USGS ScienceSearch

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Science Activities”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

Quality-assurance and data-management plan for water-quality activities in the Kansas Water Science Center, 2014

As the Nation’s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping information agency, the U.S. Geological Survey is relied on to collect high-quality data, and produce factual and impartial interpretive reports. This quality-assurance and data-management plan provides guidance for water-quality activities conducted by the Kansas Water Science Center. Policies and procedures are documented for activities related to planning, collecting, storing, documenting, tracking, verifying, approving, archiving, and disseminating water-quality data. The policies and procedures described in this plan complement quality-assurance plans for continuous water-quality monitoring, surface-water, and groundwater activities in Kansas.

Kansas

Water priorities for the nation—The U.S. Geological Survey next generation water observing system

The challenges of providing safe and sustainable water supplies for human and ecological uses and protecting lives and property during water emergencies are well recognized. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) plays an essential role in meeting these challenges through its observational networks and renowned water science and research activities (National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018). Substantial advances in water science, together with emerging breakthroughs in technical and computational capabilities, have led the USGS to develop a Next Generation Water Observing System (NGWOS) . The NGWOS will provide real-time data on water quantity and quality in more affordable and rapid ways than previously possible, and in more locations. The data will be served through a modernized USGS National Water Information System that will be coupled to advanced modeling tools to inform daily water operations, decision-making during water emergencies (like floods, droughts, and contaminant spills), assessments of past trends in water quantity and quality, and forecasts of future water availability.

Fact Sheet

Quality-Assurance Plan for Water-Quality Activities of the U.S. Geological Survey Montana Water Science Center

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Office of Water Quality in the Water Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a quality-assurance plan has been created for use by the USGS Montana Water Science Center in conducting water-quality activities. This quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the USGS Montana Water Science Center for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of water-quality data. The policies and procedures presented in this quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities complement the quality-assurance plans for surface-water and ground-water activities and suspended-sediment analysis.

Open-File Report

Integrated Science: Providing a More Complete Understanding of Complex Problems

Integration among sciences is critical in order to address some of our most pressing problems. Because of the inherent complexity of natural systems, and the increasing complexity of human demands on them, narrowly-focused approaches are no longer sufficient. USGS Workshop on Enhancing Integrated Science, November 1998. The Mid-Continent Geographic Science Center is actively participating in several integrated science studies that include research partners from the other disciplines of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), other Federal and State agencies, universities, and private non-government organizations. The following three examples illustrate the diversity of these studies.

Fact Sheet

Quality-assurance plan for groundwater activities, U.S. Geological Survey Dakota Water Science Center

As the Nation’s principal earth-science information agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is depended upon to collect accurate data and produce factual and impartial interpretive reports. Methods for data collection and analysis that were developed by the USGS have become standard techniques used by numerous Federal, State, and local agencies and by private enterprises. The USGS has implemented a program designed to ensure that all scientific work done by or for USGS Water Science Centers is done in accordance with a quality-assurance plan. The implementation of a groundwater quality-assurance plan will enhance groundwater data collected by the USGS. This report is a quality-assurance plan for groundwater activities conducted by the USGS Dakota Water Science Center and is meant to complement qualityassurance plans for surface-water and water-quality activities and similar plans for the Dakota Water Science Center and general project activities throughout the USGS.

Open-File Report

Cerulean Warbler Technical Group: Coordinating international research and conservation

Effective conservation for species of concern requires interchange and collaboration among conservationists and stakeholders. The Cerulean Warbler Technical Group (CWTG) is a consortium of biologists and managers from government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia, and industry, who are dedicated to finding pro-active, science-based solutions for conservation of the Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea). Formed in the United States in 2001, CWTG’s scope soon broadened to address the species’ ecology and conservation on both the breeding and non-breeding ranges, in partnership with biologists from South and Central America. In 2004, CWTG launched the Cerulean Warbler Conservation Initiative, a set of activities aimed at addressing information and conservation needs for the species. These include (1) studies in the core breeding range to assess Cerulean Warbler response to forest management practices and to identify mined lands that could be reforested to benefit the species, (2) ecological and demographic studies on the winter range, and (3) surveys of Cerulean Warbler distribution on the breeding and winter ranges and during migration. A rangewide conservation action plan has been completed, along with a more detailed conservation plan for the non-breeding range. CWTG and partners now move forward with on-the-ground conservation, while still addressing unmet information needs.

