SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Resources Policy”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources

USGS1991

Quality-assurance plan for water-resources activities of the U. S. Geological Survey in Montana--1991

As the Nation's principal earth-science information agency, the U.S. Geological Survey has developed a worldwide reputation for collecting accurate data and producing factual, impartial interpretive reports. To ensure continued confidence in the pro- ducts, the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey has implemented a policy that all scientific work will be performed in accordance with a centrally managed quality-assurance program. The formal policy for quality assurance within the Montana District was established and documented in USGS Open-File Report 91-194. This report has been revised to reflect changes in personnel and organi- zational structure that have occurred since 1991. Quality assurance is formalized by describing organization and operational responsibilities, the quality-assurance policy, and the quality- assurance responsibilities for performing District functions. The District conducts its work through offices in Helena, Billings, Kalispell, and Fort Peck. Data-collection programs and interpretive studies are conducted by three operating sections and four support units. Discipline specialists provide technical advice and assistance. Management advisors provide guidance on various personnel issues and support functions.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Water-quality characteristics for selected sites within the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District planning area, Wisconsin, February 2004-September 2005

The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) Corridor Study is a three-phase project designed to improve the understanding of water resources in the MMSD planning area to assist managers and policy makers in their decisions. Phase I of the Study involved the compilation of existing data from multiple agencies into a single database. These data were analyzed to identify spatial, temporal, and technological gaps in the planning area, and were used to develop Phase II of the Study. Phase II, the subject of this report, involved an intensive data-collection effort by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with MMSD (from February, 2004, through September, 2005). This phase addressed the data gaps identified in Phase I and completed a baseline assessment of water quality for selected stream and harbor sites in the MMSD planning area. This baseline assessment included evaluations of surface-water chemistry and microbial concentrations in the streams and harbor sites; additionally, stream sites were evaluated for discharge, sediment chemistry, fish-tissue chemistry, habitat, and the quality of biological communities (including fish, macroinvertebrates, and algae). In all, data were collected at 15 stream and 6 harbor sites within the MMSD planning area, including manual sampling and analysis for more than 220 water-quality properties and constituents at all 21 sites, stream-discharge data for 14 stream sites, and automated water-quality sampling at 4 stream sites. A bioassessment during autumn 2004 included collection of biologic-community data and stream-habitat data at wadeable streams. Quartiles of Phase II aggregate bioassessment rankings were used to divide the 14 wadeable stream sites into four groups to investigate relations between bioassessment data and site characteristic and water-quality data. Quartile numbers reflect relative water quality: quartile 1 contained sites where the bioassessment data indicated the least-degraded water quality among those sampled, and quartile 4 contained sites that indicated the most-degraded water quality. Quartiles contained the following stream sites: Quartile 1: Milwaukee River near Cedarburg, Milwaukee River at Milwaukee, Jewel Creek, and Menomonee River at Menomonee Falls; Quartile 2: Willow Creek, Root River near Franklin, and Root River at Grange Avenue; Quartile 3: Menomonee River at Wauwatosa, Oak Creek, and Little Menomonee River; and Quartile 4: Honey Creek, Underwood Creek, Lincoln Creek, and Kinnickinnic River. Site characteristics (in this case, drainage area and land use) and selected water-quality data were summarized based on the four bioassessment quartiles to determine if there were relations with the aggregate bioassessment rankings. In general, sites having the largest drainage basins with the lowest proportion of urban land use were in quartile 1, and the smallest drainage basins with the highest proportion of urban land use were in quartile 4. Major ions, indicator organisms, and wastewater compounds generally had the lowest overall results in quartile 1 and highest overall results in quartile 4, with intermediate results in quartiles 2 and 3. Results for other constituent types (nutrients, mercury, pathogenic organisms, and bed sediment) were mixed, with results for some constituents decreasing from quartile 1 to quartile 4. Where sufficient Phase I data were available, summary statistics (including medians) for chemical and biological data were calculated, allowing some comparisons to be made between Phase I and Phase II data. Comparisons between Phase I and Phase II results indicated a variety of changes with respect to water quality. Concentrations of chloride, nitrate, chlorophyll a, total phosphorus in water; arsenic in bed sediment; and fish Index of Biotic Integrity ratings generally indicated declines in water quality. However, concentrations of total nitrogen, suspended sediment, and fecal coliform in water; some trace eleme

