGS2003

Establishing causality in the decline and deformity of amphibians: The amphibian research and monitoring initiative model

Research to date has indicated that a range of environmental variables such as disease, parasitism, predation, competition, environmental contamination, solar ultraviolet radiation, climate change, or habitat alteration may be responsible for declining amphibian populations and the appearance of deformed organisms, yet in many cases no definitive environmental variable stands out as a causal factor. Multiple Stressors are often present in the habitat, and interactions among these can magnify injury to biota. This raises the possibility that the additive or synergistic impact of these Stressors may be the underlying cause of amphibian declines. Effective management for the restoration of amphibian populations requires the identification of causal factors contributing to their declines. A systematic approach to determine causality is especially important because initial impressions may be misleading or ambiguous. In addition, the evaluation of amphibian populations requires consideration of a broader spatial scale than commonly used in regulatory monitoring. We describe a systematic three-tiered approach to determine causality in amphibian declines and deformities. Tier 1 includes an evaluation of historic databases and extant data and would involve a desktop synopsis of the status of various stressors as well as site visits. Tier 2 studies are iterative, hypothesis driven studies beginning with general tests and continuing with analyses of increasing complexity as certain stressors are identified for further investigation. Tier 3 applies information developed in Tier 2 as predictive indicators of habitats and species at risk over broad landscape scales and provides decision support for the adaptive management of amphibian recovery. This comprehensive, tiered program could provide a mechanistic approach to identifying and addressing specific stressors responsible for amphibian declines across various landscapes.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2019

Landsat: The cornerstone of global land imaging

Since 1972, the joint NASA/ U.S. Geological Survey Landsat series of Earth Observation satellites have provided an uninterrupted space-based data record of the Earth’s land surface to help advance scientific research towards the understanding of our planet and the environmental impact of its inhabitants. Early Landsat satellites offered a wealth of new data that improved mapping of remote areas and geologic features along with digital analysis of vegetation. The utility of Landsat’s spatial and spectral resolution has advanced its use for applications that benefit society such as global crop forecasting, forest monitoring, water use, carbon assessments, and the base for Google Maps. Landsat’s long-term data record provides an unrivaled resource for observing land cover and land-use change over a timescale of decades. The free and open Landsat data policy in 2008 was a paradigm shift for the world. Today, due to improved analytical and computing capabilities, the Landsat archive is poised to shift into a more real-time monitoring and understanding of the Earth.

GIM International↗

USGS2006

An integrated monitoring approach using multiple reference sites to assess sustainable restoration in coastal Louisiana

Achieving sustainable resource management in coastal Louisiana requires establishing reference conditions that incorporate the goals and objectives of restoration efforts. Since the reference condition is usually considered sustainable, it can be a gauge to assess the present condition of a (degraded) system or to evaluate progress of management actions toward some target system state (the reference or desired conditions). In 2003, the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) Task Force and the Louisiana State Wetlands Authority adopted the “Coastwide Reference Monitoring System -- Wetlands” (CRMS--Wetlands) for Louisiana. This system will provide data from multiple reference sites to explore the properties of a sustained reference condition. CRMS--Wetlands provides links between project-specific and system-wide objectives, criteria for selecting reference sites or conditions, a more robust statistical design, and critical monitoring variables. In addition, a system-wide assessment and monitoring plan (SWAMP) is being developed that incorporates and evaluates existing monitoring efforts (to the extent possible) within a system-wide experimental design. The SWAMP will integrate monitoring of biological, chemical, physical, and climatological variables in four modules: wetlands (CRMS--Wetlands), barrier islands, inshore waters and rivers, and nearshore coastal waters. Data and information collected under SWAMP will contribute to developing a systems-synthesis model for coastal Louisiana. Regional restoration project leaders in coastal Louisiana acknowledge the mutual dependence of monitoring and modeling the coastal landscape. For example, experiments or measurements should not be conducted independently of modeling and vice versa. Assessment should be directed at reducing scientific uncertainty to improve confidence in modeling and monitoring tools and ultimately to assist management actions. An adaptive environmental assessment and management process prescribes modeling, monitoring, and research activities to be conducted from initial stages of restoration planning to optimize the ability to assess and achieve sustainable restoration.

