SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Challenge”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 937 records · Page 52Linked to original sources

USGS2022

Green infrastructure in the Great Lakes—Assessment of performance, barriers, and unintended consequences

The Great Lakes Basin covers around 536,393 square kilometers, and the Great Lakes hold more than 5,400 cubic miles of water, accounting for more than 20 percent of the world’s fresh surface water supply. The Great Lakes provide a source of drinking water to tens of millions of people in Canada and the United States and support one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. Increasing urbanization combined with aging infrastructure and more extreme storm events because of changing weather patterns creates stormwater management challenges for communities across the Great Lakes region. A variety of green infrastructure (GI) practices, designed to decrease runoff and improve water quality, have been implemented throughout the region in response to these challenges; however, implementation often remains limited to local efforts and with little coordination among various levels of government because of, at least in part, a lack of clear standards for stormwater, limited funding, and a general uncertainty in the type and expected performance of these practices. City planners, engineers, and political leaders often see GI investment as riskier than other alternatives despite studies that determined, in most cases, practices can either reduce or not affect costs. This report summarizes selected published reports and data sources from studies done in Great Lakes states and compares the measured effects of various GI practices and their applicability in different settings around the Great Lakes. By summarizing selected published reports and data sources from studies done in Great Lakes states, this report provides foundational information for U.S. Geological Survey scientists and their local and national partners to assess the ability of GI to reduce stormwater runoff in Great Lakes urban areas. GI includes a variety of stormwater management techniques designed to mimic natural hydrologic processes like infiltration and evapotranspiration, which can decrease the volume of water running into sewers and streams. It can also improve water quality by trapping sediment, nutrients, and other contaminants. A variety of landscape practices can be incorporated into urban areas as GI, but the discussion here is limited to vegetated basins, vegetated channels, permeable pavement, urban tree canopy, and green roofs. Other types of GI, such as downspout disconnection, rainwater harvesting, and wet and dry detention basins were not included because hydrologic function and associated components are not widely monitored or evaluated in literature.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗

USGS2023

Integrated science strategy for assessing and monitoring water availability and migratory birds for terminal lakes across the Great Basin, United States