Wisconsin↗

USGS2020

Habitat affinities and at-sea ranging behaviors among main Hawaiian Island seabirds: Breeding seabird telemetry, 2013–2016

Recent Hawaiʻi state clean energy policy mandates and federal interest in developing offshore renewable energy resources have prompted unsolicited lease requests for offshore wind energy infrastructure (OWEI) to be located in ocean waters off Hawaiʻi. This study describing at-sea ranging behaviors for five seabirds was intended to provide new information on Hawaiian breeding seabird distribution at sea, habitat utilization, and ranging behaviors within near-island waters and throughout outer continental shelf (OCS) waters surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). We also estimate the percentage of time the five study species spent flying at altitudes equivalent to an expected rotor-swept-zone (RSZ; 30–194 m) for an offshore wind turbine and discuss potential collision risk from OWEI to the seabirds studied here. The MHI supports important seabird breeding populations and individual seabirds can now be equipped with a wide-variety of data loggers and location tracking devices that can provide complex, high-resolution information on movement patterns at sea. In this study, we used GPS loggers and temperature-depth-recorders (TDRs) to examine the at-sea distributions and ranging behaviors of five abundantly breeding species in the MHI: Red-tailed Tropicbird, Laysan Albatross, Wedge-tailed Shearwater, Brown Booby, and Red-footed Booby. We tracked these breeding seabirds from 14 different sites throughout the MHI; study colonies were located on the main islands of Maui, Oʻahu, Kauaʻi, and on associated islets. We used the Residence in Space and Time (RST) algorithm to classify behavior into resting, transiting, and searching/foraging (Torres et al. 2017). We used GPS altitude measurements to examine species-specific flight height and to estimate time spent flying in the RSZ. We mapped rediscretized tracking data for seabirds at each study colony according to behavioral class and trip type (when applicable) using kernel density estimates. During 2014–2016, we obtained GPS and TDR data from 59 and 34 Red-tailed Tropicbirds, respectively. Taken together, individuals revealed a bimodal (short- [~3 h, <100 km range] and long- [>3 d, >800 km range]) trip foraging strategy. While ranging at sea, we estimated that Red-tailed Tropicbirds spend 70.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 70.1–71.0%) of flight time in the RSZ. TDR data for tropicbirds was noisy and we could not reliably identify dives. During 2014 and 2016, we obtained GPS data from 35 Laysan Albatrosses nesting on Kauaʻi and Oʻahu. Individuals during the mid- to late-chick rearing period engaged in a bimodal short- (<6 d, <400 km range) and long- (>6 d, >2,000 km range) trip foraging strategy. While ranging at sea, we estimated that Laysan Albatrosses spend 2.57% (95% CI 2.50–2.64%) of flight time in the RSZ. During 2013–2015, we obtained GPS and TDR data from 313 and 55 Wedge-tailed Shearwaters, respectively. Considering all the data together, individuals revealed a multi-modal trip duration foraging strategy consisting of intra-day (<24 h, <100 km range), short (<4 d, ~200 km range), and long (>4 d, ~100–400 km range) trips. While ranging at sea, we estimated that Wedge-tailed Shearwaters spend 5.20% (95% CI 5.13–5.27%) of flight time in the RSZ. Wedge-tailed Shearwaters dove to a mean (± SD) depth of 1.78 ± 1.35 m (median = 1.38 m); the deepest dive recorded was to 10.06 m. The mean dive duration for Wedge-tailed Shearwaters was 3.12 ± 3.44 s (median = 1.80 s). During 2014–2015, we obtained GPS and TDR data from 42 and 37 Brown Boobies, respectively. Almost all foraging trips (97%) were single-day trips and we did not detect any bimodality in the distribution of single-day trip durations. Brown Boobies foraged relatively close to their colony (<60 km range) and focused their at-sea use in nearshore, coastal waters off Kauaʻi and Niʻihau. While foraging at sea, we estimated that Brown Boobies spend 3.41% (95% CI 3.16–3.67%) of flight time in the RSZ

