SEARCH · USGS 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.
No abstract available at this time
Recent growth and development of renewable energy and unconventional oil and gas extraction are rapidly diversifying the energy supply of the United States. Yet, as our Nation works to advance energy security and conserve wildlife, some conflicts have surfaced. To address these challenges, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is conducting innovative research and developing workable solutions to reduce the impacts of energy production on wildlife. USGS scientists collaborate on many studies with scientists from other Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal nations; academic research institutions; and nongovernmental and private organizations. The mix of fuels used for electricity generation is evolving. Solar, natural gas, and wind energy made up most electricity generation additions in 2015 and 2016. The United States now leads the world in natural gas production, with new record highs for each year from 2011 through 2015. More than 48,000 wind turbines now contribute to power grids in most States, providing about 5 percent of U.S. end-use electricity demand in an average year. The number of utility-scale solar-energy projects is growing rapidly with solar energy projected to contribute to the largest electricity generation addition in 2016. A substantial number of large energy projects have been constructed on undeveloped public lands, and more are anticipated at an increasing rate, creating new stress to wildlife. Direct impacts include collisions with wind turbines and structures at solar facilities and loss of habitat which may negatively affect sensitive species. Recent estimates suggest 250,000 to 500,000 birds die each year at wind turbine facilities. Bat fatality rates at wind turbine facilities are less certain, but may average several hundred thousand per year throughout North America. Because new projects may be located in or near sensitive wildlife habitats, ecological science plays a key role in helping to guide project siting and operational decisions.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.
The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across 251,473 square miles over portions of 13 western States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, invasive plants, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and ensure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for more than 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as an iconic species of this ecosystem. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States, and 2 Canadian Provinces and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat; however, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, rely on various parts of the sagebrush ecosystem but only for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem, wildlife species within the ecosystem, and the species’ response to stressors and management actions. The program provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. By providing the science to inform these decisions, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards the goal of sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. This information can inform planning and management conducted by nongovernmental organizations as well. USGS research is tailored specifically to inform adaptive management, improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush, and restoring degraded landscapes. Examples of research support for partners include providing information for actions such as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans and land use. The USGS continues to provide foundational science to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.
The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across a large portion of the Western United States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, exotic plant invasions, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and insure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for over 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as the iconic species. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat. However, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for Mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, only rely the sagebrush ecosystem for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem and these species and their response to stressors and management actions. The research is tailored specifically to inform and improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush and restoring degraded landscapes. By providing the science to inform these strategies, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. The USGS provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. These have included such actions as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans. The USGS continues to build on that foundation to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.
During 2005, we used radio-telemetry at McNary Dam to estimate passage and survival parameters of juvenile salmonids. During the spring migration period, two treatments were implemented: 1) 12-h spill operations with spill occurring between 1800 hours and 0600 hours, and 2) 24-h spill with spill occurring 24 hours per day. Treatments were not implemented during the summer migration period. However, a court-order was issued by Judge James Redden, U.S. 9th District Court, mandating a maximum powerhouse discharge of 50 kcfs with the remaining discharge to be spilled over the 24-h diel cycle between 1 July and 31 August 2005. Consequently, our study was conducted during two distinct periods: 1) a short period of involuntary spill for 24-h per day that occurred between 22 June and 30 June 2005, and 2) the period of court-ordered spill that was implemented after 1 July 2005.
Fish kills have occurred in the reservoir below Grand Coulee Dam possibly due to total dissolved gas supersaturation (TDGS), which occurs when water cascades over a dam or waterfall. The highest TDGS below Grand Coulee Dam has occurred after spilling water via the outlet tubes, though TDGS from upstream sources has also been recorded. Exposure to TDGS can cause gas bubble disease in aquatic organisms. This disease, analogous to ‘the bends’ in human divers, can range from mild to fatal depending on the level of supersaturation, species, life cycle stage, condition of the fish, fish depth, and the water temperature. The USGS, Western Fisheries Research Center’s Columbia River Research Laboratory conducted field and laboratory experiments to determine the relative risks of TDGS to various species of fish in the reservoir below the dam (Rufus Woods Lake). Field work included examination of over 8000 resident fish for signs of gas bubble disease, examination of the annual growth increments of several species relative to ambient TDGS, and recording the in-situ depths and temperatures of several species using miniature recorders surgically implanted in both resident fish and triploid steelhead reared in commercial net pens. Laboratory experiments included bioassays of the progression of signs and mortality of several species at various TDGS levels. The overarching objective of these studies was to provide data to enable sound management decisions regarding the effects of TDGS in the reservoir below Grand Coulee Dam, though the data may also be applicable to other locations.
