USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Environmental Science and Technology.”

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 1,063 records · Page 59Linked to original sources

Predicted aquatic exposure effects from a national urban stormwater study

A multi-agency study of 438 organic and 62 inorganic chemicals measured in urban stormwater during 50 total runoff events at 21 sites across the United States demonstrated that stormwater discharges can generate localized, aquatic exposures to extensive contaminant mixtures, including organics suspected to cause adverse aquatic-health effects. The aggregated risks to multiple aquatic trophic levels (fish, invertebrates, plants) of the stormwater mixture exposures, which were documented in the national study, were explored herein by calculating cumulative ratios of organic-contaminant in vitro exposure–activity cutoffs (∑ EAR ) and health-benchmark-weighted cumulative toxicity quotients (∑ TQ ). Both risk assessment approaches indicated substantial (moderate to high) risk for acute adverse effects to aquatic organisms across multiple trophic levels (fish, macroinvertebrates, non-vascular/vascular plants) at or near stormwater discharge points across the United States. The results are interpreted as potential orders of magnitude underestimates of actual aquatic risk in stormwater control wetlands or in the immediate vicinity of such discharges to surface-water receptors, because the 438 organic-compound analytical space assessed in this study is orders of magnitude less than the 350 000 parent compounds estimated to be in current commercial use globally and the incalculable chemical-space of potential metabolites and degradates.

Environmental Science: Water Research and Technolo↗

Exposures and potential health implications of contaminant mixtures in linked source water, finished drinking water, and tapwater from public-supply drinking water systems in Minneapolis/St. Paul area, USA

Continued improvements in drinking-water quality characterization and treatment/distribution infrastructure are required to address the expanding number of documented environmental contaminants. To better understand the variability in contaminant exposures from the drinking water resource (surface and groundwater), through the distribution process, to the point-of-use (tapwater), in 2019 a synoptic assessment of broad chemical exposures was conducted in system-specific source waters, finished drinking water and service-area tapwater from 10 drinking water treatment facilities in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area of Minnesota, United States. Source water, finished water (collected pre-distribution in the treatment facility), and tapwater samples were analyzed for 465 unique organic compounds, 34 inorganic constituents, and 3 field parameters as well as in vitro estrogen, androgen, and glucocorticoid bioactivities. Mixtures of organic and inorganic contaminants were prevalent in source water, finished water, and tapwater samples, indicating the continued need for broad assessments of mixed contaminant exposures to characterize potential drinking-water human health outcomes. Contaminant concentrations were similar among drinking water sources and no exceedances of Environmental Protection Agency maximum contaminant level(s) (MCL) were observed in any treated sample (finished water or tapwater) in this study. No treated sample contained estrogenic, androgenic, or glucocorticoid activity at concentrations that may cause adverse human health effects. However, there were multiple exceedances of non-enforceable MCL goal(s) (MCLG), and other health advisories combined with frequent exceedances of benchmark-based hazard indices in both finished water and tapwater samples. These results indicate that exposure to contaminant mixtures is a potential public health concern underscoring our continued efforts to assess contaminant mixture exposures at the drinking-water point of consumption using a broad analytical scope.

Minnesota↗

Tapwater-contaminant mixtures and risk in a biofuel-facility impacted private-well community

We assessed private-well drinking water (DW) at the point of use ( i.e. , tapwater, TW) within a rural Nebraska community around a state-closed biofuel facility, which used pesticide-treated corn seed as feedstock for ethanol production. Organic (485), inorganic (34), and microbial (13) analytes were assessed at 15 locations in June 2022, to evaluate the relative contribution of facility-consistent pesticides (seed-treatment fungicides and insecticides) to overall TW-contaminant exposures and predicted human-health risks. Thirty-three organics (12 pesticides) and 28 inorganics were detected, the former including the fungicide sedaxane, insecticide chlorantraniliprole, and multiple neonicotinoid insecticides/degradates, all consistent with seed treatment and respective biofuel-facility waste. Assessment of pesticides only at extant point-of-use (POU) treatment taps at three sites demonstrated complete elimination of all TW-pesticide detections. Based on detection of maximum pesticide concentrations in a home located downstream along a creek capturing facility runoff, pesticides only were assessed in January 2023 again at this home and at three adjacent locations, confirming results at the former and documenting decreasing TW-pesticide concentrations, including neonicotinoids, with increasing distance from the creek. Human-health DW benchmarks are not available for many detected pesticides, including the detected fungicide and insecticides, but precautionary screening levels were exceeded frequently due to multiple inorganics. The results indicate that exposures to multiple (median: 4.5; range: 1–7) co-occurring TW contaminants of potential human-health concern are common, warranting consideration of point-of-entry or POU treatment(s) throughout the community to reduce or eliminate unrecognized exposures to TW contaminants, including facility-associated pesticides in down-gradient locations. More broadly, results emphasize the importance of continued characterization of private-TW exposures, employing a environmentally informative analytical scope, to identify and mitigate risks of unrecognized exposures in private-well-dependent rural communities.

