USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “The Environmental Professional”

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

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

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS1997

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1995

This collection of 20 papers continues the annual series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on geologic investigations in Alaska1 . Contributions cover a broad spectrum of earth science topics and report results from all parts of the State (fig. 1). USGS activities in Alaska include studies of environment and climate, hazards, resources, and geologic framework. Five papers in this volume discuss aspects of environment and climate. Environmental geochemistry of parts of southwestern and south-central Alaska is the focus of four articles; a fifth study, of emergent postglacial lake shorelines in southwestern Alaska, contributes to ongoing investigations of paleoclimate. Two papers address geologic hazards. The first assesses ground deformation in Katmai National Park at Novarupta dome, site of the largest volcanic eruption in this century, and the second evaluates earthquake risks related to the "Twin Peak fault" near Anchorage. Resources, including metallic minerals in northern, southwestern, and southeastern Alaska and coal in south-central Alaska, are discussed in four articles. Nine geologic framework studies apply a variety of techniques to a wide range of subjects throughout Alaska, including tectonics, geophysics, geochronology, bio stratigraphy, sedimentology, paleogeography, and paleomagnetism. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports about Alaska in USGS publications released in 1995 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications in 1995.

Alaska↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2012

Puget Lowland Ecoregion: Chapter 2 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

The Puget Lowland Ecoregion covers an area of approximately 18,009 km² (6,953 mi²) within northwestern Washington (fig. 1) (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). The ecoregion is located between the Coast Range Ecoregion to the west, which includes the Olympic Mountains, and the North Cascades and the Cascades Ecoregions to the east, which include the Cascade Range. From the north, the ecoregion follows the Interstate 5 corridor, from the Canadian border south through Bellingham, Seattle, Olympia, and Longview, Washington, to the northern border of the Willamette Valley Ecoregion. The Puget Lowland Ecoregion borders the shoreline of the greater Puget Sound, a complex bay and saltwater estuary fed by spring freshwater runoff from the Olympic Mountains and Cascade Range watersheds. The ecoregion is situated in a continental glacial trough that has many islands, peninsulas, and bays. Relief is moderate, with elevations ranging from sea level to 460 m but averaging approximately 150 m (DellaSala and others, 2001). Proximity to the Pacific Ocean gives the Puget Lowland Ecoregion its mild maritime climate (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). Mean annual temperature is 10.5°C, with an average of 4.1°C in January and 17.7°C in July (Guttman and Quayle, 1996). Average annual precipitation ranges from 800 to 900 mm, but some areas in the rain shadow of the Olympic Mountains receive as little as 460 mm (DellaSala and others, 2001). Varying annual average precipitation greatly influences vegetation and soil type in the ecoregion. In the Puget Lowland Ecoregion, soils are dominated by Inceptisols in the north and Ultisols in the south (Jones, 2003). Before European settlement, most of the ecoregion was covered by coniferous forests, with species composition dependent on local climate (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). The World Wildlife Fund places the Puget Lowland Ecoregion in the Western Hemlock Vegetation Zone. Although this vegetation zone is named after the western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is the dominant tree species. Seattle, which had an estimated population of 563,376 in 2000, is the largest city in the Puget Lowland Ecoregion (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2001). The greater Seattle metropolitan area, comprising Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, and Bremerton, had an estimated population of 3.5 million people in 2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Other sizable cities in the ecoregion include the state capital Olympia, as well as Tacoma, Bellingham, and Everett, Washington. The center of the Puget Lowland Ecoregion is dominated by the Seattle metropolitan area and developed land cover, whereas agriculture occurs mainly on river floodplains in the north and south. The remainder of the ecoregion area is dominated by forest land cover (fig. 1).

