SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Conservation and resource management.”

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 1,369 records · Page 76Linked to original sources

USGS2004

Sagebrush ecosystems: current status and trends.

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp .) biome has changed since settlement by Europeans. The current distribution, composition and dynamics, and disturbance regimes of sagebrush ecosystems have been altered by interactions among disturbance, land use, and invasion of exotic plants. In this chapter, we present the dominant factors that have influenced habitats across the sagebrush biome. Using a large-scale analysis, we identified regional changes and patterns in “natural disturbance”, invasive exotic species, and influences of land use in sagebrush systems. Number of fires and total area burned has increased since 1980 across much of the sagebrush biome. Juniper ( Juniperus spp. ) and pinyon (Pinus spp.) woodlands have expanded into sagebrush habitats at higher elevations. Cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum ), an exotic annual grass, has invaded much of lower elevation, more xeric sagebrush landscapes across the western portion of the biome. Consequently, synergistic feedbacks between habitats and disturbance (natural and human-caused) have altered disturbance regimes, plant community dynamics and contributed to loss of sagebrush habitats and change in plant communities. Habitat conversion to agriculture has occurred in the highly productive regions of the sagebrush biome and influenced up to 56% of the Conservation Assessment area. Similarly, urban areas, and road, railroad, and powerline networks fragment habitats, facilitate predator movements, and provide corridors for spread of exotic species across the entire sagebrush biome. Livestock grazing has altered sagebrush habitats; the effects of overgrazing combined with drought on plant communities in the late 1880s and early 1900s still influences current habitats. Management of livestock grazing has influenced sagebrush ecosystems by habitat treatments to increase forage and reduce sagebrush and other plant species unpalatable to livestock. Fences, roads, and water developments to manage livestock movements have further influenced the landscape and increased access into sagebrush habitats. Energy development also influenced sagebrush landscapes by construction of wells, access roads, and pipelines. Treatments to restore sagebrush are becoming a major emphasis of land management agencies. However, revegetation and rehabilitation treatments are limited by the financial, biological, and technological resources needed to restore sagebrush landscapes that function at the spatial and temporal scales used by sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus )

Book chapter↗

USGS2012

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↗

USGS1995

Water-resources data network evaluation for Monterey County, California; Phase 2, northern and coastal areas of Monterey County

This report presents an evaluation of water- resources data-collection networks in the northern and coastal areas of Monterey County, California. This evaluation was done by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to evaluate precipitation, surface water, and ground water monitoring networks. This report describes existing monitoring networks in the study areas and areas where possible additional data-collection is needed. During this study, 106 precipitation-quantity gages were identified, of which 84 were active; however, no precipitation-quality gages were identified in the study areas. The precipitaion-quantity gages were concentrated in the Monterey Peninsula and the northern part of the county. If the number of gages in these areas were reduced, coverage would still be adequate to meet most objectives; however, additional gages could improve coverage in the Tularcitos Creek basin and in the coastal areas south of Carmel to the county boundary. If collection of precipitation data were expanded to include monitoring precipitation quality, this expanded monitoring also could include monitoring precipitation for acid rain and pesticides. Eleven continuous streamflow-gaging stations were identified during this study, of which seven were active. To meet the objectives of the streamflow networks outlined in this report, the seven active stations would need to be continued, four stations would need to be reactivated, and an additional six streamflow-gaging stations would need to be added. Eleven stations that routinely were sampled for chemical constituents were identified in the study areas. Surface water in the lower Big Sur River basin was sampled annually for total coli- form and fecal coliform bacteria, and the Big Sur River was sampled monthly at 16 stations for these bacteria. Routine sampling for chemical constituents also was done in the Big Sur River basin. The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District maintained three networks in the study areas to measure ground-water levels: (1) the summer network, (2) the monthly network, and (3) the annual autumn network. The California American Water Company also did some ground-water-level monitoring in these areas. Well coverage for ground-water monitoring was dense in the seawater-intrusion area north of Moss Landing (possibly because of multiple overlying aquifers), but sparse in other parts of the study areas. During the study, 44 sections were identified as not monitored for ground-water levels. In an ideal ground-water-level network, wells would be evenly spaced, except where local conditions or correlations of wells make monitoring unnecessary. A total of 384 wells that monitor ground-water levels and/or ground-water quality were identified during this study. The Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District sampled ground-water quality monthly during the irrigation season to monitor seawater intrusion. Once each year (during the summer), the wells in this network were monitored for chlorides, specific conductance, and nitrates. Additional samples were collected from each well once every 5 years for complete mineral analysis. The California Department of Health Services, the California American Water Company, the U.S. Army Health Service at Ford Ord, and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District also monitored ground-water quality in wells in the study areas. Well coverage for the ground-water- quality networks was dense in the seawater- intrusion area north of Moss Landing, but sparse in the rest of the study areas. During this study, 54 sections were identified as not monitored for water quality.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior South Central Climate Science Center

