USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Resources Research”

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 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS1998

Nickel Hazards to Fish, Wildlife and Invertebrates: A Synoptic Review

This account is a selective review and synthesis of the technical literature on nickel and nickel salts in the environment and their effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic plants and animals, avian and mammalian wildlife, and other natural resources, The subtopics include nickel sources and uses; physical, chemical, and metabolic properties of nickel; nickel concentrations in field collections of abiotic materials and living organisms; nickel deficiency effects; lethal and sublethal effects, including effects on survival, growth, reproduction, metabolism, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity; currently proposed nickel criteria for the protection of human health and sensitive natural resources; and recommendations for additional research.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS1998

Contaminant Hazard Reviews. [Reports No. 1-28 on CD-ROM.]

This compact disc (CD) contains the first 28 reports in the Contaminant Hazard Reviews (CHR) that were published originally between 1985 and 1994 in the U.S. Department of the Interior Biological Report series. The CD was produced because printed supplies of these reviews--a total of 84,000--became exhausted and demand remained high. Each review was prepared at the request of environmental specialists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and each contained specific information on mirex, cadmium, carbofuran, toxaphene, selenium, chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, diazinon, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, chlorpyrifos, lead, tin, index issue, pentachlorophenol, atrazine, molybdenum, boron, chlordane, paraquat, cyanide, fenvalerate, diflubenzuron, zinc, famphur, or acrolein. Each report reviewed and synthesized the technical literature on a single contaminant and its effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic plants and animals, avian and mammalian wildlife, and other natural resources. The subtopics include contaminant sources and uses; physical, chemical, and metabolic properties; concentrations in field collections of abiotic materials and living organisms; deficiency effects, where appropriate; lethal and sublethal effects, including effects on survival, growth, reproduction, metabolism, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity; proposed criteria for the protection of human health and sensitive natural resources; and recommendations for additional research.

Book↗
USGS2000

Contaminant Hazard Reviews (compilation)

This compact disc (CD) contains the 35 reports in the Contaminant Hazard Reviews (CHR) that were published originally between 1985 and 1999 in the U.S. Department of the Interior Biological Report series. The CD was produced because printed supplies of these reviews--a total of 105,000--became exhausted and demand remained high. Each review was prepared at the request of environmental specialists of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and each contained specific information on the following: mirex, cadmium, carbofuran, toxaphene, selenium, chromium, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins, diazinon, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, arsenic, chlorpyrifos, lead, tin, index issue, pentachlorophenol, atrazine, molybdenum, boron, chlordane, paraquat, cyanide, fenvalerate, diflubenzuron, zinc, famphur, acrolein, radiation, sodium monofluoroacetate, planar PCBs, silver, copper, nickel, and a cumulative index to chemicals and species. Each report reviewed and synthesized the technical literature on a single contaminant and its effects on terrestrial plants and invertebrates, aquatic plants and animals, avian and mammalian wildlife, and other natural resources. The subtopics include contaminant sources and uses; physical, chemical, and metabolic properties; concentrations in field collections of abiotic materials and living organisms; deficiency effects, where appropriate; lethal and sublethal effects, including effects on survival, growth, reproduction, metabolism, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, and carcinogenicity; proposed criteria for the protection of human health and sensitive natural resources; and recommendations for additional research.

