Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Biological Control”

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

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

1,210 records · Page 68Linked to original sources
USGS1999

Surface-water-quality assessment of the Yakima River basin, Washington: Overview of major findings, 1987-91

Surface-water-quality conditions were assessed in the Yakima River Basin, which drains 6,155 square miles of mostly forested, range, and agricultural land in Washington. The Yakima River Basin is one of the most intensively farmed and irrigated areas in the United States, and is often referred to as the “Nation’s Fruitbowl.” Natural and anthropogenic sources of contaminants and flow regulation control water-quality conditions throughout the basin. This report summarizes the spatial and temporal distribution, sources, and implications of the dissolved oxygen, water temperature, pH, suspended sediment, nutrient, organic compound (pesticide), trace element, fecal indicator bacteria, radionuclide, and aquatic ecology data collected during the 1987–91 water years. The Yakima River descends from a water surface altitude of 2,449 feet at the foot of Keechelus Dam to 340 feet at its mouth downstream from Horn Rapids Dam near Richland. The basin can be divided into three distinct river reaches on the basis of its physical characteristics. The upper reach, which drains the Kittitas Valley, has a high gradient, with an average streambed slope of 14 feet per mile (ft/mi) over the 74 miles from the foot of Keechelus Dam (river mile [RM] 214.5) to just upstream from Umtanum. The middle reach, which drains the Mid Valley, extends a distance of 33 miles from Umtanum (RM 140.4) to just upstream from Union Gap and also has a high gradient, with an average streambed slope of 11 ft/mi. The lower reach of the Yakima River drains the Lower Valley and has an average streambed slope of 7 ft/mi over the 107 miles from Union Gap (RM 107.2) to the mouth of the Yakima River. These reaches exhibited differences in water-quality conditions related to the differences in geologic sources of contaminants and land use. Compared with the rest of the basin, the Kittitas Valley and headwaters of the Naches River Subbasin had relatively low concentrations and loads of suspended sediment, nutrients, organic compounds, and fecal indicator bacteria. There were very few failures to meet the Washington State dissolved oxygen standard or exceedances of the water temperature and pH standards in this reach. In general, these areas are considered to be areas of lessdegraded water quality in the basin. The preTertiary metamorphic and intrusive rocks of the Cle Elum and Teanaway River Subbasins, however, were found to be significant geologic sources of antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, selenium, and zinc. As a result, the arsenic, chromium, and nickel concentrations measured in the streambed sediment of the Kittitas Valley were 13 to 74 times higher than those measured in the Lower Valley. The Mid and Lower Valleys had similar water-quality conditions, governed by the intensive agricultural and irrigation activities, highly erosive landscapes, and flow regulation. Most of the failures to meet the Washington State standards for dissolved oxygen and exceedances of the standards for water temperature and pH occurred in the Mid and Lower Valleys. Agricultural drains in the Mid and Lower Valleys were found to be significant sources of nutrients, suspended sediment, pesticides, and fecal indicator bacteria. Downstream from the irrigation diversions near Union Gap, summertime streamflow in the Yakima River was drastically reduced to only a few hundred cubic feet per second. In the lower Yakima River, agricultural return flow typically accounts for as much as 80 percent of the main stem summertime flow near the downstream terminus of the basin. Therefore, the water-quality characteristics of the lower Yakima River resemble those of the agricultural drains. The highest fecal bacteria concentrations (35,000 colonies of Escherichia coli per 100 milliliters of water) were measured in the Granger/Sunnyside area, the location of most of the livestock in the basin. The east side area of the Lower Valley (area east of the Yakima River) was the predominant source area for suspended sediment and pesticides in the basin. This area had the largest acreage of irrigated land and generally received the largest application of pesticides. Owing to the highly erosive soils of the area, the suspended sediment load from the east side in June 1989 (320 kilograms per day) was five or more times larger than from any other area, and the loads of several of the more hydrophobic organic compounds were four or more times larger. An ecological assessment of the Yakima River Basin ranked physical, chemical, and biological conditions at impaired (degraded) sites against reference sites in an effort to understand how land use changes physical and chemical site characteristics and how biota respond to these changes. For this assessment, the basin was divided into four natural ecological categories: (1) Cascades ecoregion, (2) Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills ecoregion, (3) Columbia Basin ecoregion, and (4) large rivers. Each of these categories has a unique combination of climate and landscape features that produces a distinctive terrestrial vegetation assemblage. In the combined Cascades and Eastern Cascades site group, which had the fewest impaired sites, the metals index was the only physical and chemical index that indicated any impairment. The moderate levels of impairment noted in the invertebrate and algal communities were not, however, associated with metals, and may have been related to the effects of logging, although the intensity of logging was not directly quantified in this study. Sites in the Columbia Basin site group were all moderately or severely impaired with the exception of the two reference sites (Umtanum Creek and Satus Creek below Dry Creek), which showed no physical, chemical, or biological impairment. Three sites were heavily affected by agriculture (Granger Drain, Moxee Drain, and Spring Creek) and were listed as severely impaired by most of the physical, chemical, and biological condition indices. Agriculture was the primary cause of the impairment of biological communities in this site group. The primary physical and chemical indicators of agricultural effects were nutrients, pesticides, dissolved solids, and substrate embeddedness, which all tended to increase with agricultural intensity. The biological effects of agriculture were manifested by a decrease in the abundance and number of native species of fish and invertebrates, a shift in algal communities to species indicative of eutrophic conditions, and higher abundances. There was also an increase in the abundance and number of nonnative fish species due to the prevalence of fish that are largely tolerant of nutrient-rich conditions. Main stem (large river) sites downstream from the city of Yakima exhibited severe impairment of fish communities associated with high levels of pesticides in fish tissues and the presence of external anomalies on fish.