On September 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior signed a Secretarial Order (No. 3289) entitled, "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources." The Order effectively established the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) for the purpose of integrating DOI science and management expertise with similar contributions from our partners to provide information to support strategic adaptation and mitigation efforts on public and private lands across the United States and internationally. The South Central Climate Science Center (SC CSC) is supported by a consortium of partners that include The University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech University, Louisiana State University, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Additionally, the SC CSC will collaborate with a number of other universities, State and federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with interests and expertise in climate science. The primary partners of the SC CSC are the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which include the Desert, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers, Great Plains, Gulf Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, and Southern Rockies. CSC collaborations are focused on common science priorities that address priority partner needs, eliminate redundancies in science, share scientific information and findings, and expand understanding of climate change impacts in the south-central United States and Mexico.

Arizona;Louisiana;Oklahoma;Texas↗

USGS2016

Stock assessment in inland fisheries: a foundation for sustainable use and conservation

Fisheries stock assessments are essential for science-based fisheries management. Inland fisheries pose challenges, but also provide opportunities for biological assessments that differ from those encountered in large marine fisheries for which many of our assessment methods have been developed. These include the number and diversity of fisheries, high levels of ecological and environmental variation, and relative lack of institutional capacity for assessment. In addition, anthropogenic impacts on habitats, widespread presence of non-native species and the frequent use of enhancement and restoration measures such as stocking affect stock dynamics. This paper outlines various stock assessment and data collection approaches that can be adapted to a wide range of different inland fisheries and management challenges. Although this paper identifies challenges in assessment, it focuses on solutions that are practical, scalable and transferrable. A path forward is suggested in which biological assessment generates some of the critical information needed by fisheries managers to make effective decisions that benefit the resource and stakeholders.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries↗

USGS2014

The National Map hydrography data stewardship: what is it and why is it important?

The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) and Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) were designed and populated by a large consortium of agencies involved in hydrography across the United States. The effort was led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The high-resolution NHD dataset, completed in 2007, is based on the USGS 7.5-minute series topographic maps at a scale of 1:24,000. There are now 26 million features in the NHD representing a 7.5 million mile stream network with over 6.5 million waterbodies. The six-level WBD, completed in 2010, is based on 1:24,000 scale data and contains over 23,000 watershed polygons. The NHD’s flow network, attribution, and linear referencing are used to conduct extensive scientific analyses. The NHD is ideal for cartographic applications such as the US Topo topographic map series, and also is available on the Geospatial Platform, which provides shared and trusted geospatial data, services, and applications for use by government agencies, their partners, and the public. The WBD watersheds are used by scientists and managers to identify discrete drainage areas. The ongoing maintenance of the NHD and WBD is essential for improving these datasets to meet the ever increasing demand for currency, additional detail, and more significant attribution. The best source of information about changes in local hydrography are users closest to the data, such as State and local governments, as well as Federal land management agencies, and other users of the data. The need for local knowledge has led to the creation of a collaborative data stewardship process to revise and maintain the NHD.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2015

Unifying research on the fragmentation of terrestrial and aquatic habitats: patches, connectivity and the matrix in riverscapes

