SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Environment Systems and Decisions”

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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources

USGS1992

Crystalline Silica Primer

Crystalline silica is the scientific name for a group of minerals composed of silicon and oxygen. The term crystalline refers to the fact that the oxygen and silicon atoms are arranged in a threedimensional repeating pattern. This group of minerals has shaped human history since the beginning of civilization. From the sand used for making glass to the piezoelectric quartz crystals used in advanced communication systems, crystalline silica has been a part of our technological development. Crystalline silica's pervasiveness in our technology is matched only by its abundance in nature. It's found in samples from every geologic era and from every location around the globe. Scientists have known for decades that prolonged and excessive exposure to crystalline silica dust in mining environments can cause silicosis, a noncancerous lung disease. During the 1980's, studies were conducted that suggested that crystalline silica also was a carcinogen. As a result of these findings, crystalline silica has been regulated under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Hazard Communication Standard (HCS). Under HCS, OSHAregulated businesses that use materials containing 0.1% or more crystalline silica must follow Federal guidelines concerning hazard communication and worker training. Although the HCS does not require that samples be analyzed for crystalline silica, mineral suppliers or OSHAregulated businesses may choose to do so if they wish to show that they are exempt from the requirements of HCS. Because crystalline silica is an extremely common mineral and the HCS will affect many mineral commodities, it is important then, that there be as clear an understanding as possible of what is and what is not crystalline silica, and where it is found and used, and how it is qualitatively and quantitatively identified. This primer is an attempt to accomplish this in as nontechnical a manner as possible. This primer will examine crystalline silica. Part I will describe, in nonscientific terms, what crystalline silica is and how we come in contact with it. Part II will discuss the regulatory decisions that have created new interest in this ancient and widespread substance and will present a nontechnical overview of the techniques used to measure crystalline silica. Because this primer is meant to be a starting point for anyone interested in learning more about crystalline silica, a list of selected readings and other resources is included. The detailed glossary, which defines many terms that are beyond the scope of this publication, is designed to help the reader move from this presentation to a more technical one, the inevitable next step.

Special Publication↗

USGS2017

Indicator-driven conservation planning across terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, and marine ecosystems of the south Atlantic, USA

Systematic conservation planning, a widely used approach to identify priority lands and waters, uses efficient, defensible, and transparent methods aimed at conserving biodiversity and ecological systems. Limited financial resources and competing land uses can be major impediments to conservation; therefore, participation of diverse stakeholders in the planning process is advantageous to help address broad-scale threats and challenges of the 21st century. Although a broad extent is needed to identify core areas and corridors for fish and wildlife populations, a fine-scale resolution is needed to manage for multiple, interconnected ecosystems. Here, we developed a conservation plan using a systematic approach to promote landscape-level conservation within the extent of the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative. Our objective was to identify the highest-ranked 30% of lands and waters within the South Atlantic deemed necessary to conserve ecological and cultural integrity for the 10 primary ecosystems of the southeastern United States. These environments varied from terrestrial, freshwater aquatic, and marine. The planning process was driven by indicators of ecosystem integrity at a 4-ha resolution. We used the program Zonation and 28 indicators to optimize the identification of lands and waters to meet the stated objective. A novel part of our study was the prioritization of multiple ecosystems, and we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. The evaluation of indicator representation within prioritizations was a useful method to show where improvements could be made; some indicators dictated hotspots, some had a limited extent and were well represented, and others had a limited effect. Overall, we demonstrate that a broad-scale (408,276 km 2 of terrestrial and 411,239 km 2 of marine environments) conservation plan can be realized at a fine-scale resolution, which will allow implementation of the regional plan at a local level relevant to decision making.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗

USGS2012

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force---Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science Assessment and Needs

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long-term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (Mabus Report). The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The GCERTF was charged to develop a holistic, long-term, science-based Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy for the Gulf of Mexico. Federal and State agencies staffed the GCERTF with experts in fields such as policy, budgeting, and science to help develop the Strategy. The Strategy was built on existing authorities and resources and represents enhanced collaboration and a recognition of the shared responsibility among Federal and State governments to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem. In this time of severe fiscal constraints, Task Force member agencies and States are committed to establishing shared priorities and working together to achieve them. As part of this effort, three staffers, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist and two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, created and led a Science Coordination Team (SCT) to guide scientific input into the development of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The SCT leads from the GCERTF coordinated more than 70 scientists from the Federal and State Task Force member agencies to participate in development of a restoration-oriented science document focused on the entire Gulf of Mexico, from inland watersheds to the deep blue waters. The SCT leads and scientists were organized into six different working groups based on expanded goals from the Mabus Report: Coastal habitats are healthy and resilient. Living coastal and marine resources are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. Coastal communities are adaptive and resilient. Storm buffers are sustainable. Inland habitats and watersheds are managed to help support healthy and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. Offshore environments are healthy and well managed Each working group was charged with defining their specific goal, describing the current conditions related to that goal (for example, the status of coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico), providing highlevel activities needed to further define and achieve the goal, with associated outcome-based performance indicators, and identifying the scientific gaps in understanding to accomplish the goal and implement the recommended activities. The overall scientific assessment reveals that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem continues to suffer from extensive degradation, and action is necessary to develop a healthy, resilient, and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The six groups also were tasked with outlining the necessary monitoring, modeling, and research needs to aid in achieving the goals. Recognizing that (1) the scientific needs (monitoring, modeling, and research) overlap among many of the goals, and (2) an overarching scientific framework could be developed to implement the necessary science in support of the Strategy, a seventh group was created with several members from each of the original six working groups. This seventh group compiled all of the cross-cutting monitoring, modeling, and research needs previously identified by the individual groups. These scientific requirements are found in Chapter 5 of this document. The seventh group also has developed a Science Plan, outlined in Chapter 6. The Science Plan provides the basic science infrastructure to support the overall Gulf restoration program and Strategy. The Science Plan allows for the development of an iterative and flexible approach to adaptive management and decision-making related to restoration projects based on sound science that includes monitoring, modeling, and research. Taken in its entirety, this document helps to articulate the current state of the system and the critical science needs to support effective restoration of the Gulf of Mexico resources that have been trending towards decline for decades.

