USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Science”

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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
USGS2021

A more representative community of ecologists

Ecologists play a crucial role in providing solutions to the challenges facing the world. For most of the history of the field, however, the science of ecology has been pursued by white men, and increasingly, by white women. This lack of diversity is untenable today, not only because it is socially unjust, but also because solving environmental problems requires diversity. Ecology as a science is an extremely rewarding and fun career choice for many, but how can the field recruit a more diverse workforce to do this important and gratifying work? Attracting and retaining future ecologists of color is the focus of this Forum. How do young people choose a career in ecology and environmental sciences? For many ecologists, environmental scientists and managers, and future natural resource professionals, an early field experience provides a crucial introduction and gateway. A sojourn at a field station, an extended field trip, or field expedition has introduced many of today’s professionals to their fields, but at the same time, a growing literature documents problematic behavior, discrimination, and other forms of harassment that have been far too frequently reported, and little attention has been given to conscious or implicit exclusion of students from diverse backgrounds. In their lead article, Bowser and Cid, two leading researchers and long-time champions of diversity in ecology, build on experience in long-running programs as well as the literature to diagnose challenges facing diverse youth, and present approaches to encourage, rather than discourage, further engagement. They describe affirmative and creative measures that foster a sense of inclusion and community among young scholars; this sense of belonging and empowerment allows many to advance to studies and careers in ecology and environmental science. In the subsequent six papers, authors explore topics either responding to, or inspired by, the lead paper. They explore alternatives to a field experience as a gateway to a career in ecology or environmental sciences through, for example, data science or the social sciences. Other comment papers describe challenges faced in the next phases of an academic career, barriers faced by specific cultural groups and the approaches, challenges, and outcomes of programs aiming to increase the diversity of the environmental STEM workforce. All responses sound a clarion call for change to hear and value different voices and perspectives to be heard and valued. These include (1) structural and cultural change to our institutions and reward structures; (2) developing and nurturing personal relationships among students and their mentors, within teams and in internships; (3) making entry to ecology inviting and making advancement in ecology free from systemic barriers; and (4) broadening our vision of ecology, and the ways we learn about the world’s ecosystems. The Ecological Society of America, the home for Ecological Applications , is committed to the diversity, equity and inclusion needed to tackle environmental challenges in unity (https://www.esa.org/esablog/2020/09/24/time-for-action-esa-initiates-a-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-justice-deij-task-force/). The world needs all available talent and perspectives to meet environmental challenges today. Ecological Applications has long published occasional papers on the profession of ecology and never ones more important or timely than these. The editorial team is proud to provide an outlet for the voices of our field, in all its current, if inadequate, diversity and honored to host the passionate and committed views of our authors.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2014

Delivering climate science about the Nation's fish, wildlife, and ecosystems: the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

Changes to the Earth’s climate—temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables—pose significant challenges to our Nation’s natural resources. Managers of land, water, and living resources require an understanding of the impacts of climate change—which exacerbate ongoing stresses such as habitat alteration and invasive species—in order to design effective response strategies. In 2008, Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The center was formed to address environmental challenges resulting from climate and land-use change and to provide natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision making. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Virginia, the NCCWSC has established eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and has invested over $93 million (through fiscal year 2013) in cutting-edge climate change research.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2015

Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and general welfare, Volume 4, 1939-1961: A history of geology in relation to the development of public-land, federal science, and mapping policies and the development of mineral resources in the United States from the 60th to the 82d year of the U.S. Geological Survey