While there is an increasing emphasis in terrestrial ecology on determining the influence of the area that surrounds habitat patches (the landscape ‘matrix’) relative to the characteristics of the patches themselves, research on these aspects in running waters is still rather underrepresented. Here we outline conceptual foundations of matrix ecology for stream and river ecosystems (‘riverscapes’). We discuss how a hierarchical, patch-based perspective is necessary for the delineation of habitat patches and the surrounding matrix, through which we may identify two classes of habitat edges in riverscapes (i.e. edges between the terrestrial–aquatic interface and edges within streams). Under this conceptual framework, we discuss the role of the matrix in influencing between-patch movement, and resource quality and quantity within and among habitat patches in riverscapes. We also review types of empirical and modelling approaches which may advance our understanding of fragmentation effects in these systems. We identify five key challenges for understanding fragmentation and matrix effects more completely: (i) defining populations and their status (i.e. quantifying the demographic contribution of habitat patches to metapopulation dynamics), (ii) scaling from metapopulations to metacommunities (particularly searching for generalities in species responses to landscape heterogeneity), (iii) scaling from metacommunities to metaecosystems (i.e. exploring the interactive role of the terrestrial–aquatic and within-stream matrix effects on the flow of material and energy at the network scale), (iv) understanding temporal dynamics in matrix permeability and (v) revealing the utility of different patch and matrix representations for modelling connectivity relationships. Fragmentation of habitats is a critical issue in the conservation and management of stream networks across spatial scales. Although the effects of individual barriers (e.g. dams) are well documented, we argue that a more comprehensive patch–matrix landscape model will improve our understanding of fragmentation effects and improve management in riverscapes.

Freshwater Biology↗

USGS2022

Utilization of genetic data to inform native Brook Trout conservation in North Carolina

As North Carolina’s only native salmonid, Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis is a fish of considerable ecological and cultural significance in the state, but anthropogenic alterations to the landscape and introductions of nonnative salmonids have fragmented and reduced its native range. As a result, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) has enacted numerous efforts to help conserve the species. Annual demographic surveys of self-sustaining Brook Trout populations have been on-going since 1978, which have also included successful efforts to document previously unidentified populations. Beginning in earnest during the 1990s, allozyme testing was used to assess patterns of hatchery introgression, with over 480 collections genotyped at the creatine kinase locus. In 2010, the NCWRC began using microsatellite markers to conduct an extensive survey of Brook Trout genetic diversity and variation. To date, 541 Brook Trout collections representing 11,090 individuals have been genotyped at 12 microsatellite loci. These data have provided insights into evolutionary relationships among populations, spatial patterns of genetic diversity, and the extent of hatchery introgression within populations. Ultimately, increased understanding of genetic diversity and relatedness have been informative for determining that Brook Trout management in North Carolina is likely best enacted at the level of individual populations. Moreover, we have used these data to actively guide stream restoration and population reintroduction activities. Over the last 15 years, NCWRC and its partners have used genetic data to prioritize habitat enhancement activities and guide 17 Brook Trout population reintroduction projects. In the future, we plan to continue expanding the microsatellite genetic baseline while also exploring the utility of phylogenomic analyses to inform Brook Trout conservation activities. Genetic and genomic approaches have great potential to improve the efficacy of conservation actions for Brook Trout in North Carolina and throughout its native range.

North Carolina↗

USGS2011

Guidelines for collecting and maintaining archives for genetic monitoring

Rapid advances in molecular genetic techniques and the statistical analysis of genetic data have revolutionized the way that populations of animals, plants and microorganisms can be monitored. Genetic monitoring is the practice of using molecular genetic markers to track changes in the abundance, diversity or distribution of populations, species or ecosystems over time, and to follow adaptive and non-adaptive genetic responses to changing external conditions. In recent years, genetic monitoring has become a valuable tool in conservation management of biological diversity and ecological analysis, helping to illuminate and define cryptic and poorly understood species and populations. Many of the detected biodiversity declines, changes in distribution and hybridization events have helped to drive changes in policy and management. Because a time series of samples is necessary to detect trends of change in genetic diversity and species composition, archiving is a critical component of genetic monitoring. Here we discuss the collection, development, maintenance, and use of archives for genetic monitoring. This includes an overview of the genetic markers that facilitate effective monitoring, describes how tissue and DNA can be stored, and provides guidelines for proper practice.

