Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Environmental Sciences”

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 1,477 records · Page 82Linked to original sources

USGS Science for Restoration of South Florida: The South Florida Ecosystem Program

As land and resource managers see the value of their resources diminish, and the public watches the environments they knew as children become degraded, there are increasing calls to restore what has been lost, or to build productive ecosystems that will be healthy and sustainable under the conditions of human use. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Placed-Based Studies Program was established to provide sound science for resource managers in critical ecosystems such as South Florida (fig. 1). The program, which began in south Florida in 1995, provides relevant information, high-quality data, and models to support decisions for ecosystem restoration and management. The program applies multi- and interdisciplinary science to address regional and subregional environmental resources issues.

Florida↗

Health-Based Screening Levels and their Application to Water-Quality Data

To supplement existing Federal drinking-water standards and guidelines, thereby providing a basis for a more comprehensive evaluation of contaminant-occurrence data in a human-health context, USGS began a collaborative project in 1998 with USEPA, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and the Oregon Health & Science University to calculate non-enforceable health-based screening levels. Screening levels were calculated for contaminants that do not have Maximum Contaminant Level values using a consensus approach that entailed (1) standard USEPA Office of Water methodologies (equations) for establishing Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA) and Risk-Specific Dose (RSD) values for the protection of human health, and (2) existing USEPA human-health toxicity information.

Fact Sheet↗

Powder X-ray diffraction laboratory, Reston, Virginia

The powder x-ray diffraction (XRD) laboratory is managed jointly by the Eastern Mineral and Environmental Resources and Eastern Energy Resources Science Centers. Laboratory scientists collaborate on a wide variety of research problems involving other U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science centers and government agencies, universities, and industry. Capabilities include identification and quantification of crystalline and amorphous phases, and crystallographic and atomic structure analysis for a wide variety of sample media. Customized laboratory procedures and analyses commonly are used to characterize non-routine samples including, but not limited to, organic and inorganic components in petroleum source rocks, ore and mine waste, clay minerals, and glassy phases. Procedures can be adapted to meet a variety of research objectives.

Virginia↗

Decision-support modeling and research priorities for establishing baseline conditions for outstandingly remarkable values, Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee

The Obed River is the last undammed river in Tennessee. The Obed Wild and Scenic River is managed by the National Park Service and covers a protected area of the Obed River headwaters (including four contributing tributaries). The Obed Wild and Scenic River supports a unique ecosystem with eight federally listed species. The National Park Service is responsible for preserving the baseline free-flowing condition of the river and associated outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). Previous studies have been mostly project-based with differing methods, thus complicating efforts to quantify long-term changes in environmental conditions. This report presents a science plan summarizing (1) ORV conditions, (2) recent results of a decision-support hydrologic model for OBRI, and (3) possible future research priorities. The decision-support model was created to model streamflow conditions and changes in the ORVs since park establishment in 1976 and during three additional time periods. Established baseline conditions could help with management of ORVs not dependent on streamflow.

Tennessee↗

Water-quality and geochemical variability in the Little Arkansas River and Equus aquifer, south-central Kansas, 2001–16