Executive Summary In 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established the Saline Lake Ecosystems Integrated Water Availability Assessment (IWAAs) to monitor and assess the hydrology of terminal lakes in the Great Basin and the migratory birds and other wildlife dependent on those habitats. Scientists from across the USGS (with specialties in water quantity, water quality, limnology, avian biology, data science, landscape ecology, and science communication) formed the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs Team. The team has developed this regional strategic science plan to guide data collection and assessment activities at terminal lakes in the Great Basin. The U.S. Congress requested the USGS to establish the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs in response to historically low water levels at terminal lakes and associated wetlands across the Great Basin. Not all Great Basin terminal lakes have high salinity; however, all terminal lakes occur in endorheic, closed, basins with no surface-water outflow. Low lake levels across the Great Basin are the result of increased water use for agriculture and municipalities, drought conditions, and a warming climate. Great Basin terminal lake water extents have decreased by as much as 90 percent over the last 150 years, and terminal lake wetlands have decreased in area by as much as 47 percent since 1984. Lake elevations and wetland areas are primarily supported by freshwater inputs from snowmelt feeding upgradient rivers, streams, and springs. These freshwater inputs have been severely reduced because of continued and increased surface-water diversions and surface-water capture through groundwater pumping for agriculture, mining, and public supply as well as unprecedented drought conditions and warming temperatures related to climate change. Water quality, specifically salinity, is highly variable for terminal lakes of the Great Basin, and this variability is a result of the balance between freshwater inflow and evaporation. Variability of salinity at each of the terminal lakes can be affected by lake morphology, hydrogeologic features of the basin, annual variability in weather patterns, and changes in upgradient water use. Hypersaline terminal lakes provide abundant food resources such as brine shrimp and brine flies that support nesting and migrating birds. The density and composition of invertebrates are closely tied to lake salinity. Increased salinity can exceed the tolerance of invertebrates, severely limiting their biomass. In contrast, decreased salinity can lead to altered invertebrate community composition, reducing the abundance of optimal avian prey resources. Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems, including open-water and adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environments, provide resources necessary to sustain many animal populations throughout the year. Although a variety of taxa use terminal lakes, these ecosystems are of acute importance for the millions of migratory waterbirds (for example, shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl) dependent on the network of terminal lakes and their associated wetlands. Migratory birds transiting the Pacific and Central Flyways use Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems throughout the year to feed, nest, and transit between wintering and breeding ranges. As such, successful conservation of birds and their habitats requires coordinated management of water and habitats across the Great Basin network of terminal lakes and wetlands. The linkages between water availability and ecosystem vulnerability of terminal lakes in the Great Basin are not well understood. The vulnerability of terminal lakes is related to the factors driving change and adaptive capacity of the lake ecosystem. Saline lake ecosystems are vulnerable when changes in water quantity affect ecosystem function. Water quantity affects salinity, which affects food webs and habitat; these linkages can be investigated with water-quality and food web monitoring. Water quantity also affects inundated habitat, which can be quantified through remote sensing. It is necessary to quantify hydroclimatic and water use controls on water availability to terminal lakes to assess the response of the ecosystems. Remotely sensed data can provide a broad-scale and long-term synoptic view of terminal lake hydrologic characteristics, but ground observations are required to interpret changes in water quality and ecological functions. Some terminal lake basins have ongoing monitoring and modeling efforts within the Great Basin (for example, Great Salt Lake, Carson River Basin), yet most monitoring locations are hydrologically upgradient and too far away from lake inflows to provide an accurate assessment of hydrological trends for the lake ecosystems. Other terminal lakes have no long-term hydrological monitoring in their respective watersheds (for example, Lake Abert). Ecological data collection in the Great Basin is also insufficient to understand how many birds exist on the landscape, how birds use the mosaic of terminal-lake habitats as an interconnected system, and how Great Basin terminal lakes are linked to the larger continental system of the Pacific and Central Flyways. Across agencies and organizations, tracking bird movement, abundance, and diversity is inconsistent, with some lakes having once- or twice-a-year bird survey efforts and a few locations having more intensive ecological data-gathering efforts (for example, Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert). Bridging hydrological and ecological information gaps will improve understanding of the trends in water supply and water quality, habitat availability and usage, and impacts on vulnerable waterbird species, all of which would be used by managers in coordinated conservation of this unique network of terminal-lake habitats. The terminal lakes of the Great Basin are part of the Basin and Range physiographic province that extends from the Colorado Plateau on the east to the Sierra Nevada on the west, and from the Snake River Plain on the north to the Garlock fault and the Mojave block on the south. The Great Basin is larger than 650,000 square kilometers and encompasses most of the State of Nevada but also extends to western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southeastern Oregon. The climate is arid to semiarid with a hydrologic regime that is snowmelt dominated, providing as much as 75 percent of total annual runoff for the region. Terminal lakes of the Great Basin occupy the lowest areas of closed (endorheic) drainage basins, such that lake levels and water quality respond rapidly to surface-water inflow. Terminal lakes provide local and regional economic value to the States in the Great Basin, including mineral extraction, aquaculture, public works, and recreational uses. As an example, assessments of Great Salt Lake’s ecological health and economic impact find hemispheric importance for the former and regional importance for the latter. Great Salt Lake creates about 7,000 jobs and $2 billion of economic output per year, most of which would be lost with further declines in lake level. The objectives of this Science Strategy are threefold: (1) to identify how changing water availability affects the quality, diversity, and abundance of habitats supporting continental waterbird populations; (2) to highlight the scientific monitoring and assessment needs of Great Basin terminal lakes; and (3) to support coordinated management and conservation actions to benefit those ecosystems, migratory birds, and other wildlife. There are long-term hydrological, ecological, and societal challenges associated with terminal lakes ecosystems in the Great Basin. This Science Strategy benefits partners by providing a conceptual model, nested at different spatial extents, that identifies key scientific information needs to inform coordinated implementation of management and conservation plans within and among hydrologic basins to address these complex challenges.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming↗

USGS2024

North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center regional science plan—2023–28