Conservation Genetics Resources↗

USGS2015

Application of science-based restoration planning to a desert river system

Persistence of many desert river species is threatened by a suite of impacts linked to water infrastructure projects that provide human water security where water is scarce. Many desert rivers have undergone regime shifts from spatially and temporally dynamic ecosystems to more stable systems dominated by homogenous physical habitat. Restoration of desert river systems could aid in biodiversity conservation, but poses formidable challenges due to multiple threats and the infeasibility of recovery to pre-development conditions. The challenges faced in restoring desert rivers can be addressed by incorporating scientific recommendations into restoration planning efforts at multiple stages, as demonstrated here through an example restoration project. In particular, use of a watershed-scale planning process can identify data gaps and irreversible constraints, which aid in developing achievable restoration goals and objectives. Site-prioritization focuses limited the resources for restoration on areas with the greatest potential to improve populations of target organisms. Investment in research to understand causes of degradation, coupled with adoption of a guiding vision is critical for identifying feasible restoration actions that can enhance river processes. Setting monitoring as a project goal, developing hypotheses for expected outcomes, and implementing restoration as an experimental design will facilitate adaptive management and learning from project implementation. Involvement of scientists and managers during all planning stages is critical for developing process-based restoration actions and an implementation plan to maximize learning. The planning process developed here provides a roadmap for use of scientific recommendations in future efforts to recover dynamic processes in imperiled riverine ecosystems.

San Rafael River watershed↗

USGS2023

A 37 K SNP array for the management and conservation of Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos)

We describe the development of a custom 37 K Affymetrix Axiom myDesign single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for a culturally and ecologically important apex predator, the golden eagle ( Aquila chrysaetos ). Using this SNP array, we performed population genomic analysis on 154 individuals of known natal localities and detected three genetic clusters that we designated as Taiga/High Arctic, Great Basin, and Rocky Mountains/Great Plains. Each of these clusters appears to display clinal variation within these geographic regions. After determining genetic structure, we performed an assignment test of 32 individuals, five of which were siblings of individuals used in the assessment of genetic structure, three had associated telemetry data, and the remaining individuals were of unknown natal locations. Using this array, four siblings were correctly assigned to the same geographic region as their sibling and the genetic assignment of the radio telemetered birds agreed with the expected movement patterns displayed by these individuals. For the remaining individuals, we were able to assign all but five individuals to one of the three genetic clusters. Our genetic assignments illustrates the utility of this SNP array to accurately assign most individuals to predesignated geographical regions. While further compiling genetic and other data types, we can increase the power of this tool for identifying those breeding populations that may need assistance due to anthropogenic stressors that negatively impact their population viability. The use of this genetic resource will help substantiate decisions by multiple conservation groups that seek to preserve the natural population structure of the golden eagle.

Conservation Genetics↗

USGS2013

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↗

USGS2012

Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin

As wolf conservation transitions away from federally sponsored protection and recovery toward sustainable management under state fish and game agencies, researchers and policymakers are interested to know what role hunters will play. Based upon hunters' responses to three recent surveys in Wisconsin and the northern Rockies, Treves and Martin question the assumption that hunters will steward wolves, noting that the majority of hunters that responded were unsupportive of wolf conservation. However, this conclusion largely depends upon what is meant by stewardship and what actions are required for wolves to be conserved. This article discusses the meaning of three concepts either explicitly or implicitly discussed by Treves and Martin—tolerance, acceptance, and stewardship—and offers a conceptual model of wildlife conservation behavior that clarifies the relationship among these concepts.

Society & Natural Resources: An International Jour↗

USGS2025

Isotopic niche plasticity of American alligators within the southern Everglades

Hydrologic alterations within the Everglades have degraded American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ) habitat, reduced prey base, and increased physiological stress. Alligator body condition declined across many management areas from 2000 through 2014, prompting us to investigate the relationship between their intraspecific isotopic niche dynamics and body condition. Alligators within the estuary had a larger niche driven by a wider range in stable carbon isotope ratios than those sampled in freshwater habitats. Spatially, model predictability was higher at the smaller scale, reflecting the variability in basal sources and biochemistry among capture sites. Male niches were often larger than those of females, driven by wider ranges of δ 13 C values, suggesting that they differ in their proportional use of habitats and or resources. However, the similar ranges of δ 15 N values indicated both sexes foraged within the same trophic level. Furthermore, while not significantly different, large alligators often had a larger niche with elevated δ 15 N values compared to medium-sized alligators. Although alligators utilize similar stable carbon and nitrogen isotope pools through time, there was considerable temporal variability. These temporal variations in alligators’ isotopic niche were likely influenced by seasonal hydrologic fluctuations within each site, with their niches often being larger in the spring captures than the fall captures. Alligators’ body condition estimates were correlated with intraspecific niche characteristics, including the mean centroid distance between sexes and the interaction between male and female niche size and overlap, within a site, capture period, and year. The variability in intraspecific niche dynamics, landscape heterogeneity, and dynamic hydrology are considerations for designing sustainable management strategies to conserve and enhance alligator populations within the Everglades landscape.

