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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,531 records · Page 85Linked to original sources

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↗

USGS2009

Genetic conservation and paddlefish propagation

The conservation of genetic diversity of our natural resources is overwhelmingly one of the central foci of 21st century management practices. Three recommendations related to the conservation of paddlefish Polyodon spathula genetic diversity are to (1) identify genetic diversity at both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA loci using a suggested list of 20 sampling locations, (2) use genetic diversity estimates to develop genetic management units, and (3) identify broodstock sources to minimize effects of supplemental stocking on the genetic integrity of native paddlefish populations. We review previous genetic work on paddlefish and described key principles and concepts associated with maintaining genetic diversity within and among paddlefish populations and also present a genetic case study of current paddlefish propagation at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery. This study confirmed that three potential sources of broodfish were genetically indistinguishable at the loci examined, allowing the management agencies cooperating on this program flexibility in sampling gametes. This study also showed significant bias in the hatchery occurred in terms of male reproductive contribution, which resulted in a shift in the genetic diversity of progeny compared to the broodfish. This shift was shown to result from differential male contributions, partially attributed to the mode of egg fertilization. Genetic insights enable implementation of a paddlefish propagation program within an adaptive management strategy that conserves inherent genetic diversity while achieving demographic goals.

American Fisheries Society Symposium↗

USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

As a wildlife population ecologist who wants to conduct useful science, I find the Endangered Species Act (ESA), like other federal wildlife statutes, an intriguing read. The topic is in my wheelhouse—fish, wildlife, and plants, with a focus at the population and species levels. There is an emphasis on science, in fact, the “best scientific and commercial data available.” And there are intriguing questions: what threats does a species face? What habitat would be critical for its survival? Could any federal actions put the species or critical habitat in greater peril? I am not alone in this attraction. Hundreds of scientists continue to consider the types of scientific analysis suggested by the ESA. The enthusiasm is palpable. If the first cursory read of the ESA is intriguing to me as a scientist, the second close read is tantalizing—I realize that something very attractive is just out of reach. I know how to estimate the probability of extinction, but I do not know what “in danger of extinction” means. I know how to evaluate the incremental change in status that might arise from some level of proposed take, but I do not know what “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of a species means. The standards expressed in the statute are not stated in purely scientific terms. Thus, ESA decisions cannot be based solely on science, and require additional policy interpretation. Clarity about these policy interpretations—even awareness that they are needed—can be hard to find, leaving a gap between what I can provide as a scientist and what an ESA decision maker needs. This awareness of the interaction between science and policy is also occurring in the larger field of conservation science, where there has been an increasing recognition of a research-implementation gap, the need for actionable science, and the promise of translational ecology. All of these terms emphasize that science alone does not result in action; instead, action arises out of decisions that are informed both by science and by values. At the interface of science and policy, a scientist can deliver relevant knowledge, and a decision maker can explain the policy context in which that science is needed. As a scientist wanting to conduct useful science, I crave this two-way conversation. But how can this conversation be structured in a meaningful and appropriate way? In this chapter, I explore how decision analysis can be used to navigate the science-policy interface for ESA decisions. Decision analysis is a large, well-established field that studies how decisions are made and how they could be made, with explicit attention given to clarifying and separating the values-based and science-based elements of a decision; identifying the impediments that make a decision difficult; and providing tools to overcome those impediments. There have been concerted efforts to apply formal decision analysis to ESA decisions, but the practice is not yet widespread across both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The chapter begins with an introduction to decision analysis and how it seeks to bridge the science-policy interface. In subsequent sections, I explore how a decision analyst might frame listing and reclassification decisions, recovery planning, section 7 consultation, budget allocations, and a few other ESA decisions, with an emphasis on two questions: for each type of decision, what policy clarifications does the decision maker need to make; and knowing the policy context, what type of scientific assessment is needed. In the final discussion, I identify common themes among the types of decisions, and offer thoughts on how decision analysis could be more widely used to integrate science into ESA decisions.

Book chapter↗

USGS2026

Using monitoring data to understand lake water quality trends in southwest Alaskan National Parks

Lakes are vital ecosystems in southwest Alaska, supporting Pacific salmon, wildlife, and people. In Katmai and Lake Clark National Parks and Preserves, lakes span diverse landscapes containing volcanic uplands, glacier-fed valleys, and tundra all of which combine to influence their temperature, water quality, and ability to support critical uses. As the regional climate shifts, our understanding of lake responses requires more than just measurements of the lake surface water. Through long-term sampling of lakes from the surface to deep waters, we track how the environment —shaped by weather, geology, and land cover—governs lake water quality, including temperature, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and turbidity. These data help us understand and predict how lake water quality will change across seasons and landscapes, and what this will mean for lake ecology and the habitats fish and wildlife depend on. This work builds a foundation for predicting how Alaska’s lakes are changing and what that means for the ecosystems and communities they support.