Project overview Predation on juvenile salmonids by fish in the Columbia River Basin (CRB) has impacted salmon survival and is a topic that has received considerable attention over the last three decades. Some of the earliest and most detailed research focused on the food habits, consumption rates, abundance, and distribution of predaceous northern pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis , smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu , walleye Sander vitreus , and channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus in John Day Reservoir (Beamesderfer and Rieman 1991; Poe et al. 1991; Vigg et al. 1991). This group of researchers also estimated the loss of juvenile salmonids to predation by some of these predators (Rieman et al. 1991). Since this pioneering effort, others have evaluated various aspects of predation-related mortality on juvenile salmonids in the CRB, focusing mostly on northern pikeminnow and smallmouth bass (e.g., Tabor et al. 1993; Zimmerman 1999; Naughton et al. 2004). Perhaps the most significant finding coming from this body of research was that the native northern pikeminnow was the dominant predator of juvenile salmonids in the CRB. Indeed, Beamesderfer et al. (1996) estimated that northern pikeminnow consumed about 16 million (8%) of the estimated 200 million juvenile salmonids emigrating annually in the CRB, far surpassing the consumption of smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish combined. Because of this, large-scale management fisheries (i.e., the northern pikeminnow management program, or NPMP; see Rieman and Beamesderfer 1990; Beamesderfer et al. 1996) have been implemented in the CRB since 1990 to achieve a 10%–20% exploitation rate on northern pikeminnow and reduce predation on juvenile salmonids. The NPMP has been a success, resulting in up to 38% potential reductions in predation (Friesen and Ward 1999; Knutsen and Ward 1999; Ward and Zimmerman 1999;). In contrast to the NPMP, Oregon and Washington state fish and wildlife agencies manage and enhance recreational fisheries for smallmouth bass and walleye by implementing size and harvest limit regulations. Recently, many biologists and fish managers have become concerned about the impact of non-native predaceous fishes on juvenile salmonid survival. For example, Poe et al. (1994) warned that smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish were expanding their populations in some areas, that these fish could be significant predators on juvenile salmonids, and that they may compete with northern pikeminnow for common prey items, resulting in higher consumption rates of salmonids by the native predator. Sanderson et al. (2009) reported that the impact of non-indigenous species (including piscivorous fishes) on salmon survival within the CRB can be severe and suggested that managing nonindigenous species may be imperative for salmon recovery. Assessing the current ecological impacts of introduced fishes throughout the CRB will fill information gaps associated with their impact on salmonid survival and contribute to the description of CRB food webs. In response to these recent concerns about the potential predatory impact of non-native piscivores on salmon survival, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) co-hosted a workshop to address predation on juvenile salmonids in the CRB by non-native fish (Halton 2008). The purpose of the workshop was to review, evaluate, and develop strategies to reduce predation by non-native fishes on juvenile salmonids. In the end, discussion at the workshop and at subsequent meetings considered two potential ideas to reduce predation by non-native fish on juvenile salmonids; (1) understanding the role of juvenile American shad Alosa sapidissima in the diet of non-native predators in the fall; and (2) the effects of localized, intense reductions of smallmouth bass in areas of particularly high salmonid predation. In this report, we describe initial efforts to understand the influence of juvenile American shad as a prey item for introduced predators in the middle Columbia River. Our first objective, addressed in Chapter 1, was to evaluate the efficacy of nonlethal methods to describe the physiological condition of smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish from late summer through late fall. Such information will be used to understand the contribution of juvenile American shad to the energy reserves of predaceous fish prior to winter. In Chapter 2, we describe the results of some limited sampling to document the food habits of smallmouth bass, walleye, and channel catfish in three reservoirs of the middle Columbia River during late fall. Collectively, we hope to increase our understanding of the contribution of juvenile American shad to the diets of introduced predators and the contribution of this diet to their energy reserves, growth, and perhaps over-winter survival. Managers should be able to use this information for deciding whether to control the population of American shad in the CRB or for managing introduced predaceous fish in the CRB.