Ornitologia Neotropical

Geodatabase of sites, basin boundaries, and topology rules used to store drainage basin boundaries for the U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center

This geodatabase and its component datasets are part of U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series 650 and were generated to store basin boundaries for U.S. Geological Survey streamgages and other sites in Colorado. The geodatabase and its components were created by the U.S. Geological Survey, Colorado Water Science Center, and are used to derive the numeric drainage areas for Colorado that are input into the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Information System (NWIS) database and also published in the Annual Water Data Report and on NWISWeb. The foundational dataset used to create the basin boundaries in this geodatabase was the National Watershed Boundary Dataset. This geodatabase accompanies a U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods report (Book 11, Section C, Chapter 6) entitled "Digital Database Architecture and Delineation Methodology for Deriving Drainage Basins, and Comparison of Digitally and Non-Digitally Derived Numeric Drainage Areas." The Techniques and Methods report details the geodatabase architecture, describes the delineation methodology and workflows used to develop these basin boundaries, and compares digitally derived numeric drainage areas in this geodatabase to non-digitally derived areas. 1. COBasins.gdb: This geodatabase contains site locations and basin boundaries for Colorado. It includes a single feature dataset, called BasinsFD, which groups the component feature classes and topology rules. 2. BasinsFD: This feature dataset in the "COBasins.gdb" geodatabase is a digital container that holds the feature classes used to archive site locations and basin boundaries as well as the topology rules that govern spatial relations within and among component feature classes. This feature dataset includes three feature classes: the sites for which basins have been delineated (the "Sites" feature class), basin bounding lines (the "BasinLines" feature class), and polygonal basin areas (the "BasinPolys" feature class). The feature dataset also stores the topology rules (the "BasinsFD_Topology") that constrain the relations within and among component feature classes. The feature dataset also forces any feature classes inside it to have a consistent projection system, which is, in this case, an Albers-Equal-Area projection system. 3. BasinsFD_Topology: This topology contains four persistent topology rules that constrain the spatial relations within the "BasinLines" feature class and between the "BasinLines" feature class and the "BasinPolys" feature classes. 4. Sites: This point feature class contains the digital representations of the site locations for which Colorado Water Science Center basin boundaries have been delineated. This feature class includes point locations for Colorado Water Science Center active (as of September 30, 2009) gages and for other sites. 5. BasinLines: This line feature class contains the perimeters of basins delineated for features in the "Sites" feature class, and it also contains information regarding the sources of lines used for the basin boundaries. 6. BasinPolys: This polygon feature class contains the polygonal basin areas delineated for features in the "Sites" feature class, and it is used to derive the numeric drainage areas published by the Colorado Water Science Center.

Colorado

Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013-23: Part 2: Science plan for improved water-quality information and management

This report presents a science strategy for the third decade of the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program, which since 1991, has been responsible for providing nationally consistent information on the quality of the Nation's streams and groundwater; how water quality is changing over time; and the major natural and human factors that affect current water quality conditions and trends. The strategy is based on an extensive evaluation of the accomplishments of NAWQA over its first two decades, the current status of water-quality monitoring activities by USGS and its partners, and an updated analysis of stakeholder priorities. The plan is designed to address priority issues and national needs identified by NAWQA stakeholders and the National Research Council (2012) irrespective of budget constraints. This plan describes four major goals for the third decade (Cycle 3), the approaches for monitoring, modeling, and scientific studies, key partnerships required to achieve these goals, and products and outcomes that will result from planned assessment activities. The science plan for 2013–2023 is a comprehensive approach to meet stakeholder priorities for: (1) rebuilding NAWQA monitoring networks for streams, rivers, and groundwater, and (2) upgrading models used to extrapolate and forecast changes in water-quality and stream ecosystem condition in response to changing climate and land use. The Cycle 3 plan continues approaches that have been central to the Program’s long-term success, but adjusts monitoring intensities and study designs to address critical information needs and identified data gaps. Restoration of diminished monitoring networks and new directions in modeling and interpretative studies address growing and evolving public and stakeholder needs for water-quality information and improved management, particularly in the face of increasing challenges related to population growth, increasing demands for water, and changing land use and climate. However, a combination of funding growth and extensive collaboration with other USGS programs and other Federal, State, and local agencies, public interest groups, professional and trade associations, academia, and private industry will be needed to fully realize the monitoring and modeling goals laid out in this plan (USGS Fact Sheet 2013-3008).