Report↗

USGS2010

Fort Collins Science Center-Fiscal year 2009 science accomplishments

Public land and natural resource managers in the United States are confronted with increasingly complex decisions that have important ramifications for both ecological and human systems. The scientists and technical professionals at the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center?many of whom are at the forefront of their fields?possess a unique blend of ecological, socioeconomic, and technological expertise. Because of this diverse talent, Fort Collins Science Center staff are able to apply a systems approach to investigating complicated ecological problems in a way that helps answer critical management questions. In addition, the Fort Collins Science Center has a long record of working closely with the academic community through cooperative agreements and other collaborations. The Fort Collins Science Center is deeply engaged with other U.S. Geological Survey science centers and partners throughout the Department of the Interior. As a regular practice, we incorporate the expertise of these partners in providing a full complement of ?the right people? to effectively tackle the multifaceted research problems of today's resource-management world. In Fiscal Year 2009, the Fort Collins Science Center's scientific and technical professionals continued research vital to Department of the Interior's science and management needs. Fort Collins Science Center work also supported the science needs of other Federal and State agencies as well as non-government organizations. Specifically, Fort Collins Science Center research and technical assistance focused on client and partner needs and goals in the areas of biological information management and delivery, enterprise information, fisheries and aquatic systems, invasive species, status and trends of biological resources (including human dimensions), terrestrial ecosystems, and wildlife resources. In the process, Fort Collins Science Center science addressed natural-science information needs identified in the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy (http://www.usgs.gov/science_strategy), including understanding and predicting change in ecosystems, climate variability and change, energy development and land management, the role of the environment and wildlife in human health, freshwater ecosystems, data integration, and evolving technologies. Several science projects were expanded in Fiscal Year 2009 to meet these evolving needs.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2004

Seafloor habitat mapping and classification in Glacier Bay, Alaska: Phase 1 & 2 1996-2004

Glacier Bay is a diverse fjord ecosystem with multiple sills, numerous tidewater glaciers and a highly complex oceanographic system. The Bay was completely glaciated prior to the 1700’s and subsequently experienced the fastest glacial retreat recorded in historical times. Currently, some of the highest sedimentation rates ever observed occur in the Bay, along with rapid uplift (up to 2.5 cm/year) due to a combination of plate tectonics and isostatic rebound. Glacier Bay is the second deepest fjord in Alaska, with depths over 500 meters. This variety of physical processes and bathymetry creates many diverse habitats within a relatively small area (1,255 km 2 ). Habitat can be defined as the locality, including resources and environmental conditions, occupied by a species or population of organisms (Morrison et al 1992). Mapping and characterization of benthic habitat is crucial to an understanding of marine species and can serve a variety of purposes including: understanding species distributions and improving stock assessments, designing special management areas and marine protected areas, monitoring and protecting important habitats, and assessing habitat change due to natural or human impacts. In 1996, Congress recognized the importance of understanding benthic habitat for fisheries management by reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and amending it with the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). This amendment emphasizes the importance of habitat protection to healthy fisheries and requires identification of essential fish habitat in management decisions. Recently, the National Park Service’s Ocean Stewardship Strategy identified the creation of benthic habitat maps and sediment maps as crucial components to complete basic ocean park resource inventories (Davis 2003). Glacier Bay National Park managers currently have very limited knowledge about the bathymetry, sediment types, and various marine habitats of ecological importance in the Park. Ocean floor bathymetry and sediment type are the building blocks of marine communities. Bottom type and shape affects the kinds of benthic communities that develop in a particular environment as well as the oceanographic conditions that communities are subject to. Accurate mapping of the ocean floor is essential for park manager’s understanding of existing marine communities and will be important in assessing human induced changes (e.g., vessel traffic and commercial fishing), biological change (e.g., rapid sea otter recolonization), and geological processes of change (e.g., deglaciation). Information on animal-habitat relationships, particularly within a marine reserve framework, will be valuable to agencies making decisions about critical habitats, marine reserve design, as well as fishery management. Identification and mapping of benthic habitat provides National Park Service mangers with tools to increase the effectiveness of resource management. The primary objective of this project is to investigate the geological characteristics of the biological habitats of halibut, Dungeness crab, king crab, and Tanner crab within Glacier Bay National Park. Additionally, habitat classification of shallow water regions of Glacier Bay will provide crucial information on the relationship between benthic habitat features and the abundance of benthic prey items for a variety of marine predators, including sea ducks, the rapidly increasing population of sea otters, and other marine mammals.