Washington↗
USGS2017

Tellurium

Tellurium (Te) is a very rare element that averages only 3 parts per billion in Earth’s upper crust. It shows a close association with gold and may be present in orebodies of most gold deposit types at levels of tens to hundreds of parts per million. In large-tonnage mineral deposits, such as porphyry copper and seafloor volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits, sulfide minerals may contain hundreds of parts per million tellurium, although the orebodies likely have overall concentrations of 0.1 to 1.0 parts per million tellurium. Tellurium is presently recovered as a primary ore from only two districts in the world; these are the gold-tellurium epithermal vein deposits located adjacent to one another at Dashuigou and Majiagou (Sichuan Province) in southwestern China, and the epithermal-like mineralization at the Kankberg deposit in the Skellefteå VMS district of Västerbotten County, Sweden. Combined, these two groups of deposits account for about 15 percent (about 70 metric tons) of the annual global production of between 450 and 470 metric tons of tellurium. Most of the world’s tellurium, however, is produced as a byproduct of the mining of porphyry copper deposits. These deposits typically yield concentrations of 1 to 4 percent tellurium in the anode slimes recovered during copper refining. Present production of tellurium from the United States is solely from the anode slimes at ASARCO LLC’s copper refinery in Amarillo, Texas, and may total about 50 metric tons per year. The main uses of tellurium are in photovoltaic solar cells and as an additive to copper, lead, and steel alloys in various types of machinery. The environmental data available regarding the mining of tellurium are limited; most concerns to date have focused on the more-abundant metals present in the large-tonnage deposits from which tellurium is recovered as a byproduct. Global reserves of tellurium are estimated to be 24,000 metric tons, based on the amount of tellurium likely contained in global copper reserves and on a 50 percent recovery rate from refinery anode slimes during the commonly used electrolytic process, also known as solvent extraction-electrolytic refining. If the more economical solvent-leach process—a process that does not recover tellurium—is increasingly used in the future to recover lower grades of copper from porphyry and other large-tonnage deposits, then additional high-grade tellurium-rich gold deposits may become new primary sources for tellurium, particularly epithermal vein deposits associated with alkaline magmatism.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2018

IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements and Isotopes (IPTEI) for the education community (IUPAC Technical Report)

The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Periodic Table of the Elements and Isotopes (IPTEI) was created to familiarize students, teachers, and non-professionals with the existence and importance of isotopes of the chemical elements. The IPTEI is modeled on the familiar Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements. The IPTEI is intended to hang on the walls of chemistry laboratories and classrooms. Each cell of the IPTEI provides the chemical name, symbol, atomic number, and standard atomic weight of an element. Color-coded pie charts in each element cell display the stable isotopes and the relatively long lived radioactive isotopes having characteristic terrestrial isotopic compositions that determine the standard atomic weight of each element. The background color scheme of cells categorizes the 118 elements into four groups: (1) white indicates the element has no standard atomic weight, (2) blue indicates the element has only one isotope that is used to determine its standard atomic weight, which is given as a single value with an uncertainty, (3) yellow indicates the element has two or more isotopes that are used to determine its standard atomic weight, which is given as a single value with an uncertainty, and (4) pink indicates the element has a well-documented variation in its atomic weight, and the standard atomic weight is expressed as an interval. An element-by-element review accompanies the IPTEI and includes a chart of all known stable and radioactive isotopes for each element. Practical applications of isotopic measurements and technologies are included for the following fields: forensic science, geochronology, Earth-system sciences, environmental science, and human health sciences, including medical diagnosis and treatment.

Pure and Applied Chemistry↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, paying the costs themselves, yet bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗
USGS2015

Sea-level rise modeling handbook: Resource guide for coastal land managers, engineers, and scientists

Global sea level is rising and may accelerate with continued fossil fuel consumption from industrial and population growth. In 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted more than 30 training and feedback sessions with Federal, State, and nongovernmental organization (NGO) coastal managers and planners across the northern Gulf of Mexico coast to evaluate user needs, potential benefits, current scientific understanding, and utilization of resource aids and modeling tools focused on sea-level rise. In response to the findings from the sessions, this sea-level rise modeling handbook has been designed as a guide to the science and simulation models for understanding the dynamics and impacts of sea-level rise on coastal ecosystems. The review herein of decision-support tools and predictive models was compiled from the training sessions, from online research, and from publications. The purpose of this guide is to describe and categorize the suite of data, methods, and models and their design, structure, and application for hindcasting and forecasting the potential impacts of sea-level rise in coastal ecosystems. The data and models cover a broad spectrum of disciplines involving different designs and scales of spatial and temporal complexity for predicting environmental change and ecosystem response. These data and models have not heretofore been synthesized, nor have appraisals been made of their utility or limitations. Some models are demonstration tools for non-experts, whereas others require more expert capacity to apply for any given park, refuge, or regional application. A simplified tabular context has been developed to list and contrast a host of decision-support tools and models from the ecological, geological, and hydrological perspectives. Criteria were established to distinguish the source, scale, and quality of information input and geographic datasets; physical and biological constraints and relations; datum characteristics of water and land components; utility options for setting sea-level rise and climate change scenarios; and ease or difficulty of storing, displaying, or interpreting model output. Coastal land managers, engineers, and scientists can benefit from this synthesis of tools and models that have been developed for projecting causes and consequences of sea-level change on the landscape and seascape.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2012

