USGS Science⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources

Recommendations for a barrier island breach management plan for Fire Island National Seashore, including the Otis Pike High Dune Wilderness Area, Long Island, New York

The U.S Army Corps of Engineers, New York District is developing engineering plans, including economic costs and benefits, for storm damage reduction along an 83 mile stretch of the coastal barrier islands and beaches on the south shore of Long Island, NY from Fire Island Inlet east to the Montauk Point headland. The plan, expected to include various alternatives for storm protection and erosion mitigation, is referred to as the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Plan (FIMP). These plans are expected to follow the Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Operating Principles striving for long term environmental sustainability and balance between environmental protection and protection of human health and property. Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS), a 19,579 acre unit of the National Park System includes a 32 mile long coastal barrier island located within the FIMP project area. A seven-mile section of the park, Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness Area, is also a designated Federal Wilderness Area. The FIIS includes not only the barrier island and sand dunes, but also several islands, sand flats and wetlands landward of the barrier, submerged parts of Great South Bay shoreface, extending approximately 4,000 feet into the bay with the inner shelf region extending approximately 1,000 feet seaward of the Fire Island shoreline. The Fire Island barrier islands, a sand-starved system dominated by highly dynamic processes, are struggling to maintain their integrity in the face of sea-level rise and storms. Adding to the dilemma is that development on the barriers and the mainland has increased greatly during the past 50 years. As such, managers and decision makers in federal agencies, state agencies and local governments are challenged to balance tradeoffs between protection of lives and property, public access and long term conservation of natural habitats and processes and the plants and animals that depend on these habitats. National Park Service (NPS) policy stipulates that natural coastal processes be maintained to the greatest extent possible and not be impeded so as to conserve landforms, habitats and natural ecosystem resources that reply on the landforms and processes for long-term sustainability of the national park. Storms and associated processes such as waves, tides, currents and relative sea-level change are critical elements for the formation and evolution of these barrier islands, sand dunes, back-barrier sand flats and lagoons and vegetated wetlands. Processes such as wave run-up, overwash and barrier beaching, which occur during elevated storm surge are all necessary processes in enabling the efficient transfer of sediments, nutrients and marine water from the Atlantic Ocean across barriers and into Great South Bay. A large body of scientific data and information published over the past 50 years shows that such transfers of sediment and water from the ocean to the bays are essential for the long-term maintenance of the barrier island and back-bay systems and their biologically diverse habitats an d ecosystems. Current relative sea-level rise (~12 in/century) is chronic and pervasive in driving Long Island coastal change and with the likelihood of accelerating sea level rise in the near future, coastal hazards such as erosion, inundation, and storm surge flooding will increase, with corresponding increased risk to life and property on both Fire Island and on the mainland. In addition, the cumulative effects over the past century and more, both direct and indirect, of human impacts on the Long Island coast have altered the barrier beach and dunes and sediment transport processes. These impacts have likely increased the potential for breaching and increased risk to life and property on the coast and the mainland. Examples of direct impacts are: the stone jetties at Moriches, Shinnecock, and Fire Island tidal inlets and groin field structures at Westhampton that alter littoral processes, armoring and erosion-control stabilization of the headlandds such as the Montauk Point headlands, and deepening of navigation channels by dredging through the tidal inlets and in the bays. Indirect impacts that have a bearing on decisions to deal with breaching are: high-risk development of the barrier islands and low-lying areas of the mainland vulnerable to flooding, and the dredging of nearshore sand shoals for beach nourishment. The NPS strives to employ a coastal management framework for decision making that is based on assessment of the physical and ecological properties of the shoreline as well as human welfare and property. In order to protect developed areas of Fire Island and the mainland from loss of life, flooding, and other economic and physical damage, the NPS will likely need to consider allowing artificial closure of some breaches within the FIIS under certain circumstances. The decision by the NPS to allow breaches to evolve naturally and possibly close or to allow artificially closing breaches is based on four criteria: 1. Volumes of sediment transported landward and exchange of water and nutrients; 2. Elevated water levels and flooding risk to mainland life and property; 3. Engineering processes of artificial closure; and 4. Economic costs and benefits of artificial closure. This report for breach management presents protocols which specify when breach closures within the FIIS might be desirable and necessary, as well as provides recommendations for structural breach closure engineering operations which are indented to minimize negative impacts to the natural wilderness values and cultural resources within the FIIS, particularly the Otis Pike Wilderness Area. The goal of the plan is to strike a balance between protecting natural resources and allowing natural processes to operate and avoiding loss of life and excessive property damage.

