Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “National Wildlife”

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.

At least 1,441 records · Page 80Linked to original sources
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Utah

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 Utah, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, flood risk management, agriculture and precision farming, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Utah↗
USGS2015

3D Elevation Program: summary for Vermont

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 Vermont, elevation data are critical for hazard mitigation, geologic resource assessment, natural resources conservation, agriculture and precision farming, flood risk management, infrastructure and construction 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, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Vermont↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for West Virginia

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 West Virginia, elevation data are critical for natural resources conservation, flood risk management, forest resources management, infrastructure and construction management, agriculture and precision farming, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

West Virginia↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Iowa

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 Iowa, elevation data are critical for agriculture and precision farming, infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, water supply and quality, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Iowa↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Pennsylvania

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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, elevation data are critical for natural resources conservation (including the effects of drilling for oil and natural gas), agriculture and precision farming, flood risk management, infrastructure and construction management, water supply and quality, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, 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, and local agencies work in partnership to replace data that are older and of lower quality. A joint goal of Commonwealth and Federal partners is to provide a temporal and density refresh of the current statewide coverage in order to support existing and emerging applications enabled by improved 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Nevada

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 Nevada, elevation data are critical for infrastructure and construction management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, agriculture and precision farming, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Nevada↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for South Carolina

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 South Carolina, elevation data are critical for flood risk management, natural resources conservation, agriculture and precision farming, infrastructure and construction management, forest resources 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, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

South Carolina↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Delaware

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 Delaware, elevation data are critical for agriculture and precision farming, river and stream resource management, natural resources conservation, flood risk management, coastal zone management, geologic resource assessment and hazard mitigation, 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 publicly available 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Delaware↗
USGS2015

The 3D Elevation Program: summary for Connecticut

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 Connecticut, elevation data are critical for coastal zone management, flood risk management, natural resources conservation, agriculture and precision farming, sea level rise and subsidence, 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 interferometric synthetic aperture radar (ifsar) data for Alaska 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 3D representations of the Nation’s natural and constructed features.

Connecticut↗
USGS2025

Foundational science in flight—USGS bird programs support conservation, culture, and a thriving U.S. economy

Birds are vital to our economy, ecosystems, and cultural heritage. Investing in bird conservation benefits communities, businesses, and working lands while reinforcing our nation’s legacy of stewardship and biodiversity. By valuing birds, we ensure a richer, healthier, and more vibrant future for all Americans. The USGS leads two national bird monitoring programs Thriving bird populations contribute over $ 100 billion in related purchases to the U.S. economy annually, helping to support 1.4 million jobs and $ 90 billion in labor-related income. Across our nation, Federal and State wildlife agencies, Flyway Councils, non-governmental organizations, and more consider data from the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) and Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) to be critical to meeting their mandates to set healthy harvest levels and in identifying species of conservation need. However, without stable and sufficient resources for the BBL and BBS, the capacity to monitor and address the rapidly evolving needs of migratory bird populations is at risk, jeopardizing the foundation of collaborative conservation efforts across North America.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

Species management research program [postcard]

Executive Summary Our nation’s fish and wildlife species face increasingly complex threats and challenges. Ensuring a healthy future for these species benefits all Americans, contributing to the abundance of our food supply, the well-being of diverse cultures and communities, and the future of biodiverse ecosystems. The U.S. Geological Survey Species Management Research Program (SMRP) plays a critical role in achieving that future by delivering targeted research and foundational scientific services needed to conserve fish and wildlife in a changing world.

General Information Product↗
USGS2010

Trip report: pilot study of factors linking watershed function and coastal ecosystem health in American Samoa

Coral reef resources in the territory of American Samoa face significant problems from overfishing, non-point source pollution, global warming, and continuing population growth and development. The islands are still relatively isolated relative to other parts of the Pacific and have managed to avoid some of the more devastating invasive species that have reached other archipelagoes. As a result, there are opportunities for collaborative and integrative research and monitoring programs to help restore and maintain biodiversity and functioning natural ecosystem in the archipelago. We found that the “Ridge to Reef” paradigm already exists in American Samoa, with a high degree of interagency cooperation and efficient use of limited resources already taking place in the Territory. USGS may be able to make contributions as a partner organization in the Coral Reef Advisory Group (CRAG) through deployment of sediment monitoring instrumentation to supplement stream monitoring by the American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency, by providing high resolution vegetation and land-use maps of main islands, by providing additional support to the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and the National Park Service for monitoring of invasive species, by working with members of CRAG to initiate sediment transport studies on Samoan reefs, and by developing new projects on the effects of bacterial contamination and pollutants on coral reef physiology and demography.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change. The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI resources. Secretarial Order 3289 "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources," established the foundation of two partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