Hawaii↗

USGS2024

Climate-smart agriculture for Ukraine: Winter wheat breeding for food security and climate adaptation

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, people have experienced food insecurity challenges because of increased prices of staple food commodities and loss of income or livelihood. Globally, countries with limited capacity to adapt have struggled to recover from pandemic-related disruptions and are further challenged to address adverse effects of climate change on agricultural production (United Nations [UN], 2022). Ukraine, a key agricultural exporter of staple food commodities, has a vital role in contributing to global food security, in particular through its wheat exports to countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe (Martyshev and others, 2023). However, Ukraine’s role as a stable source of global wheat has been disrupted by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war—a conflict which began in February of 2022. Given the fragile state of global and local markets and food systems, and the increasing risk climate change poses to agricultural production globally, Ukraine has prioritized adopting efficient agricultural practices to contribute to stabilizing crop yields and to increase its capacity to export wheat and other staple crops. According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food (MINAGRO), along with addressing climate change, a contributing driver for this prioritization is the desire to join the European Union (EU) and the need to meet the requirements for the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for acceptance as a union member state (Markiyan Dmytrasevych, a former deputy minister of MINAGRO, oral commun., 2023). As a result, MINAGRO is considering climate-smart agricultural practices to secure future crop yields and build resilience within its agricultural sector, especially as the war has impeded millions of tons of crops from reaching domestic and global markets. This report employs the climate-smart agriculture framework to provide Ukrainian agricultural policy- and decision makers and others in technical and development assistance roles with an overview of relevant climate, environmental, and agricultural policy and market factors, and projections on climate and environmental resources that could influence the implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices in Ukraine, and aid Ukraine in successfully joining the EU.

Report↗

USGS2026

Creating usable science: A Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center study

The southwestern United States consists of diverse ecosystems that are experiencing increasing pressures from rising temperatures, increasing aridity, and sea level rise. To prepare this region for future uncertainty, there is a need for strong partnerships among researchers and societal partners. The Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center (SW CASC) acts to foster engaged scholarship from diverse perspectives to produce science relevant for management and policy decisions. Here, we synthesized a subset of SW CASC-funded projects and published manuscripts to illustrate how the combination of new scientific knowledge and the research and practice of engaged scholarship produce actionable science with direct societal impacts. In the SW CASC Contributions to Regional Science section, we touch on new research produced from funded projects on the most common topics: (1) Forest Ecosystems, (2) Coastal Ecosystems, (3) Hydrometeorology, and (4) Research on Engaged Scholarship. In the SW CASC Contributions to Regional Impacts section, we outline engaged scholarship activities to demonstrate how they created societal impacts: (1) the Keepers of the Flame course and workshops, (2) the Southwest Fire Climate Adaptation Partnership and the Southern California Montane Forests Project, (3) the Coastal Managers Workshop, (4) the Colorado River Basin Wiki, and (5) the Natural Resource Workforce Development Program. In the SW CASC Publications Cited in Policy section, we used a bibliometric analysis to assess the impact of the SW CASC-funded research on policy. We analyzed how often publications were used in policy documents, finding a citation rate of 27.6%. This is high compared to similar analyses that found peer-reviewed research articles cited at a rate of 3.9% in policy documents. We conclude that coproduced science makes unique and important contributions to the resilience of the Southwest, not only by generating new knowledge but by building capacity, creating lasting relationships, and informing policy and conservation and management decisions.

Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah↗

USGS2017

From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives.