Louisiana↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals science strategy: A resource lifecycle approach

Executive Summary The economy, national security, and standard of living of the United States depend heavily on adequate and reliable supplies of energy and mineral resources. Based on population and consumption trends, the Nation’s use of energy and minerals can be expected to grow, driving the demand for ever broader scientific understanding of resource formation, location, and availability. In addition, the increasing importance of environmental stewardship, human health, and sustainable growth places further emphasis on energy and mineral resources research and understanding. Collectively, these trends in resource demand and the interconnectedness among resources will lead to new challenges and, in turn, require cutting-edge science for the next generation of societal decisions. The long and continuing history of U.S. Geological Survey contributions to energy and mineral resources science provide a solid foundation of core capabilities upon which new research directions can grow. This science strategy provides a framework for the coming decade that capitalizes on the growth of core capabilities and leverages their application toward new or emerging challenges in energy and mineral resources research, as reflected in five interrelated goals. Goal 1.—Understand fundamental Earth processes that form energy and mineral resources Goal 2.—Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products Goal 3.—Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources Goal 4.—Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources and society Goal 5.—Understand the reliability and availability of energy and mineral supplies Within each goal, multiple actions are identified. The level of specificity and complexity of these actions varies, consistent with the reality that even a modest refocus can yield large payoffs in the near term whereas more ambitious plans may take years to reach fruition. As such, implementation of these actions is largely dependent on available resources and the sequencing of prerequisite steps. This science strategy places an emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and leveraging of expertise across the U.S. Geological Survey and with external partners.

Circular↗

USGS2025

Ranking river basins for stream temperature research and monitoring in the contiguous United States

There is a need to prioritize research and data collection in river basins by integrating information from environmental, ecological, and socioeconomic datasets to maintain acceptable water quality for human uses and ecosystem health. Multiple anthropogenic and natural stressors are responsible for driving changes in stream temperatures that can alter ecosystems and degrade water quality. These stressors are variable spatially and temporally, which can be challenging for prioritizing monitoring and research. In this study, an evaluation of variables related to stream temperature was performed for 163 candidate basins of the contiguous United States to highlight potential focal areas. Thirty variables were combined in six components: anthropogenic forcing, natural forcing, climate change, ecological sensitivity, socioeconomic sensitivity, and data availability. The components were incorporated into three themes: vulnerability of streams to thermal change, vulnerability of ecosystems, and vulnerability of communities. By evaluating each theme separately, patterns of vulnerability and potential resiliency were identified as well as consistency in ranks within the themes. For example, results of the national scale ranking indicated the Southern California Coastal basin (within California-Nevada region) was the highest-ranking priority in vulnerability of streams to thermal change and vulnerability of ecosystems. The analysis also identified vulnerable basins with gaps in monitoring. For example, the Missouri-Oahe basin (within the Northern High Plains region) was the highest-ranking priority for vulnerable communities with limitations in data availability. The ranking approach provides insight into basins that are resilient and are ideal candidates for monitoring and research.

Journal of Hydrology↗

USGS2024

Integrated science for the study of microplastics in the environment—A strategic science vision for the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Evidence of the widespread occurrence of microplastics throughout our environment and exposure to humans and other organisms over the past decade has led to questions about the possibility of health hazards and mitigation of exposures. This document discusses nanoplastics as well as microplastics (referred to solely as microplastics); the microplastics have a range from 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters (1 μm–5 mm) in length, whereas the nanoplastics are less than 1 μm in length (sidebar ES1). A myriad of environmental exposure pathways with microplastics to humans and wildlife, including ingestion, inhalation, and bodily absorption, are likely to exist. A growing body of evidence has documented bioaccumulation of microplastics in tissues and organs of humans and wildlife, benthic community effects, and potential nutritional and reproductive effects in some wildlife species. Understanding if or when environmental exposures pose a health risk is complicated by the diversity of microplastic sizes, morphologies, polymer types, and chemicals added during manufacturing or sorbed from the environment; ongoing challenges in analytical methods used to detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics and associated chemicals in our ecosystems; and the fact that ecotoxicological studies regarding microplastics are still in their infancy. Therefore, the study of environmental exposures and potential related health hazards of microplastics to the public and wildlife is a One Health (sidebar ES2) research topic that necessitates integrated science approaches. A better understanding of the sources, pathways, fate, and biological effects of microplastics has become a priority of the Federal Government, State governments, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public. Examples of Federal and State microplasticfocused legislation and programs to prioritize microplastic research and reduction include the Federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, California Senate Bills 1422 and 1263 (2018), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trash Free Waters Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Microplastic and Nanoplastic Metrology project, and Minnesota’s microplastic project. With its unique expertise and capabilities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is well positioned to help fill some of the most important microplastic science gaps. This strategic science vision document for microplastics identifies current (2023) microplastic science gaps and prioritizes research relevant to the mission, expertise, and capabilities of the USGS. It is intended for USGS scientists and stakeholders to use as a starting point for planning, prioritizing, and designing collaborative environmental microplastic science. Many of the microplastic science gaps and priorities are scalable, from local to national, and thus, can be made commensurate with available funding and evolving analytical and field tools, laboratory capacity, and stakeholder needs. Current (2023) or future research by academia and other Federal or State agencies, and Tribes may be aimed at some of the same microplastic science gaps identified in this document. Therefore, this document can be used as an information resource to maximize strengths and capabilities and minimize redundancy in communication and collaboration.