Alaska↗

USGS2013

Interactions between striped bass and other gamefish in reservoirs

Competitive interactions among reservoir fishes may be pronounced because fish assemblages in these artificial environments have had little time to develop niche-partitioning strategies that alleviate negative interspecific interactions. Such interactions may at times have been intensified by introductions of predators such as striped bass Morone saxatilis , introduced to create additional fisheries and control pelagic clupeids. Possible interactions between existing fish assemblages and striped bass include predation and competition. While there is a perception among angler groups that predation by striped bass on co-existing game fish is significant, most studies have reported little or no predation on game fish my striped bass and have considered predation rare and inconsequential. Moreover, predation that occurs will likely be compensatory and fail to reduce overall game fish survival. Any indirect effect of striped bass predation by restricting prey-sized game fish to limited refuge sites remains unknown. Exploitative competition may be more common. Although infrequently, introduced striped bass have depleted prey resources shared with other piscivores, particularly when stocking rates have been high, when there is a high rate of natural reproduction, or when prey supply has plunged in response to environmental fluxes. Fluctuation in prey supply, associated with ordinary environmental variability, and associated time lages in prey supply and predator demand, preclude adjusting predator densities to exactly balance demand with supply. The frequency of low supply-demand rations varies across systems and exhibits seasonal trends. Nevertheless, chronic supply-demand imbalances are manageable where the predator assemblage is at least partially controlled through stocking, harvest regulations, or both. Because of the poor state of knowledge concerning the parameters defining balance and because uncontrollable annual fluctuations preclude exact management of alternating prey levels, we suggest adjusting stocking to manage demand to that it equals the median historical prey supply. Simulating the removal of striped bass and predicting the aftermath may be the most cost-efficient way to provide decision support for stakeholders involved in determining if a striped bass stocking program is beneficial to most users.

American Fisheries Society Symposium↗

USGS1993

Managing biological diversity

Biological diversity is the variety of life and accompanying ecological processes (Off. Technol. Assess. 1987, Wilcove and Samson 1987, Keystone 1991). Conservation of biological diversity is a major environmental issue (Wilson 1988, Counc. Environ. Quality 1991). The health and future of the earth's ecological systems (Lubchenco et al. 1991), global climate change (Botkin 1990), and an ever-increasing rate in loss of species, communities, and ecological systems (Myers 1990) are among issues drawing biological diversity to the mainstream of conservation worldwide (Int. Union Conserv. Nat. and Nat. Resour. [IUCN] et al. 1991). The legal mandate for conserving biological diversity is now in place (Carlson 1988, Doremus 1991). More than 19 federal laws govern the use of biological resources in the United States (Rein 1991). The proposed National Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 585 and S.58) notes the need for a national biological diversity policy, would create a national center for biological diversity research, and recommends a federal interagency strategy for ecosystem conservation. There are, however, hard choices ahead for the conservation of biological diversity, and biologists are grappling with how to set priorities in research and management (Roberts 1988). We sense disillusion among field biologists and managers relative to how to operationally approach the seemingly overwhelming charge of conserving biological diversity. Biologists also need to respond to critics like Hunt (1991) who suggest a tree farm has more biological diversity than an equal area of old-growth forest. At present, science has played only a minor role in the conservation of biological diversity (Weston 1992) with no unified approach available to evaluate strategies and programs that address the quality and quantity of biological diversity (Murphy 1990, Erwin 1992). Although actions to conserve biological diversity need to be clearly defined by viewing issues across biological, spatial, and temporal scales (Knopf and Smith 1992), natural resource managers find much conflicting information in the literature on strategies and programs for the conservation of biological diversity (Ehrlich 1992). Moreover, recommendations provided in much of the published information available for planning or decisions not only can be debated but may prove counterproductive if implemented. Current operational efforts beg for clearer focus on fundamental concepts central to daily decisions that impact native biological diversity. Recognizing that many biologists would provide different council and at the risk of oversimplification, we offer the following 4 topical issues as fundamental guidance to wise conservation action. These recommendations are based on our collective experiences working within conservation agencies since our original, collaborative essay (Samson and Knopf 1982). They are offered as initial, rather than authoritative, steps to better align research and management decisions with what we perceive as the critical issues in conserving biological diversity at the landscape and ecosystem levels of resolution.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗

USGS2019

Managing dams for energy and fish tradeoffs: What does a win-win solution take?

Management activities to restore endangered fish species, such as dam removals, fishway installations, and periodic turbine shutdowns, usually decrease hydropower generation capacities at dams. Quantitative analysis of the tradeoffs between energy production and fish population recovery related to dam decision-making is still lacking. In this study, an integrated hydropower generation and age-structured fish population model was developed using a system dynamics modeling method to assess basin-scale energy-fish tradeoffs under eight dam management scenarios. This model ran across 150 years on a daily time step, applied to five hydroelectric dams located in the main stem of the Penobscot River, Maine. We used alewife ( Alosa pseudoharengus ) to be representative of the local diadromous fish populations to link projected hydropower production with theoretical influences on migratory fish populations on the model river system. Our results show that while the five dams can produce around 427 GWh/year of energy, without fishway installations they would contribute to a 90% reduction in the alewife spawner abundance. The effectiveness of fishway installations is largely influenced by the size of reopened habitat areas and the actual passage rate of the fishways. Homing to natal habitat has an insignificant effect on the growth of the simulated spawner abundance. Operating turbine shutdowns during alewives' peak downstream migration periods, in addition to other dam management strategies, can effectively increase the spawner abundance by 480–550% while also preserving 65% of the hydropower generation capacity. These data demonstrate that in a river system where active hydropower dams operate, a combination of dam management strategies at the basin scale can best balance the tradeoff between energy production and the potential for migratory fish population recovery.