Earth's Future↗

USGS2007

Surface-Water Quality-Assurance Plan for the USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center

This surface-water quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the Wisconsin Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Discipline, for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, management, and publication of surface-water data. The roles and responsibilities of Water Science Center personnel in following these policies and procedures including those related to safety and training are presented.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2026

Colocating artificial intelligence data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands—A science synthesis and spatial analysis to inform decision making

Executive Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and economies, creating an urgent need to strategically plan for the energy and infrastructure required to support increasing AI use. U.S. Federal agencies and bureaus have been directed to explore ways to accelerate permitting, development, and deployment of energy resources and AI technologies, including encouraging the colocation of energy infrastructure and data centers. To inform these initiatives, this report synthesizes relevant scientific information and presents a spatial analysis of existing energy infrastructure and data centers on or near U.S. Federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of this science synthesis and spatial analysis is to provide the BLM with foundational information for considering potential colocation of data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands to support evidence-based decisions. Additionally, this report provides insight into current (2025) and potential future energy demands by providing projections of a range of potential future environmental conditions relevant to maintaining industry-recommended cooling temperature standards necessary for efficient data center operations. As a part of this effort, a rapid response literature review was conducted of the best available science on the topic of data center development and energy infrastructure in July–August 2025, supplemented by additional resources recommended by U.S. Federal agency and bureau subject matter experts (hereafter experts; including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory of the Rockies) and peer reviewers. To better understand current conditions relevant to AI data center development, a spatial analysis was conducted across Alaska and 11 States in the Western United States, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, all of which contain extensive BLM-managed surface lands (hereafter referred to as “BLM lands”) that could be considered for the colocation of energy infrastructure and AI data centers. This effort identified BLM lands within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, consistent with methods used in previous BLM programmatic environmental impact statements. This report describes the types of data centers operating within the United States, which vary in ownership, size, technology, and proximity to end users. This report then outlines the primary considerations of data center development, including reliable energy supply, natural resources (such as water availability to support cooling requirements), and relevant policy and regulatory considerations. Energy supply considerations are pivotal for data center operation. Between 2014 and 2018, data centers in the United States accounted for nearly 2 percent of the Nation’s total electricity consumption, and data center energy consumption is projected to increase from 2 to 6.7–12 percent of total U.S. electricity use by 2028. These energy requirements necessitate careful consideration of energy supply when considering potentially suitable locations for data center development. Experts anticipate that an increase in renewable energy generation will likely support most potential future power demand needs, including for data centers, followed by increases in natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy production. Additional capacity in the form of battery storage will likely not generate electricity, but may improve the reliability and flexibility of supply, helping to ensure that growing data center loads can be met. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States will need, on average, 57 percent more energy transmission infrastructure by 2035 to account for the growing power demand introduced by development such as data centers. Cooling server equipment in data centers requires large amounts of electricity and water, and this demand can be exacerbated by hot and humid conditions. Energy efficient water-based cooling technologies may reduce electricity consumption onsite but require more water consumption. This additional water demand has the potential to increase water stress and competition with other users. As such, developing data centers will likely need a thorough assessment of current and potential future water availability, as well as consideration of how water demand may change across other sectors. Data center development involves policy and regulatory considerations, as projects must undergo environmental review and authorization processes that can take 18–24 months. Coordinating these environmental reviews and authorizations with other energy development projects, such as building new transmission lines, may cause additional delays. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior aim to expedite environmental reviews and authorizations and improve coordination across agencies. The spatial analysis identified 771 existing AI data centers and more than 3,300 power plants. The spatial analysis found that 6 percent of AI data centers and 22 percent of power plants in the Western United States were on or within 1 mile of BLM lands, and California had the largest number of facilities. Most existing AI data centers were near high-voltage transmission lines and close to power plants, supporting efficient energy delivery. More than 90,000,000 acres of BLM lands were within 10 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines, representing 38 percent of BLM lands in the study area. Available transmission infrastructure and the overlap with BLM lands varied by State, and Alaska had limited overlap compared to the rest of the Western United States. To operate most efficiently, data center temperatures must be at or below 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis of future temperature and precipitation projections indicated increasing cooling demands for data centers, particularly in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where rising temperatures are expected to increase energy and operational costs while potentially stressing current regional electrical grid infrastructure. This report highlights relevant energy supply, natural resources, and regulatory considerations for data center development on BLM lands. This report does not provide a comprehensive ecological, regulatory, land suitability, or permitting analysis. The factors described here are contextual considerations only and are not intended to identify, rank, quantify, or recommend optimal areas for data center colocation. This spatial analysis focused solely on energy considerations relevant to data centers and did not consider water availability, critical habitats, BLM National Conservation Lands, areas of cultural or historical significance, and other sensitive resources. These topics are recognized as critical but were not within the scope of this science synthesis and spatial analysis.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2007