The city of Wichita’s water supply currently (2019) comes from two primary sources: Cheney Reservoir and the Equus Beds aquifer. The Equus Beds aquifer storage and recovery project was developed to help the city of Wichita meet increasing future water demands. Source water for artificial recharge comes from the Little Arkansas River during above-base-flow conditions, is treated using National Primary Drinking Water Regulations as a guideline, and is injected into the Equus Beds aquifer through recharge wells or surface spreading basins for later use. The Equus Beds aquifer storage and recovery project currently (2019) consists of two coexisting phases. Phase I began in 2007 and captures Little Arkansas River water and indirect streambank diversion well water for aquifer recharge using 4 wells and 2 recharge basins. Phase II began in 2013 and currently (2019) includes a surface-water treatment facility, a river intake facility, eight recharge injection wells, and a third recharge basin. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Wichita, completed this study to summarize water-quality and geochemical variability of the Equus Beds aquifer. Data in this report can be used to establish baseline conditions before implementing artificial aquifer recharge further, document groundwater quality, evaluate changing conditions, identify environmental factors affecting groundwater, provide science-based information for decision making, and help meet regulatory monitoring requirements. Physicochemical properties were measured and water-quality data were collected from 2 Little Arkansas River surface-water sites and 63 Equus Beds aquifer groundwater sites, including 38 areal assessment index wells (IWs) during 2001 through 2016. Data collection included discrete samples and additional continuous measurements at selected sites. Discretely collected samples were analyzed for physicochemical properties, dissolved solids, primary ions, nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus species), organic carbon, indicator bacteria, trace elements, arsenic species, organic compounds, and radioactivity. This report focuses discussion on aquifer water quality. Federal drinking-water criteria were used to evaluate aquifer water quality. Primary drinking-water criteria are those that are enforceable for public drinking water. Secondary criteria are those that can cause aesthetics or tastes that are unpleasant. Continuously collected data at a subset of sites included streamflow, groundwater levels, water temperature, specific conductance, pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), dissolved oxygen, turbidity, nitrate plus nitrite, and fluorescent dissolved organic matter. Continuous measurement of physicochemical properties in near-real time allowed characterization of Little Arkansas River surface water and Equus Beds aquifer groundwater during conditions and time scales that would not have been possible otherwise and served as a complement to discrete water-quality sampling. During 2001 through 2016, less than 1 percent of chloride and nitrate plus nitrite, 7 percent of dissolved iron, 48 percent of dissolved manganese, 12 percent of dissolved arsenic, and 39 percent of atrazine detections in surface-water samples exceeded their respective Federal primary or secondary drinking-water criteria. None of the surface-water samples collected exceeded the Federal sulfate criterion, and every sample had detections of total coliform bacteria during the study. Constituents of concern in the Equus Beds aquifer exceeded their respective Federal criteria throughout the study period and included chloride, sulfate, nitrate plus nitrite, Escherichia coli ( E. coli ), total coliforms, and dissolved iron and arsenic species. About 5 percent of shallow (less than 80 feet) and 7 percent of deep (greater than 80 feet) IW chloride sample concentrations exceeded the secondary Federal criterion of 250 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Chloride tended to exceed its criterion in shallow and deep wells along the Arkansas River and near Burrton, Kansas, an area with past oil and gas activities. Chloride concentrations near Burrton were larger in the deep parts of the aquifer. About 18 percent of shallow and 13 percent of deep IW sulfate sample concentrations exceeded the secondary Federal criterion of 250 mg/L. Mean sulfate concentrations tended to exceed the criterion in the central part of the study area. Shallow IW mean nitrate plus nitrite (hereafter referred to as “nitrate”) was substantially larger than mean deep IW nitrate. Geochemical conditions in the deeper aquifer reduced forms of nitrogen to species such as ammonia. About 15 percent of shallow and less than 1 percent of deep IW nitrate sample concentrations exceeded the Federal criterion of 10 mg/L. Mean shallow IW nitrate concentrations exceeded the criterion in the northeastern and southeastern parts of the study area; on average, deep IW nitrate concentrations did not exceed the criterion. E. coli and fecal coliform bacteria detections were usually at or near the detection limit. E. coli was detected in 3 percent of shallow and deep IWs, and fecal coliform bacteria were detected in 8 percent of shallow and 6 percent of deep IWs. Total coliforms were detected in 24 percent of shallow and 12 percent of deep IWs. E. coli coliphage was detected in two shallow IW samples (1 percent of samples) at the detection limit and was not detected in deep IW samples. Dissolved iron was detected in 51 percent of shallow and 62 percent of deep IW samples. Dissolved iron concentrations exceeded the secondary Federal criterion of 0.3 mg/L in 38 percent of shallow and 46 percent of deep IW samples. Mean dissolved iron concentrations were largest mostly in the central and northwest part of the study area corresponding to an area of the aquifer where aquifer material is more clay-rich. The distribution of large dissolved iron concentrations was similar to that of large sulfate concentrations. About 55 percent of shallow and 92 percent of deep IW dissolved manganese samples exceeded the secondary Federal criterion of 0.05 mg/L. Almost all samples from the central and northern parts of the study area had mean dissolved manganese concentrations that exceeded the Federal criterion in the shallow part of the aquifer. Mean dissolved manganese concentrations in the shallow part of the aquifer were substantially large (greater than 1,000 micrograms per liter [μg/L]) in wells near the Little Arkansas River and in the central part of the study area because of chemically reducing conditions in the aquifer that likely related to larger percentages of clay in the aquifer material. Concentrations of dissolved arsenic species generally were larger in the deep parts of the aquifer. Arsenite was the dominant form of arsenic on average in shallow (52 percent) and deep (55 percent) IWs. About 12 percent of shallow and 34 percent of deep IW dissolved arsenic sample concentrations exceeded the Federal primary drinking criterion of 10 μg/L. Shallow IW dissolved arsenic concentrations were larger near the Little Arkansas River and the center of the study area; large shallow IW dissolved arsenic concentrations (10–50 μg/L) in the center of the study area correspond to areas that have had the most water-level recovery since the historical low in 1993. Mean ORP in shallow IWs generally decreased with increasing water-level depths and were inversely related to mean dissolved arsenic concentrations because of more reducing conditions (smaller ORP) at larger depths below the land surface. Larger dissolved arsenic concentrations in the shallow parts of the aquifer were associated with decreases in water levels and a subsequent decrease in ORP and thus more reducing conditions. Atrazine was detected in about 58 percent of shallow and 28 percent of deep IWs and did not exceed the primary Federal criterion of 3 μg/L in any groundwater samples. Atrazine concentrations in shallow IWs generally were largest in the northwest part of the study area near the North Branch Kisiwa Creek, and atrazine concentrations in deep IWs generally were largest most often in the southern part of the study area. Gross α radioactivity concentrations exceeded the primary Federal criterion of 15 picocuries per liter in 4 percent of shallow IW samples. Gross α and gross β radioactivity concentrations generally were larger in the southern third of the aquifer. Most groundwater-sample-simulated minerals saturation indices (SIs) were consistently negative (undersaturated). Minerals that had SI values that were consistently or typically positive (oversaturated) included iron oxide, hydroxide, and quartz-group minerals. Several SI values for arsenic- and manganese-bearing minerals were consistently negative. Some manganese-bearing mineral SI values ranged from undersaturated to oversaturated in shallow and deep IWs during the study. Several carbonate minerals in shallow and deep IWs varied across their equilibrium state. Calcite SI values were larger more often in the deep parts of the aquifer and did not show a clear distributional pattern. Mean and median calcite SI values for shallow and deep IWs were negative (undersaturated) indicating the potential for calcite dissolution if calcite is present for a substantial part of the study period. However, some individual calcite SI values in this study indicated saturation and subsequent calcite precipitation may occur in the study area, potentially resulting in formation of calcite mineral deposits that may reduce efficiency of injection wells. SI values with respect to iron hydroxide varied across their equilibrium states. Mean and median SI values with respect to iron hydroxide were undersaturated in shallow and deep IWs; however, some samples had positive SI values indicating there is potential for iron hydroxide precipitation, possibly caused by leaching and oxidation of iron-containing minerals, like pyrite, in the aquifer material.