New York↗

Assessment of the role of bottomland hardwoods in sediment and erosion control

Drainage and clearing of bottomland hardwoods have long been recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as important impacts of Federal water projects in the lower Mississippi River Valley. More recently, the water quality impacts of such projects (e.g., increases in sediments, nutrients, and pesticides) have also become of concern. In 1984, in an effort to better define problems concerning wetland losses and water degradation, EPA initiated a cooperative project with the Western Energy and Land Use Team (now the National Ecology Research Center) of the Service. Three phases of the project were identified: 1. To collect existing literature and data; 2. To select, develop, and test the utility of methods to quantify the relationships between land use, cover types, soils, hydrology, and water quality (as represented by sediment); and 3. To apply selected methodologies to several sites within the Yazoo Basin of Mississippi to determine the, potential effectiveness of various management alternatives to reduce sediment yield, increase sediment deposition, and improve water quality. Methods development focused on linking a simulation of water and sediment movement to a computerized geographic information system. We had several objectives for the resulting model. We desired that it should: 1. Estimate the importance of bottomland and hardwoods as a cover type that performs the functions of erosion and sediment control, 2. Simulate effects of proportions of ' various cover types and their specific spatial configurations, 3. Be applicable to moderately large spatial areas with minimal site-specific calibration, 4. Simulate spatial patterns of sediment loss-gain over time, and 5. Represent both sediment detachment and transport. While it was recognized that impacts and management alternatives could be sorted roughly into landscape measures and channel measures, the decision was made to focus study efforts mainly on landscape measures. Landscape measures include altered drainage and flooding patterns, altered cover types (e.g., conversion of bottomland hardwoods to agricultural crops, reforestation of cropland to bottomland hardwoods, and creation of riparian buffer strips), altered cropping and tillage patterns, altered routing of water, and creation of buffer strips along wetlands and channel margins. Channel measures include vegetative bank stabilization, grade control structures, and regulation of channel water volume and velocity. During the first year of the study, EPA decided not to fund the third phase of the project. This required considerable rescoping of the project with the result that application of the sediment mobilization, routing, and deposition models to various management alternatives and portions of the Yazoo Basin was somewhat restricted. We believe, however, that this report will provide a good understanding of the various modes of sediment mobilization, transport, and deposition within the Yazoo Basin, as well as of the role of bottomland hardwoods. The model developed in this study could be applied to a variety of management or mitigation alternatives prior to implementation to determine their relative effectiveness. Policy, political, and socio-economic consequences of any proposed management/mitigation practice, however, must ultimately be taken into consideration by those charged with management of water resources within the Yazoo Basin before any practice is implemented. This study makes no effort to judge the feasibility of management alternatives in this regard.

Report↗

Advancing monitoring approaches to enhance tidal Chesapeake Bay habitat assessment for submerged aquatic vegetation, water clarity, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen

Water quality monitoring capacity has been declining for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) at a time when information needs are growing, and data gaps exist to address critical decision-support for managers. The CBP Scientific Technical Assessment and Reporting Team is leading a Principal’s Staff Committee requested gap analyses toward understanding support needed to improve water quality monitoring and analysis programming. Advanced technologies and alternative monitoring approaches in the form of satellite-based measurements, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms for data interpretation, continuous water quality in-situ sensor arrays, and community science efforts offer a growing portfolio of valuable opportunities for expanding data collections and analysis program capacities. However, since 1985, each of these options are examples of growing opportunities to enhance water quality assessments yet has seen limited adoption into elements of Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring programs. Where new technologies have been adopted (e.g., shallow water continuous water quality monitoring), such temporally rich data streams have supported Bay health insights yet had limited use in regulatory water quality criteria assessment. This Scientific Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) supported workshop provided the ideal forum for engaging our CBP partnership regarding the maturity of new and evolving monitoring and analysis capacities to address program information needs while appreciating limitations with adopting new tools and approaches. Improving natural resources monitoring efficiency and effectiveness will expand the scientific and technical foundations for making robust, strategic choices on decisions for CBP Partnership community-based priorities, policies, and management actions. Workshop findings and recommendations reflect progress in science, technology, and analyses addressing long-standing programmatic limitations in data collection and analysis capacities. State-of-the-science updates highlighted in the workshop span the spectrum of efforts representing improvements, successes, remaining challenges toward operationalizing protocols, and guidance toward research, or adoption and implementation by monitoring programs.

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia↗

The Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model (CBLCM): Simulating future land use scenarios and potential impacts on water quality

The Chesapeake Bay Land Change Model (CBLCM) is an open-source pseudo-cellular automata land change model tailored for loose coupling with watershed models. The CBLCM simulates infill development, residential and commercial development, natural land and agricultural land conversion, and growth served by sewer or septic wastewater treatment. The CBLCM is unique among land change models by simulating multiple types of development and explicitly accounting for infill development and the spatial patterns of development densities. The CBLCM was used to simulate five future land use scenarios, holding population constant, for all counties within and adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay watershed from 2013 to 2055. Results are presented here for the state of Maryland over the period 2013–2025 to illustrate model functionality and validation. The growth management (GM) scenario achieved the least development and potential impacts to natural and agricultural lands while accommodating the same amount of population growth as the other four scenarios. Scenarios focusing exclusively on natural or agricultural land protection shifted development to unprotected areas resulting in unforeseen water quality consequences. Simultaneously achieving more compact development while protecting the most valued natural and agricultural lands requires a combination of GM and land conservation policies and actions.

Maryland↗

The controversy about salmon hatcheries

The use of hatcheries has been a subject of lengthy debate in the management of salmon and trout resources in the Pacific Northwest. The problem has resulted in part from the wide distribution of hatchery fish in circumstances where natural populations were disadvantaged by management policy involving hatchery fish and the confusion of the effects of management with the effects of artificial propagation. Recently, the controversy has been epitomized by the recommendations to fisheries management agencies that excess hatchery fish should not be allowed to spawn in the wild, and hatchery fish should be excluded from salmon populations listed under the Endangered Species Act. The authors of the present article disagree with those recommendations and conclude that hatchery fish have an important role in recovery and supplementation of wild stocks. The present article is an attempt to help give balance to the discussion by providing a different perspective on hatchery fish and the literature pertaining to artificial propagation.

Fisheries Magazine↗

Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies: The effects of acidic deposition in the northeastern United States include the acidification of soil and water, which stresses terrestrial and aquatic biota

Acidic deposition is the transfer of strong acids and acid-forming substances from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. The composition of acidic deposition includes ions, gases, and particles derived from the following: gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and particulate emissions of acidifying and neutralizing compounds. Over the past quarter century of study, acidic deposition has emerged as a critical environmental stress that affects forested landscapes and aquatic ecosystems in North America, Europe, and Asia. This complex problem is an example of a new class of environmental issues that are multiregional in scale and are not amenable to simple resolution by policymakers. Acidic deposition can originate from transboundary air pollution and can affect large geographic areas. It is highly variable across space and time, links air pollution to diverse terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and alters the interactions of many elements (e.g., sulfur [S], nitrogen [N], hydrogen ion [H + ], calcium [Ca 2+ ], magnesium [Mg 2+ ], and aluminum [Al]). It also contributes directly and indirectly to biological stress and to the degradation of ecosystems. Despite the complexity of the effects of acidic deposition, North American and European management actions directed toward the recovery of damaged natural resources have resulted in recent decreases in both emissions and deposition of acidic S compounds. Accordingly, acidic deposition presents an instructive case study for coordinating science and policy efforts aimed at resolving large-scale environmental problems.