Alaska↗

USGS2012

Lateral and vertical channel movement and potential for bed-material movement on the Madison River downstream from Earthquake Lake, Montana

The 1959 Hebgen Lake earthquake caused a massive landslide (Madison Slide) that dammed the Madison River and formed Earthquake Lake. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers excavated a spillway through the Madison Slide to permit outflow from Earthquake Lake. In June 1970, high streamflows on the Madison River severely eroded the spillway channel and damaged the roadway embankment along U.S. Highway 287 downstream from the Madison Slide. Investigations undertaken following the 1970 flood events concluded that substantial erosion through and downstream from the spillway could be expected for streamflows greater than 3,500 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s). Accordingly, the owners of Hebgen Dam, upstream from Earthquake Lake, have tried to manage releases from Hebgen Lake to prevent streamflows from exceeding 3,500 ft 3 /s measured at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gaging station 0638800 Madison River at Kirby Ranch, near Cameron, Montana. Management of flow releases from Hebgen Lake to avoid exceeding the threshold streamflow at USGS gaging station 06038800 is difficult, and has been questioned for two reasons. First, no road damage was reported downstream from the Earthquake Lake outlet in 1993, 1996, and 1997 when streamflows exceeded the 3,500-ft 3 /s threshold. Second, the 3,500-ft 3 /s threshold generally precludes releases of higher flows that could be beneficial to the blue-ribbon trout fishery downstream in the Madison River. In response to concerns about minimizing streamflow downstream from Earthquake Lake and the possible armoring of the spillway, the USGS, in cooperation with the Madison River Fisheries Technical Advisory Committee (MADTAC; Bureau of Land Management; Montana Department of Environmental Quality; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks; PPL-Montana; U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service - Gallatin National Forest; and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), conducted a study to determine movement of the Madison River channel downstream from Earthquake Lake and to investigate the potential for bed material movement along the same reach. The purpose of this report is to present information about the lateral and vertical movement of the Madison River from 1970 to 2006 for a 1-mile reach downstream from Earthquake Lake and for Raynolds Pass Bridge, and to provide an analysis of the potential for bed-material movement so that MADTAC can evaluate the applicability of the previously determined threshold streamflow for initiation of damaging erosion. As part of this study channel cross sections originally surveyed by the USGS in 1971 were resurveyed in 2006. Incremental channel-movement distances were determined by comparing the stream centerlines from 14 aerial photographs taken between 1970 and 2006. Depths of channel incision and aggregation were determined by comparing the 2006 and 1971 cross-section and water-surface data. Particle sizes of bed and bank materials were measured in 2006 and 2008 using the pebble-count method and sieve analyses. A one-dimensional hydraulic-flow model (HEC-RAS) was used to calculate mean boundary-shear stresses for various streamflows; these calculated boundary-shear stresses were compared to calculated critical-shear stresses for the bed materials to determine the potential for bed-material movement. A comparison of lateral channel movement distances with annual peak streamflows shows that streamflows higher than the 3,500-ft 3 /s threshold were followed by lateral channel movement except from 1991 to 1992 and possibly from 1996 to 1997. However, it was not possible to discern whether the channel moved gradually or suddenly, or in response to one peak flow, to several peak flows, or to sustained flows. The channel moved between 2002 and 2005 even when streamflows were less than the threshold streamflow of 3,500 ft 3 /s. Comparisons of cross sections and aerial photographs show that the channel has moved laterally and incised and aggraded to varying degrees. The channel has developed meander bends and has incised as much as 5–12 feet (ft) through the upstream part of the Madison Slide (cross sections 1400–800). Near cross section 800, the stream has eroded into the steep right bank between the stream and the road where fill was mechanically placed after 1970. Channel movement also was noted downstream from the Madison Slide. Near Raynolds Pass Bridge, about 3 miles (mi) downstream from Earthquake Lake, elevations across the channel have changed by -1.4 ft to +1.9 ft, but these changes were local in nature and could represent a few rocks or depressions in the bed. Overall, it does not appear that the materials eroded from the Madison Slide are causing aggradation in the subreach near the Raynolds Pass Bridge. Comparisons of critical shear stresses to mean boundary-shear stresses indicate that the D50 particle sizes (median size) along the right side of the bed between cross sections 400 and 500 and along the right side of the bed between cross sections 1300 and 1400 could move at the threshold streamflow. In contrast, most of the D84 particle sizes at those two locations probably will not move at the threshold streamflow. This lack of movement for the larger particles at the threshold streamflow could lead to further armoring of the bed as the D50 and smaller-sized particles are removed from the bed and transported downstream. The Shields parameter values from 0.04 to 0.08 that were used to calculate critical shear stresses could be conservative for a high-gradient stream such as the Madison. A higher, less conservative, Shields parameter would result in higher critical shear stresses, meaning that higher streamflows would be required to move material than those reported herein. In addition, because materials in the channel thalweg are exposed to higher boundary-shear stresses than the materials along the sides of the channel, larger, more erosion-resistant materials likely exist in the deeper parts of the channel where high-flow depths and velocities prevented sediment sampling. Movement of these materials might require higher critical shear stresses than estimated in this report. Characterization of sediment sizes in the center of the stream and observation of bed-material movement for a range of streamflows could provide information to help refine the Shields parameter and critical-shear stress estimates for bed materials in the Madison River downstream from Earthquake Lake. Furthermore, resurveying cross sections and water-surface elevations more frequently (either annually or after high streamflows) could better define the relation between streamflow and lateral and vertical channel movement.