Circular↗

USGS2015

Metallogeny, exploitation and environmental impact of the Mt. Amiata mercury ore district (Southern Tuscany, Italy)

The Mt. Amiata mining district (Southern Tuscany, Italy) is a world class Hg district, with a cumulate production of more than 100,000 tonnes of Hg, mostly occurring between 1870 and 1980. The Hg mineralization at Mt. Amiata is younger than 0.3 Ma, and is directly related to shallow hydrothermal systems similar to present-day geothermal fields of the region. There is likely a continuum of Hg deposition to present day, because Hg emission from geothermal power plants is on-going. In this sense, the Mt. Amiata deposits present some analogies with “hot-spring type” deposits of western USA, although an ore deposit model for the district has not been established. Specifically, the source of Hg remains highly speculative. The mineralizing hydrothermal fluids are of low temperature, and of essentially meteoric origin. Recent results by our research group indicate that, 30 years after mine closure, the environmental effects of Hg contamination related to mining are still recorded by the ecosystem, namely on waterways of the Paglia and Tiber River basins. In particular, the close spatial connection between the town of Abbadia San Salvatore, the Hg mine within its immediate neighborhood, and the drainage catchment of the Paglia River has an influence also on Hg speciation, transported mainly in the particulate form by the river system. The extent of Hg contamination has been identified at least 100 km from Abbadia San Salvatore along the Paglia-Tiber River system. Estimated annual Hg mass loads transported by the Paglia River to the Tiber River were about 11 kg yr −1 . However, there is evidence that flood events may enhance Hg mobilization in the Paglia River basin, increasing Hg concentrations in stream sediment. The high methyl-Hg/Hg ratio in water in this area is an additional factor of great concern due to the potential harmful effects on human and wildlife health. Results of our studies indicate that the Mt. Amiata region is at present a source of Hg of remarkable environmental concern at the local, regional (Tiber River), and Mediterranean scales. Ongoing studies are aimed to a more detailed quantification of the Hg mass load input to the Mediterranean Sea, and to unravel the processes concerning Hg transport and fluid dynamics.

Tuscany↗

USGS2004

Review of Results and Recommendations from the GCMRC 2000-2003 Remote-Sensing Initiative for Monitoring Environmental Resources Within the Colorado River Ecosystem

In mid-2000, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) began a remote-sensing initiative to evaluate all remote-sensing technologies and methods that had potential for providing improved data (capability) for its various programs that monitor the Colorado River ecosystem (CRE). The primary objective of the initiative was to determine the most cost-effective data collection protocols for GCMRC programs that (1) provide the accuracies required for currently measured parameters, (2) provide additional parameters for ecological monitoring, (3) reduce environmental impact by being less invasive than current methods, and (4) expand geographic extent of current ground approaches. The initial phase of the remote-sensing initiative determined the types of sampling parameters and their required accuracies for monitoring. This information was used to determine the most appropriate sensors for evaluation. The initiative evaluated 25 different data collections over a three-year period; many more remote-sensing instruments were considered, but were not evaluated because they could not meet the basic requirements on spatial resolution, wavelength, positional accuracy, or elevation accuracy. It was hoped that the evaluations would lead to a minimum set of technologies that would satisfy many program requirements. The results from all of our evaluations are reviewed in this report and are briefly summarized in this report.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗

USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