The Wetland and Aquatic Research Center strategic science plan

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wetland and Aquatic Research Center (WARC) has two primary locations (Gainesville, Florida, and Lafayette, Louisiana) and field stations throughout the southeastern United States and Caribbean. WARC’s roots are in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Park Service research units that were brought into the USGS as the Biological Research Division in 1996. Founded in 2015, WARC was created from the merger of two long-standing USGS biology science Centers—the Southeast Ecological Science Center and the National Wetlands Research Center—to bring together expertise in biology, ecology, landscape science, geospatial applications, and decision support in order to address issues nationally and internationally. WARC scientists apply their expertise to a variety of wetland and aquatic research and monitoring issues that require coordinated, integrated efforts to better understand natural environments. By increasing basic understanding of the biology of important species and broader ecological and physiological processes, this research provides information to policymakers and aids managers in their stewardship of natural resources and in regulatory functions. This strategic science plan (SSP) was developed to guide WARC research during the next 5–10 years in support of Department of the Interior (DOI) partnering bureaus such as the USFWS, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as well as other Federal, State, and local natural resource management agencies. The SSP demonstrates the alignment of the WARC goals with the USGS mission areas, associated programs, and other DOI initiatives. The SSP is necessary for workforce planning and, as such, will be used as a guide for future needs for personnel. The SSP also will be instrumental in developing internal funding priorities and in promoting WARC’s capabilities to both external cooperators and other groups within the USGS.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Application of the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in the southeastern United States

A hydrologic model of the Apalachicola–Chattahoochee–Flint River Basin (ACFB) has been developed as part of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center effort to provide integrated science that helps resource managers understand the effect of climate change on a range of ecosystem responses. The hydrologic model was developed as part of the Southeast Regional Assessment Project using the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS), a deterministic, distributed-parameter, process-based system that simulates the effects of precipitation, temperature, and land use on basin hydrology. The ACFB PRMS model simulates streamflow throughout the approximately 50,700 square-kilometer basin on a daily time step for the period 1950–99 using gridded climate forcings of air temperature and precipitation, and parameters derived from spatial data layers of altitude, land cover, soils, surficial geology, depression storage (small water bodies), and data from 56 USGS streamgages. Measured streamflow data from 35 of the 56 USGS streamgages were used to calibrate and evaluate simulated basin streamflow; the remaining gage locations were used for model delineation only. The model matched measured daily streamflow at 31 of the 35 calibration gages with Nash-Sutcliffe Model Efficiency Index (NS) greater than 0.6. Streamflow data for some calibration gages were augmented for regulation and water use effects to represent more natural flow volumes. Time-static parameters describing land cover limited the ability of the simulation to match historical runoff in the more developed subbasins. Overall, the PRMS simulation of the ACFB provides a good representation of basin hydrology on annual and monthly time steps. Calibration subbasins were analyzed by separating the 35 subbasins into five classes based on physiography, land use, and stream type (tributary or mainstem). The lowest NS values were rarely below 0.6, whereas the median NS for all five classes was within 0.74 to 0.96 for annual mean streamflow, 0.89 to 0.98 for mean monthly streamflow, and 0.82 to 0.98 for monthly mean streamflow. The median bias for all five classes was within –4.3 to 0.8 percent for annual mean streamflow, –6.3 to 0.5 percent for mean monthly streamflow, and –9.3 to 1.3 percent for monthly mean streamflow. The NS results combined with the percent bias results indicated a good to very good streamflow volume simulation for all subbasins. This simulation of the ACFB provides a foundation for future modeling and interpretive studies. Streamflow and other components of the hydrologic cycle simulated by PRMS can be used to inform other types of simulations; water-temperature, hydrodynamic, and ecosystem-dynamics simulations are three examples. In addition, possible future hydrologic conditions could be studied using this model in combination with land cover projections and downscaled general circulation model results.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia↗
USGS2014

Stream classification of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River System to support modeling of aquatic habitat response to climate change