Open-File Report

The United States National Climate Assessment - Alaska Technical Regional Report

The Alaskan landscape is changing, both in terms of effects of human activities as a consequence of increased population, social and economic development and their effects on the local and broad landscape; and those effects that accompany naturally occurring hazards such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Some of the most prevalent changes, however, are those resulting from a changing climate, with both near term and potential upcoming effects expected to continue into the future. Alaska's average annual statewide temperatures have increased by nearly 4°F from 1949 to 2005, with significant spatial variability due to the large latitudinal and longitudinal expanse of the State. Increases in mean annual temperature have been greatest in the interior region, and smallest in the State's southwest coastal regions. In general, however, trends point toward increases in both minimum temperatures, and in fewer extreme cold days. Trends in precipitation are somewhat similar to those in temperature, but with more variability. On the whole, Alaska saw a 10-percent increase in precipitation from 1949 to 2005, with the greatest increases recorded in winter. The National Climate Assessment has designated two well-established scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic and others, 2001) as a minimum set that technical and author teams considered as context in preparing portions of this assessment. These two scenarios are referred to as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 and B1 scenarios, which assume either a continuation of recent trends in fossil fuel use (A2) or a vigorous global effort to reduce fossil fuel use (B1). Temperature increases from 4 to 22°F are predicted (to 2070-2099) depending on which emissions scenario (A2 or B1) is used with the least warming in southeast Alaska and the greatest in the northwest. Concomitant with temperature changes, by the end of the 21st century the growing season is expected to lengthen by 15-25 days in some areas of Alaska, with much of that corresponding with earlier spring snow melt. Future projections of precipitation (30-80 years) over Alaska show an increase across the State, with the largest changes in the northwest and smallest in the southeast. Because of increasing temperatures and growing season length, however, increased precipitation may not correspond with increased water availability, due to temperature related increased evapotranspiration. The extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since the late 1980s. Alaska has experienced similar trends, with a strong decrease in snow cover extent occurring in May. When averaged across the State, the disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred from 4 to 6 days earlier per decade, and snow return in fall has occurred approximately 2 days later per decade. This change appears to be driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in winter precipitation, with average winter temperatures also increasing by about 2.5°F. The extent of sea ice has been declining, as has been widely published in both national and scientific media outlets, and is projected to continue to decline during this century. The observed decline in annual sea ice minimum extent (September) has occurred more rapidly than was predicted by climate models and has been accompanied by decreases in ice thickness and in the presence of multi-year ice. This decrease was first documented by satellite imagery in the late 1970s for the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and is projected to continue, with the potential for the disappearance of summer sea ice by mid- to late century. A new phenomenon that was not reported in previous assessments is ocean acidification. Uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by oceans has a significant effect on marine biogeochemistry by reducing seawater pH. Ocean acidification is of particular concern in Alaska, because cold sea water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water, and a decrease in sea ice extent has allowed increased sea surface exposure and more uptake of CO2 into these northern waters. Ocean acidification will likely affect the ability of organisms to produce and maintain shell material, such as aragonite or calcite (calcium carbonate minerals structured from carbonate ions), required by many shelled organism, from mollusks to corals to microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Direct biological effects in Alaska further along the food chain have yet to be studied and may vary among organisms. Some of the potentially most significant changes to Alaska that could result from a changing climate are the effects on the terrestrial cryosphere - particularly glaciers and permafrost. Alaskan glaciers are changing at a rapid rate, the primary driver appearing to be temperature. Statewide, glaciers lost 13 cubic miles of ice annually from the 1950s to the 1990s, and that rate doubled in the 2000s. However, like temperature and precipitation, glacier ice loss is not spatially uniform; most glaciers are losing mass, yet some are growing (for example Hubbard Glacier in southeast Alaska). Alaska glaciers with the most rapid loss are those terminating in sea water or lakes. With this increasing rate of melt, the contribution of surplus fresh water entering into the oceans from Alaska's glaciers, as well as those in neighboring British Columbia, Canada, is approximately 20 percent of that contributed by the Greenland Ice Sheet. Permafrost degradation (that is, the thawing of ice-rich soils) is currently (2012) impacting infrastructure and surface-water availability in areas of both discontinuous and continuous ground ice. Over most of the State, the permafrost is warming, with increasing temperatures broadly consistent with increasing air temperatures. On the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska, permafrost temperatures showed some cooling in the 1950s and 1960s but have been followed by a roughly 5°F increase since the 1980s. Many areas in the continuous permafrost zone have seen increases in temperature in the seasonally active layer and a decrease in re-freezing rates. Changes in the discontinuous permafrost zone are initially much more observable due to the resulting thermokarst terrain (land surface formed as ice rich permafrost thaws), most notable in boreal forested areas. Climate warming in Alaska has potentially broad implications for human health and food security, especially in rural areas, as well as increased risk for injury with changing winter ice conditions. Additionally, such warming poses the potential for increasing damage to existing water and sanitation facilities and challenges for development of new facilities, especially in areas underlain by permafrost. Non-infectious and infectious diseases also are becoming an increasing concern. For example, from 1999 to 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in medical claims for insectbite reactions in five of six regions of Alaska, with the largest percentage increase occurring in the most northern areas. The availability and quality of subsistence foods, normally considered to be very healthy, may change due to changing access, changing habitats, and spoilage of meat in food storage cellars. These and other trends and potential outcomes resulting from a changing climate are further described in this report. In addition, we describe new science leadership activities that have been initiated to address and provide guidance toward conducting research aimed at making available information for policy makers and land management agencies to better understand, address, and plan for changes to the local and regional environment. This report cites data in both metric and standard units due to the contributions by numerous authors and the direct reference of their data.