Central Basin and Range Ecoregion: Chapter 20 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

This chapter has been modified from original material published in Soulard (2006), entitled “Land-cover trends of the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion” (U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5288). The Central Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) encompasses approximately 343,169 km² (132,498 mi2) of land bordered on the west by the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, on the east by the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains Ecoregion, on the north by the Northern Basin and Range and the Snake River Basin Ecoregions, and on the south by the Mojave Basin and Range and the Colorado Plateaus Ecoregions (fig. 1). Most of the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion is located in Nevada (65.4 percent) and Utah (25.1 percent), but small segments are also located in Idaho (5.6 percent), California (3.7 percent), and Oregon (0.2 percent). Basin-and-range topography characterizes the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion: wide desert valleys are bordered by parallel mountain ranges generally oriented northsouth. There are more than 33 peaks within the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion that have summits higher than 3,000 m (10,000 ft), but valleys in the ecoregion are also high, most having elevations above 1,200 m (4,000 ft) (Grayson, 1993).

California;Idaho;Nevada;Oregon;Utah↗
USGS2017

Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply

Summary Mineral commodities are vital for economic growth, improving the quality of life, providing for national defense, and the overall functioning of modern society. Minerals are being used in larger quantities than ever before and in an increasingly diverse range of applications. With the increasing demand for a considerably more diverse suite of mineral commodities has come renewed recognition that competition and conflict over mineral resources can pose significant risks to the manufacturing industries that depend on them. In addition, production of many mineral commodities has become concentrated in relatively few countries (for example, tungsten, rare-earth elements, and antimony in China; niobium in Brazil; and platinum-group elements in South Africa and Russia), thus increasing the risk for supply disruption owing to political, social, or other factors. At the same time, an increasing awareness of and sensitivity to potential environmental and health issues caused by the mining and processing of many mineral commodities may place additional restrictions on mineral supplies. These factors have led a number of Governments, including the Government of the United States, to attempt to identify those mineral commodities that are viewed as most “critical” to the national economy and (or) security if supplies should be curtailed. This book presents resource and geologic information on the following 23 mineral commodities currently among those viewed as important to the national economy and national security of the United States: antimony (Sb), barite (barium, Ba), beryllium (Be), cobalt (Co), fluorite or fluorspar (fluorine, F), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), graphite (carbon, C), hafnium (Hf), indium (In), lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), platinum-group elements (PGE), rare-earth elements (REE), rhenium (Re), selenium (Se), tantalum (Ta), tellurium (Te), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zirconium (Zr). For a number of these commodities—for example, graphite, manganese, niobium, and tantalum—the United States is currently wholly dependent on imports to meet its needs. The first two chapters (A and B) deal with general information pertinent to the study of mineral resources. Chapters C through V describe individual mineral commodities and include an overview of current uses of the commodity, identified resources and their distribution nationally and globally, the state of current geologic knowledge, the potential for finding additional deposits nationally and globally, and geoenvironmental issues that may be related to the production and uses of the commodity. These chapters are updates of the commodity chapters published in 1973 in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, “United States Mineral Resources.”

Professional Paper↗
USGS2024

Adaptive capacities of inland fisheries facing anthropogenic pressures

Inland fisheries face multiple, intensifying threats (i.e., proximate human pressures causing degraded ecological attributes) from land development, climate change, resource extraction, and competing demands for water resources. Planning for resiliency amidst these pressures requires understanding the factors that influence an inland fishery’s capacity to adapt to system changes under multiple threats. Incorporating expert knowledge can illuminate priority fisheries and provide important insights where data are otherwise limited. Using data from a global survey of 536 fishery professionals, this study examines perceptions of threats and adaptive capacity (i.e., ability to mitigate or respond to change) in major inland fisheries. We assessed associations across 29 different perceived threats and their ranked influence scores, tested agreement among five adaptive capacity domains (i.e., agency, assets, flexibility, learning, organization), and examined relationships between threats and adaptive capacity domains. Results provide quantitative evidence that the greatest threats to inland fisheries come from outside the fishing sector and that most inland fisheries face multiple threats. Results also support the five domains as a collective measure of adaptive capacity and illuminate a negative association between the threats to a fishery and a fishery’s adaptive capacity. These findings highlight the need for fishery managers to engage in decision making with non-fishery sectors (e.g., multi-sectoral management) and the prioritization of habitat and watershed-scale conservation and rehabilitation efforts for improved adaptability amidst ecological transformation.