The fourth volume of the comprehensive history of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is titled “Minerals, Lands, and Geology for the Common Defence and General Welfare—Volume 4, 1939‒1961.” The title is based on a passage in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. The late Mary C. Rabbitt (1915‒2002), a geophysicist who served with the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (1948‒1949) and the USGS (1949‒1978), wrote the first three volumes in this series of USGS Special Books. “Volume 1, Before 1879” (1979), “Volume 2, 1879‒1904” (1980), and “Volume 3, 1904‒1939” (1986), although long out of print and out of stock, are now available online; see links at right. The 704-page Volume 4, supplemented by more than 200 illustrations, was begun by Rabbitt and completed by coauthor Clifford M. Nelson, a geologist with the USGS since 1976. The book is described as “A History of Geology in Relation to the Development of Public-Land, Federal Science, and Mapping Policies and the Development of Mineral Resources in the United States From the 60th to the 82d Year of the U.S. Geological Survey.” Volume 4 focuses on the United States and the USGS in war and peace from the beginning of World War II in Europe to the end of the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Like the earlier books in the series, Volume 4 places the nature and significance of USGS operations in mapping and the earth sciences in the wider contexts of national and international history. The new volume, like its three predecessors, is intended for general readers and historians alike, so it follows a chronological rather than a thematic pattern, although themes are traced throughout the book. After preparing Volumes 1–3, Rabbitt wrote a brief report summarizing the agency's history in its first century, “The United States Geological Survey: 1879‒1989,” which was originally issued as USGS Circular 1050 in 1989. It was reissued in 2000 as part of USGS Circular 1179, which also contains Renée M. Jaussaud’s inventory of documents accessioned through 1997 into Record Group 57 (USGS) at the National Archives and Records Administration’s Archives II facility (NARA II) in College Park, Maryland.

Book↗
USGS2011

Fort Collins Science Center fiscal year 2010 science accomplishments

The scientists and technical professionals at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center (FORT), apply their diverse ecological, socioeconomic, and technological expertise to investigate complicated ecological problems confronting managers of the Nation's biological resources. FORT works closely with U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) agency scientists, the academic community, other USGS science centers, and many other partners to provide critical information needed to help answer complex natural-resource management questions. In Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10), FORT's scientific and technical professionals conducted ongoing, expanded, and new research vital to the science needs and management goals of DOI, other Federal and State agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in the areas of aquatic systems and fisheries, climate change, data and information integration and management, invasive species, science support, security and technology, status and trends of biological resources (including the socioeconomic aspects), terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species. This report presents selected FORT science accomplishments for FY10 by the specific USGS mission area or science program with which each task is most closely associated, though there is considerable overlap. The report also includes all FORT publications and other products published in FY10, as well as staff accomplishments, appointments, committee assignments, and invited presentations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Range-wide assessment of livestock grazing across the sagebrush biome