Kansas↗

Elevated road segment (ERS) passage design may provide enhanced connectivity for amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals

Introduction: Designs for safe and effective road crossing structures for small animals are typically under-road microtunnels and culverts which have varying levels of effectiveness reported in the scientific literature. Many species, particularly migratory amphibians, may have limited ability to find and use passages if they are too far apart, resulting in substantial barrier effects. Methods: We designed a novel open elevated passage (elevated road segment: ERS), similar to a low terrestrial bridge, that could theoretically be built to any length based upon species needs and movement characteristics. A 30 m length prototype ERS was installed along a forest road with a history of amphibian road mortality in Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, CA, USA. From 2018 to 2021, we monitored small animal activity under the ERS in relation to surrounding roadside and forest habitats using active infrared cameras. Results: We documented a total of 8,815 unique use events, using species specific independence criteria, across 22 species of amphibians (3), reptiles (4), and small mammals (15). Poisson regression modeling of taxonomic group activity under the ERS, roadside and forest, showed that amphibian activity was highest in the forest habitat, no differences were observed for reptiles, and small mammal activity was highest under the ERS. However, mean activity estimates under the ERS were equal to or greater than the open roadside habitat for all 22 species, suggesting that adding cover objects, such as downed logs and vegetation may further enhance passage use. Discussion: Overall, results showed that the design of the ERS crossing has potential to provide high connectivity for a wide range of amphibian, reptile, and small mammal species while reducing road mortality. ERS systems can also be used in areas with challenging terrain and other hydrological and environmental constraints. Incorporating current road ecology science, we provide supplemental ERS concept designs for secondary roads, primary roads and highways to help increase the options available for road mitigation planning for small animals.