Contaminant Hazard Reviews↗
USGS2005

Upper Auglaize watershed AGNPS modeling project

The Upper Auglaize Watershed agricultural non-point source modeling project was an interagency effort to use a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based modeling approach for assessing and reducing pollution from agricultural runoff and other non-point sources. This project applied the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service’s AGricultural Non-Point Source (AGNPS) suite of models to the Upper Auglaize River Watershed, a major watershed within the Maumee River Basin. This modeling project was conducted by an interagency team consisting of a partnership between the: (1) USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS); (2) USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); (3) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); (4) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); (5) Ohio State University; (6) University of Toledo (UT); (7) Heidelberg College; (8) Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), Division of Soil and Water Conservation; (9) Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA); and (10) Allen, Auglaize, Van Wert, and Putnam Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The partnership was the first step in a process to eventually apply the model in a portioned subset of watersheds for the Maumee Basin, and then to link them to form a comprehensive basin-wide model This work was performed under the authority of Section 516(e) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996, as amended, for the purpose of assisting State and local watershed managers with their evaluation, prioritization and implementation of alternatives for soil conservation, sediment trapping and non-point source pollution prevention in the Upper Auglaize River watershed. The project team, working in a cooperative effort, used the models to determine sediment sources, contributing locations, and the effect of application of best management practices (BMPs) on rates of sediment delivery to the mouth of the watershed. The results will be used to guide conservation incentive and land treatment programs. The team relied heavily on Geographic Information System (GIS)-based applications to expedite the application of the model. The results of the analysis demonstrated that the application of BMPs would have a positive effect on reducing the loadings of sediment leaving the mouth of the Upper Auglaize Watershed. An application of 17 percent new no-till acres and eight percent new grassland acres, when randomly applied to the watershed, reduced loadings at the mouth to 82 percent of the simulated existing condition loadings. No-till, conversion of cropland to grassland, other uses including grass buffers, and reforestation of parts of the watershed, were all shown by the model to have a measurable effect on reducing sediment loads. Conversion of all of the cropland in the watershed to no-till would reduce the average unit load (tons of sediment per acre) leaving the mouth of the watershed to a level that is 42 percent of the simulated existing condition load. Ephemeral gullies were found to be the primary source of erosion (72 percent), sediment yield (73 percent), and sediment loading (73 percent). Controlling sediment load means controlling gully erosion and possibly trapping sediment yield before it reaches the stream system. Most BMPs (e.g., no-till, conversion of cropland, etc.) that reduce sheet and rill erosion and its sediment yield will also reduce gully erosion and its sediment yield. However, grassed waterways, which have no effect on sheet and rill erosion, are frequently an effective BMP to prevent ephemeral gullies. And, of course, riparian vegetation and sediment traps would reduce the delivery ratios of all types of landscape erosion. New techniques were developed by the team to quantify the ephemeral gully erosion within the model. When calibrated to available stream gage data the model suggests that more (73% in the existing condition simulation) of the sediment load originates from ephemeral gully erosion than from traditional sheet and rill erosion. The model quantified the value of tile drainage in reducing the sediment load from the watershed. Loadings under drained conditions were always less than loadings under undrained conditions for otherwise identical land uses. The average sediment load of all alternatives for drained loadings was 89.2 percent of the load for the corresponding undrained loadings. The model established that while many conservation incentive programs treat tile drainage as a production practice, significant erosion and sediment control benefits are provided by the practice in comparison to cultivation in an undrained state.

Ohio↗
USGS2021

Translational invasion ecology: Bridging research and practice to address one of the greatest threats to biodiversity

Effective natural resource management and policy is contingent on information generated by research. Conversely, the applicability of research depends on whether it is responsive to the needs and constraints of resource managers and policy makers. However, many scientific fields including invasion ecology suffer from a disconnect between research and practice. Despite strong socio-political imperatives, evidenced by extensive funding dedicated to addressing invasive species, the pairing of invasion ecology with stakeholder needs to support effective management and policy is lacking. As a potential solution, we propose translational invasion ecology (TIE). As an extension of translational ecology, as a framework to increase collaboration among scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to reduce negative impacts of invasive species. As an extension of translational ecology, TIE is an approach that embodies an intentional and inclusive process in which researchers, stakeholders, and decision makers collaborate to develop and implement ecological research via joint consideration of the ecological, sociological, economic, and/or political contexts in order to improve invasive species management. TIE ideally results in improved outcomes as well as shared benefits between researchers and managers. We delineate the steps of our proposed TIE approach and describe successful examples of ongoing TIE projects from the US and internationally. We suggest practical ways to begin incorporating TIE into research and management practices, including supporting boundary-spanning organizations and activities, expanding networks, sharing translational experiences, and measuring outcomes. We find that there is a need for strengthened boundary spanning, as well as funding and recognition for advancing translational approaches. As climate change and globalization exacerbate invasive species impacts, TIE provides a promising approach to generate actionable ecological research while improving outcomes of invasive species management and policy decisions.