Domestic livestock grazing occurs in virtually all sagebrush habitats and is a prominent disturbance factor. By affecting habitat condition and trend, grazing influences the resources required by, and thus, the distribution and abundance of sagebrush-obligate wildlife species (for example, sage-grouse Centrocercus spp.). Yet, the risks that livestock grazing may pose to these species and their habitats are not always clear. Although livestock grazing intensity and associated habitat condition may be known in many places at the local level, we have not yet been able to answer questions about use, condition, and trend at the landscape scale or at the range-wide scale for wildlife species. A great deal of information about grazing use, management regimes, and ecological condition exists at the local level (for individual livestock management units) under the oversight of organizations such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). However, the extent, quality, and types of existing data are unknown, which hinders the compilation, mapping, or analysis of these data. Once compiled, these data may be helpful for drawing conclusions about rangeland status, and we may be able to identify relationships between those data and wildlife habitat at the landscape scale. The overall objective of our study was to perform a range-wide assessment of livestock grazing effects (and the relevant supporting data) in sagebrush ecosystems managed by the BLM. Our assessments and analyses focused primarily on local-level management and data collected at the scale of BLM grazing allotments (that is, individual livestock management units). Specific objectives included the following: 1. Identify and refine existing range-wide datasets to be used for analyses of livestock grazing effects on sagebrush ecosystems. 2. Assess the extent, quality, and types of livestock grazing-related natural resource data collected by BLM range-wide (i.e., across allotments, districts and regions). 3. Compile and synthesize recommendations from federal and university rangeland science experts about how BLM might prioritize collection of different types of livestock grazing-related natural resource data. 4. Investigate whether range-wide datasets (Objective 1) could be used in conjunction with remotely sensed imagery to identify across broad scales (a) allotments potentially not meeting BLM Land Health Standards (LHS) and (b) allotments in which unmet standards might be attributable to livestock grazing. Objective 1: We identified four datasets that potentially could be used for analyses of livestock grazing effects on sagebrush ecosystems. First, we obtained the most current spatial data (typically up to 2007, 2008, or 2009) for all BLM allotments and compiled data into a coarse, topologically enforced dataset that delineated grazing allotment boundaries. Second, we obtained LHS evaluation data (as of 2007) for all allotments across all districts and regions; these data included date of most recent evaluation, BLM determinations of whether region-specific standards were met, and whether BLM deemed livestock to have contributed to any unmet standards. Third, we examined grazing records of three types: Actual Use (permittee-reported), Billed Use (BLM-reported), and Permitted Use (legally authorized). Finally, we explored the possibility of using existing Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Ecological Site Description (ESD) data to make up-to-date estimates of production and forage availability on BLM allotments. Objective 2: We investigated the availability of BLM livestock grazing-related monitoring data and the status of LHS across 310 randomly selected allotments in 13 BLM field offices. We found that, relative to other data types, the most commonly available monitoring data were Actual Use numbers (permittee-reported livestock numbers and season-of-use), followed by Photo Point, forage Utilization, and finally, Vegetation Trend measurement data. Data availability and frequency of data collection varied across allotments and field offices. Analysis of the BLM's LHS data indicated 67 percent of allotments analyzed were meeting standards. For those not meeting standards, livestock were considered the causal factor in 45 percent of cases (about 15 percent of all allotments). Objective 3: We sought input from 42 university and federal rangeland science experts about how best to prioritize rangeland monitoring activities associated with ascertaining livestock impacts on vegetation resources. When we presented a hypothetical scenario to these scientists and asked them to prioritize monitoring activities, the most common response was to measure ground and vegetation cover, a variable that in many cases (10 of 13 field offices sampled) BLM had already identified as a monitoring priority. Experts identified several other traditional (for example, photo points) and emerging approaches (for example, high-resolution aerial photography) to monitoring. Objective 4: We used spatial allotment data (described in Objective 1) and remotely sensed vegetation data (sagebrush cover, herbaceous vegetation cover, litter and bare soil) to assess differences in allotment LHS status ("Not met" vs. "Met"; if "Not met" - livestock-caused vs. not). We then developed logistic regression models, using vegetation variables to predict LHS status of BLM allotments in sagebrush steppe habitats in Wyoming and portions of Montana and Colorado. In general, we found that more consistent data collection at the local level might improve suitability of data for broad-scale analyses of livestock impacts. As is, data collection methodologies varied across field offices and States, and we did not find any local-level monitoring data (Actual Use, Utilization, Vegetation Trend) that had been collected consistently enough over time or space for range-wide analyses. Moreover, continued and improved emphasis on monitoring also may aid local management decisions, particularly with respect to effects of livestock grazing. Rangeland science experts identified ground cover as a high monitoring priority for assessing range condition and emphasized the importance of tracking livestock numbers and grazing dates. Ultimately, the most effective monitoring program may entail both increased data collection effort and the integration of alternative monitoring approaches (for example, remote sensing or monitoring teams). In the course of our study, we identified three additional datasets that could potentially be used for range-wide analyses: spatial allotment boundary data for all BLM allotments range-wide, LHS evaluations of BLM allotments, and livestock use data (livestock numbers and grazing dates). It may be possible to use these spatial datasets to help prioritize monitoring activities over the extensive land areas managed by BLM. We present an example of how we used spatial allotment boundary data and LHS data to test whether remotely sensed vegetation characteristics could be used to predict which allotments met or did not meet LHS. This approach may be further improved by the results of current efforts by BLM to test whether more intensive (higher resolution) LHS assessments more accurately describe land health status. Standardized data collection in more ecologically meaningful land units may improve our ability to use local-level data for broad-scale analyses.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!