Nebraska↗

Water resources and shale gas/oil production in the Appalachian Basin: critical issues and evolving developments

Unconventional natural gas and oil resources in the United States are important components of a national energy program. While the Nation seeks greater energy independence and greener sources of energy, Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, state and local regulators and water-resource agencies, and citizens throughout areas of unconventional shale gas development have concerns about the environmental effects of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF), including those in the Appalachian Basin in the northeastern United States (fig. 1). Environmental concerns posing critical challenges include the availability and use of surface water and groundwater for hydraulic fracturing; the migration of stray gas and potential effects on overlying aquifers; the potential for flowback, formation fluids, and other wastes to contaminate surface water and groundwater; and the effects from drill pads, roads, and pipeline infrastructure on land disturbance in small watersheds and headwater streams (U.S. Government Printing Office, 2012). Federal, state, regional and local agencies, along with the gas industry, are striving to use the best science and technology to develop these unconventional resources in an environmentally safe manner. Some of these concerns were addressed in U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fact Sheet 2009–3032 (Soeder and Kappel, 2009) about potential critical effects on water resources associated with the development of gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale of the Hamilton Group (Ver Straeten and others, 1994). Since that time, (1) the extraction process has evolved, (2) environmental awareness related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing process has increased, (3) state regulations concerning gas well drilling have been modified, and (4) the practices used by industry to obtain, transport, recover, treat, recycle, and ultimately dispose of the spent fluids and solid waste materials have evolved. This report updates and expands on Fact Sheet 2009–3032 and presents new information regarding selected aspects of unconventional shale gas development in the Appalachian Basin (primarily Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York). This document was prepared by the USGS, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy, and reviews the evolving technical advances and scientific studies made in the Appalachian Basin between 2009 and the present (2013), addressing past and current issues for oil and gas development in the region.

Maryl;New York;Ohio;Pennsylvania;Virginia;West Vir↗

Endocrine disrupting chemicals research program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: summary of a peer-review report

At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and Development, a subcommittee of the Board of Scientific Counselors Executive Committee conducted an independent and open peer review of the Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Research Program (EDC Research Program) of the U.S. EPA. The subcommittee was charged with reviewing the design, relevance, progress, scientific leadership, and resources of the program. The subcommittee found that the long-term goals and science questions in the EDC Program are appropriate and represent an understandable and solid framework for setting research priorities, representing a combination of problem-driven and core research. Long-term goal (LTG) 1, dealing with the underlying science surrounding endocrine disruptors, provides a solid scientific foundation for conducting risk assessments and making risk management decisions. LTG 2, dealing with defining the extent of the impact of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), has shown greater progress on ecologic effects of EDCs compared with that on human health effects. LTG 3, which involves support of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program of the U.S. EPA, has two mammalian tests already through a validation program and soon available for use. Despite good progress, we recommend that the U.S. EPA a ) strengthen their expertise in wildlife toxicology, b ) expedite validation of the Endocrine Disruptors Screening and Testing Advisory Committee tests, c ) continue dependable funding for the EDC Research Program, d ) take a leadership role in the application of “omics” technologies to address many of the science questions critical for evaluating environmental and human health effects of EDCs, and e ) continue to sponsor multidisciplinary intramural research and interagency collaborations.

Environmental Health Perspectives↗

Research Implementation and Quality Assurance Project Plan: An Evaluation of Hyperspectral Remote Sensing Technologies for the Detection of Fugitive Contamination at Selected Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites

This project is a research collaboration between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Eastern Geographic Science Center (EGSC), for the purpose of evaluating the utility of hyperspectral remote sensing technology for post-closure monitoring of residual contamination at delisted and closed hazardous waste sites as defined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act [CERCLA (also known as 'Superfund')] of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.