The U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC CASC), established in 2012, is part of a national network supporting climate-informed decisions that benefit wildlife and habitats. The NC CASC provides climate science for the U.S. Department of the Interior, State agencies, and Tribal nations to support effective resource management. Collaborating with the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Center network, the NC CASC addresses multiregion challenges through a partnership involving the U.S. Geological Survey and additional regional partners. Input is collected from an Advisory Committee of State, Federal, and Tribal Government representatives. The center hosts Tribal Climate Resilience Liaisons, which are funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience and aligned with a Tribal Engagement Strategy. Positioned at the meeting point of scientists and managers and guided by core values, the NC CASC studies diverse ecosystems affected by climate change and empowers resource managers with actionable data and innovative science. This report outlines the 5-year Science Plan (hereafter “the Plan”) for the NC CASC. The center uses stakeholder engagement and coproduction of knowledge for effective collaboration, including engagement of Advisory Committee members and other management partners in the development of the Plan. The Plan provides a high-level overview of the NC CASC, covering the center’s geographical scope, key collaborators, stakeholders, and the strategic framework guiding the application of climate science to make informed management decisions. The Plan also summarizes management challenges and scientific objectives related to the impact of climate change on habitat, ecological drought, wildlife disease, invasives and encroachment, fire, and phenology.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska,↗

USGS2012

Classifications for Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act site-specific projects: 2008 and 2009

The Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) funds over 100 wetland restoration projects across Louisiana. Integral to the success of CWPPRA is its long-term monitoring program, which enables State and Federal agencies to determine the effectiveness of each restoration effort. One component of this monitoring program is the analysis of high-resolution, color-infrared aerial photography at the U.S. Geological Survey's National Wetlands Research Center in Lafayette, Louisiana. Color-infrared aerial photography (9- by 9-inch) is obtained before project construction and several times after construction. Each frame is scanned on a photogrametric scanner that produces a high-resolution image in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF). By using image-processing software, these TIFF files are then orthorectified and mosaicked to produce a seamless image of a project area and its associated reference area (a control site near the project that has common environmental features, such as marsh type, soil types, and water salinities.) The project and reference areas are then classified according to pixel value into two distinct classes, land and water. After initial land and water ratios have been established by using photography obtained before and after project construction, subsequent comparisons can be made over time to determine land-water change. Several challenges are associated with the land-water interpretation process. Primarily, land-water classifications are often complicated by the presence of floating aquatic vegetation that occurs throughout the freshwater systems of coastal Louisiana and that is sometimes difficult to differentiate from emergent marsh. Other challenges include tidal fluctuations and water movement from strong winds, which may result in flooding and inundation of emergent marsh during certain conditions. Compensating for these events is difficult but possible by using other sources of imagery to verify marsh conditions for other dates in time.

Louisiana↗

USGS2016

The geochemical atlas of Alaska, 2016

A rich legacy of geochemical data produced since the early 1960s covers the great expanse of Alaska; careful treatment of such data may provide significant and revealing geochemical maps that may be used for landscape geochemistry, mineral resource exploration, and geoenvironmental investigations over large areas. To maximize the spatial density and extent of data coverage for statewide mapping of element distributions, we compiled and integrated analyses of more than 175,000 sediment and soil samples from three major, separate sources: the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Uranium Resource Evaluation program, and the Alaska Division of Geological & Geophysical Surveys geochemical databases. Various types of heterogeneity and deficiencies in these data presented major challenges to our development of coherently integrated datasets for modeling and mapping of element distributions. Researchers from many different organizations and disparate scientific studies collected samples that were analyzed using highly variable methods throughout a time period of more than 50 years, during which many changes in analytical techniques were developed and applied. Despite these challenges, the U.S. Geological Survey has produced a new systematically integrated compilation of sediment and soil geochemical data with an average sample site density of approximately 1 locality per 10 square kilometers (km 2 ) for the entire State of Alaska, although density varies considerably among different areas. From that compilation, we have modeled and mapped the distributions of 68 elements, thus creating an updated geochemical atlas for the State.