California↗

Quantifying uncertainty and tradeoffs in resilience assessments

Several frameworks have been developed to assess the resilience of social-ecological systems, but most require substantial data inputs, time, and technical expertise. Stakeholders and practitioners often lack the resources for such intensive efforts. Furthermore, most end with problem framing and fail to explicitly address trade-offs and uncertainty. To remedy this gap, we developed a rapid survey assessment that compares the relative resilience of social-ecological systems with respect to a number of resilience properties. This approach generates large amounts of information relative to stakeholder inputs. We targeted four stakeholder categories: government (policy, regulation, management), end users (farmers, ranchers, landowners, industry), agency/public science (research, university, extension), and NGOs (environmental, citizen, social justice) in four North American watersheds, to assess social-ecological resilience through surveys. Conceptually, social-ecological systems are comprised of components ranging from strictly human to strictly ecological, but that relate directly or indirectly to one another. They have soft boundaries and several important dimensions or axes that together describe the nature of social-ecological interactions, e.g., variability, diversity, modularity, slow variables, feedbacks, capital, innovation, redundancy, and ecosystem services. There is no absolute measure of resilience, so our design takes advantage of cross-watershed comparisons and therefore focuses on relative resilience. Our approach quantifies and compares the relative resilience across watershed systems and potential trade-offs among different aspects of the social-ecological system, e.g., between social, economic, and ecological contributions. This approach permits explicit assessment of several types of uncertainty (e.g., self-assigned uncertainty for stakeholders; uncertainty across respondents, watersheds, and subsystems), and subjectivity in perceptions of resilience among key actors and decision makers and provides an efficient way to develop the mental models that inform our stakeholders and stakeholder categories.

Ecology and Society↗

Amphibian decline: An integrated analysis of multiple stressor effects

Capturing the attention and imagination of the public and the scientific community alike, the mysterious decline in amphibian populations drew scientists and resource managers from ecotoxicology and chemistry, ecology and field biology, conservation biology, and natural resource policy to a SETAC–Johnson Foundation workshop. Facilitating environmental stewardship, increasing capacity of the sciences to explain complex stressors, and educating the public on relationships among communities of all types motivated these experts to address amphibian decline and the role of various stressors in these losses.

Book↗

Landsat data ecosystem case study: Actor perceptions of the use and value of landsat

It is well-known that Earth observation (EO) data plays a critical role in scientific understanding about the global environment. There is also growing support for the use of EO data to provide context-specific insights, with significant implications for their use in decision support systems. Technological development over recent years, including cloud computing infrastructure, machine learning techniques, and rapid expansion of the velocity, volume, and variety of space-borne data sources, offer huge potential to provide solutions to the myriad environmental problems facing society and the planet. The USGS/NASA Landsat Program, the longest continuously gathered source of land surface data, has played a central role in our understanding of environmental change, particularly for its contribution of longitudinal products that offer greater context for present research and decision support activities. The challenge facing the Landsat and EO data community, however, now lies in moving beyond context-specific knowledge generation to translating such knowledge into tangible value for society. Drawing from an open data ecosystem framework and qualitative social science methods, we map the Landsat data ecosystem (LDE) and the relationships linking multiple actors responsible for processing, indexing, analyzing, synthesizing, and translating raw Landsat data into information that is useful, useable, and used by end users in particular social-environmental contexts. Both the role of Big Data and associated technologies are discussed as they relate to the ultimate use of Landsat-derived information products to guide decision-making, and key data ecosystem characteristics that shape the likelihood of these products’ use are highlighted.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗

Identifying priority science information needs for managing public lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management—the largest public land manager in the United States—in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

Environmental Management↗

Using public litigation records to identify priority science needs for managing public lands