Sustaining Rocky Mountain landscapes: Science, policy and management for the Crown of the Continent ecosystem

Prato and Fagre offer the first systematic, multi-disciplinary assessment of the challenges involved in managing the Crown of the Continent Ecosystem ( CCE), an area of the Rocky Mountains that includes northwestern Montana, southwestern Alberta, and southeastern British Columbia. The spectacular landscapes, extensive recreational options, and broad employment opportunities of the CCE have made it one of the fastest growing regions in the United States and Canada, and have lead to a shift in its economic base from extractive resource industries to service-oriented recreation and tourism industries. In the process, however, the amenities and attributes that draw people to this “New West” are under threat. Pastoral scenes are disappearing as agricultural lands and other open spaces are converted to residential uses, biodiversity is endangered by the fragmentation of fish and wildlife habitats, and many areas are experiencing a decline in air and water quality. Sustaining Rocky Mountain Landscapes provides a scientific basis for communities to develop policies for managing the growth and economic transformation of the CCE without sacrificing the quality of life and environment for which the land is renowned. This forthcoming edited volume focuses on five aspects of sustaining mountain landscapes in the CCE and similar regions in the Rocky Mountains. The five aspects are: 1) how social, economic, demo graphic and environmental forces are transforming ecosystem structure and function, 2) trends in use and conditions for human and environmental resources, 3) activating science, policy and education to enhance sustainable landscape management, 4) challenges to sustainable management of public and private lands, and 5) future prospects for achieving sustainable landscapes.

Idaho, Montana↗

USGS2013

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗

USGS2008

Geologic assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable coalbed-gas resources in Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks, North Slope, and adjacent state waters, Alaska

The purpose of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Oil and Gas Assessment is to develop geology-based hypotheses regarding the potential for additions to oil and gas reserves in priority areas of the United States, focusing on the distribution, quantity, and availability of oil and natural gas resources. The USGS has completed an assessment of the undiscovered, technically recoverable coalbed-gas resources in Cretaceous and Tertiary rocks underlying the North Slope and adjacent State waters of Alaska (USGS Northern Alaska Province 5001). The province is a priority Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) province for the National Assessment because of its potential for oil and gas resources. The assessment of this province is based on geologic principles and uses the total petroleum system concept. The geologic elements of a total petroleum system include hydrocarbon source rocks (source rock maturation, hydrocarbon generation and migration), reservoir rocks (stratigraphy, sedimentology, petrophysical properties), and hydrocarbon traps (trap formation and timing). In the Northern Alaska Province, the USGS used this geologic framework to define one composite coalbed gas total petroleum system and three coalbed gas assessment units within the petroleum system, and quantitatively estimated the undiscovered coalbed-gas resources within each assessment unit.

Alaska↗

USGS1966

Flow probability of New Jersey streams

This report is one of a series published by the Division of Water Policy and Supply of the New Jersey Department of Conservation and Economic Development to make basic water data available in a form that can be readily used by all interested persons. The objective of the present report is to present flow-duration information based on past records so that estimates of future flows of New Jersey's streams may be made. It is an extension of the flow-duration portions of Water Resources Circular 6 (Miller and McCall, 1961).