Montana↗

USGS2000

Managers' summary - Ecological studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997

Ecological Studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997 provides a synthesis of key findings of landscape-scale, interdisciplinary studies of the effects of wild horses and native ungulates on a rugged, mountain ecosystem. This is perhaps the most comprehensive study of a wild horse herd conducted. This was a complex study and one involving a truly interagency approach. Six agencies either provided input to research priority setting, funding, or both. The agencies included the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and U.S. Forest Service. The major research direction and effort came from the U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Ecology Lab, Colorado State University with Montana State University and the University of Kentucky also participating. Ungulate monitoring was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Bureau of Land Management, Billings Field Office and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Parks, with funding by Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Many other individuals and groups were involved and deserve credit. The report printing was made possible with funds from the Bureau of Land Management, Wild Horse and Burro Program, Washington Office. This report was prepared by the Information Management Project, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey.

Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2021

Spring types and contributing aquifers from water-chemistry and multivariate statistical analyses for seeps and springs in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota, 2018

Water resources in Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota, support wildlife, visitors, and staff, and play a vital role in supporting the native ecology of the park. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the National Park Service, completed field work in 2018 for a study to address concerns about water availability and possible sources of groundwater contamination for seeps and springs in Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The objective of the study was to improve hydrologic knowledge and determine the water composition of 11 seeps and springs in the park by collecting water-chemistry data at springs, streams, wells, and rain collectors. Water samples were collected at 26 sites at springs, streams, wells, and rain collectors in the North and South Units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Samples in the North Unit were collected at 5 springs, 1 stream, 2 wells, and 1 rain collector. Samples in the South Unit were collected at 6 springs, 2 streams, 8 wells, and 1 rain collector. Samples from springs, streams, and wells were collected in May, July, and September 2018. Samples from rain collectors were collected when enough daily precipitation accumulated in the collectors. Sampled precipitation events during the study period were in May, June, July, August, and September 2018. Physical properties of sampled water—temperature, pH, and specific conductance—were measured in the field. Water samples were analyzed for stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen and for chloride concentration. Recharge rates for aquifers supplying springs were determined using precipitation volume and chloride concentrations for a 12-day period before the sample-collection date. Multivariate statistical analysis methods used on water-chemistry data included principal component analysis, cluster analysis, and end-member mixing analysis. Water composition was used to determine the spring type and contributing aquifers for 11 springs in the North and South Units of Theodore Roosevelt National Park from analyses of water-chemistry data between May and September 2018. In the North Unit, Achenbach Spring was classified as a filtration spring with water from an unconfined part of the upper Fort Union aquifer and infiltration of precipitation. Hagen Spring, Mandal Spring, and Stevens Spring were classified as contact springs supplied by semiconfined parts of the upper Fort Union aquifer. Overlook Spring at one time may have been a natural spring or seep but now is a developed spring that behaves like a flowing artesian well completed in a confined part of the upper Fort Union aquifer. In the South Unit, six springs were classified into two spring types: filtration and contact springs. Boicourt Spring and Sheep Butte Spring were classified as filtration springs that have water supplied by unconfined parts of the upper Fort Union aquifer and infiltrated precipitation. Big Plateau Spring, Lone Tree Spring, Sheep Pasture Spring, and Southeast Corner Spring were classified as contact springs that receive waters from a semiconfined part of the upper Fort Union aquifer.

North Dakota↗

USGS1995

Oil, biological communities and contingency planning

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 mandates the inclusion of a fish and wildlife response plan in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and the creation of Area Committees that must develop an Area Contingency Plan (ACP). Area Contingency Plans must include a detailed annex containing a Fish and Wildlife and Sensitive Environments Plan. Tank vessels, offshore facilities, and certain onshore facilities must have response plans consistent with the requirements of the NCP and the ACP. New regulations to supersede the Type A and B procedures of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment Regulations are being developed for oil spills. Currently, four assessment methods have been proposed: (1) Type A, (2) comprehensive (Type B), (3) intermediate (between types A and B), and (4) compensation tables. The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is approaching its ceiling of $1 billion, but only $50 million has been appropriated. Effective biological contingency planning requires extensive knowledge of (1) the environmental fate of petroleum, (2) the effects of petroleum on organisms, (3) the existing biological resources, and (4) the establishment of a system of biological priorities. The characteristics and fate of petroleum and the biological effects of petroleum are reviewed. Assessment of biological resources includes plant and animal distributions, important habitat, endangered or threatened species, and economic considerations. The establishment by Area Committees of priorities for environmental protection, injury assessment, and restoration will promote efficient spill response. Three special issues are discussed: (1) improving our ability to restore natural resources, (2) the potential role of biological diversity in spill response planning, and (3) planning for animal rehabilitation.

Book chapter↗