Biological Invasions↗
USGS2016

Mangrove postcard

Mangrove ecosystems protect vulnerable coastlines from storm effects, recycle nutrients, stabilize shorelines, improve water quality, and provide habitat for commercial and recreational fish species as well as for threatened and endangered wildlife. U.S. Geological Survey scientists conduct research on mangrove ecosystems to provide reliable scientific information about their ecology, productivity, hydrological processes, carbon storage stress response, and restoration success. The Mangrove Science Network is a collaboration of USGS scientists focused on working with natural resource managers to develop and conduct research to inform decisions on mangrove management and restoration. Information about the Mangrove Science Network can be found at: http://www.usgs.gov/ecosystems/environments/mangroves.html .

General Information Product↗
USGS2010

Fort Collins Science Center- Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch : Integrating social, behavioral, economic and biological sciences

The Fort Collins Science Center's Policy Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) Branch is a team of approximately 22 scientists, technicians, and graduate student researchers. PASA provides unique capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey by leading projects that integrate social, behavioral, economic, and biological analyses in the context of human-natural resource interactions. Resource planners, managers, and policymakers in the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA), State and local agencies, as well as international agencies use information from PASA studies to make informed natural resource management and policy decisions. PASA scientists' primary functions are to conduct both theoretical and applied social science research, provide technical assistance, and offer training to advance performance in policy relevant research areas. Management and research issues associated with human-resource interactions typically occur in a unique context, involve difficult to access populations, require knowledge of both natural/biological science in addition to social science, and require the skill to integrate multiple science disciplines. In response to these difficult contexts, PASA researchers apply traditional and state-of-the-art social science methods drawing from the fields of sociology, demography, economics, political science, communications, social-psychology, and applied industrial organization psychology. Social science methods work in concert with our rangeland/agricultural management, wildlife, ecology, and biology capabilities. The goal of PASA's research is to enhance natural resource management, agency functions, policies, and decision-making. Our research is organized into four broad areas of study.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2016

Voice, perceived fairness, agency trust, and acceptance of management decisions among Minnesota anglers

Although researchers agree that public participation in natural resource decision making is critical to institutional acceptance by stakeholders and the general public, the processes to gain public perceptions of fairness, agency trust, and acceptance of management decisions are not clear. Using results from a mail survey of Minnesota resident anglers, we used structural equation modeling to examine how instrumental versus symbolic motives related to anglers’ perceptions of agency fairness, trustworthiness, and ultimately acceptance of fisheries management decisions. We applied laboratory research on relationships among procedural fairness, trust, and management acceptance, and then tested models incorporating anglers’ perceptions of voice for anglers and nonanglers in management decisions. Results suggested that trust fully mediated the relationship between procedural fairness and management acceptance. Angler perceptions of angler and nonangler voice both related to views of procedural fairness, but angler voice was more strongly related and was also significantly related to acceptance of management decisions.

Society and Natural Resources↗
USGS2023

Application of the technology readiness levels framework to natural resource management tools

Technology advancements in fisheries science can provide useful tools to support natural resource management and conservation. However, new technologies may also present challenges for decision makers due to the lack of a standardized process to assess technologies for consideration within management plans. Future technology development in fishery and water resources could benefit from a framework that assigns an appropriate technology development stage and defines the readiness for implementation. Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) are one established research and development scale used throughout engineering and related disciplines that could be applied to natural resource management tools. The TRL assess the maturity of a technology from nascent idea through a fully developed technology. Steps within this scale could provide a general framework for researchers to follow when planning and conducting studies, while similarly providing a standard scale for resource managers to assess readiness for technology transfer and implementation. The goal of this paper is to describe TRL in the context of natural resource management tools and offer this existing framework as one option to facilitate communication between researchers and managers.