Washington↗
USGS2009

The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards

The flow regime is a primary determinant of the structure and function of aquatic and riparian ecosystems for streams and rivers. Hydrologic alteration has impaired riverine ecosystems on a global scale, and the pace and intensity of human development greatly exceeds the ability of scientists to assess the effects on a river-by-river basis. Current scientific understanding of hydrologic controls on riverine ecosystems and experience gained from individual river studies support development of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. 2. This paper presents a consensus view from a group of international scientists on a new framework for assessing environmental flow needs for many streams and rivers simultaneously to foster development and implementation of environmental flow standards at the regional scale. This framework, the ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA), is a synthesis of a number of existing hydrologic techniques and environmental flow methods that are currently being used to various degrees and that can support comprehensive regional flow management. The flexible approach allows scientists, water-resource managers and stakeholders to analyse and synthesise available scientific information into ecologically based and socially acceptable goals and standards for management of environmental flows. 3. The ELOHA framework includes the synthesis of existing hydrologic and ecological databases from many rivers within a user-defined region to develop scientifically defensible and empirically testable relationships between flow alteration and ecological responses. These relationships serve as the basis for the societally driven process of developing regional flow standards. This is to be achieved by first using hydrologic modelling to build a 'hydrologic foundation' of baseline and current hydrographs for stream and river segments throughout the region. Second, using a set of ecologically relevant flow variables, river segments within the region are classified into a few distinctive flow regime types that are expected to have different ecological characteristics. These river types can be further subclassified according to important geomorphic features that define hydraulic habitat features. Third, the deviation of current-condition flows from baseline-condition flow is determined. Fourth, flow alteration-ecological response relationships are developed for each river type, based on a combination of existing hydroecological literature, expert knowledge and field studies across gradients of hydrologic alteration. 4. Scientific uncertainty will exist in the flow alteration-ecological response relationships, in part because of the confounding of hydrologic alteration with other important environmental determinants of river ecosystem condition (e.g. temperature). Application of the ELOHA framework should therefore occur in a consensus context where stakeholders and decision-makers explicitly evaluate acceptable risk as a balance between the perceived value of the ecological goals, the economic costs involved and the scientific uncertainties in functional relationships between ecological responses and flow alteration. 5. The ELOHA framework also should proceed in an adaptive management context, where collection of monitoring data or targeted field sampling data allows for testing of the proposed flow alteration-ecological response relationships. This empirical validation process allows for a fine-tuning of environmental flow management targets. The ELOHA framework can be used both to guide basic research in hydroecology and to further implementation of more comprehensive environmental flow management of freshwater sustainability on a global scale. ?? 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Freshwater Biology↗
USGS1999