Recent studies have found a significant association between climatic variability and basin hydroclimatology, particularly groundwater levels, over the southeast United States. The research reported in this paper evaluates the potential in developing 6-month-ahead groundwater-level forecasts based on the precipitation forecasts from ECHAM 4.5 General Circulation Model Forced with Sea Surface Temperature forecasts. Ten groundwater wells and nine streamgauges from the USGS Groundwater Climate Response Network and Hydro-Climatic Data Network were selected to represent groundwater and surface water flows, respectively, having minimal anthropogenic influences within the Flint River Basin in Georgia, United States. The writers employ two low-dimensional models [principle component regression (PCR) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA)] for predicting groundwater and streamflow at both seasonal and monthly timescales. Three modeling schemes are considered at the beginning of January to predict winter (January, February, and March) and spring (April, May, and June) streamflow and groundwater for the selected sites within the Flint River Basin. The first scheme (model 1) is a null model and is developed using PCR for every streamflow and groundwater site using previous 3-month observations (October, November, and December) available at that particular site as predictors. Modeling schemes 2 and 3 are developed using PCR and CCA, respectively, to evaluate the role of precipitation forecasts in improving monthly and seasonal groundwater predictions. Modeling scheme 3, which employs a CCA approach, is developed for each site by considering observed groundwater levels from nearby sites as predictands. The performance of these three schemes is evaluated using two metrics (correlation coefficient and relative RMS error) by developing groundwater-level forecasts based on leave-five-out cross-validation. Results from the research reported in this paper show that using precipitation forecasts in climate models improves the ability to predict the interannual variability of winter and spring streamflow and groundwater levels over the basin. However, significant conditional bias exists in all the three modeling schemes, which indicates the need to consider improved modeling schemes as well as the availability of longer time-series of observed hydroclimatic information over the basin.
During 2004, the USGS Columbia River Research Laboratory conducted a study at McNary Dam using radio telemetry to estimate passage and survival parameters of juvenile salmonids. Our primary objective was to estimate these parameters under ambient environmental and operational conditions, and thus project-wide treatments were not implemented. The primary dam operation consisted of “biop” spill, where spill occurred at night between 1800 and 0600 hours, and no spill occurred between 0600 and 1800 hours for the majority of our study period. During the spring study period, we radio-tagged and released 1,896 yearling Chinook salmon and 1,888 juvenile steelhead. During the summer study period, we radio-tagged and released 1,919 subyearling Chinook salmon. All fish were tagged using gastric techniques to implant transmitters weighing 1.58 g for yearling Chinook salmon, 1.93 g for juvenile steelhead, and 0.96 g for subyearling Chinook salmon. Minimum fish sizes were based on a 6.5% tag:fish weight ratio, and the size of tagged fish represented about 91%, 100%, and 17% of the population, respectively for yearling Chinook salmon, juvenile steelhead, and subyearling Chinook salmon. About 60% of radio-tagged fish were released 10 km upstream of McNary Dam at Hat Rock State Park, Oregon, with the remainder released as control groups 400 m downstream of the dam.
American shad Alosa sapidissima in the middle Columbia River (MCR)—a high energy food available in the summer and fall—may be contributing to the increased growth and enhanced condition of nonnative piscivores. To test this hypothesis we quantified the late summer and autumn diets of smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu , walleye Sander vitreus , and channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus in the three lowermost reservoirs on the Columbia River (Bonneville [BON], The Dalles [TDA], and John Day [JDA]). The diet of smallmouth bass (SMB) was fairly similar among reservoirs, with crustaceans (52–82%) and fish (13–38%) being the dominant prey groups by percent mass. Cottidae were usually the dominant fish prey in the diet of SMB at all areas and the contribution of juvenile shad ranged from 0–8.2%. Fish (mostly Cyprinidae and Cottidae ) were always the dominant prey item for walleye (WAL) at all areas and at all times, ranging from 70–100% of their diet by mass. Juvenile American shad composed from 10–27% (by mass) of the diet of walleye, depending on area and month. For channel catfish (CHC), the most common prey items consumed were crustaceans (20%–80% by mass) and unidentified items (30%–80%). Fish represented a relatively small component (< 4%) of their diet. We also evaluated the condition of SMB and WAL by determining relative weights ( W r ) and hepatosomatic indices (HSI). Mean W r for SMB greater than 300 mm ranged from 0.89 to 0.94 depending on area and month and showed a significant increase from August to September for fish in BON only. Overall, mean W r of WAL was similar at all areas, ranging from 0.89–0.91, and increased significantly from September to mid-October and November for fish in TDA only. Overall, mean HSI of SMB ranged from 1.18 to 1.48, did not differ between fish in different reservoirs, and increased significantly from September to mid-October and November for fish from the lower JDA only. Mean HSI of WAL was significantly higher in October and November (0.95±0.24) than in August (0.73±0.22). Collectively, our results are the first to describe the diets of SMB, WAL, and CHC over a large spatial area in the MCR during late summer and fall. Only SMB and WAL consumed relevant amounts (up to 27% by mass for walleye) of American shad, however the influence of this diet item on their condition was not discernible because these fish showed only slight increases in condition indices that did not always correspond to a dietary shift that included an increase in shad consumption, and we could not discount the importance of other prey items. Our results should be useful for future discussions regarding predation and shad management in the Columbia River.