Fisheries↗
USGS2026

Understanding the resource potential of natural hydrogen on Earth: Scientific gaps, uncertainties and recommendations

A comprehensive scientific research roadmap is essential to bridge knowledge gaps and deepen the understanding of key geological, geochemical, and geophysical aspects of natural hydrogen (H 2 ) as a potential new energy resource. This paper reviews major scientific uncertainties on natural H 2 , suggesting research priorities, as a guide for defining exploration strategies, techniques, and data interpretation. The uncertainties concern all phases of the natural H 2 cycle, from generation (source rocks) through migration (advection and diffusion) and accumulation (reservoir and cap rocks) to the application and interpretation of subsurface and surface geochemical and geophysical exploration techniques. Understanding H 2 sources and generation rates (the amount of H 2 generated by a given volume of rock over time) is crucial for determining whether a geological H 2 system operates as a short-term dynamic system with rapid H 2 production and release, or as a conventional gas system with long-term accumulations, analogous to petroleum reservoirs. Preliminary estimates for serpentinisation, radiolysis, and organic matter degradation suggest that H 2 generation is not inherently fast, especially for non-hydrothermal continental systems (crystalline basement of shields, ophiolites, peridotite massifs, sedimentary basins), and long-term accumulations, like those of fossil natural gas systems, represent the most likely scenario. The mechanisms of H 2 migration through geological formations require application of fundamental principles of fluid-flow physics, distinguishing advection and diffusion, as well as their forms (from gas-phase, bubble flows to aqueous solutions). Additional studies of H 2 accumulation and retention in subsurface reservoirs could improve understanding of mechanisms of H 2 migration by focusing on the rock fluid-bearing properties and the factors affecting H 2 preservation, such as the presence of cap rocks impermeable to H 2 , pressure conditions, residence times, and microbial or abiotic consumption. Advanced techniques, including reservoir modelling, flow simulations, 3D imaging (micro-CT) of H 2 -bearing rocks, and extraction and analysis of gas occluded in rocks, can provide insights into the stability and potential recoverability of H 2 accumulations. The interpretation of surface exploration techniques, including gas geochemistry, geophysics, and remote sensing, long employed in mineral and energy resource exploration, is now being adapted for natural H 2 studies, but challenges remain in the data interpretation. Distinguishing H 2 seepage due to geological degassing from H 2 produced near the surface by modern microbial processes or artificial sources, such as hammering or drilling for soil-gas sampling, drilling into aquifers, and corrosion in boreholes, is an essential step in exploration. The simple detection of H 2 in soils, even in morphological structures like sub-circular depressions or “fairy circles”, cannot be cursorily interpreted as a signal of natural H 2 seepage from a deep source. A holistic geochemical approach, including isotopic analyses of gases associated with H 2 , is recommended to distinguish among the variety of possible H 2 origins. Observations of H 2 in wells should be interrogated to rule out possible artifacts such as corrosion and drill bit metamorphism. The integration of multiple geophysical methods, including seismic, gravimetric, magnetic, and electro-magnetic surveys, is recommended to mitigate interpretation ambiguities regarding the structure of a subsurface H 2 system (source and reservoir rocks, including fluid and gas storage), due to the non-uniqueness of rock-specific physical properties.

Earth-Science Reviews↗
USGS2013

The state of human dimensions capacity for natural resource management: needs, knowledge, and resources

The social sciences have become increasingly important in understanding natural resource management contexts and audiences, and are essential in design and delivery of effective and durable management strategies. Yet many agencies and organizations do not have the necessary resource management. We draw on the textbook definition of HD: how and why people value natural resources, what benefits people seek and derive from those resources, and how people affect and are affected by those resources and their management (Decker, Brown, and Seimer 2001). Clearly articulating how HD information can be used and integrated into natural resource management planning and decision-making is an important challenge faced by the HD field. To address this challenge, we formed a collaborative team to explore the issue of HD capacity-building for natural resource organizations and to advance the HD field. We define HD capacity as activities, efforts, and resources that enhance the ability of HD researchers and practitioners and natural managers and decision-makers to understand and address the social aspects of conservation. Specifically, we sought to examine current barriers to integration of HD into natural resource management, knowledge needed to improve HD capacity, and existing HD tools, resources, and training opportunities. We conducted a needs assessment of HD experts and practitioners, developed a framework for considering HD activities that can contribute both directly and indirectly throughout any phase of an adaptive management cycle, and held a workshop to review preliminary findings and gather additional input through breakout group discussions. This paper provides highlights from our collaborative initiative to help frame and inform future HD capacity-building efforts and natural resource organizations and also provides a list of existing human dimensions tools and resources.