Alaska

Teaching animal habitat selection using wildlife tracking equipment

We present a hands-on outdoor activity coupled with classroom discussion to teach students about wildlife habitat selection, the process by which animals choose where to live. By selecting locations or habitats with many benefits (e.g., food, shelter, mates) and few costs (e.g., predators), animals improve their ability to survive and reproduce. Biologists track animal movement using radio telemetry technology to study habitat selection so they can better provide species with habitats that promote population growth. We present a curriculum in which students locate “animals” (transmitters) using radio telemetry equipment and apply math skills (use of fractions and percentages) to assess their “animal's” habitat selection by comparing the availability of habitat types with the proportion of “animals” they find in each habitat type.

Science Activities

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations: Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, 2004

The contents of this Annual Report summarize results of monitoring and research from the 2004 field season. The report also contains a summary of nuisance grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos horribilis ) management actions. The study team continues to work on issues associated with counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year (COY). These counts are used to establish a minimum population size, which is then used to establish mortality thresholds for the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 1993). A computer program that defines the rule set used by Knight et al. (1995) to differentiate unique family groups was completed in spring 2005. We will use an improved version of this model to verify the accuracy of the rules using known bears and their telemetry locations in test runs. We hope to have this work complete by the end of 2005. The grizzly bear recovery plan (USFWS 1993) established mortality quotas at 4% of the minimum population estimate derived from female with COY data and no more than 30% of the 4% (1.2%) could be female bears. Simulation modeling (Harris 1984) established sustainable mortality at around 6% of the population. We used the latest information on reproduction and survival to estimate population trajectory in the same simulation model originally used by Harris. A Wildlife Monograph has been accepted for publication and should be available by summer 2005. Our project addressing the potential application of stable isotopes and trace elements to quantify consumption rates of whitebark pine ( Pinus albicaulis ) and cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarki ) by grizzly bears was completed. Our manuscript on consumption rates of whitebark pine has been published (Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:763-770). The manuscript on fish consumption rates was also accepted and is published in the Canadian Journal of Zoology 82:493-501. Both can be found on the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) website http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. We began a new study in Grand Teton National Park evaluating habitat use both temporally and spatially between grizzly and black ( Ursus americanus ) bears. We will employ a new form of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology that incorporates a spread spectrum communication system. Spread spectrum allows for transfer of stored GPS locations from the collar to a remote receiving station. Results of our first yea r’s field season are summarized in this report. Whitebark pine (WBP) has been identified as one of the import ant fall foods of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. Previous efforts to map the distribution of WBP were for the Cumulative Effects Model. Consequently the only coverage of WBP distribution was for the grizzly bear Recovery Zone. We were successful in getting financial support through the U.S. Geological Survey Land Remote Sensing Program and Interdisciplinary Science Support Activities Project to create an ecosystem-wide map of the distribution of WBP. The results of that project are reported in Appendix A. The study team annually estimates WBP cone production on a series of transects. That information is reported annually in our reports. Concern over the long-term health of WBP prompted us to investigate the usefulness of cone counts as an indirect index of WBP health. Results of this analysis (Appendix B) indicated that cone production is too variable to serve this purpose. Consequently, we partnered with several 2 other agencies and embarked on a program to develop a long-term monitoring program directed specifically at WBP health in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Our team (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group) was successful in obtaining funds to develop and implement a WBP health monitoring program. Results of our first years work are presented in Appendix C. We also successfully competed for funds in 2005 and will continue to collect information on WBP health. Army cutworm moths ( Euxoa auxiliaris ) are also a very important food for a segment of the GYE grizzly bear population. Hillary Robison, graduate student at University of Nevada, Reno, is nearing completion of her program. In this report, we post her annual work summary, and abstracts of her most recently submitted publications. These include one on the levels of pesticides in cutworm moths and their potential affect on grizzly bears (Appendix D), a spatial analysis to identify army cutworm moth habitat (Appendix E), and the results of a preliminary analysis of pollen grains on the mouth parts of moths (Appendix F) to help identify which plant species are commonly fed upon. Other study team members have also been working on various aspects of grizzly bear science. Study team member Kerry Gunther hosted a workshop on habituated grizzly bears in North America. A copy of the abstract of that report can be found in Appendix G. Additionally, Kerry Gunther and Doug Smith, wolf researcher in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), reported on the interactions between gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) and female grizzly bears with young. They report that of 15 interactions between these 2 carnivores, 8 involve d females with COY. They observed 2 incidents where cubs were killed by wolves at ungulate carcasses (Appendix H). The annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information can be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. For that reason, data analyses and summaries presented in this report supersede all previously published data. The study area and sampling techniques are reported by Blanchard (1985), Mattson et al. (1991 a ), and Haroldson et al. (1998).