Maine↗

USGS2011

A Bayesian network to predict coastal vulnerability to sea level rise

Sea level rise during the 21st century will have a wide range of effects on coastal environments, human development, and infrastructure in coastal areas. The broad range of complex factors influencing coastal systems contributes to large uncertainties in predicting long-term sea level rise impacts. Here we explore and demonstrate the capabilities of a Bayesian network (BN) to predict long-term shoreline change associated with sea level rise and make quantitative assessments of prediction uncertainty. A BN is used to define relationships between driving forces, geologic constraints, and coastal response for the U.S. Atlantic coast that include observations of local rates of relative sea level rise, wave height, tide range, geomorphic classification, coastal slope, and shoreline change rate. The BN is used to make probabilistic predictions of shoreline retreat in response to different future sea level rise rates. Results demonstrate that the probability of shoreline retreat increases with higher rates of sea level rise. Where more specific information is included, the probability of shoreline change increases in a number of cases, indicating more confident predictions. A hindcast evaluation of the BN indicates that the network correctly predicts 71% of the cases. Evaluation of the results using Brier skill and log likelihood ratio scores indicates that the network provides shoreline change predictions that are better than the prior probability. Shoreline change outcomes indicating stability (-1 < rate < 1 m/yr) or erosion (rate < -1 m/yr) tend to occur for two sets of input scenarios. Stable shoreline change rates occur mainly for low rates of relative sea level rise and occur in low-vulnerability geomorphic settings. Rates indicating erosion result for cases where the rate of relative sea level rise is high and moderate-to-high vulnerability geomorphic settings occur. In contrast, accretion (rate > 1 m/yr) was not well predicted. We find that BNs can assimilate important factors contributing to coastal change in response to sea level rise and can make quantitative, probabilistic predictions that can be applied to coastal management decisions. Copyright ?? 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.

Journal of Geophysical Research F: Earth Surface↗

USGS2016

Sediment load and distribution in the lower Skagit River, Skagit County, Washington

The Skagit River delivers about 40 percent of all fluvial sediment that enters Puget Sound, influencing flood hazards in the Skagit lowlands, critically important estuarine habitat in the delta, and some of the most diverse and productive agriculture in western Washington. A total of 175 measurements of suspended-sediment load, made routinely from 1974 to 1993, and sporadically from 2006 to 2009, were used to develop and evaluate regression models of sediment transport (also known as “sediment-rating curves”) for estimating suspended-sediment load as a function of river discharge. Using a flow-range model and 75 years of daily discharge record (acquired from 1941 to 2015), the mean annual suspended-sediment load for the Skagit River near Mount Vernon, Washington, was estimated to be 2.5 teragrams (Tg, where 1 Tg = 1 million metric tons). The seasonal model indicates that 74 percent of the total annual suspended‑sediment load is delivered to Puget Sound during the winter storm season (from October through March), but also indicates that discharge is a poor surrogate for suspended‑sediment concentration (SSC) during the summer low-flow season. Sediment-rating curves developed for different time periods revealed that the regression model slope of the SSC-discharge relation increased 66 percent between the periods of 1974–76 and 2006–09 when suspended-sediment samples were collected, implying that changes in sediment supply, channel hydraulics, and (or) basin hydrology occurred between the two time intervals. In the relatively wet water year 2007 (October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007), an automated sampler was used to collect daily samples of suspended sediment from which an annual load of 4.5 Tg was calculated, dominated by a single large flood event that contributed 1.8 Tg, or 40 percent of the total. In comparison, the annual load calculated for water year 2007 using the preferred flow-range model was 4.8 Tg (+6.7 percent), in close agreement with the measured value. Particle size affects sediment transport, fate and distribution across watersheds, and therefore is important for predicting how coastal environments, particularly deltas and beaches, will respond to changes in climate and sea-level. Particle-size analysis of winter storm samples indicated that about one-half of the suspended-sediment load consisted of fines (that is, silt- and clay-sized particles smaller than 0.0625 mm in diameter), and the remainder consisted of mostly fine- to medium-sized sand (0.0625–0.5 mm), whereas bedload during winter storm flows (about 1–3 percent of total sediment load) was predominantly composed of medium to coarse sand (0.25–1 mm). A continuous turbidity record from the Anacortes Water Treatment Plant (water years 1999–2013), used as a surrogate for the concentration of fines ( R 2 = 0.93, p = 4.2E-10, n = 17), confirms that about one-half of the mean annual suspended-sediment load is composed of fines. The distribution of flow through the delta distributaries (that is, the channels into which the main stem splits as it approaches the delta) is dynamic, with twice as much flow through the North Fork of the Skagit River relative to the South Fork during low-flow conditions, and close to equal flows in the two channels during high-flow conditions. Turbidity, monitored at several locations in the lower river in spring 2009, was essentially uniform among sites, indicating that fines are well mixed in the lower Skagit River system (defined as the Skagit River and all its distributaries downstream of the Mount Vernon streamgage). A strong relation ( R 2 = 0.95, p = 3.2E-14, n = 21; linear regression) between the concentration of fines and turbidity measured at various locations in summer 2009 indicates that turbidity is an effective surrogate for the concentration of fines, independent of location in the river, under naturally well-mixed fluvial conditions. This relation is especially useful for monitoring suspended sediment in western Washington rivers that are seasonally dominated by glacier meltwater because glacial melting typically produces suspended-sediment concentrations that are not well correlated with discharge. These results provide a comprehensive set of tools to estimate sediment delivery and delta responses of interest to scientists and resource managers including decision-makers examining options for flood hazard mitigation, estuary restoration, and climate change adaptation.