Circular↗
USGS2012

Stable isotope deltas: Tiny, yet robust signatures in nature

Although most of them are relatively small, stable isotope deltas of naturally occurring substances are robust and enable workers in anthropology, atmospheric sciences, biology, chemistry, environmental sciences, food and drug authentication, forensic science, geochemistry, geology, oceanography, and paleoclimatology to study a variety of topics. Two fundamental processes explain the stable isotope deltas measured in most terrestrial systems: isotopic fractionation and isotope mixing. Isotopic fractionation is the result of equilibrium or kinetic physicochemical processes that fractionate isotopes because of small differences in physical or chemical properties of molecular species having different isotopes. It is shown that the mixing of radioactive and stable isotope end members can be modelled to provide information on many natural processes, including 14C abundances in the modern atmosphere and the stable hydrogen and oxygen isotopic compositions of the oceans during glacial and interglacial times. The calculation of mixing fractions using isotope balance equations with isotope deltas can be substantially in error when substances with high concentrations of heavy isotopes (e.g. 13C, 2H, and 18O ) are mixed. In such cases, calculations using mole fractions are preferred as they produce accurate mixing fractions. Isotope deltas are dimensionless quantities. In the International System of Units (SI), these quantities have the unit 1 and the usual list of prefixes is not applicable. To overcome traditional limitations with expressing orders of magnitude differences in isotope deltas, we propose the term urey (symbol Ur), after Harold C. Urey, for the unit 1. In such a manner, an isotope delta value expressed traditionally as−25 per mil can be written as−25 mUr (or−2.5 cUr or−0.25 dUr; the use of any SI prefix is possible). Likewise, very small isotopic differences often expressed in per meg ‘units’ are easily included (e.g. either+0.015 ‰ or+15 per meg can be written as+15 μUr.

Isotopes in Environmental and Health Studies↗
USGS1999

Geology for a changing world: Summary of USGS Circular 1172: A science strategy for the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides the Nation with reliable and timely earth science information that is used to minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; to manage energy, mineral, water, and biological resources; to enhance and protect the quality of life; and to contribute to wise economic development and a sustainable future. USGS Circular 1172, "Geology for a Changing World-- A Science Strategy for the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2000-2010," presents a science strategy describing how the Geologic Division will carry out its share of this mission for the years 2000-2010. Acquisition of scientific knowledge through research, assessment, and insightful monitoring and the effective communication of this knowledge to planners and decisionmakers will allow the Geologic Division and its partners to assist the Nation in meeting a complex, challenging, and promising future.

Information Handout↗
USGS2016

Grant opportunities for academic research and training

As an unbiased, multidisciplinary science organization, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the health of our ecosystems and environment, our natural resources, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the natural hazards that affect our lives. Grant opportunities for researchers and faculty to participate in USGS science through the engagement of students are available in the selected programs described in this publication.

General Information Product↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address highly pathogenic avian influenza and its effects on wildlife health 2025–29