The George Wright Forum↗
USGS2022

Potential effects of energy development on environmental resources of the Williston Basin in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota—Water resources

The Williston Basin has been a leading oil and gas producing area for more than 50 years. While oil production initially peaked within the Williston Basin in the mid-1980s, production rapidly increased in the mid-2000s, largely because of improved horizontal (directional) drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods. In 2012, energy development associated with the Bakken Formation was identified as a priority requiring collaboration toward improved timeliness of issuing permits for new wells combined with reasonable measures to maintain environmental quality. Shortly thereafter, the Bakken Federal Executive Group was created to address common challenges associated with energy development. The Bakken Federal Executive Group partner agencies identified a gap in current understanding of the cumulative environmental challenges attributed to energy development throughout the area, resulting in an effort to aggregate scientific data and identify additional research and information needs related to natural resources within areas of energy development in the Williston Basin. As part of this effort, water resources in the area (including groundwater; streams and rivers; and lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands) were characterized and described in terms of physical occurrence, flow characteristics, recharge, water quality, and water use. Similarly, waters produced during energy-development activities also were characterized even though these waters are not considered usable resources within the area. Groundwater resources were characterized by the major hydrogeologic units, or aquifers, identifying the units that supply most groundwater used for domestic, stock, agricultural, and industrial purposes. The groundwater characterization included other deeper hydrogeologic units in the Williston Basin that may be a useable source of water with treatment, have utility as a reservoir for reinjection of produced waters, or be a source of minerals and energy resources. A generalized groundwater budget and flow system identifying the sources of recharge (stream infiltration, precipitation, and movement [leakage] from other aquifers) and the general groundwater flow direction is included for each of the major hydrogeologic units. Rivers and streams within the Williston Basin with 10 or more years of continuous streamflow data were identified. For a subset of these sites, streamflow characteristics, including the monthly and annual mean flow, were generated to identify seasonal and interannual changes in streamflow and thus provide information on the drivers and reliability of streamflow at the seasonal or multiyear scale. Daily streamflow and annual extreme flows (peak and low flow) also were estimated for the subset of sites. The daily streamflow and annual extreme flow values provide information on short-term or extreme events that are relevant to infrastructure design and evaluating spills, leaks, or accidental discharges of water or petroleum products. Surface-water features (lakes, ponds, and wetlands) were classified using the Cowardin system and identified on the National Wetlands Inventory maps generated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The spatial distribution of the surface-water features was analyzed by State, county, and specifically in comparison to the Prairie Pothole Region. The proximity of the surface-water features to energy development infrastructure (specifically oil or gas well pads) was evaluated. It was determined that, although oil or gas wells are often near a surface-water feature, most surface-water features do not have wells nearby, with the exception of wells in the Prairie Pothole Region. Water-quality data were aggregated from two data sources: (1) the Water-Quality Portal, sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Water Quality Monitoring Council; and (2) a data compilation completed as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment project. The Water-Quality Portal integrates publicly available water-quality data from databases maintained by the USGS, EPA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, including water-quality data from Tribal, State, and local databases. Water-quality data for 15 commonly measured water-quality constituents were aggregated for groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs. For each aggregated dataset (groundwater, rivers and streams, and lakes and reservoirs), analyses of the water-quality data included summary statistics, maps of spatial distribution of constituent values, boxplots of constituent values by timeframe or hydrogeologic unit, spatial comparisons of site locations and constituent values to petroleum well density, and comparisons of the constituent values measured to EPA drinking-water standards/guidelines. Produced water includes all fluids brought to the surface along with the targeted hydrocarbons as part of the oil and gas exploration and extraction processes. These fluids may include formation water (waters that co-exist with rock/oil/gas), hydraulic fracturing fluids, and other combinations