Washington↗

USGS2021

Determination of burn severity models ranging from regional to continental scales for the conterminous United States

Identifying meaningful measures of ecological change over large areas is dependent on the quantification of robust relationships between ecological metrics and remote sensing products. Over the past several decades, ground observations of wildfire and prescribed fire severity have been acquired across hundreds of wildland fires in the United States, primarily utilizing the Composite Burn Index (CBI) plot protocol. These observations have been coupled to spaceborne passive spectral reflectance indices (e.g. Landsat-derived variations of the Normalized Burn Ratio [NBR]) to produce regression models describing their relationship. Here we develop regression models by vegetation type for multiple vegetation classification systems representing a range of spatial scales, and a decision tree framework for evaluating these regression models. Our overall goals were to determine which scale of ecological classifications provided the best estimate of burn severity from Landsat data and how to choose the best regression model. We aggregated a total of 6280 CBI plots for 234 wildland fires that burned between 1994 and 2017 and produced Landsat-derived NBR and differenced NBR (dNBR) values for each plot. We then calculated best fit linear or higher order regression equations between CBI and NBR/dNBR for each landcover classification system from smallest to largest scale: LANDFIRE Biophysical Settings (BPS), National Vegetation Classification macrogroup (NVC) landcover classifications, Omernick III, II, and I ecoregions, LANDFIRE Fire Regime Groups (FRG), and the entire conterminous United States (CONUS) dataset. The CONUS regression model goodness of fit was moderate (R 2 = 0.55, P < 0.001) for dNBR and poor (R 2 = 0.30, P < 0.001) for NBR. Within landcover classifications, CBI was better fit by dNBR than NBR. Finer scale regional regression models including BPS (dNBR R 2 ¯ "> R2¯ = 0.56 and 0.00–0.83 R 2 range; NBR R 2 ¯ "> R(bar) 2 = 0.43 and 0.00–0.82 R 2 range) and NVC (dNBR R 2 ¯ "> R(bar) 2 = 0.55 and 0.15–0.78 R 2 range; NBR R 2 ¯ "> R(bar) 2 = 0.41 and 0.00–0.79 R 2 range) were on average the same or better than the CONUS models for dNBR and NBR, with the strongest fit models exhibiting R 2 ≥ 0.70, whereas larger scale regional models R 2 ¯ "> R(bar) 2 ranged from 0.28 to 0.5. However, variation in accuracy among landcover types indicate that dNBR and NBR regression models could be used to effectively estimate CBI for future fires in certain regions, while for other regions models may require additional field observations or alternative spectral transformations. Our decision tree schema can be used to help users determine which scale is likely to produce the most accurate results using our models. The CBI regression models developed here, paired with the decision tree, provide users with a simple method to estimate burn severity in units of CBI for any fire within CONUS with moderate to high levels of confidence and provide a template for further development of models with new data going forward.

Conterminous United States↗

USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Potential for shoreline changes due to sea-level rise along the U.S. mid-Atlantic region

Sea-level rise over the next century is expected to contribute significantly to physical changes along open-ocean shorelines. Predicting the form and magnitude of coastal changes is important for understanding the impacts to humans and the environment. Presently, the ability to predict coastal changes is limited by the scientific understanding of the many variables and processes involved in coastal change, and the lack of consensus regarding the validity of existing conceptual, analytical, or numerical models. In order to assess potential future coastal changes in the mid-Atlantic U.S. for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), a workshop was convened by the U.S. Geological Survey. Assessments of future coastal change were made by a committee of coastal scientists with extensive professional experience in the mid-Atlantic region. Thirteen scientists convened for a two-day meeting to exchange information and develop a consensus opinion on potential future coastal changes for the mid-Atlantic coast in response to sea-level rise. Using criteria defined in past work, the mid-Atlantic coast was divided into four geomorphic compartments: spits, headlands, wave-dominated barriers, and mixed-energy barriers. A range of potential coastal responses was identified for each compartment based on four sea-level rise scenarios. The four scenarios were based on the assumptions that: a) the long-term sea-level rise rate observed over the 20th century would persist over the 21st century, b) the 20th century rate would increase by 2 mm/yr, c) the 20th century rate would increase by 7 mm/yr, or d) sea-level would rise by 2 m over the next few hundred years. Potential responses to these sea-level rise scenarios depend on the landforms that occur within a region and include increased likelihood for erosion and shoreline retreat for all coastal types, increased likelihood for erosion, overwash and inlet breaching for barrier islands, as well as the possibility of a threshold state (e.g., dramatic change in barrier evolution, such as segmentation or disintegration) for some barrier island systems. The likelihood of the potential coastal responses is expressed using standard terminology employed in climate change assessments (e.g., as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and CCSP). This assessment was based on the coastal geomorphology in its present condition and does not consider any coastal protection that might be undertaken in the future. The committee recognized that a variety of erosion mitigation measures have been implemented along developed portions of the coast and these are very likely to be applied in the future. It was also acknowledged that economics, political will, and other factors can drive decisions to implement these measures, and that such decisions cannot be predicted with confidence. The results of this assessment are depicted graphically on maps of the study area.