Executive Summary Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an ecologically and economically important animal disease that can also directly affect humans (a “zoonotic” disease). HPAI was once limited almost exclusively to domestic poultry but has rapidly adapted to diverse animal hosts. Viruses causing HPAI now appear to be maintained and dispersed by wild birds largely independent of poultry, though HPAI continues to cause considerable economic losses and supply chain disruptions in the domestic poultry trade. Coincident with the adaptation of HPAI viruses to wild birds, particularly waterfowl and gulls, increasingly diverse wild bird hosts are becoming exposed to HPAI, often resulting in disease and death. More sporadically, HPAI has caused mass mortality events, particularly among seabirds. Furthermore, viral spillover to wild and domestic mammals has become more common. Spillover to wild mammals has resulted in mortality among diverse terrestrial and marine taxa, including episodic losses of such scale as to represent potential conservation challenges. Since approximately March 2024, HPAI has also affected dairy cows, which represents a new threat to the agricultural economy. Lastly, HPAI has increasingly affected humans through domestic animal exposures, exemplifying the considerable implications of this disease beyond animal health. Rapid changes in the ecology of HPAI are currently outpacing research efforts. For example, it is not entirely clear which newly established hosts may become reservoirs for HPAI viruses (in other words, capable of maintaining HPAI viruses within a broad population indefinitely) and how this may influence viral evolution and dissemination. As a result, there are considerable information gaps regarding HPAI in wildlife that, if filled, would improve the ability of scientists, managers, agricultural industry representatives, and healthcare professionals to understand and to anticipate the effects of HPAI on wild animal, domestic animal, environmental, and human health (“One Health”). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the lead Federal agency providing scientific research on avian influenza viruses (AIVs), including HPAI viruses, that affect wildlife for which the Department of the Interior (DOI) has management authority. States have jurisdiction over wildlife on Federal lands within their borders (43 CFR § 24.3), so the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area (EMA) coordinates with State natural resource management agencies. The EMA focuses its research on HPAI through priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team ( app. 1 ). Priorities identified by the USGS Avian Influenza Science Team are based on Administration priorities, Congressional direction, and discussions with State, Federal, and Tribal natural resource management agencies that identify specific scientific gaps that need to be filled to inform sound wildlife management decisions. Notable non-DOI Federal partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the lead for the HPAI regulatory response in poultry and livestock, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lead agency for the HPAI response pertaining to human health. The USGS offers unique expertise and capacity pertaining to research on diseases affecting free-ranging wildlife populations. This expertise has been critical to interjurisdictional surveillance and capacity-building efforts, including programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the CDC. The USGS also provides resources, guidance, and tools to inform surveillance and interventions conducted by natural resource management agencies. More specifically, the USGS EMA provides objective and rigorous scientific data for inferring (1) the utility of new methods to detect and characterize AIVs, including those maintained in wildlife and the environment; (2) effects of HPAI on wildlife; (3) spatiotemporal patterns of wildlife host and AIV dispersal; (4) the presence and persistence of AIVs in the environment; (5) how HPAI in wildlife influences consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of wildlife; (6) how new tools and scientific methods may promote sound management decisions for HPAI-affected wildlife, particularly species of conservation concern; and (7) the combined effects of HPAI and other stressors on ecosystem health and resiliency. This science strategy builds upon research outlined in a previous USGS science strategy for HPAI (2016–20) by Harris and others (2016) . This strategy also details research priorities identified by the Administration (for example, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2025 ) and others based on USGS Avian Influenza Science Team discussions with natural resource management agencies to address HPAI and wildlife health over the next 5 years (2025–29). This strategy presents 7 goals and 26 objectives that focus USGS and partner efforts on priorities that will fill data gaps regarding the effects of HPAI on wildlife managed by or co-managed with the U.S. Department of the Interior such that agencies and partners might anticipate or limit adverse effects on public resources. This strategy also identifies research priorities intended to address HPAI in wildlife and wildlife habitat that are anticipated to support interjurisdictional One Health efforts.

Circular↗
USGS2012

Threats and stressors to the health of the ecosystems of Lakes Mead and Mohave: Chapter 6 in A synthesis of aquatic science for management of Lakes Mead and Mohave

Ecosystem impacts from visitor activities or natural environmental change are important concerns in all units of the National Park system. Possible impacts to aquatic ecosystems at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA) are of particular concern because of the designation of Lakes Mead and Mohave as critical habitat for the federally listed endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus), the significance of the sport fishery, and the regional importance of its habitats to more than 90 documented species of waterbirds. Potential threats to shoreline habitats are of concern not only for their ecosystem values but also for maintaining the recreational setting. Many areas adjacent to the shorelines of Lakes Mead and Mohave are designated wilderness areas. For purposes of this document, stressors are any chemical, biological, or physical agent that has a detrimental effect on aquatic ecosystems at the organism, population, or community level. Human-made stressors at Lakes Mead and Mohave include direct effects of recreation on the lakes, like boating and fishing, as well as indirect effects of activities away from the lakes, such as growing population and increasing urbanization. Common natural environmental stressors include extended changes in climate (precipitation or temperature), or the erosion, transport, and loading of chemical constituents in rocks and sediments to aquatic environments. Human activity also can exacerbate natural stressors in a variety of ways.

Circular↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey water science strategy—Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that began with the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). This report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Science Strategy is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences. The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 134-year history.

Circular↗
USGS2003

Natural and anthropogenic factors affecting the structure of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in an effluent-dominated reach of the Santa Cruz River, AZ

This study provides an assessment of the ecological conditions of a 46-km effluent-dominated stream section of the Santa Cruz River in the vicinity of the International Waste Water Treatment Plant, Nogales, AZ. We associated changes in the structure of the macroinvertebrate community to natural and anthropogenic chemical and physical variables using multivariate analysis. The analysis shows that biological criteria for effluent-dominated streams can be established using macroinvertebrate community attributes only with an understanding of the contribution of three classes of variables on the community structure: (1) low flow hydrological discharge as affected by groundwater withdrawals, treatment plant discharge, and subsurface geomorphology; (2) chemical composition of the treatment plant discharge and natural dilution; and (3) naturally produced floods resulting from seasonality of precipitation. ?? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Ecological Indicators↗
USGS2019