Global Environmental Change↗
USGS2025

Restoring the Florida Everglades: Insights on integrating sea level rise into decision-support tools

Although coastal ecosystems are impacted by climate change and sea-level rise, many ecological and hydrological models do not yet incorporate sea-level rise projections in their modeling outputs. Therefore, this research examined the various challenges that may prevent sea-level rise from being effectively incorporated in modeling and decision-support tools. We conducted semi-structured interviews with twenty-six professionals involved in Florida’s Everglades restoration. We applied the Diffusions of Innovations Theory to better understand factors that can impact practitioners’ adoption of newly designed decision-support tools that examine sea-level rise in the freshwater Everglades. The Diffusions of Innovations Theory provided insights into practitioners’ perceptions of these tools. We found that these practitioners have a strong interest in using dynamic decision-support tools to plan for sea-level rise impacts on Everglades restoration, particularly when they receive information at appropriate geographic and temporal scales and are given hands-on tools and training. However, challenges that prevent developing these tools include outdated data, limited organizational capacity and funding, limited use of long-term indicators, uncertainty about climate change impacts on local ecosystems, and lack of integration between hydrological and ecological models. Our research also highlights that greater availability of different types of tools can help to meet the needs of the scientific and non-scientific audiences involved in Everglades restoration.

Florida↗
USGS2012

Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills Ecoregion: Chapter 12 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

The Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) covers approximately 57,329 km² (22,135 mi²) in the states of Washington, Oregon, and California (fig. 1). The ecoregion is bounded on the east by the Columbia Plateau, Blue Mountains, and Northern Basin and Range Ecoregions; on the south by the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion; on the west by the Klamath Mountains and Cascades Ecoregions; and on the north by the North Cascades Ecoregion (fig. 1). Because the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills Ecoregion lies within the rain shadow of the Cascade Range, the annual amount of precipitation varies greatly, from 500 mm in the eastern and southern sections of the ecoregion to 3,000 mm in the area bordering the higher Cascade Range to the west. Precipitation (either rain or snow) falls mostly in the fall, through winter into spring. Elevations range from near sea level at the Columbia River to more than 3,300 m; most of the region is between 900 and 2,000 m high. In the plateaus, elevation generally varies from 60 to 600 m (McNab and Avers, 1994).

California;Oregon;Washington↗
USGS2004

Toward a scientifically rigorous basis for developing mapped ecological regions.

Despite the wide use of ecological regions in conservation and resource-management evaluations and assessments, a commonly accepted theoretical basis for ecological regionalization does not exist. This fact, along with the paucity of focus on ecological regionalization by professional associations, journals, and faculties, has inhibited the advancement of a broadly acceptable scientific basis for the development, use, and verification of ecological regions. The central contention of this article is that ecological regions should improve our understanding of geographic and ecological phenomena associated with biotic and abiotic processes occurring in individual regions and also of processes characteristic of interactions and dependencies among multiple regions. Research associated with any ecoregional framework should facilitate development of hypotheses about ecological phenomena and dominant landscape elements associated with these phenomena, how these phenomena are structured in space, and how they function in a hierarchy. Success in addressing the research recommendations outlined in this article cannot occur within an ad hoc, largely uncoordinated research environment. Successful implementation of this plan will require activities--coordination, funding, and education--that are both scientific and administrative in nature. Perhaps the most important element of an infrastructure to support the scientific work of ecoregionalization would be a national or international authority similar to the Water and Science Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences.