New Jersey↗

USGS2010

Evolution of Ore Deposits and Technology Transfer Project: Isotope and Chemical Methods in Support of the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy, 2003-2008

Principal functions of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program are providing assessments of the location, quantity, and quality of undiscovered mineral deposits, and predicting the environmental impacts of exploration and mine development. The mineral and environmental assessments of domestic deposits are used by planners and decisionmakers to improve the stewardship of public lands and public resources. Assessments of undiscovered mineral deposits on a global scale reveal the potential availability of minerals to the United States and other countries that manufacture goods imported to the United States. These resources are of fundamental relevance to national and international economic and security policy in our globalized world economy. Performing mineral and environmental assessments requires that predictions be made of the likelihood of undiscovered deposits. The predictions are based on geologic and geoenvironmental models that are constructed for the diverse types of mineral deposits from detailed descriptions of actual deposits and detailed understanding of the processes that formed them. Over the past three decades the understanding of ore-forming processes has benefited greatly from the integration of laboratory-based geochemical tools with field observations and other data sources. Under the aegis of the Evolution of Ore Deposits and Technology Transfer Project (referred to hereinafter as the Project), a 5-year effort that terminated in 2008, the Mineral Resources Program provided state-of-the-art analytical capabilities to support applications of several related geochemical tools to ore-deposit-related studies. The analytical capabilities and scientific approaches developed within the Project have wide applicability within Earth-system science. For this reason the Project Laboratories represent a valuable catalyst for interdisciplinary collaborations of the type that should be formed in the coming years for the United States to meet its natural-resources and natural-science needs. This circular presents an overview of the Project. Descriptions of the Project laboratories are given first including descriptions of the types of chemical or isotopic analyses that are made and the utility of the measurements. This is followed by summaries of select measurements that were carried out by the Project scientists. The studies are grouped by science direction. Virtually all of them were collaborations with USGS colleagues or with scientists from other governmental agencies, academia, or the private sector.

Circular↗

USGS2021

Landscape characterization of floral resources for pollinators in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States

Across agricultural areas of the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR), floral resources are primarily found on public grasslands, roadsides, and private grasslands used as pasture or enrolled in federal conservation programs. Little research has characterized the availability of flowers across the region or identified the primary stakeholders managing lands supporting pollinators. We explored spatial and temporal variability in flower abundance and richness across multiple grassland categories (i.e. general grassland, conservation grassland, and engineered pollinator habitat) in the PPR from 2015 to 2018 and used these data to estimate the number of flowering stems present across the region on private and public land holdings. Both flowering plant abundance and richness were greatest on engineered pollinator habitat, but this land category encompassed <0.01% of the total grassland area in the PPR. There was a steady decrease in flower abundance over the growing season across all land categories. We detected considerable variation in flower abundance and richness across grassland categories, indicating that not all natural or semi-natural covers provide similar value to pollinators. At a landscape scale, large land holdings such as privately-owned grasslands and Conservation Reserve Program lands contributed the greatest number of flowers by an order of magnitude, though these lands collectively did not support the greatest abundance of flowers per unit area. Our research depicts spatial and temporal variation in pollinator resources across the region. Further, our research will assist managers and policy makers in understanding the role of public and private lands and conservation programs in supporting pollinators.

Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota↗

USGS2013

Rejoinder: Challenge and opportunity in the study of ungulate migration amid environmental change

Increasingly, animals that migrate long distances to exploit seasonal habitats must traverse political boundaries capable of altering the very ecological gradients that promote migratory behavior. This transboundary aspect of migration presents many new challenges and opportunities for research and conservation (e.g., Bolger et al. 2008, Taillon et al. 2012). Work to date has often focused on physical barriers to movement (roads, fences,and housing and energy development) that can threaten migratory populations to varying degrees (Holdo et al. 2011, Sawyer et al. 2013). However, even in the absence of conspicuous barriers, political and jurisdictional boundaries can bring dramatic differences in land use and conservation policy. What happens to migratory populations when these boundaries alter the resources and refuges that they seek on their seasonal journeys?