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming

Tracking acid mine-drainage in Southeast Arizona using GIS and sediment delivery models

This study investigates the application of models traditionally used to estimate erosion and sediment deposition to assess the potential risk of water quality impairment resulting from metal-bearing materials related to mining and mineralization. An integrated watershed analysis using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) based tools was undertaken to examine erosion and sediment transport characteristics within the watersheds. Estimates of stream deposits of sediment from mine tailings were related to the chemistry of surface water to assess the effectiveness of the methodology to assess the risk of acid mine-drainage being dispersed downstream of abandoned tailings and waste rock piles. A watershed analysis was preformed in the Patagonia Mountains in southeastern Arizona which has seen substantial mining and where recent water quality samples have reported acidic surface waters. This research demonstrates an improvement of the ability to predict streams that are likely to have severely degraded water quality as a result of past mining activities. ?? Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

Pacific coastal and marine science of the U.S. Geological Survey in Santa Cruz, California

Introduction The Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center is one of three U.S. Geological Survey science centers that serve the mission of the Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program, the primary Federal marine geology and physical science research program focused on the Nation’s coastal and marine landscape. Our portfolio of coastal and marine projects in the Pacific Ocean provides the scientific information necessary to sustainably manage coastal and marine resources, to prepare for natural hazard events such as landslides and tsunamis, and to build resilience in coastal communities vulnerable to the effects of climate change, as well as storms, flooding, and risks to groundwater resources. The Nation’s demand for societally relevant coastal and marine science has never been greater, and we invite you to explore some of our ongoing Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center activities in these pages.

General Information Product

USGS lidar science strategy—Mapping the technology to the science

Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) utilizes light detection and ranging (lidar) and enabling technologies to support many science research activities. Lidar-derived metrics and products have become a fundamental input to complex hydrologic and hydraulic models, flood inundation models, fault detection and geologic mapping, topographic and land-surface mapping, landslide and volcano hazards mapping and monitoring, forest canopy and habitat characterization, coastal and fluvial erosion mapping, and a host of other research and operational activities. This report documents the types of lidar being used by the USGS, discusses how lidar technology facilitates the achievement of individual mission area goals within the USGS, and offers recommendations and suggested changes in direction in terms of how a mission area could direct work using lidar as it relates to the mission area goals that have already been established.

Open-File Report

U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers and U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center—Annual report for 2017

Introduction The year 2017 was a year of review and renewal for the Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC). The Southeast, Northwest, Alaska, Southwest, and North Central CSCs’ 5-year summary review reports were released in 2017 and contain the findings of the external review teams led by the Cornell University Human Dimensions Research Unit in conjunction with the American Fisheries Society. The reports for the Pacific Islands, South Central, and Northeast CSCs are planned for release in 2018. The reviews provide an opportunity to evaluate aspects of the cooperative agreement, such as the effectiveness of the CSC in meeting project goals and assessment of the level of scientific contribution and achievement. These reviews serve as a way for the CSCs and NCCWSC to look for ways to recognize and enhance our network’s strengths and identify areas for improvement. The reviews were followed by the CSC recompetition, which led to new hosting agreements at the Northwest, Alaska, and Southeast CSCs. Learn more about the excellent science and activities conducted by the network centers in the 2017 annual report.