Alaska↗

USGS1997

USGS research on saline waters co-produced with energy resources

The United States energy industry faces the challenge of satisfying our expanding thirst for energy while protecting the environment. This challenge is magnified by the increasing volumes of saline water produced with oil and gas in the Nation's aging petroleum fields. Ultimately, energy-producing companies are responsible for disposing of these waters. USGS research provides basic information, for use by regulators, industry, and the public, about the chemistry of co-produced waters and environmentally acceptable ways of handling them.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2007

Klamath Basin: A watershed approach to support habitat restoration, species recovery, and water resource planning

Water allocation among human and natural resource uses in the American West is challenging. Western rivers have been largely managed for hydropower, irrigation, drinking water, and navigation. Today land and water use practices have gained importance, particularly as aging dams are faced with re-licensing requirements and provisions of the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts. Rising demand for scarce water heightens the need for scientific research to predict consequences of management actions on habitats, human resource use, and fish and wildlife. Climate change, introduction of invasive species, or restoration of fish passage can have large, landscape-scaled consequences - research must expand to encompass the appropriate scale and by applying multiple scientific disciplines to complex ecosystem challenges improve the adaptive management framework for decision-making.

Oregon; California↗

USGS2010

Southeast Ecological Science Center

Aquatic ecosystems, from deep sea reefs and coastal marshes to freshwater springs and wetlands, are home to diverse assemblages of life. These commercially and ecologically important systems are part of our national heritage, and are often treasured places or refuges that protect rare or threatened species. In the water-rich Southeastern United States, managers face the challenge of understanding how water and land use affect the region's aquatic life. The Southeast Ecological Science Center (SESC) helps address that challenge by providing objective science that can be used to evaluate proposed actions and develop management strategies.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2011

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

Changes to the Earth's climate-temperature, precipitation, and other important aspects of climate-pose significant challenges to our Nation's natural resources now and will continue to do so. Managers of land, water, and living resources need to understand the impacts of climate change-which will exacerbate ongoing stresses such as habitat fragmentation and invasive species-so they can design effective response strategies. In 2008 Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); this center was formed to address challenges resulting from climate change and to empower natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision-making. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Virginia, the NCCWSC has invested over $20M in cutting-edge climate change research and is now leading the effort to establish eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs).

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2012

DOI Climate Science Centers--Regional science to address management priorities

Our Nation's lands, waters, and ecosystems and the living and cultural resources they contain face myriad challenges from invasive species, the effects of changing land and water use, habitat fragmentation and degradation, and other influences. These challenges are compounded by increasing influences from a changing climate—higher temperatures, increasing droughts, floods, and wildfires, and overall increasing variability in weather and climate. The Department of the Interior (DOI) has established eight regional Climate Science Centers (CSC) (fig. 1) that will provide scientific information and tools to natural and cultural resource managers as they plan for conserving these resources in a changing world. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) is managing the CSCs on behalf of the DOI.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2014

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

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

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2015

Development of an assessment tool for agricultural best management practice implementation in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative priority watersheds—Upper East River, tributary to Green Bay, Wisconsin

Introduction The Great Lakes face a number of serious challenges that cause damage to water quality, habitat, ecology, and coastal health. Excess nutrients from point and nonpoint sources have a history of causing harmful algal blooms (HABs); since the late 1990s, a resurgence of HABs have forced beach closures and resulted in water quality impairments across the Great Lakes. Studies increasingly point to phosphorus (P) runoff from agricultural lands as the cause of these HABs. In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched to revitalize the Great Lakes. The GLRI aims to address the challenges facing the Great Lakes and provide a framework for restoration and protection. As part of this effort, the Priority Watersheds Work Group (PWWG), cochaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS), is targeting Priority Watersheds (PWs) to reduce the amount of P reaching the Great Lakes. Within the PWs, USDA–NRCS identifies small-scale subbasins with high concentrations of agriculture for coordinated nutrient reduction efforts and enhanced monitoring and modeling. The USDA–NRCS supplies financial and/or technical assistance to producers to install or implement best management practices (BMPs) to lessen the negative effects of agriculture to water quality; additional funding is provided by the GLRI through USDA–NRCS to saturate the small-scale subbasins with BMPs. The watershed modeling component, introduced in this fact sheet, assesses the effectiveness of USDA–NRCS funded BMPs, and nutrient reductions because of GLRI or other funding programs are differentiated. Modeling scenarios consider BMPs that have already been applied and those planned to be implemented across the small-scale subbasins.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2015