Relevant science is essential for effective natural resource decision making, including on public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that cover 1/10th of the United States. Most of the BLM’s management decisions require analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of science in these decisions is often challenged. Using coproduction, we assembled an interagency team of scientists and resource managers to develop a method for using public litigation to identify priority science needs for the BLM. We searched publicly available case documents finalized from 2015–2019 in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico within federal courts and the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identified 108 case documents that involved challenges to the BLM’s use of science. We retained 48 case documents that contained at least one challenge about the BLM’s use of science for a specific resource. We categorized all challenges in each case document according to the proposed action, affected resource, type of science challenged (data about resources, science relevant to potential impacts, methods for analyzing potential impacts, and mitigation actions), and specific nature of the challenge (e.g., challenging direct effects analysis). We identified priority science needs based on the frequency of challenges, the number of states where similar challenges occurred, whether the BLM lost the challenge, and whether the case was remanded. Top needs related to oil and gas development actions and included science about effects on air quality and climate, water, and socioeconomics; data for air quality and climate; and methods for analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources and air quality and climate. The BLM can use this information to prioritize actions (e.g., funding new research or science syntheses) to strengthen its science foundation for decision-making.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗

6&6: A transdisciplinary approach to art-science collaboration

Despite an historical connection between the arts and sciences, in the past century, the two disciplines have been greatly siloed. However, there is a renewed interest in collaboration across the arts and sciences to support conservation practice by understanding and communicating complex environmental, social, and cultural challenges in novel ways. 6&6 was created as a transdisciplinary art–science initiative to promote a deeper appreciation of the Sonoran Desert. Six artists and six scientists were paired to create work that explored conservation issues in the Sonoran Desert and the Gulf of California. In-depth interviews were conducted with the artists and scientists throughout the 4-year initiative to understand the impact of 6&6 on their personal and professional behaviors and outlook. The findings from this case study reveal the role that intensive, place-based, and transdisciplinary art–science programs can play in shaping narratives to better communicate the patterns and processes of nature and human–environment interactions.

Arizona, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Cal↗

Rules for success in environmental negotiations

Scientists at the Mid-Continent Ecological Science Center of the National Biological Service conducted a series of case studies of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license consultations. The goal of these studies was to test hypotheses about factors that contribute to success in interagency negotiations. Based on their analysis of six case studies, the researchers constructed a list of ten "rules for success." Examples include: Analyze the incentives of each party to negotiate, paying special attention to parties who gain by not negotiating; Clarify the technical issues so that all agree and they coincide with resource management objectives; and Make sure the final agreement is feasible from both a physical and a policy perspective so that it can actually be implemented. These rules can be used to plan for negotiations and to diagnose ongoing negotiations.

Conference Paper↗

Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support

Executive Summary There is a growing body of tools available for science support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, and with large populations centers. Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development of USGS science support, include the following: •The national and regional response to spills occurs within an established system that must be respected by all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other efforts to contain and recover spilled materials. •The USGS has tools that have been used throughout spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for the USGS to participate in science support for inland spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This will require the USGS to improve internal and external communication and would be best accomplished by assigning one or more coordinator positions within the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will gofar in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools. •Rapid response to spills requires modeling and mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel estimation for a range of stream sizes across the United States. Many existing models use USGS streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill response community. • A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict plume extent, as well as more followup/longer-term fate and transport models, can be unknown or unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled at using these tools is needed to support spill response with the on-scene responders. • Research for inland spill fate and behavior done outside of an immediate spill response can assist with spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites) and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might behave under a range of environmental conditions. However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce and subject to funding availability. Examples include the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools for stream and impoundment environments. A long-term research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides important insights into transformations and longevity of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface water interactions. • Linking stream models to other components of this inland environment, including groundwater, overland flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models can also be linked with geospatial data such as that contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interactive mapping tools. • The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality data during spills in the United States because of its many geographically dispersed water science centers, its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement and documentation, and its cadre of skilled water-quality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for floods, could also be used for spills if they included spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS water and environmental science centers can be used for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to water quality and ecological communities. • Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance within the Incident Command Structure at the request of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their traditional duties.

Open-File Report↗

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↗

Geography for a Changing World - A science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005-2015

This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.