Fishes of Missouri River, chute, and flood plain habitats: Chapter 4 in Initial biotic survey of Lisbon Bottom, Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) is approximately 2,200 acres and is the first complete unit of the Refuge. Primary objectives of the Refuge are to create and restore diverse riverine aquatic habitats and reconnect the Missouri River to its flood plain where feasible. Management seeks to accomplish these objectives by encouraging natural processes of erosion, deposition, and succession to the greatest extent possible. One of the most salient aquatic features of the Lisbon Bottom Unit is a newly created 2-mile-long free-flowing chute, or side channel (Fig. 1). This chute began forming as a levee breech scour hole during the Great Flood of 1993. The chute continued to develop during the 1995 flood and finally cut through to a flowing side channel during the 1996 flood. Extensive erosion and bank sluffing continued during 1997 due to sustained high flows that occurred throughout most of the year. The chute has progressively become wider and deeper with a developing meander pattern and channel bars have begun to form. Lisbon Bottom also contains several seasonal and permanent wetlands and is subject to periodic flooding at high Missouri River stages. Eight studies have been completed or are ongoing to evaluate Missouri River fishes associated with various habitat components of Lisbon Bottom and adjacent Missouri River reaches (Table 1). Several are part of much larger investigations to evaluate fish use of flood-created habitat features, basinwide fish assessment, and endangered or candidate species concerns. At the Lisbon Bottom Unit or in the Missouri River adjacent to the unit 54 fish species were collected (Table 2). Eight of these species have either a protected status under State or Federal laws or biologists consider them to potentially qualify for protected status. The status of the following fish is listed in Table 2: pallid sturgeon x shovelnose sturgeon hybrid, paddlefish, northern pike, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, ghost shiner, western silvery minnow, plains minnow, and blue sucker. Equally important to note are fish species that were not collected. The flathead chub, currently listed as State endangered and proposed for Federal listing, were not collected in any of the studies. Common fish species, collected in all seven sampling studies, included gizzard shad, common carp, river carpsucker, and freshwater drum. Paddlefish, skipjack herring, silver carp, white sucker, redfin shiner, western silvery minnow, bullhead minnow, and black bullhead were each collected in only one of the seven studies. Pflieger (1971) developed a guild system for the fishes of Missouri based on distribution patterns and centers of abundance. Fish were assigned to one of four primary faunal groups: Ozark, Big River, Lowland, and Prairie. Two secondary groups (Ozark-prairie and Ozark-lowland) were defined for species equally abundant and distributed in two of the primary areas. Two Ozark-prairie species, shorthead redhorse and white sucker, were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Big River species are found primarily in the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. The environmental factors controlling fish distribution in these rivers appear to be substrate, current velocity, and turbidity. On or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit 18 Big River species were collected (Table 2). Lowland species are intolerant of siltation and high turbidity. They inhabit standing or slow-moving water with sand, fine gravel, and organic debris substrates. Two Lowland species, bullhead minnow and mosquitofish, were collected in connected scours on the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Prairie species have broader ecological tolerances than the Ozark and Lowland species. They are largely absent in high gradient streams and cool, clear waters. Prairie species make up a significant proportion of Missouri and Mississippi River fishes. Seven Prairie species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). The last group, Wide-ranging, was defined as the species more widespread than the other faunal groups with broader environmental tolerances. Most Wide-ranging species occur at least occasionally in all sections of the state. Nineteen Wide-ranging species were collected on or near the Lisbon Bottom Unit (Table 2). Kubisiak (1997) found that isolated scours in the Lower Missouri River were dominated by Wide-ranging species. Connected scours also held Wideranging species but they contained Prairie species and were dominated by Big River species. Faunal group diversity and species richness were compared between isolated (Study l) and connected (Studies 4, 5, 7, and 8) scours of the Lisbon Bottom Unit. Species richness was similar with 22 species collected in isolated scours and an average of 24.8 species collected in connected scours. Isolated scour fish catches were dominated by Wide-ranging fish (59%) with 14% Big River fishes and 14% Prairie fishes. Connected scours had a larger percentage of Big River fish (32%) and fewer Wide-ranging (36%) and Prairie (13%) species than the isolated scours. In the combined studies, Wide-ranging fish dominated the connected scours. A similar comparison was made of fish from chute habitats and the Missouri River. Chute habitats include the Lisbon Bottom Chute, the chute between the right bank and island located at river mile 219, and a shallow channel running between a large sandbar complex and the channel border adjacent to Lisbon Bottom. Species richness in the chutes (35 species) was greater than that of the adjacent river (23 species). Big River species (40%) dominated the chute samples, followed by Wide-ranging at 31% Cand Prairie Cut 14%. The river samples contained equal numbers of Wide-ranging species (35%) and Big River species (35%) with 17% Prairie species. Differences in fish guild diversity and species richness may be due to numerous factors including sampling effort and sampling season. River samples were collected only in Study 3 in October; chute samples were collected in July, August, and October. Fish may have been using the chute in July and August to spawn, feed, or escape high river levels. The Lisbon Bottom Chute is a truly unique feature of the Lower Missouri River. It is the first naturally created side channel to develop since the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers tamed the river. The Corps eliminated 89% of the islands in the Missouri River between 1879 and 1954 (Funk and Robinson 1974). The chutes between the islands and the shore were shallower with less current than the main channel. These areas provided diversity to the Missouri River fish habitat, serving as nursery and feeding areas. The Lisbon Bottom Unit of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge will continue to be studied in an effort to understand the complex role these areas play in river systems.