Development of an assessment tool for agricultural best management practice implementation in the Great Lakes restoration initiative priority watersheds—Eagle Creek, tributary to Maumee River, Ohio

Ohio↗

USGS2015

Development of an assessment tool for agricultural best management practice Implementation in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative priority watersheds—Alger Creek, tributary to Saginaw River, Michigan

The Great Lakes face a number of serious challenges that cause damage to water quality, habitat, ecology, and coastal health. Excess nutrients from point and nonpoint sources have a history of causing harmful algal blooms (HABs); since the late 1990s, a resurgence of HABs have forced beach closures and resulted in water quality impairments across the Great Lakes. Studies increasingly point to phosphorus (P) runoff from agricultural lands as the cause of these HABs. In 2010, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) was launched to revitalize the Great Lakes. The GLRI aims to address the challenges facing the Great Lakes and provide a framework for restoration and protection. As part of this effort, the Priority Watersheds Work Group (PWWG), cochaired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA–NRCS), is targeting Priority Watersheds (PWs) to reduce the amount of P reaching the Great Lakes. Within the PWs, USDA–NRCS identifies small-scale subbasins with high concentrations of agriculture for coordinated nutrient reduction efforts and enhanced monitoring and modeling. The USDA–NRCS supplies financial and/or technical assistance to producers to install or implement best management practices (BMPs) to lessen the negative effects of agriculture to water quality; additional funding is provided by the GLRI through USDA–NRCS to saturate the small-scale subbasins with BMPs. The watershed modeling component, introduced in this fact sheet, assesses the effectiveness of USDA–NRCS funded BMPs, and nutrient reductions because of GLRI or other funding programs are differentiated. Modeling scenarios consider BMPs that have already been applied and those planned to be implemented across the small-scale subbasins.

Michigan↗

USGS2016

Urban infrastructure and water management—Science capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey

Managing the urban-water cycle has increasingly become a challenge for water-resources planners and regulators faced with the problem of providing clean drinking water to urban residents. Sanitary and combined sanitary and storm sewer networks convey wastewater to centralized treatment plants. Impervious surfaces, which include roads, parking lots, and buildings, increase stormwater runoff and the efficiency by which runoff is conveyed to nearby stream channels; therefore, impervious surfaces increase the risk of urban flooding and alteration of natural ecosystems. These challenges will increase with the expansion of urban centers and the probable effects of climate change on precipitation patterns. Understanding the urban-water cycle is critical to effectively manage water resources and to protect people, infrastructure, and urban-stream ecosystems. As a leader in water-supply, wastewater, and stormwater assessments, the U.S. Geological Survey has the expertise and resources needed to monitor, model, and interpret data related to the urban-water cycle and thereby enable water-resources managers to make informed decisions.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2019

The 3D Elevation Program—Supporting California's Economy

Introduction California faces unprecedented challenges presented by shifting weather patterns that are defining a “new normal.” The result has been extreme weather events, prolonged drought, flooding, and debris flows. These conditions drive severe tree mortality, increase wildfire occurrence and intensity, reduce water availability, and hasten subsidence in groundwater basins. Collectively, these challenges threaten public safety, compromise infrastructure, and adversely impact the economic well-being of California's citizens. Critical applications that address these issues depend on light detection and ranging (lidar) data that provide a highly detailed, three-dimensional (3D) model of the Earth’s surface. The U.S. Geological Survey 3D Elevation Program works in partnership with Federal, State, Tribal, U.S. territorial, and local agencies to acquire consistent lidar coverage to meet the needs of California and the Nation.

California↗

USGS2019

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↗

USGS2020

Science to support water-resource management in the upper Roanoke River watershed

Flooding, excessive sedimentation, and high bacteria counts are among the most challenging water resource issues affecting the Upper Roanoke River watershed. These issues threaten public safety, impair the watershed’s living resources, and threaten drinking water supplies, though mitigation is costly and difficult to manage. Urban development, land disturbance, and changing climatic patterns continue to challenge watershed managers who are tasked with protecting and improving the water quality of the Upper Roanoke River watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey helps watershed managers meet these demands by providing high-quality data and analyses designed to inform watershed restoration activities.

Virginia↗