northeastern United States↗

Selected effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on program participants: A report to survey respondents

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established under the 1985 Food Security Act was initially designed to provide the agricultural community economic assistance while protecting highly erodible cropland. Many of the environmental benefits to soil, water, and wildlife resources have been documented (Dunn and others, 1993; Ryan and others, 1998; Flather and others, 1999; Heard and others, 2000). However, the personal and social effects of the program on CRP participants (or contractees) had not been formally documented. Information had been limited to anecdotal comments from individual participants, such as: “since establishment of the CRP the streams have surface water in them” or “the CRP grasses capture drifting snow, making winter feeding of cattle easier.” The Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) wanted to have a better picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the program, according to those most affected by it. In addition, policy makers wanted to get input from program participants on the growing emphasis of the program on long-term management and wildlife habitat requirements. As a result, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to survey CRP contractees on these issues. Preliminary results from this study have been furnished to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and are being considered as new conservation and management policies for the CRP are being developed (as part of the recently passed Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002). This report includes preliminary results of the study and is being sent to survey respondents. A formal publication of survey results is also being prepared and should be completed by the winter of 2002.

Open-File Report↗

Informing policy response to declining water supply in the Colorado River basin: Linking water supply management with outcomes for fish communities

Water-supply managers in the Colorado River Basin are tasked with balancing consumptive water use with natural water supply. Decisions associated with water-supply policy can include where and how much water consumption occurs, where water could be stored, and how to operate reservoirs. Water-supply decisions often affect other resources including energy production, recreation and aquatic ecosystems. The goal of this project was to model how different water supply management scenarios might affect riverine ecosystems with a specific focus on potential impacts on federally listed fish populations, including threatened humpback chub (Gila cypha) and endangered Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus). Threats to these endemic species include introduced non-native fish species that often become invasive, like smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and altered physical conditions that may favor these non-native fish species over the endemic fish species. Changes in how water supply may be managed in the Colorado River Basin can affect physical conditions in rivers by altering how much water flows through a particular river segment at a given time, by changing the extent of riverine ecosystems between reservoirs, and by determining the quality of water released from storage reservoirs with fixed release elevation (e.g., full reservoirs generally release colder water). To address our goal, we developed tools that coupled water storage models, river temperature models and fish population models to examine how different scenarios to operate Lake Mead, Lake Powell, and Flaming Gorge Reservoir, the three largest reservoirs in the watershed, may affect fish populations. We developed our work plan when available water supply was diminished. At the end of our project period (May 2022), Lake Powell and Lake Mead contained historically low water levels, and our models were being used in evaluating different options for operating Lake Powell by the Bureau of Reclamation and other stakeholders.