Missouri↗
USGS2013

Native Prairie Adaptive Management: a multi region adaptive approach to invasive plant management on Fish and Wildlife Service owned native prairies

Much of the native prairie managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the northern Great Plains is extensively invaded by the introduced cool-season grasses, smooth brome ( Bromus inermis ) and Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ). Management to suppress these invasive plants has had poor to inconsistent success. The central challenge to managers is selecting appropriate management actions in the face of biological and environmental uncertainties. In partnership with the FWS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed an adaptive decision support framework to assist managers in selecting management actions under uncertainty and maximizing learning from management outcomes. This joint partnership is known as the Native Prairie Adaptive Management (NPAM) initiative. The NPAM decision framework is built around practical constraints faced by FWS refuge managers and includes identification of the management objective and strategies, analysis of uncertainty and construction of competing decision models, monitoring, and mechanisms for model feedback and decision selection. Nineteen FWS field stations, spanning four states of the PPR, have participated in the initiative. These FWS cooperators share a common management objective, available management strategies, and biological uncertainties. Though the scope is broad, the initiative interfaces with individual land managers who provide site-specific information and receive updated decision guidance that incorporates understanding gained from the collective experience of all cooperators. We describe the technical components of this approach, how the components integrate and inform each other, how data feedback from individual cooperators serves to reduce uncertainty across the whole region, and how a successful adaptive management project is coordinated and maintained on a large scale. During an initial scoping workshop, FWS cooperators developed a consensus management objective: increase the composition of native grasses and forbs on native sod while minimizing cost. Cooperators agreed that decision guidance should be provided annually and should account for local, real-time vegetation conditions observed on the ground. Over the course of development, two prototypes of the decision framework were considered. The final framework recognized four alternative actions that managers could take in any given year: (1) Graze—targeted use of grazing ungulates to achieve defoliation, (2) Burn—application of prescribed fire as the single form of defoliation, (3) Burn/Graze—a combination treatment, and (4) Rest—no action. The study area included northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie. Native vegetation in mixed–grass prairie has a strong cool-season component and thus the dominant native species have a phenology similar to that of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, making management of those species challenging. In contrast, tallgrass prairie has a strong warm-season native component, leading to an existence of cool-season windows, periods of time in the fall and spring when cool‐season invasive grass species are actively growing and vulnerable to damage via select management actions, but warm‐season grass species are not active and are thus less susceptible to damage via the same actions. This dichotomy between prairie types necessitated the development of separate but parallel decision support systems for mixed-grass and tallgrass biomes. Management units are parcels of native prairie that receive a single management treatment at any one time over their entire extent. At any particular time, the vegetation state of each management unit is characterized by the amount of cover of native grasses and forbs and the type of invasive grass that is dominant. In addition, each unit has a defoliation state which reflects the number of years since the last defoliation event and an index to how intensively the unit was managed during the previous 7 years. State-transition models are used to predict the state of a management unit in year t+1 from its state in year t and a prescribed management action that was applied between the two monitoring events. Alternative models are built around key uncertainties that make choice of a management action difficult. Three uncertainties revolve around whether the effect of management actions depends on (1) type of dominant invader, (2) past defoliation history, and (3) level of invasion. Two additional uncertainties are considered when choosing a management action for tallgrass units: (4) the effectiveness of grazing within the cool-season window as a surrogate for burning when smooth brome is the dominant invader, and (5) the differential effect of active management outside the window as