The membership of the Committee has remained unchanged during the year. There has been some discussion of committee activities between individual members and in small groups. The further discussion of runoff terminology has resulted in no new developments of special note. The following statements have been received from members of the committee concerning activities of the agencies with which they are associated.
Introduction Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems provide valuable services to humans and are a source of clean water, energy, raw materials, and productive soils. The Nation’s food supply is more secure because of wildlife. For example, native pollinators enhance agricultural crops, and insect-eating bats provide pest control services worth billions of dollars to farmers annually. Fish and wildlife are also vital to a vibrant outdoor recreation and tourism industry. Recreational activities, such as hunting, shooting, boating, and angling, generated \$1.1 billion in excise taxes paid to State wildlife agencies in 2017. National parks, wildlife refuges, and monuments accounted for $35 billion in economic output and 318,000 jobs nationwide in 2016. Additional economic benefits are generated from the use and enjoyment of wildlife in State-owned lands and waters. Although the United States is rich in natural resources, human activity continues to place new pressures on fish and wildlife and the habitats they rely on. The United States became the world’s top producer of petroleum and natural gas products in 2012, surpassing Russia’s natural gas production levels in 2009 and Saudi Arabia’s petroleum production in 2013. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that the demand for liquid fuel, natural gas, and renewable energy will show strong growth in the next 20 years. Wind energy has demonstrated consistent growth since 2007 with now more than 53,000 wind turbines contributing to power grids in 41 States, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Solar energy has seen rapid growth since 2013 and made up nearly one-third of the total electricity generation additions in 2016. Yet as our Nation works to advance energy security and sustain wildlife, some conflicts have surfaced. Impacts of an expanding energy infrastructure include fragmentation and loss of habitat as well as mortality of birds, bats, fish, and other animals from interactions with energy generation facilities. Because energy development can often occur in wildlife habitats, ecological science can help guide project siting and operational decisions to areas that present the lowest risk to wildlife and energy developers. To address these challenges and make the most of new opportunities, the U.S. Geological Survey is producing innovative science to develop workable solutions that can help sustain wildlife and the habitat they rely upon, while allowing informed development.
USGS scientists provide scientific information and options that land and resource managers and private industries can use to make decisions regarding the development of energy resources while protecting the health of ecosystems. Studies focus on delivering information to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts of energy infrastructure on fish and wildlife. USGS scientists are currently developing mapping tools and models that identify areas of biological strengths and weaknesses or high- and low-quality habitat and can identify opportunities for conservation—areas of high-quality habitat where energy-generating potential is low—and areas of potential risk—areas of high-quality habitat where energy-generating potential is high. These tools can assist resource managers and the industry concerning siting of energy development and selection of off-site mitigation areas. Scientific efforts, such as these, further the understanding of impacts related to energy development and create workable solutions. The three goals guiding USGS activities related to the interactions between wildlife and energy development are to understand risks by identifying when, where, and how fish and wildlife share space with energy facilities, measure direct and indirect impacts to species, and inform feasible and cost-effective solutions to minimize impacts through technological fixes, management, and mitigation.
Introduction This report summarizes discussion at the Roundtable on a National Framework for Risk Reduction and Management held on November 15, 2006, at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C. The Roundtable was cosponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Association of American Geographers (AAG), and The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Comments made by speakers not affiliated with the USGS do not necessarily reflect the positions of the USGS.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.