Arizona, Utah, Wyoming↗

Quality-Assurance/Quality-Control Manual for Collection and Analysis of Water-Quality Data in the Ohio District, US Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division (WRD), requires that quality-assurance/quality-control (QA/QC) activities be included in any sampling and analysis program. Operational QA/QC procedures address local needs while incorporating national policies. Therefore, specific technical policies were established for all activities associated with water-quality project being done by the Ohio District. The policies described in this report provide Ohio District personnel, cooperating agencies, and others with a reference manual on QA/QC procedures that are followed in collecitng and analyzing water-quality samples and reporting water-quality information in the Ohio District. The project chief, project support staff, District Water-Quality Specialist, and District Laboratory Coordinator are all involved in planning and implementing QA/QC activities at the district level. The District Chief and other district-level managers provide oversight, and the Regional Water-Quality Specialist, Office of Water Quality (USGS headquarters), and the Branch of Quality Systems within the Office of Water Quality create national QA/QC polices and provide assistance to District personnel. In the literature, the quality of all measurement data is expressed in terms of precision, variability, bias, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability. In the Ohio District, bias and variability will be used to describe quality-control data generated from samples in the field and laboratory. Each project chief must plan for implementation and financing of QA/QC activities necessary to achieve data-quality objectives. At least 15 percent of the total project effort must be directed toward QA/QC activities. Of this total, 5-10 percent will be used for collection and analysis of quality-control samples. This is an absolute minimum, and more may be required based on project objectives. Proper techniques must be followed in the collection and processing of surface-water, ground-water, biological, precipitation, bed-sediment, bedload, suspended-sediment, and solid-phase samples. These techniques are briefly described in this report and are extensively documented. The reference documents listed in this report will be kept by the District librarian and District Water-Quality Specialist and updated regularly so that they are available to all District staff. Proper handling and documentation before, during, and after field activities are essential to ensure the integrity of the sample and to correct erroneous reporting of data results. Field sites are to be properly identified and entered into the data base before field data-collection activities begin. During field activities, field notes are to be completed and sample bottles appropriately labeled a nd stored. After field activities, all paperwork is to be completed promptly and samples transferred to the laboratory within allowable holding times. All equipment used by District personnel for the collection and processing of water-quality samples is to be properly operated, maintained, and calibrated by project personnel. This includes equipment for onsite measurement of water-quality characteristics (temperature, specific conductance, pH, dissolved oxygen, alkalinity, acidity, and turbidity) and equipment and instruments used for biological sampling. The District Water-Quality Specialist and District Laboratory Coordinator are responsible for preventive maintenance and calibration of equipment in the Ohio District laboratory. The USGS National Water Quality Laboratory in Arvada, Colo., is the primary source of analytical services for most project work done by the Ohio District. Analyses done at the Ohio District laboratory are usually those that must be completed within a few hours of sample collection. Contract laboratories or other USGS laboratories are sometimes used instead of the NWQL or the Ohio District laboratory. When a contract laboratory is used, the projec

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

Water quality degradation effects on freshwater availability: Impacts of human activities

The quality of freshwater at any point on the landscape reflects the combined effects of many processes along water pathways. Human activities on all spatial scales affect both water quality and quantity. Alteration of the landscape and associated vegetation has not only changed the water balance, but typically has altered processes that control water quality. Effects of human activities on a small scale are relevant to an entire drainage basin. Furthermore, local, regional, and global differences in climate and water flow are considerable, causing varying effects of human activities on land and water quality and quantity, depending on location within a watershed, geology, biology, physiographic characteristics, and climate. These natural characteristics also greatly control human activities, which will, in turn, modify (or affect) the natural composition of water. One of the most important issues for effective resource management is recognition of cyclical and cascading effects of human activities on the water quality and quantity along hydrologic pathways. The degradation of water quality in one part of a watershed can have negative effects on users downstream. Everyone lives downstream of the effects of some human activity. An extremely important factor is that substances added to the atmosphere, land, and water generally have relatively long time scales for removal or clean up. The nature of the substance, including its affinity for adhering to soil and its ability to be transformed, affects the mobility and the time scale for removal of the substance. Policy alone will not solve many of the degradation issues, but a combination of policy, education, scientific knowledge, planning, and enforcement of applicable laws can provide mechanisms for slowing the rate of degradation and provide human and environmental protection. Such an integrated approach is needed to effectively manage land and water resources.

Water International↗

Developing an institutional framework to incorporate ecosystem services into decision making-Proceedings of a workshop