Mid-Atlantic Coast↗

USGS2024

Pilot framework for fish habitat assessments across tidal and non tidal waters in the Patuxent River Basin

As part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, all Bay States and the District of Columbia have committed to improving the condition of the Bay, which includes a goal to achieve sustainable fisheries. One outcome under that broad goal is improved effectiveness of fish habitat conservation and preservation efforts. In support of that outcome, the U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center (USGS-EESC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA-NCCOS) are actively developing datasets, methods, and analyses to conduct fish habitat assessments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, guided by recommendations from a regional stakeholder workshop held by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Fish Habitat Action Team (FHAT) in 2018. The joint USGS and NOAA team has been collaborating on methods for conducting inland and estuarine assessments and exploring whether a seamless headwater to estuary assessment could be developed. The goals of this assessment are to benefit both State and Federal fisheries managers, help advance fisheries science, and provide beneficial information for the public. While past national and regional assessments (e.g. the National Fish Habitat Partnership National Assessment) treated inland and estuarine fish habitat conditions separately due to differences in environments, GIS data representation, and data availability, a seamless habitat assessment could be of value for a broad range of stakeholders as many fish species, several of which are invasive or under federal jurisdiction, use habitats across both inland and estuarine waters. This project developed a pilot framework, explored and tested methods necessary for a finer scale, seamless assessment across both inland and estuarine waters, and demonstrated its use. Although there was interest by the CBP FHAT for the generation of a Baywide fish habitat assessment that spanned tidal salt, tidal fresh, warm non-tidal and cold non-tidal waters, there are a myriad of implementation details and considerations around conducting a Baywide assessment across all four of these general habitat areas. Therefore, the practical need to conduct a tributary-specific pilot assessment arose. At the beginning of this pilot process, members of the FHAT were presented with a decision matrix to choose a study basin using factors such as data availability and tributary size. FHAT members chose the Patuxent River basin, which has been relatively well sampled and studied. Several spatial frameworks were considered before selection of an inclusive gridded framework for summary and analysis that represented inland drainage networks and landscape influences as well as estuarine bathymetry. A suite of landscape and in-water stressor variables were summarized into the framework and were largely generalized over time. In order to assess the viability of the framework, we chose to use species distribution modeling for each of the species to test the framework’s ability to predict habitat use of non-tidal resident, estuarine resident, and migratory species. Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white perch (Morone americana) were chosen as illustrative fish species based on data availability, and differences in life history and habitat use. A nested modeling approach, which involved successive model runs at multiple scales (1000m, 100m, and 10m raster grids) was developed to examine differences in variable importance at different spatial scales and to enhance modeling efficiency. For white perch, a complementary modeling analysis was performed for variables available only in estuarine waters. For all testing, an ensemble modeling approach was conducted, using a suite of potential statistical techniques driven by model strength and variable predictive power. The statistical testing that we conducted was intended only to test the framework and modeling approach, and not to definitively predict all habitats where specific fish species might be present. The modeling we conducted to test the framework did have some limitations. For example, the spatial distribution of favorable habitat areas for white perch was likely influenced by the predominance of fish survey locations near the center channel of the river and the use of generalized in-water conditions. For all species, the use of juvenile and adult fish survey data limits the estimation of habitat use to those life stages. Despite such limitations of the data inputs and modeling approach, we found the framework could seamlessly predict fish habitat distribution across freshwater and tidal environments and integrate the influence of landscape stressors with local in-water factors. The developed framework presented to the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team (GIT) and FHAT is informative and could potentially be used for other modeling applications in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and elsewhere. In particular the framework and modeling approach lend themselves to evaluating living resource distributions and underlying habitat conditions in shallow tidal waters and beyond, as recommended by the recent Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) report from the Chesapeake Bay Program.