Open-File Report↗

Evaluation of passive diffusion bag samplers, dialysis samplers, and nylon-screen samplers in selected wells at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, March-April 2002

During March-April 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Tech, and EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc., in cooperation with the Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence, tested diffusion samplers at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. Samplers were deployed in three wells at the Main Base and two wells at Marianas Bonins (MARBO) Annex as potential ground-water monitoring alternatives. Prior to sampler deployment, the wells were tested using a borehole flowmeter to characterize vertical flow within each well. Three types of diffusion samplers were tested: passive diffusion bag (PDB) samplers, dialysis samplers, and nylon-screen samplers. The primary volatile organic compounds (VOCs) tested in ground water at Andersen Air Force Base were trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene. In most comparisons, trichloroethene and tetrachloroethene concentrations in PDB samples closely matched concentrations in pumped samples. Exceptions were in wells where the pumping or ambient flow produced vertical translocation of water in a chemically stratified aquifer. In these wells, PDB samplers probably would be a viable alternative sampling method if they were placed at appropriate depths. In the remaining three test wells, the trichloroethene or tetrachloroethene concentrations obtained with the diffusion samplers closely matched the result from pumped sampling. Chloride concentrations in nylon-screen samplers were compared with chloride concentrations in dialysis and pumped samples to test inorganic-solute diffusion into the samplers across a range of concentrations. The test showed that the results from nylon-screen samplers might have underestimated chloride concentrations at depths with elevated chloride concentrations. The reason for the discrepancy in this investigation is unknown, but may be related to nylon-screen-mesh size, which was smaller than that used in previous investigations.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

IUPAC Periodic Table of the Elements and Isotopes (IPTEI) for the education community (IUPAC Technical Report)

The IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Periodic Table of the Elements and Isotopes (IPTEI) was created to familiarize students, teachers, and non-professionals with the existence and importance of isotopes of the chemical elements. The IPTEI is modeled on the familiar Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements. The IPTEI is intended to hang on the walls of chemistry laboratories and classrooms. Each cell of the IPTEI provides the chemical name, symbol, atomic number, and standard atomic weight of an element. Color-coded pie charts in each element cell display the stable isotopes and the relatively long lived radioactive isotopes having characteristic terrestrial isotopic compositions that determine the standard atomic weight of each element. The background color scheme of cells categorizes the 118 elements into four groups: (1) white indicates the element has no standard atomic weight, (2) blue indicates the element has only one isotope that is used to determine its standard atomic weight, which is given as a single value with an uncertainty, (3) yellow indicates the element has two or more isotopes that are used to determine its standard atomic weight, which is given as a single value with an uncertainty, and (4) pink indicates the element has a well-documented variation in its atomic weight, and the standard atomic weight is expressed as an interval. An element-by-element review accompanies the IPTEI and includes a chart of all known stable and radioactive isotopes for each element. Practical applications of isotopic measurements and technologies are included for the following fields: forensic science, geochronology, Earth-system sciences, environmental science, and human health sciences, including medical diagnosis and treatment.

Pure and Applied Chemistry↗

Earth Resources Observation and Science Center hosting services

The Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center has a long history of leveraging technology in support of Earth science and business applications including data management, processing, and virtualization and complex solutions to visualize and distribute data. It is the aim of EROS to offer operational excellence and service as a key component to the Federal Cloud-Smart directives and Department of the Interior data center consolidation goals. The EROS Center offers space, network, security, and environmental controls and information technology service management. Included with leveraging technology, the EROS Center has industry-leading staff to assist with supporting Earth science and business applications.

Fact Sheet↗

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗

Opportunities and challenges of macrogenetic studies

The rapidly emerging field of macrogenetics focuses on analysing publicly accessible genetic datasets from thousands of species to explore large-scale patterns and predictors of intraspecific genetic variation. Facilitated by advances in evolutionary biology, technology, data infrastructure, statistics and open science, macrogenetics addresses core evolutionary hypotheses (such as disentangling environmental and life-history effects on genetic variation) with a global focus. Yet, there are important, often overlooked, limitations to this approach and best practices need to be considered and adopted if macrogenetics is to continue its exciting trajectory and reach its full potential in fields such as biodiversity monitoring and conservation. Here, we review the history of this rapidly growing field, highlight knowledge gaps and future directions, and provide guidelines for further research.