of water and chemicals used during oil and gas well drilling, development, treatments, recompletions, and workovers. Produced water datasets were aggregated from two sources: the USGS National Produced Waters Geochemical database (ver. 2.1) and a series of projects focused specifically on sampling produced water in the Williston Basin from 2010 to 2014. The National Produced Waters Geochemical database was useful for a general understanding of produced-water chemistry. Produced waters are characterized by extreme salinity and contain elevated concentrations of other constituents (including arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, zinc, radium-226/radium-228, and ammonium) that could negatively affect water and aquatic resources if released. Produced waters also have a generally unique chemical (isotopic) signature that may be useful in tracking water from different geologic units; for example, the oxygen/deuterium and strontium ratio values measured in brine waters from the Bakken Formation are distinct from brines collected from other geologic units in the Williston Basin. Water-use information related to energy production in the area also was aggregated and summarized. The summary of water use is not limited to oil and gas production but includes water used to produce all types of energy resources in the Williston Basin, including coal/lignite, thermoelectric power, oil and gas, hydropower, biomass and biofuels, wind, geothermal, and solar. Each State has its own methods for regulating and reporting water usage within its jurisdiction. These methods can introduce problems when examining water use from sources, such as the Missouri River or Fox Hills aquifer, that are shared across political boundaries. Without the one-to-one match for usage types and amounts used from a water source, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive water budget for the water source being evaluated. A large amount of freshwater is required to prepare a well for oil and gas well production; in some cases, 3 to 7 million gallons of water are needed per well. The EPA estimates that hydraulic fracturing in the Williston Basin uses between 70 to 140 billion gallons per year. Water also is used for myriad other purposes related to ancillary oil and gas extraction. In addition to water used for immediate energy development, the expanded human workforce migrating into the area and other support staff who have moved into the area during the development also use water. Research and information needs were identified that could be relevant in the evaluation of the effects of energy development on water resources. Information needs related to the evaluation of groundwater resources include the following: improved potentiometric-surface maps for glacial units; availability of a uniform stream network digital geographic coverage that spans the international boundary with Canada; enhanced surface-water use information with regards to the gain and loss of streamflow to shallow groundwater, which would increase understanding groundwater and surface-water interactions; and expanded geophysical assessments. Gaps in the availability of streamflow data include the lack of information on ice-jam flooding despite potential for effects to infrastructure (pipelines, roads, and facilities) and an understanding of the cumulative effects of largely undocumented stock and diversion dams. Although this study resulted in the aggregation of a large quantity of water-quality data, the availability of consistently collected, systematically processed and reported data over large parts of the Williston Basin is sparse. Few samples have been analyzed for constituents that may indicate the effect of energy development on water resources. Constituents that could be considered include boron, chloride, bromide, iodine, fluoride, manganese, lithium, radium, strontium isotopes, volatile organic compounds, and isotopes of inorganic ions (such as hydrogen and carbon). Collaboration between Tribal, Federal, State, and local entities to identify a common study design, common monitoring constituents, and consistent sampling locations would generate datasets with broad utility and would likely result in overall cost savings for monitoring over time. Similarly, there is a need for standardized sample collection, processing, laboratory analytical methods, and the collection of ancillary data for produced waters sampling. Additional characterization of the range of chemical, microbial, and isotopic compositions and quantities of “end-member” produced waters, and the collection of time-series datasets to document the changes in produced waters during and after well development also were needs identified during this study. Water-use estimates would be improved through the implementation of comprehensive studies of water use from groundwater and surface-water sources using consistent methodologies across the Williston Basin. The submission of chemical and water data related to hydraulic fracturing collected by the oil and gas industry would add to the quantity of available data. Consistent implementation of regulations and monitoring controls across political boundaries (State, county, and international) would further improve the consistency of data available for the estimates of water use.

Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2017

The Wetland and Aquatic Research Center strategic science plan

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

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest State Wildlife Action Plans

The Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science Center (NE CSC) conducts research that responds to the regional natural resource management community’s needs to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change. The NE CSC is supported by a consortium of partners that includes the University of Massachusetts Amherst, College of Menominee Nation, Columbia University, Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri Columbia, and University of Wisconsin. The NE CSC also engages and collaborates with a diversity of other federal, state, academic, tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to conduct collaborative, stakeholder-driven, and climate-focused work. The State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) are revised every 10 years; states are currently working towards a target deadline of October 2015. SWAP coordinators have been challenged to incorporate climate change impacts and species responses into their current revisions. This synthesis is intended to inform the science going into Northeast and Midwest SWAPs across the 22 NE CSC states ranging from Maine to Virginia, and Minnesota and Missouri in the eastern United States. It is anticipated that this synthesis will help guide SWAP authors in writing specific sections, help revise and finalize existing sections, or be incorporated as an appendix or addendum. The purpose of this NE CSC-led cooperative report is to provide a synthesis of what is known and what is uncertain about climate change and its impacts across the NE CSC region, with a particular focus on the responses and vulnerabilities of Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) and the habitats they depend on. Another goal is to describe a range of climate change adaptation approaches, processes, tools, and potential partnerships that are available to State natural resource managers across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. Through illustrative case studies submitted by the NE CSC and partners, we demonstrate climate change adaptation efforts being explored and implemented across local and large-landscape scales. This document is divided into four sections and addresses the following climate and management relevant questions: Climate Change in the Northeast and Midwest United States: How is the climate changing and projected to change across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States? Northeast and Midwest regional species and habitats at greatest risk and most vulnerable to climate impacts: What are the relative vulnerabilities of fish and wildlife species and their habitats to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Biological responses to climate impacts with a focus on Northeast and Midwest Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN): How are threatened fish and wildlife likely to respond or adapt to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Scale-appropriate adaptation strategies and actions in the Northeast and Midwest United States: What approaches, strategies, and actions could be taken to sustain fish, wildlife and their habitats in the short and long term across the Northeast and Midwest? The outline and content for this document were developed with input from State Coordinators, members of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, DOI Northeast Climate Science Center affiliated researchers, and other partners including the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and The Nature Conservancy. Terwilliger Consulting, Inc., was especially instrumental in helping connect and coordinate the authors of this report with State representatives through conference calls and email surveys to develop the most needed and effective information for current SWAP revisions. On a final note, the SWAPs are living documents that can be added to and evolve on timescales beyond the 10-year revision cycle. The development of this report was timed such that SWAP coordinators and writers would have sufficient time to implement this input before their October 2015 deadline. However, this document is also meant to serve as a starting point for coordinated and collaborative climate science and adaptation across the region; the NE CSC 5 endeavors to continue to provide actionable science during the coming years in collaboration with its diverse federal, state, NGO, and academic partners.

Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ke↗
USGS1993

Proceedings of the fourth conference on research in California's National Parks

The papers in this proceedings were selected from the 63 presentations given at the Fourth Biennial Conference on Research in National Parks in California. The overall theme for this meeting was a recurring one: “The Integration of Research into National Park Service Resource Management Decisions.” The conference was held at the University of California, Davis, on 10-12 September 1991 and was sponsored by the National Park Service Cooperative Park Studies Unit and the Institute of Ecology at the University of California, Davis. This proceedings highlights a variety of research and resource management efforts to improve the stewardship of our most treasured landscapes. In the future, it will become increasingly more important for federal and state agencies, university scientists and students, and the public to cooperate fully to improve the quantity and quality of science and resource management programs in units of the National Park System. As many of the papers in this proceedings attest, we must look beyond the political boundaries of protected landscapes to incorporate entire ecosystems. Competing resource uses inside and outside parklands must be reexamined to weave a common thread of biological conservation. As scientists, our studies must bridge the gap from plots to landscapes and from landscapes to regions. Our studies must built on information from species and populations to ecosystems and the processes that influence them. The papers in this proceedings are modest but important contribution to those ideals. Each paper represents original research and has been peer-reviewed. Many agencies, institutions, and individuals contributed in the development of this product. In the planning stages, National Park Service Western Region scientists provided advice and assistance in structuring the conference format. University of California, Davis, graduate students, directed by Sharon Lynch, assisted with logistics at the meeting, and provided general assistance with the paper sessions. We thank the students, technicians, and support staff who labored unselfishly behind the scenes to collect data and transfer information important to the completion of each paper. Financial support for this publication was provided with funds from the Western Region Resource Management and Resource Program and the Washington Office Servicewide Publications Program of the National Park Service. We thank Denny Fenn, Stan Albright, Bruce Kilgore, Dave Cherry, Gene Hester, and Donna O'Leary of the National Park Service and Charles Goldman of the University of California, Davis, Institute of Ecology for their support throughout the development of the proceedings. Finally, we are entering into a new age of research in the U.S. Department of the Interior. Recently, plans were announced for the creation of the National Biological Survey, dedicated to improving the quantity and quality of research necessary for the wise stewardship of our natural resources and wildlands. We welcome our new partners and pledge our full support to both the new and old agencies. The papers presented here--and past research efforts in national parks--provide an important stepping stone to the future. While many of us will be transferred administratively to the National Biological Survey, our emotional ties to the National Park Service mission of preserving resources for future generations will remain with us forever.

California↗
USGS2022

Elevating human dimensions of amphibian and reptile conservation, a USA perspective

Increasing threats to amphibian and reptile species raise the urgency of their conservation. However, relative to other vertebrate groups at risk, amphibians and reptiles have low and more variable social capital; they are not generally high-priority natural goods and services valued by people. Consequently, relative to other groups such as birds, mammals, and economically important fish, they garner fewer conservation resources. With increasing risks, their situation degrades. We examine five societal sectors with herpetofaunal conservation interests in the United States (local communities, people in defined geographies and jurisdictions, species and threat specialists and advocates, associated researchers, managers, and policy makers) to understand challenges of low and variable social capital for herpetofauna. With current trends of US public values changing from traditionalist consumerism of wildlife to mutualist coexistence philosophies, a refocus of outreach and inreach efforts could help reframe priorities toward species at greatest risk, rather than broad taxonomic biases. Integrated teams of engaged natural resource managers, researchers, and the interested public can help promote species- and issue-based programs to forestall losses, hence programmatically raising social capital. Heightened recognition of the importance of human relationships and herpetofaunal diversity among researchers, managers, policy makers, educators, artists, authors, citizens, and children could provide inertia to reframe conservation program effectiveness at local-to-national scales.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2002

Landscape ecology of plague in the American southwest, September 19-20, 2000, Fort Collins, Colorado

During September 19-20, 2000, a workshop titled "Landscape Ecology of Plague in the American Southwest" was held in Fort Collins, Colorado. The workshop was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)-Earth Surface Processes Team and sponsored by the USGS National Wildlife Health Center. Forty scientists and natural resource managers and administrators representing 8 federal agencies, 4 state agencies, 6 universities, and other local agencies and nongovernment organizations met to discuss historical and current status of plague in the United States, current activities in plague surveillance, research, and management in wildlife, and research and information needs relative to plague control and management. Eleven individual presentations on plague history, status, and trends; diagnostic technologies; epizootiological studies and observations; and control and management strategies and studies, followed by a panel discussion on the impact of plague on wildlife and ecosystems, led the way to extensive group discussions on important plague-related questions, issues and problems. Workshop attendees participated in identifying important research and information needs relevant to control and management of plague in wildlife, and in the process, established new cooperative and collaborative partnerships and enhanced existing relationships upon which future research and information needs can be met. The proceedings from this workshop are intended to be used by the natural resource managers and researchers from the various participating agencies, research facilities, as well as other stakeholders to aid in the development of future research and information programs and funding initiatives related to both zoonotic and sylvatic plague.

American Southwest↗