Maryland↗

USGS2018

Northeast

The distinct seasonality of the Northeast’s climate supports a diverse natural landscape adapted to the extremes of cold, snowy winters and warm to hot, humid summers. This natural landscape provides the economic and cultural foundation for many rural communities, which are largely supported by a diverse range of agricultural, tourism, and natural resource-dependent industries (see Ch. 10: Ag & Rural, Key Message 4) . The recent dominant trend in precipitation throughout the Northeast has been towards increases in rainfall intensity, with increases in intensity exceeding those in other regions of the contiguous United States. Further increases in rainfall intensity are expected, with increases in total precipitation expected during the winter and spring but with little change in the summer. Monthly precipitation in the Northeast is projected to be about 1 inch greater for December through April by end of century (2070–2100) under the higher scenario (RCP8.5). Ocean and coastal ecosystems are being affected by large changes in a variety of climate-related environmental conditions. These ecosystems support fishing and aquaculture, tourism and recreation, and coastal communities. Observed and projected increases in temperature, acidification, storm frequency and intensity, and sea levels are of particular concern for coastal and ocean ecosystems, as well as local communities and their interconnected social and economic systems. Increasing temperatures and changing seasonality on the Northeast Continental Shelf have affected marine organisms and the ecosystem in various ways. The warming trend experienced in the Northeast Continental Shelf has been associated with many fish and invertebrate species moving northward and to greater depths. Because of the diversity of the Northeast’s coastal landscape, the impacts from storms and sea level rise will vary at different locations along the coast. Northeastern cities, with their abundance of concrete and asphalt and relative lack of vegetation, tend to have higher temperatures than surrounding regions due to the urban heat island effect. During extreme heat events, nighttime temperatures in the region’s big cities are generally several degrees higher than surrounding regions, leading to higher risk of heat-related death. Urban areas are at risk for large numbers of evacuated and displaced populations and damaged infrastructure due to both extreme precipitation events and recurrent flooding, potentially requiring significant emergency response efforts and consideration of a long-term commitment to rebuilding and adaptation, and/or support for relocation where needed. Much of the infrastructure in the Northeast, including drainage and sewer systems, flood and storm protection assets, transportation systems, and power supply, is nearing the end of its planned life expectancy. Climate-related disruptions will only exacerbate existing issues with aging infrastructure. Sea level rise has amplified storm impacts in the Northeast (Key Message 2), contributing to higher surges that extend farther inland, as demonstrated in New York City in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. Service and resource supply infrastructure in the Northeast is at increasing risk of disruption, resulting in lower quality of life, economic declines, and increased social inequality. Loss of public services affects the capacity of communities to function as administrative and economic centers and triggers disruptions of interconnected supply chains (Ch. 16: International, Key Message 1) . Increases in annual average temperatures across the Northeast range from less than 1°F (0.6°C) in West Virginia to about 3°F (1.7°C) or more in New England since 1901. Although the relative risk of death on very hot days is lower today than it was a few decades ago, heat-related illness and death remain significant public health problems in the Northeast. For example, a study in New York City estimated that in 2013 there were 133 excess deaths due to extreme heat. These projected increases in temperature are expected to lead to substantially more premature deaths, hospital admissions, and emergency department visits across the Northeast. For example, in the Northeast we can expect approximately 650 additional premature deaths per year from extreme heat by the year 2050 under either a lower (RCP4.5) or higher (RCP8.5) scenario and from 960 (under RCP4.5) to 2,300 (under RCP8.5) more premature deaths per year by 2090. Communities, towns, cities, counties, states, and tribes across the Northeast are engaged in efforts to build resilience to environmental challenges and adapt to a changing climate. Developing and implementing climate adaptation strategies in daily practice often occur in collaboration with state and federal agencies (e.g., New Jersey Climate Adaptation Alliance 2017, New York Climate Clearinghouse 2017, Rhode Island STORMTOOLS 2017, EPA 2017, CDC 2015 ). Advances in rural towns, cities, and suburban areas include low-cost adjustments of existing building codes and standards. In coastal areas, partnerships among local communities and federal and state agencies leverage federal adaptation tools and decision support frameworks (for example, NOAA’s Digital Coast, USGS’s Coastal Change Hazards Portal, and New Jersey’s Getting to Resilience). Increasingly, cities and towns across the Northeast are developing or implementing plans for adaptation and resilience in the face of changing climate (e.g., EPA 2017 ). The approaches are designed to maintain and enhance the everyday lives of residents and promote economic development. In some cities, adaptation planning has been used to respond to present and future challenges in the built environment. Regional efforts have recommended changes in design standards when building, replacing, or retrofitting infrastructure to account for a changing climate.

Report↗

USGS1984

Hydrology of Area 62, Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, New Mexico and Arizona

This report summarizes available hydrologic data for Area 62 and will aid leasing decisions, and the preparation and appraisal of environmental impact studies and mine-permit applications. Area 62 is located at the southern end of the Rocky Mountain Coal Province in parts of New Mexico and Arizona and includes approximately 9,500 square miles. Surface mining alters, at least temporarily, the environment; if the areas are unreclaimed, there can be long-term environmental consequences. The land-ownership pattern in Area 62 is complicated. The checkerboard pattern created by several types of ownership makes effective management of these lands difficult. The climate generally is semiarid with average annual precipitation ranging from 10 to 20 inches. Pinons, junipers, and grasslands cover most of the area, and much of it is used for grazing by livestock. Soils vary with landscape, differing from flood plains and hillslopes to mountain slopes. The major structural features of this area were largely developed during middle Tertiary time. The main structural features are the southern San Juan Basin and the Mogollon slope. Coal-bearing rocks are present in four Cretaceous rock units of the Mesaverde Group: the Gallup Sandstone, the Dileo Coal Member, and the Gibson Coal Member of the Crevasse Canyon Formation, and the Cleary Coal Member of the Menefee Formation. Area 62 is drained by Black Creek, the Puerco River, the Zuni River, Carrizo Wash-Largo Creek, and the Rio San Jose. Only at the headwaters of the Zuni River is the flow perennial. The streamflow-gaging station network consists of 25 stations operated for a variety of needs. Streamflow changes throughout the year with variation related directly to rainfall and snowmelt. Base flow in Area 62 is zero indicating no significant ground-water discharge. Mountainous areas contribute the highest mean annual runoff of 1.0 inch. Very few water-quality data are available for the surface-water stations. Of the nine surface-water stations that have water-quality data, only one has chemical analyses from more than 10 samples. Therefore, sufficient data to characterize the area in detail are not available. Suspended sediment data are available only for a few surface- water stations in the area. Erosion rates generally are less than 1 acre-foot per square mile per year. Greater erosion rates are found within the badland areas. Water levels are periodically measured at 21 selected wells in Area 62. These observation wells are located mostly along the Rio San Jose and northeast of Gallup, New Mexico. The recharge to ground-water aquifers generally coincide with areas of greater precipitation in the mountainous areas. Depth to water below land surface is generally less than 200 feet. Well yields of 100 gallons per minute are common in most of the area. Ground-water quality is variable both within each aquifer and between aquifers. Water quality generally is best near recharge areas. Historical and current data related to stream discharge, water quality, and suspended sediment are available from computer files in the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) and through the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX).