A stream classification and associated datasets were developed for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin to support biological modeling of species response to climate change in the southeastern United States. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of the Interior’s National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center established the Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) which used downscaled general circulation models to develop landscape-scale assessments of climate change and subsequent effects on land cover, ecosystems, and priority species in the southeastern United States. The SERAP aquatic and hydrologic dynamics modeling efforts involve multiscale watershed hydrology, stream-temperature, and fish-occupancy models, which all are based on the same stream network. Models were developed for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and subbasins in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, and for the Upper Roanoke River Basin in Virginia. The stream network was used as the spatial scheme through which information was shared across the various models within SERAP. Because these models operate at different scales, coordinated pair versions of the network were delineated, characterized, and parameterized for coarse- and fine-scale hydrologic and biologic modeling. The stream network used for the SERAP aquatic models was extracted from a 30-meter (m) scale digital elevation model (DEM) using standard topographic analysis of flow accumulation. At the finer scale, reaches were delineated to represent lengths of stream channel with fairly homogenous physical characteristics (mean reach length = 350 m). Every reach in the network is designated with geomorphic attributes including upstream drainage basin area, channel gradient, channel width, valley width, Strahler and Shreve stream order, stream power, and measures of stream confinement. The reach network was aggregated from tributary junction to tributary junction to define segments for the benefit of hydrological, soil erosion, and coarser ecological modeling. Reach attributes are summarized for each segment. In six subbasins segments are assigned additional attributes about barriers (usually impoundments) to fish migration and stream isolation. Segments in the six sub-basins are also attributed with percent urban area for the watershed upstream from the stream segment for each decade from 2010–2100 from models of urban growth. On a broader scale, for application in a coarse-scale species-response model, the stream-network information is aggregated and summarized by 256 drainage subbasins (Hydrologic Response Units) used for watershed hydrologic and stream-temperature models. A model of soil erodibility based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation also was developed at this scale to parameterize a model to evaluate stream condition. The reach-scale network was classified using multivariate clustering based on modeled channel width, valley width, and mean reach gradient as variables. The resulting classification consists of a 6-cluster and a 12-cluster classification for every reach in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint Basin. We present an example of the utility of the classification that was tested using the occurrence of two species of darters and two species of minnows in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, the blackbanded darter and Halloween darter, and the bluestripe shiner and blacktail shiner.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Virginia↗
USGS2015

Assessment of general health of fishes collected at selected sites in the Great Lakes Basin In 2012

During the past decade, there has been a substantive increase in the detection of “emerging contaminants”, defined as a new substance, chemical, or metabolite in the environment; or a legacy substance with a newly expanded distribution, altered release, or a newly recognized effect (such as endocrine disruption). Emerging contaminants include substances such as biogenic hormones (human and animal), brominated flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, plasticizers, current use pesticides, detergents, and nanoparticles. These contaminants are frequently not regulated or inadequately regulated by state or Federal water quality programs. Information about the toxicity of these substances to fish and wildlife resources is generally limited, compared to more highly regulated contaminants, and some classes have been shown to cause affects (for example feminization of male fish, immunomodulation) that are not evaluated via traditional toxicity testing protocols. As a result, these compounds may pose a substantial, but currently poorly documented threat to aquatic ecosystems. Failure to identify and understand the impacts of these emerging contaminants on fish and wildlife resources may result in deleterious impacts to Great Lakes resources that can result in adverse ecological, economic and recreational consequences. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service received funding through the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) for an Early Warning Program to detect and identify emerging contaminants and to evaluate the effects of these contaminants on fish and wildlife. The U.S. Geological Survey (WV Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and National Fish Health Research Laboratory, Leetown Science Center) developed and implemented a biological effects monitoring protocol to assist in this program. Fish collections and measurements of biomarkers of exposure in Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 occurred at individual sites within select Areas of Concern (AOCs). They provided an assessment of the utility of the suite of biomarkers and also identified sites for more in-depth analyses. Selected areas are characterized as areas with known emerging contaminants, sensitive or listed species, areas downstream from municipal wastewater discharges or receiving waters for industrial facilities, and/or areas susceptible to agricultural or urban contamination, or harbors or ports. The results of the 2010- 2011 studies were summarized in Blazer et al. 2014 a, b, c; Braham et al. in review and Blazer et al. in review.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2017

Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup: Statement of purpose and goals

Purpose The Interagency Coastal Wetlands Workgroup (ICWWG) helps to address coastal wetland loss by bringing together seven federal agencies with programs and authorities that support protection and management of coastal wetlands. Background Wetlands in coastal watersheds of the U.S. were lost at an average rate of 80,000 acres per year between 2004 and 2009. This is an increase from 59,000 acres per year between 1998 and 2004 as documented by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in their reports on the Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Coastal Watersheds. The ICWWG was formed in 2009 in response to these loss trends. Coastal wetlands include saltwater and freshwater wetlands located within coastal watersheds — specifically USGS 8-digit watersheds which drain into the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf of Mexico.

Report↗