Environmental Management↗
USGS1982

Digital classification of Landsat data for vegetation and land-cover mapping in the Blackfoot River watershed, southeastern Idaho

This paper documents the procedures, results, and final products of a digital analysis of Landsat data used to produce a vegetation and landcover map of the Blackfoot River watershed in southeastern Idaho. Resource classes were identified at two levels of detail: generalized Level I classes (for example, forest land and wetland) and detailed Levels II and III classes (for example, conifer forest, aspen, wet meadow, and riparian hardwoods). Training set statistics were derived using a modified clustering approach. Environmental stratification that separated uplands from lowlands improved discrimination between resource classes having similar spectral signatures. Digital classification was performed using a maximum likelihood algorithm. Classification accuracy was determined on a single-pixel basis from a random sample of 25-pixel blocks. These blocks were transferred to small-scale color-infrared aerial photographs, and the image area corresponding to each pixel was interpreted. Classification accuracy, expressed as percent agreement of digital classification and photo-interpretation results, was 83.0:t 2.1 percent (0.95 probability level) for generalized (Level I) classes and 52.2:t 2.8 percent (0.95 probability level) for detailed (Levels II and III) classes. After the classified images were geometrically corrected, two types of maps were produced of Level I and Levels II and III resource classes: color-coded maps at a 1:250,000 scale, and flatbed-plotter overlays at a 1:24,000 scale. The overlays are more useful because of their larger scale, familiar format to users, and compatibility with other types of topographic and thematic maps of the same scale.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2012

An economic value of remote-sensing information—Application to agricultural production and maintaining groundwater quality

Does remote-sensing information provide economic benefits to society, and can a value be assigned to those benefits? Can resource management and policy decisions be better informed by coupling past and present Earth observations with groundwater nitrate measurements? Using an integrated assessment approach, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) applied an established conceptual framework to answer these questions, as well as to estimate the value of information (VOI) for remote-sensing imagery. The approach uses moderate-resolution land-imagery (MRLI) data from the Landsat and Advanced Wide Field Sensor satellites that has been classified by the National Agricultural Statistics Service into the Cropland Data Layer (CDL). Within the constraint of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's public health threshold for potable groundwater resources, the USGS modeled the relation between a population of the CDL's land uses and dynamic nitrate (NO3-) contamination of aquifers in a case study region in northeastern Iowa. Employing various multiscaled, multitemporal geospatial datasets with MRLI to maximize the value of agricultural production, the approach develops and uses multiple environmental science models to address dynamic nitrogen loading and transport at specified distances from specific sites (wells) and at landscape scales (for example, across 35 counties and two aquifers). In addition to the ecosystem service of potable groundwater, this effort focuses on the use of MRLI for the management of the major land uses in the study region-the production of corn and soybeans, which can impact groundwater quality. Derived methods and results include (1) economic and dynamic nitrate-pollution models, (2) probabilities of the survival of groundwater, and (3) a VOI for remote sensing. For the northeastern Iowa study region, the marginal benefit of the MRLI VOI (in 2010 dollars) is $858 million ±$197 million annualized, which corresponds to a net present value of $38.1 billion ±$8.8 billion for that flow of benefits in perpetuity. Given that these economic estimates are derived from one case study in a part of only one State, the estimates provide a lower estimate related to the potential value of the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2012

Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion: Chapter 23 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

The Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997) is located in eastern Oregon (58.7 percent), northern Nevada (20.6 percent), southwestern Idaho (14.8 percent), and northeastern California (5.9 percent), encompassing the northern extent of the hydrographic Great Basin (Grayson, 1993). The ecoregion, which covers approximately 110,039 km² (42,486 mi²) of land, is bordered on the west by the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills and the Sierra Nevada Ecoregions, on the north by the Blue Mountains and the Snake River Basin Ecoregions, and on the south by the Central Basin and Range Ecoregion (fig. 1). Much like the other Basin and Range ecoregions in the western United States (for example, Central Basin and Range, Mojave Basin and Range, and Sonoran Basin and Range Ecoregions), the Northern Basin and Range Ecoregion is characterized by basin-and-range topography. The ecoregion contains several wide basins bordered by scattered low mountains. Big sagebrush ( Artemisia tridentata ), the predominant vegetation, is intermixed with grasslands. Despite regional aridity, natural springs and spring-fed wetlands are scattered around the landscape, sustaining much of the region’s wildlife (Oregon Department of State Lands, 2000).