Open-File Report↗

USGS1984

Hydrology of Area 62, Northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain Coal Provinces, New Mexico and Arizona

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2023

Modeling, mapping, and measuring the risk of freshwater invasive species across Alaska

Freshwater ecosystems of the Alaskan Arctic and Subarctic provide resources that are culturally, ecologically, and economically invaluable. Presently, these regions are relatively free of the impacts from invasive species compared to southern latitudes. To date, there have been relatively few verified introductions of aquatic invasive species (AIS) to freshwater ecosystems in Alaska. The expanding list and distribution of AIS has led to significant negative ecological and economic impacts (e.g., waterweed Elodea nuttalli ; E. canadensis and northern pike Esox Lucius introduced outside its native range in Alaska). Escalating human activity across Alaskan lands and waters, coupled with rapidly shifting environmental conditions, increases the potential for new species introductions and subsequent establishment. Creating a proactive framework for well-informed decision-making and action can improve the effectiveness of prevention efforts and bolster decision support tools that help resource managers direct limited resources. Prioritizing AIS that may be introduced and become established, as well as the locations at highest risk of invasion, is foundational to building a proactive invasive species management framework in Alaska. This project sought to identify and prioritize AIS known to be invasive in the contiguous United States, evaluate current and future habitat suitability for AIS in Alaska, and assess potential for AIS to be transported to habitats across Alaska, utilizing similar assessment methods as implemented for Bering Sea marine invasive species and non-native plants in Alaska. To accomplish this goal, the objectives of the project were to: 1) develop a formal ranked list of potential AIS to freshwater systems of Alaska; 2) assess the level of establishment risk for potential AIS by developing habitat suitability models for waterbodies across Alaska; and 3), identify potential pathways and specific vectors for high-risk AIS to invade Alaska and develop a framework for how vector analysis will be completed to understand transport risk. Overall, our goal is horizon scanning which is defined by Roy et al. (2019) as “a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, within a given context, and likely future developments, which are at the margin of current thinking and planning.” The scans include pathway analyses and risk screening of species present at pathway origin points, with a focus on identifying species at high risk of being introduced, becoming established, spreading, and causing harm. We refined a list of 28 AIS from a list of hundreds based on characterizations of species’ invasiveness and species’ proximity to Alaska (USGS 2020; GBIF 2022). Next, we evaluated the relative invasiveness of individual species to create an initial AIS ranking. We sought to characterize habitat suitability of AIS by selecting variables that were continental in scale, covering North America to include Alaska as well as the lower 48 states comparing natural discharge, sub-basin average terrain slope (degrees), average silt fraction, average organic carbon, lithological class, and human footprint in sub-basin in 2009. We estimated AIS habitat suitability across the entire state of Alaska using the physiological tolerances of the AIS (Appendix 2). We also evaluated pathways and vectors for the introduction of AIS (Appendix 2). Many pathways and vectors considered did not meet the criteria for Alaska or freshwater systems. Of the 28 ranked species that we categorized as very high, high, and moderate levels of invasiveness; all three risk groups included fish and mollusks (Appendix 2). One commonality of the very high-invasiveness-ranked species was the availability of Ecological Risk Screening Summary documents (USFWS, 2022) produced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), except for the goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) and the New Zealand mudsnail ( Potamopyrgus antipodarum ). The Ecological Risk Screening Summary is now available for New Zealand mudsnails. In general, fish species often ranked very high or high in invasiveness and included sportfish and aquarium fish, suggesting the importance of pathways such as aquarium trade, fishing industry, intentional (but illegal) introductions of sportfishes and aquarium fishes for establishment. The technique we used for habitat suitability models necessitated aquatic environmental datasets that were continental in scale, which was often interpolated from very coarse resolution source data layers, particularly in Alaska. Better spatial data representing aquatic environments would likely improve this approach. While the lack of introductions in Alaska and nearby provinces and states is encouraging, the lack of occurrence data for the focal species also created complications for habitat suitability modeling. Despite the challenges, the habitat suitability models indicated limited suitability for warmwater species while some species, such as Brook trout (S alvelinus fontinalis ), have high habitat suitability across Alaska no matter what threshold approach is taken. Some environmental predictors were more important than others. Specifically, the most important predictor variable, ‘frost free days,’ was critical for 15 out of 28 species as expected due to harsh winter conditions in Arctic and Subarctic regions. The second most important predictor was ‘subbasin land surface runoff’, a variable that indicates the amount of discharge and runoff, while the third most important predictor was ‘snow cover’ another indication of winter conditions. Overall, the ability to understand the effect of future climate scenarios on the establishment of AIS was challenging. A detailed dataset of freshwater temperatures and water chemistry (e.g., pH, calcium) would greatly improve the ability to predict invasiveness of freshwater species to Alaska’s ecosystems on a regional basis. Future studies may benefit from a more focused geographic scope examining a group of subbasins or a regional basin rather than the entire state. These drainages could be selected based upon the mostly likely locations of introduction pathways. The two most prevalent pathway risks for AIS are in-state transfer and stowaways/contaminants. Although there are examples of introductions from other pathways, the risk is somewhat mitigated by Alaska’s climate and regulations. However, variable application of protocols for inspection and cleaning of fishing gear, watercraft, and other similar items while traveling into Alaska as well as transferring from waterbody to waterbody within the state creates a substantial risk in introducing invasive species. We plot cumulative invasive vulnerability for all subbasins and for the top 10% of subbasins (Appendix 3).

Alaska↗