Circular↗

Global challenges for nitrogen science-policy interactions: Towards the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS) and improved coordination between multi-lateral environmental agreements

Human interference with the nitrogen cycle has doubled reactive nitrogen inputs to the global biosphere over the past century, leading to changes across multiple environmental issues that require urgent action. Nitrogen fertilizers and biological nitrogen fixation have allowed benefits of increased crop harvest and livestock production, while in some areas there is insufficient nitrogen to fertilize crops. Whether in excess or deficit, nitrogen losses from its inefficient use are causing a combination of freshwater and marine pollution, air pollution, alteration of climate balance, stratospheric ozone loss, biodiversity loss and reduction of soil quality. The resulting nitrogen pollution affects human health, well-being and livelihoods. Scientific efforts have begun to bring these issues together. However, there is still a high degree of fragmentation between research on the different benefits and threats of reactive nitrogen and between the respective policy frameworks, especially at the global scale. We argue that a more joined-up approach to managing the global nitrogen cycle is needed to develop the ‘gravity of common cause’ between nitrogen issues and to avoid policy trade-offs. We describe how a coherent system for science evidence provision is being developed to support policy development through the ‘International Nitrogen Management System’ (INMS). There is now a matching challenge to bring together the multiple policy agreements relevant for nitrogen as a foundation to address synergies/trade-offs and to set priorities. Based on review of existing frameworks, we outline the concept for an Interconvention nitrogen coordination mechanism. This could make a major contribution to multiple Sustainable Development Goals by stimulating the next generation of international nitrogen strategies: maximizing the benefits of efficient nitrogen use, while minimizing its many environmental threats.

Book chapter↗

Ecosystem services: developing sustainable management paradigms based on wetland functions and processes

In the late nineteenth century and twentieth century, there was considerable interest and activity to develop the United States for agricultural, mining, and many other purposes to improve the quality of human life standards and prosperity. Most of the work to support this development was focused along disciplinary lines with little attention focused on ecosystem service trade-offs or synergisms, especially those that transcended boundaries of scientific disciplines and specific interest groups. Concurrently, human population size has increased substantially and its use of ecosystem services has increased more than five-fold over just the past century. Consequently, the contemporary landscape has been highly modified for human use, leaving behind a fragmented landscape where basic ecosystem functions and processes have been broadly altered. Over this period, climate change also interacted with other anthropogenic effects, resulting in modern environmental problems having a complexity that is without historical precedent. The challenge before the scientific community is to develop new science paradigms that integrate relevant scientific disciplines to properly frame and evaluate modern environmental problems in a systems-type approach to better inform the decision-making process. Wetland science is a relatively new discipline that grew out of the conservation movement of the early twentieth century. In the United States, most of the conservation attention in the earlier days was on wildlife, but a growing human awareness of the importance of the environment led to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Concurrently, there was a broadening interest in conservation science, and the scientific study of wetlands gradually gained acceptance as a scientific discipline. Pioneering wetland scientists became formally organized when they formed The Society of Wetland Scientists in 1980 and established a publication outlet to share wetland research findings. In comparison to older and more traditional scientific disciplines, the wetland sciences may be better equipped to tackle today’s complex problems. Since its emergence as a scientific discipline, the study of wetlands has frequently required interdisciplinary and integrated approaches. This interdisciplinary/integrated approach is largely the result of the fact that wetlands cannot be studied in isolation of upland areas that contribute surface and subsurface water, solutes, sediments, and nutrients into wetland basins. However, challenges still remain in thoroughly integrating the wetland sciences with scientific disciplines involved in upland studies, especially those involved with agriculture, development, and other land-conversion activities that influence wetland hydrology, chemistry, and sedimentation. One way to facilitate this integration is to develop an understanding of how human activities affect wetland ecosystem services, especially the trade-offs and synergisms that occur when land-use changes are made. Used in this context, an understanding of the real costs of managing for a particular ecosystem service or groups of services can be determined and quantified in terms of reduced delivery of other services and in overall sustainability of the wetland and the landscapes that support them. In this chapter, we discuss some of the more salient aspects of a few common wetland types to give the reader some background on the diversity of functions that wetlands perform and the specific ecosystem services they provide to society. Wetlands are among the most complex ecosystems on the planet, and it is often difficult to communicate to a diverse public all of the positive services wetlands provide to mankind. Our goal is to help the reader develop an understanding that management options can be approached as societal choices where decisions can be made within a spatial and temporal context to identify trade-offs, synergies, and effects on long-term sustainability of wetland ecosystems. This will be especially relevant as we move into alternate climate futures where our portfolio of management options for mitigating damage to ecosystem function or detrimental cascading effects must be diverse and effective.

Book chapter↗