Ecology↗

USGS2008

Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC) Coral Reef Research

Coral reefs provide important ecosystem services such as shoreline protection and the support of lucrative industries including fisheries and tourism. Such ecosystem services are being compromised as reefs decline due to coral disease, climate change, overfishing, and pollution. There is a need for focused, integrated science to understand the complex ecological interactions and effects of these many stressors and to provide information that will effectively guide policies and best management practices to preserve and restore these important resources. The U.S. Geological Survey Florida Integrated Science Center (USGS-FISC) is conducting a coordinated Coral Reef Research Project beginning in 2009. Specific research topics are aimed at addressing priorities identified in the 'Strategic Science for Coral Ecosystems 2007-2011' document (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Planned research will include a blend of historical, monitoring, and process studies aimed at improving our understanding of the development, current status and function, and likely future changes in coral ecosystems. Topics such as habitat characterization and distribution, coral disease, and trends in biogenic calcification are major themes of understanding reef structure, ecological integrity, and responses to global change.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive

The National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive (NSLRSDA) resides at the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Through the Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992, the U.S. Congress directed the Department of the Interior (DOI) to establish a permanent Government archive containing satellite remote sensing data of the Earth's land surface and to make this data easily accessible and readily available. This unique DOI/USGS archive provides a comprehensive, permanent, and impartial observational record of the planet's land surface obtained throughout more than five decades of satellite remote sensing. Satellite-derived data and information products are primary sources used to detect and understand changes such as deforestation, desertification, agricultural crop vigor, water quality, invasive plant species, and certain natural hazards such as flood extent and wildfire scars.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—2016 annual report

This is the ninth annual report highlighting U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science and decision-support activities conducted for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI). The activities address specific management needs identified by WLCI partner agencies. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, there were 26 active USGS WLCI science-based projects. Of these 26 projects, one project was new for FY2016, and three were completed by the end of the fiscal year (though final products were still in preparation or review). USGS WLCI projects were grouped under five categories: (1) Baseline Synthesis, (2) Long-Term Monitoring, (3) Effectiveness Monitoring, (4) Mechanistic Studies of Wildlife, and (5) Data and Information Management. Each of these topic areas is designed to address WLCI management needs: identifying key drivers of change, identifying the condition and distribution of key wildlife species and habitats and of species’ habitat requirements, development of an integrated inventory and monitoring strategy, use of emerging technologies and development and testing of innovative methods for maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of monitoring efforts, evaluating the effectiveness of habitat treatment projects, evaluating the responses of wildlife to development, and developing a data clearinghouse and information management framework to support and provide access to results of most USGS WLCI projects. In FY2016, we assisted with updating the WLCI Conservation Action Plan and associated databases as part of the Comprehensive Assessment, and we also assisted with the Bureau of Land Management 2015 WLCI annual report. By the end of FY2016, we completed or had nearly completed assessments of WLCI energy and mineral resources and had submitted a manuscript on modeled effects of oil and gas development on wildlife to a peer-reviewed journal. We also initiated a study on the effects of wind energy on wildlife in the WLCI region. A USGS circular on WLCI long-term monitoring was in review at the end of the fiscal year, and seven projects monitoring water and vegetation (including changes in sagebrush cover and patterns of sagebrush mortality) continued through the year. USGS scientists continued many projects in FY2016 that evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation actions (including sagebrush, cheatgrass, and aspen habitat treatments) and provide tools in support of mechanistic studies of wildlife. In FY2016, USGS scientists, along with university and State partners, continued work on five focal wildlife species/communities (pygmy rabbits [ Brachylagus idahoensis ], greater sage grouse , mule deer, sagebrush songbirds, and native fish). In FY2016, the USGS Information Management Team presented information to WLCI scientists on how USGS tools and resources can be used to fulfill the requirements of new USGS policies regarding data release, data management, and data visualization.

Wyoming↗