Open-File Report

The effects of pollutants on wildlife

In this chapter, selected sources of information which address the effects of pollutants on wildlife are reviewed. Although naturally occurring plant and animal toxins also affect wildlife, the focus of this review is xenobiotic toxicants. Xenobiotic substances are chemicals introduced into the environment in the form of pesticides, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other by-products of human activities. The science of examining the effects of these substances on animal and plant life is multi-disciplinary in nature and contributors to the literature in this field include toxicologists, wildlife and aquatic ecologists, chemists and those in the veterinary and medical professions.

Book chapter

Food, culture and climate

The Social Sciences Coordinating Committee (SSCC) is one of multiple Interagency Groups that support the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). USGCRP began as a Presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress through the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 “to assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.” USGCRP is overseen by the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, composed of representatives from each of USGCRP’s 13 member agencies. The mission of the SSCC is to foster the integration of the methods, findings, and disciplinary perspectives of the social, behavioral, and economic sciences, along with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches that include these sciences, into USGCRP activities. The SSCC serves as a social science resource to other USGCRP interagency working groups, the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and other USGCRP activities such as the National Climate Assessment. The SSCC’s Food, Culture, and Climate webinar series (held from September 14 to October 12, 2021) highlighted the ways in which social science research can elucidate the role of climate change in socio-cultural systems. It drew attention to the humanistic frameworks that underpin social scientific understanding of the ways individuals, households, and communities experience climate change. In particular, the seminars explored how the impacts of climate change are felt and understood by individuals and communities, how they interact with other stressors, and how they amplify existing inequities and vulnerabilities. This understanding is vital not only to the production of scientific knowledge, but also to the use of that knowledge in practice. This report provides a summary of the key takeaways from this webinar series. The webinar series organizers identified recurrent themes and salient points that emerged in conversations across the three events. Here, central issues of the discussions on the relationships among food, culture, and climate, as well as the role that social science plays in elucidating them, are synthesized and highlighted. Recordings of the webinar series are available online from USGCRP.

Webinar Series Report

History of the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center ("the Center") has been a nucleus of research, technology development, and associated scientific activities within the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years. The Center’s historical activities are deeply rooted in federal biological resources research and its supporting disciplines, particularly as they relate to the needs of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its resource management agencies. The organizational framework and activities of the Center have changed and adapted over the years in response to shifts in the scientific issues and challenges facing the U.S. Department of the Interior and with the development of new strategies to meet these challenges. Thus, the history of the Center has been dynamic. The Center has been nested within the U.S. Geological Survey since 1996. From 1993 to 1996 the Center was a major unit of the National Biological Service (named the National Biological Survey at its inception). This was a period of great organizational flux. During that time the Center comprised multiple field stations and science functions that prior to 1993 had been scattered among the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1993, certain biological research components of these agencies were assigned to join with the National Ecology Research Center, formerly one of the major research and development hubs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the year when biological resources research in the U.S. Department of the Interior was consolidated by the Secretary of the Interior, who in an April 1993 memo explaining his intentions wrote, "Our Department has, without doubt, the best biologists in the world." Soon after formation of the new agency, the Center was re-named the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, reflecting its geographic location within the new Midcontinent administrative region of the National Biological Service (the other three original administrative regions were the eastern, western, and southern). The change in name to the Fort Collins Science Center took place in 2002, soon after the center moved to new facilities on the Colorado State University Natural Resources Research Campus. At various times during the period when it was part of the National Biological Service (1993–96), the Center served as the administrative and programmatic home base for a wide number of science activities in numerous Western states (table 1). This reflected the previous fragmentation of biological and related science efforts across resource management agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The organization of the 2 Center within the National Biological Service was a manifestation of the desire of the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate its biological science activities in administratively independent entities that would ensure that the science retained its objectivity. Congress later recognized the need to maintain a hierarchical independence between biological science and resource management in the Department. However, Congress also saw that the U.S. Geological Survey, with its long history of objective science support to the nation in geology, water resources, geography, and remote sensing, was a suitable alternative home for these biological science functions. Thus, in 1996 Congress transferred the biological resources functions of the National Biological Service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed overviews and opinions about the history and policy issues surrounding the formation and subsequent fate of the National Biological Service can be found elsewhere (for example Cohn, 1993, 2005; Kaufman, 1993; Kreeger, 1994; Pulliam, 1995, 1998a,b; Reichhardt, 1994; Wagner, 1999)

Open-File Report