Nature Reviews Genetics↗

Preliminary preview for a geographic and monitoring program project; a review of point source-nonpoint source effluent trading/offset systems in watersheds

Watershed-based trading and offset systems are being developed to improve policy-maker?s and regulator?s ability to assess nonpoint source impacts in watersheds and to evaluate the efficacy of using market-incentive programs for preserving environmental quality. An overview of the history of successful and failed trading programs throughout the United States suggests that certain political, economic, and scientific conditions within a temporal and spatial setting help meet water quality standards. The current lack of spontaneous trading among dischargers does not mean that a marketable permit trading system is an inherently inefficient regulatory approach. Rather, its infrequent use is the result of institutional and informational barriers. Improving and refining the earth science information and technologies may help determine whether trading is a suitable policy for improving water quality. However, it is debatable whether or not environmental information is the limiting factor. This paper reviews additional factors affecting the potential for instituting a trading policy. The motivation for investigating and reviewing the history of offsets and trading was inspired by a project in the preliminary stages being developed by U.S. Geological Survey Western Geographic Science Center and the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. An offset feasibility study will be an integrated, map-based approach that incorporates environmental, economic, and statistical information to investigate the potential for using offsets to meet mercury Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Sacramento River watershed. A regional water-quality offset program is being studied that may help known point sources reduce mercury loading more cost effectively by the remediation of abandoned mines or other diffuse sources as opposed to more costly treatment at their own sites. An efficient offset program requires both a scientific basis and methods to translate that science into a regulatory decision framework.

Open-File Report↗

Strategic science: New frameworks to bring scientific expertise to environmental disaster response

Science is critical to society's ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from environmental crises. Natural and technological disasters such as disease outbreaks, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, oil spills, and tsunamis require coordinated scientific expertise across a range of disciplines to shape effective policies and protocols. Five years after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, new organizational frameworks have arisen for scientists and engineers to apply their expertise to disaster response and recovery in a variety of capacities. Here, we describe examples of these opportunities, including an exciting new collaboration between the Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO) and the Department of the Interior's (DOI) Strategic Sciences Group (SSG).

Limnology and Oceanography↗

Distribution and mode of occurrence of selenium in US coals

Selenium excess and deficiency have been established as the cause of various health problems in man and animals. Combustion of fossil fuels, especially coal, may be a major source of the anthropogenic introduction of selenium in the environment. Coal is enriched in selenium relative to selenium's concentration in most other rocks and relative to selenium in the Earth's crust. Data from almost 9,000 coal samples have been used to determine the concentration and distribution of selenium in US coals. The geometric mean concentration of selenium in US coal is 1.7 ppm. The highest mean selenium value (geometric mean 4.7 ppm) is in the Texas Region. Atlantic Coast (Virginia and North Carolina) and Alaska coals have the lowest geometric means (0.2 and 0.42 ppm, respectively). All western coal regions have mean selenium concentrations of less than 2.0 ppm. In contrast, all coal basins east of the Rocky Mountains (except for several small basins in Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina) have mean selenium values of 1.9 or greater. Generally, variations in selenium concentration do not correlate with variations in ash yield, pyritic sulphur, or organic sulphur concentrations. This may be the result of multiple sources of selenium; however, in some non-marine basins with restricted sources of selenium, selenium has positive correlations with other coal quality parameters. Selenium occurs in several forms in coal but appears to be chiefly associated with the organic fraction, probably substituting for organic sulphur. Other important forms of selenium in coal are selenium-bearing pyrite, selenium-bearing galena, and lead selenide (clausthalite). Water-soluble and ion-exchangeable selenium also have been reported. ?? 1993 Copyright Science and Technology Letters.

Environmental Geochemistry and Health↗

Biology of the Rio Grande border region : A bibliography

This bibliography includes 1,913 references to the literature of the Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte). The specific geographic area covered extends 100 km on either side of the river from Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico. The bibliography focuses on the biological literature, divided into major subject areas, and also includes supporting literature from the physical and environmental sciences.