compared to rest. Because data on the probability of transitioning from one state to another under the various models were lacking, expert opinion and elicitation were used to parameterize the models. In addition, cooperators participated in elicitation exercises to extract their beliefs regarding the value of having native prairie compared to the cost of achieving it. Quantifying the subjective expression of utility in this way allowed for mathematical representation of the management objective into an objective function. By maximizing the objective function, cumulative utility is maximized, leading to the identification of a sequence of decisions that will achieve the management objective. The NPAM system adopted a vegetation monitoring protocol that was rapid, inexpensive, and familiar to many of the cooperators. The monitoring protocol served three purposes: (1) determining current vegetation and defoliation states of each unit, (2) evaluating progress toward the management objective, and (3) assessing predictive performance of the alternative models. The management year runs from September 1 to August 31. Management can be applied anytime during that period and monitoring takes places from late June to mid-August. Cooperators enter vegetation data and management information into a centralized database by August 25 of each year. Given the current state of the system (vegetation and defoliation states) and the current understanding of the system (or the belief state), identifying the current best management decision is a matter of looking up the combination (that is, system state and belief state) in the appropriate (mixed-grass or tallgrass) optimal decision table. Given complete uncertainty at the outset of decision-making, initial assignment of equal belief weights to each model was believed reasonable. The decisions in the optimal decision table that correspond to the current belief state constitute the current optimal decision policy. By August 31 of each year, individual cooperators are provided with a recommended management action for each of their management units for the upcoming management year. Upon receiving the management recommendations for their units, managers consider the recommendation, along with other relevant information, and at some point during the year one of the management alternatives is carried out. This iterative cycle of making and implementing a management decision, predicting the response, monitoring the outcome, comparing predicted and observed outcomes, updating model weights, and recommending a management action for the next cycle is expected to result in an accumulation of weight on a representative model of system dynamics, thereby increasing understanding needed to effectively manage native prairies. The NPAM system is now entering its second full year of complete operation, and represents one of only a few fully implemented applications of adaptive management within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NPAM is truly unique in that it originated from the ground up as a result of the leadership and steadfastness of several refuge biologists and managers confronted with a common problem. These biologists recognized that working together across a large landscape presented perhaps the best opportunity for halting and reversing the invasion of native grasslands by non-native cool-season grasses. Importantly, the NPAM system encapsulates the collective thinking and experience of tens if not hundreds of individuals who have battled this vexing problem for much of their careers. The NPAM initiative is rooted in principles of adaptive management, thereby affording the opportunity for grassland managers to pursue management objectives while acquiring information to reduce uncertainty and improve future management. The project introduced a number of technical innovations that will serve as templates for conservation efforts throughout and beyond the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. First, NPAM is an on-the-ground implementation of active adaptive management—possibly the first of its kind in conservation management—in which recommended management actions result from a prospective analysis of future learning (Williams, 1996). Second, by the use of dynamic optimization, NPAM demonstrates how decisions can be made that take into account possible future transitions of the system. Third, NPAM demonstrates how models of partial controllability are an effective means of accommodating unpredictable circumstances that cause a manager to follow a different course than was intended. Finally, the database developed for NPAM is an unparalleled system that enables the rapid integration of data from the field for the generation of ‘just-in-time’ management recommendations. In all, NPAM provides an example of how a science-management partnership can be forged to achieve large-scale conservation objectives.

Minnesota;Montana;North Dakota;South Dakota↗