Columbia Environmental Research Center

The U.S. Geological Survey Columbia Environmental Research Center performs research to solve challenging environmental problems related to contaminants and habitat alterations in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. The research is interdisciplinary and pursued through partnerships within the U.S. Geological Survey and with national, international, state, and local agencies; nongovernmental organizations; and universities. Research is prioritized to provide science to the U.S. Department of the Interior and other natural resource management agencies to inform rehabilitation of degraded habitats and imperiled fish and wildlife populations. The Columbia Environmental Research Center was established in 1966 in Columbia, Missouri, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Fish Pesticide Research Laboratory; the Columbia Environmental Research Center was incorporated into the U.S. Geological Survey in 1996. The U.S. Geological Survey’s staff of 130 includes 90 scientists of which one-half have advanced degrees in ecology, toxicology, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, hydrology, geology, and information technology.

Missouri↗
USGS2019

Updates to the Madison Lake (Minnesota) CE–QUAL–W2 water-quality model for assessing algal community dynamics

A previously developed CE–QUAL–W2 model for Madison Lake, Minnesota, simulated the algal community dynamics, water quality, and fish habitat suitability of Madison Lake under recent (2014) meteorological conditions. Additionally, this previously developed model simulated the complex interplay between external nutrient loading, internal nutrient loading from sediment release of phosphorus, and the organic matter decomposition of the algal biomass. However, the partitioning of Cyanophyta within the modeling framework was simplified to one group and did not account for how different Cyanophyta populations are affected by light conditions, use of nitrogen, temperature growth ranges, and differences in settling rates. Properly capturing Cyanophyta dynamics is important given the potential risks posed by potential large algal blooms. For example, when Cyanophyta form large blooms, recreational activities can become restricted in certain areas because of thick algal scums or algal mats, in addition to the possible production of a class of toxins, known as cyanotoxins, capable of threatening human health, domestic animals, and wildlife. Therefore, we updated the model to partition the Cyanophyta into a group that fixed nitrogen and a second, more buoyant Cyanophyta group that did not independently fix nitrogen. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the St. Croix Watershed Research Station (Science Museum of Minnesota) with support from the Environmental and Natural Resources Trust Fund of Minnesota (Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources), updated the Madison Lake CE–QUAL–W2 model to address the shortcomings of simulating Cyanophyta in the previously developed model and better characterize Cyanophyta into two groups. In addition to updating the Cyanophyta group differentiation, the part of the model that handles the simulation of algal community dynamics was updated while preserving model predictive capabilities for nutrients, water temperature, and dissolved oxygen. The calibration and validation of the model was done under recent meteorological conditions with large and persistent Cyanophyta blooms (2014 and 2016). Overall, the model simulations predicted the persistently large total phosphorus concentrations in the hypolimnion of Madison Lake and key differences in nutrient concentrations between 2014 and 2016. The Cyanophyta bloom persistence throughout the summer was also simulated by the model in 2014 and 2016, a critical goal of the model update. Finally, monthly total phosphorus budgets were calculated for the updated Madison Lake model for 2014 and 2016.

Minnesota↗
USGS2025

Long Term Resource Monitoring procedures—Aquatic vegetation monitoring

This standard operating procedure (SOP) manual describes the collection of standardized, long-term data for aquatic vegetation communities in selected study pools of the Upper Mississippi River System in the United States. The primary intent of the data collection is to assess the status and trends that aid in understanding the unique river ecosystem and to guide large-scale ecological restoration of the river and its biological communities, like aquatic plants and their dependent wildlife. This SOP is an update to the version published in 2000 and reflects modifications to sample sizes and additions of new data collection procedures. All long-term monitoring programs and their SOPs must be adapted to changing conditions and be improved through learning, and this SOP clarifies procedures and adds new elements since the initial SOP was written more than 25 years ago. The SOP is intended for multiple audiences, including vegetation specialists through the Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program, data analysts using the publicly available data generated through this SOP, and natural resource managers and restoration practitioners who need data and science to guide some decisions. This SOP may be transferable and adaptable to other ecosystems when the aquatic plant community is the focus.

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin↗