California;Idaho;Nevada;Oregon↗
USGS2012

Klamath Mountains Ecoregion: Chapter 13 in Status and trends of land change in the Western United States--1973 to 2000

The Klamath Mountains Ecoregion covers approximately 47,791 km 2 (18,452 mi 2 ) of the Klamath and Siskiyou Mountains of northern California and southern Oregon (fig. 1) (Omernik, 1987; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1997). The ecoregion is flanked by the Coast Range Ecoregion to the west, the Southern and Central California Chaparral and Oak Woodlands Ecoregion to the south, the Cascades and the Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills Ecoregions to the east, and the Willamette Valley Ecoregion to the north. The mild Mediterranean climate of the ecoregion is characterized by hot, dry summers and wet winters; the amount of winter moisture varies within the ecoregion, decreasing from west to east. The Klamath–Siskiyou Mountains region is widely recognized as an important biodiversity hotspot (Whittaker, 1960; Kruckeberg, 1984; Wagner, 1997; DellaSala and others, 1999), containing more than 3,500 plant species, more than 200 of which are endemic (Sawyer, 2007). A biological assessment by DellaSala and others (1999) ranked the Klamath–Siskiyou Mountains region as the fifth richest coniferous forest in terms of species diversity. In addition, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature considers the region an area of notable botanical importance (Wagner, 1997). Twenty-nine different species of conifers can be found in the Klamath Mountains Ecoregion (Sawyer, 1996).

California;Oregon↗
USGS1979

North American Paleozoic land snails, with a summary of other Paleozoic nonmarine snails

Land snails from the Paleozoic of North America are known from the coal fields of eastern Canada, from the Dunkard basin west of the Allegheny Mountains, and from the western margin of the Illinois basin. The earliest finds were made about 125 years ago; essentially no new information has been recorded for a century. Large collections of Anthracopupa from the Dunkard basin sparked inquiry into the land snails from the other two areas. Studies using the SEM (scanning electron microscope) have provided considerable insight into microdetails of shell structure, which allow systematic assignment of these gastropods. All may be assigned to extant families, except one, for which insufficient material allows only superfamily assignment. The prosobranch Dawsonella is confirmed as being a terrestrial neritacean gastropod. To date, it is known only from the upper Middle Pennsylvanian of Illinois and Indiana. All the other Paleozoic land snails are stylommatophoran pulmonates; their current classification as nonmarine cyclophoraceans is not correct. Restudy of material from the Joggins section of Nova Scotia indicates that representatives of two ordinal groups of pulmonates appeared simultaneously in upper Lower Pennsylvanian strata; the oldest land prosobranch is found in only very slightly younger rocks. Zonites (Conulus) priscus is reassigned to the new genus Protodiscus in the extant family Discidae. Dendropupa is placed within the family Enidae, Anthraaopupa is placed in the family Tornatellinidae, and 'Pupa' bigsbii is assigned to the superfamily Pupillacea. All four of these family-level taxa are diverse and belong to two orders within the superorder Stylommatophora, heretofore considered a derived rather than an ancestral stock. Anthracopupa ohioensis Whitfield is a highly variable species, and two other species Naticopsis (?) diminuta and A.(?) dunkardona, both named by Stauffer and Schroyer, are placed in synonymy with it. To obtain taxonomic data to support the family placement of Anthracopupa, growth forms of modern pupillid and tornatellinid snails have been distinguished. The apertural barriers in Anthracopupa are identical in placement and growth pattern with those of living Tornatellinidae and independently confirm the family placement derived from study of the general form. One new species, A. sturgeoni, has been named. Anthracopupa is found most commonly in thin limestones interpreted as having been deposited in pools into which the small shells floated. Dendropupa is most commonly found in erect tree stumps that were covered by rapid sedimentation. Both environments are similar to those in which the shells of allied living species may be found today, and the fossils support environmental interpretations made entirely from lithology. A survey of the few European occurrences of Paleozoic land snails indicates that both Anthracopupa and Dendropupa occur in Lower Permian strata; Anthracopupa is known from beds as old as Westphalian B. These genera cannot be used for determining the Carboniferous-Permian boundary. Both the long local stratigraphic range of A. brittanica and D. vetusta reported in the literature and the moderately long range and great variability of A. ohioensis suggest that the land snails have little stratigraphic utility. On the other hand, the occurrence of these land snails in the late Paleozoic of the Northern Hemisphere provides further fossil evidence suggestive of a closed Atlantic Ocean at that time. A comparison of the Paleozoic and the present distributions of land -snail families on both sides of the Atlantic provides some interesting data on geographic shifts of organisms. Finally, the assignment of the earliest land snails to extant taxa at the family level indicates that the subclass Pulmonata has been very conservative in its evolution after initial radiation. A few notes on Paleozoic freshwater snails complete this survey.

Professional Paper↗