The routine and effective incorporation of ecosystem services information into resource management decisions requires a careful consideration of the value of goods and services provided by natural systems. A multidisciplinary workshop was held in October 2008 on "Developing an Institutional Framework to Incorporate Ecosystem Services into Decision Making." This report summarizes that workshop, which focused on examining the relationship between an institutional framework and consideration of ecosystem services in resource management decision making. This workshop was the third in a series of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can more effectively be incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, "Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In this workshop, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services more routinely and effectively used in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and identified some key challenges to developing the analytical framework (Hogan and others, 2009). Preconference workshop 2, "Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held July 28, 2008, in Naples, FL, and focused on the analytical process and identification of research priorities for ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies (Hogan and others, 2010). The summary presented here synthesizes the discussion at workshop 3 and considers how institutional structures and policy instruments can be used to achieve the vision developed in workshop 1, while recognizing the analytical capabilities and limitations identified in workshop 2. Our purpose was to identify how to use ecosystem service information more effectively and broadly in resource management and development decisions. We recognized the need to facilitate an integrated understanding of (1) the natural capital that produces ecosystem services; (2) the geospatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem service production, values, and use; (3) the value of ecosystem services (monetary and nonmonetary); and (4) institutional instruments, processes, and structures (property rights, laws, governance structures, and courts, for example). Interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding is beneficial and needs to engage stakeholders. The appropriate use of institutional structures, including markets, to integrate ecosystem services into decision making depends on the players and characteristics of the specific situation (such as stakeholders, the ecosystem, resources, and the political environment). Incorporating ecosystem service values into decisions requires consideration of place-based social, cultural, economic, and landscape characteristics and institutions. Thus, a single, prescribed solution will not work-various institutional strategies must be used in different situations. Market-based approaches require appropriate regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, depending on the situation and place. Further, market approaches will need to be coupled with nonmarket approaches into an integrated institutional framework.

Open-File Report↗

HEP as a planning tool: an application to waterfowl enhancement

To many, the principal role of wildlife agencies in public and private resource development has been that of impact mitigation. With known or pending habitat damage, biologists have to develop mitigation or compensation plans. Unfortunately, once in a mitigation framework, they are in a no-win situation, seeking remedial action at best. Yet, the potential exists for cooperative project planning, thereby facilitating mitigation of impacts before they occur, and enhancement of environmental amenities through project development. In fact, such planning is mandated by federal legislation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Outdoor Recreation Act, etc.).

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗

E-field ratio telluric survey near the Big Maria Mountains, Riverside County, California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579) has the responsibility, along with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, to survey certain areas in order to determine their mineral resource potential. This report presents results of three electric-field ratio telluric traverses conducted as part of the Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Program in the Big Maria Mountains, Riverside County, Calif. The telluric traverses were run on the southwest side of the Big Maria Mountains in an attempt to define the location of major buried faults near the eroded front of the range. E-field ratio tellurics is a descriptive name applied to the electrical exploration technique used in this survey. The telluric method refers to the measurement of the earth's electric field generated by induction from natural electromagnetic waves arriving at the surface. The E-field ratio telluric method uses a receiving array of three electrodes spaced equidistant and inline. This array is, in effect, two colinear dipoles sharing a common electrode. The potential difference across each dipole is then proportional to the component of the telluric field in the direction of the array. This configuration permits the measurement of the ratio of the telluric field at each dipole in the direction of the dipole line, and hence the name. The traverse data is extended by moving the three-electrode array forward one dipole length so that the forward electrode becomes the center electrode for the next ratio measurement. Electric-field data so obtained are proportional to the square root of the apparent resistivity of the earth at the location of the dipoles. However, because the apparent resistivity can be a function of the dipole direction, it is important to know the orientation of the dipoles with respect to major structures. Because the resistivity of fluid-saturated earth materials is largely dependent on the porosity of the rocks, the salinity of the pore fluid, and the presence of clays or similar material where surface conduction is high, alluvial fill, argillite and similar rocks tend to have low resistivities whereas igneous or high-grade metamorphic rocks have high resistivities. Variation in the electrical properties along a traverse may then be used to infer lithologic or structural changes.

California↗

The US Geological Survey's National Mapping Division programs, products, and services that can support wetlands mapping

The US Geological Survey (USGS) programs can play an important role in support of President Bush's policy of no net loss of wetlands. A principal goal of USGS is to provide cartographic information that contributes to the wise management of the Nation's natural resources. This information consists of maps, cartographic data bases (graphic and digital), remotely sensed imagery, and information services. These products are used by Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector, and individual citizens in making decisions on the existence and use of land and water resources. I discuss the programs, products, and information services of the National Mapping Division, the tools available to determine where wetlands exist, and the capability of periodic measurement of wetlands to help in assessing compliance with the concept of no net loss of wetlands. -from Author

Biological Report - US Fish & Wildlife Service↗

Global nonfuel mineral exploration trends 2001-2015

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) is to collect, analyze and disseminate information on the domestic and international supply of and demand for minerals and mineral materials essential to the U.S. economy and national security. Understanding mineral exploration activities and trends assists government policy makers, minerals industry decision makers and research entities in identifying where future sources of mineral supply are likely to be discovered, the amount and type of these resources and factors that may affect exploration and development.