Rio Grande (Rio Bravo del Norte)↗

Aquatic invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay drainage—Research-based needs and priorities of U.S. Geological Survey partners and collaborators

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is revising the Chesapeake Bay-based science plan to align it with recent U.S. Department of Interior and USGS science priorities that include, as stated in the plan, providing “an integrated understanding of the factors affecting fish habitat, fish health, and landscape conditions” in Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. A report of partner agencies’ needs and priorities related to aquatic invasive species (AIS) science was identified as an informational gap; a report would help to further development of the science program related to aquatic animal health and habitat. This objective was addressed through review of pertinent documentation and conversations with representatives of State, Federal, and regional agencies with vested interests in AIS management in Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay drainage area, and this document was produced to summarize the related findings. All agencies and organizations (13) reported that AIS are of general concern, with most stakeholder groups reporting AIS-related issues to be of high priority, including invasive fishes and invertebrates, invasive plants, and microbes including aquatic animal pathogens. Invasive fishes are of great concern to all partner agencies. Channa argus (northern snakehead) and Ictalurus furcatus (blue catfish) are high priority and represent the two most named AIS of concern for these agencies. Nine of 10 stakeholder groups listed northern snakehead as a high priority species, and 6 listed blue catfish as a high priority species as well. Pylodictis olivaris (flathead catfish), invasive crayfish species , and dressenid mussels were also prioritized by multiple partner groups, each receiving specific mention by at least 3 of the 10 stakeholder groups in discussions or documents. Invasive carp, such as Hypophthalmichthys molatrix (silver carp), also received mention by multiple agencies (3 of the 10 stakeholder groups) because these fish represent priority AIS in nearby watersheds and a threat for introduction and dissemination within the Chesapeake Bay watershed from these neighboring regions. Invasive plants are among priority species, and Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) topped the list. Hydrilla was reported as a priority species by 5 of the stakeholder groups queried. Trapa natans and T. bispinosa (water chestnut), Phragmites australis (common reed), and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) were also among the aquatic invasive plants that were prioritized by multiple partner agencies. Multiple stakeholder groups (5 of the 10 groups) also considered Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) and various aquatic animal pathogens among their priority AIS for management considerations. Science needs that were recurrently indicated by stakeholders to support management of invasive species include Technology to enhance biosurveillance capability, such as reliable environmental DNA based detection methodology; Risk assessment modeling to forewarn of and prioritize AIS-related threats; Increased information and intervention methods related to vectors and pathways of AIS introductions; Increased information about the biology and life history of AIS, including information related to trophic interactions, health and disease, and distribution and abundance; and Potential applications of mitigation strategies, including genetically based biocontrol mechanisms. Potential next steps to address the science needs include Development of biosurveillance and risk assessment tools for identification of AIS in proactive management; Development of proactive management techniques to prevent AIS introductions through recognized vectors and pathways; Development of interagency biosurveillance programs to best utilize personnel, funds, and other resources among interested agencies and organizations; Investigations to address life history, consequences, and movement/dissemination of top priority invasive species in the region; Investigations to determine the potential for novel mitigation technologies, such as the application of synthetic biological (genetic) control methods; and Investigations with focus on emerging and high priority AIS in the region, including fishes (blue catfish, flathead catfish, northern snakehead), invertebrates (invasive crayfish and mollusks) and plants (hydrilla, water chestnut, phragmites).

Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Penns↗

Toward a scientifically rigorous basis for developing mapped ecological regions.

Despite the wide use of ecological regions in conservation and resource-management evaluations and assessments, a commonly accepted theoretical basis for ecological regionalization does not exist. This fact, along with the paucity of focus on ecological regionalization by professional associations, journals, and faculties, has inhibited the advancement of a broadly acceptable scientific basis for the development, use, and verification of ecological regions. The central contention of this article is that ecological regions should improve our understanding of geographic and ecological phenomena associated with biotic and abiotic processes occurring in individual regions and also of processes characteristic of interactions and dependencies among multiple regions. Research associated with any ecoregional framework should facilitate development of hypotheses about ecological phenomena and dominant landscape elements associated with these phenomena, how these phenomena are structured in space, and how they function in a hierarchy. Success in addressing the research recommendations outlined in this article cannot occur within an ad hoc, largely uncoordinated research environment. Successful implementation of this plan will require activities--coordination, funding, and education--that are both scientific and administrative in nature. Perhaps the most important element of an infrastructure to support the scientific work of ecoregionalization would be a national or international authority similar to the Water and Science Technology Board of the National Academy of Sciences.

Environmental Management↗