Mining Engineering↗

A hydrologic primer for New Jersey watershed management

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the N.J. Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and many other agencies and organizations are striving to educate the public about New Jersey’s water resources. In 1996, the NJDEP began implementing a “watershed management approach” to maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of New Jersey’s waters. This approach concentrates on managing individual watershed areas by (1) defining the physical geographic boundaries of the watersheds, (2) basing water policy on sound scientific principles, and (3) developing partnerships with the public--the people most affected by watershed-management policies. New Jersey can be divided into five water regions as defined by the NJDEP: the Northeast, Raritan, Northwest, Lower Delaware, and Atlantic Coastal water regions (fig. 1). Each water region has been divided into three to five “watershed-management areas,” each of which encompasses a particular group of major rivers (fig. 2a-e). Each watershed management area consists of many smaller watersheds. Hydrologic data collected by Federal and State government agencies are invaluable as resources to policymakers who make decisions that affect the use of water in a particular watershed. The purpose of this report is to educate water-resource managers, policymakers, government officials, and the public about hydrologic concepts and the water-resource data needed to make informed decisions about water-management issues. (“Hydrologic” means relating to the occurrence, distribution, movement, and chemistry of all waters of the Earth (Fetter, 1980)). The first part of the report describes basic hydrologic concepts and includes explanations of the hydrologic cycle, the water budget, the surfacewater and ground-water flow systems, water-quality concepts and standards, and water use. The second part of the report summarizes the types of waterresource data that are available from Federal and State government agencies. Instructions on how to obtain the data and contact the appropriate Federal and State agencies, as well as suggestions for additional reading, also are included.

New Jersey↗

Structured science syntheses to inform decision making on Federal public lands

The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service partnered to develop a new type of science product: the structured science synthesis. Structured science syntheses are peer-reviewed reports that synthesize science information about a priority resource management issue on public lands. Structured science syntheses are developed explicitly to facilitate the application of science to decision making. Key characteristics of structured science syntheses include that they are coproduced with resource managers, developed using clear, repeatable methods and designed for ease of use. The syntheses include different types of science information needed for analyses completed under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Fact Sheet↗

Development of a species status assessment process for decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) require scientific input on the risk that the species will become extinct. A series of critiques on the role of science in ESA decisions have called for improved consistency and transparency in species risk assessments and clear distinctions between science input and policy application. To address the critiques and document the emerging practice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), we outline an assessment process based on principles and practices of risk and decision analyses that results in a scientific report on species status. The species status assessment (SSA) process has three successive stages: 1) document the life history and ecological relationships of the species in question to provide the foundation for the assessment, 2) describe and hypothesize causes for the current condition of the species, and 3) forecast the species' future condition. The future condition refers to the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild under plausible future scenarios. The scenarios help explore the species' response to future environmental stressors and to assess the potential for conservation to intervene to improve its status. The SSA process incorporates modeling and scenario planning for prediction of extinction risk and applies the conservation biology principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to evaluate the current and future condition. The SSA results in a scientific report distinct from policy application, which contributes to streamlined, transparent, and consistent decision-making and allows for greater technical participation by experts outside of the USFWS, for example, by state natural resource agencies. We present two case studies based on assessments of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus and the Sonoran Desert tortoise Gopherus morafkai to illustrate the process. The SSA builds upon the past threat-focused assessment by including systematic and explicit analyses of a species' future response to stressors and conservation, and as a result, we believe it provides an improved scientific analysis for ESA decisions.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