Florida↗

USGS1994

Determination of land subsidence related to ground-water-level declines using Global Positioning System and leveling surveys in Antelope Valley, Los Angeles and Kern counties, California, 1992

A large-scale, land-subsidence monitoring network for Antelope Valley, California, was established, and positions and elevations for 85 stations were measured using Global Positioning System geodetic surveying in spring 1992. The 95-percent confidence (2@) level of accuracy for the elevations calculated for a multiple-constraint adjustment generally ranged from +0.010 meter (0.032 foot) to +0.024 meter (0.078 foot). The magnitudes and rates of land subsidence as of 1992 were calculated for several periods for 218 bench marks throughout Antelope Valley. The maximum measured magnitude of land subsidence that occurred between 1926 and 1992 was 6.0 feet (1.83 meters) at BM 474 near Avenue I and Sierra Highway. Measured or estimated subsidence of 2-7 feet (.61-2.l3 meters) had occurred in a 210- square-mile (542-square-kilometer) area of Antelope Valley, generally bounded by Avenue K, Avenue A, 90th Street West, and 120th Street East, during the same period. Land subsidence in Antelope Valley is caused by aquifer-system compaction, which is related to ground-water-level declines and the presence of fine-grained, compressible sediments. Comparison of potentiomethric-surface, water-level decline, and subsidence-rate maps for several periods indicated a general correlation between water-level declines and the distribution and rate of subsidence in the Lancaster ground-water subbasin. A conservative estimate of the amount of the reduction in storage capacity of the aquifer system in the Lancaster subbasin is about 50,000 acre-feet in the area that has been affected by more than one foot (.30 meters) of subsidence as of 1992. Information on the history of ground-water levels and the distribution and thickness of fine-grained compressible sediments can be used to mitigate continued land subsidence. Future monitoring of ground-water levels and land-surface elevations in subsidence-sensitive regions of Antelope Valley may be an effective means to manage land subsidence.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

USGS2019

Modelling development of riparian ranchlands using ecosystem services at the Aravaipa Watershed, SE Arizona

This paper describes how subdivision and development of rangelands within a remote and celebrated semiarid watershed near the US-Mexico border might affect multiple ecohydrological services provided, such as recharge of the aquifer, water and sediment yield, water quality, flow rates and downstream cultural and natural resources. Specifically, we apply an uncalibrated watershed model and land-change forecasting scenario to consider the potential effects of converting rangelands to housing developments and document potential changes in hydrological ecosystem services. A new method to incorporate weather data in watershed modelling is introduced. Results of introducing residential development in this fragile arid environment portray changes in the water budget, including increases in surface-water runoff, water yield, and total sediment loading. Our findings also predict slight reductions in lateral soil water, a component of the water budget that is increasingly becoming recognized as critical to maintaining water availability in arid regions. We discuss how the proposed development on shrub/scrub rangelands could threaten to sever imperative ecohydrological interactions and impact multiple ecosystem services. This research highlights rangeland management issues important for the protection of open-space, economic valuation of rangeland ecosystem services, conservation easements, and incentives to develop markets for these.

Arizona↗

USGS2026

The effects of scientific uncertainty and values trade-offs on flow management decisions for an endangered fish

Consumptive use of freshwater is of concern in many estuarine ecosystems, and various frameworks have been used to prescribe environmental flows to benefit native species. However, few of these frameworks explicitly examine the potential trade-offs between socioeconomic and conservation-oriented values. This is exemplified in California, USA, where freshwater management has been an area of focus and controversy. Operations of numerous reservoirs and water diversion facilities distributed throughout the state, while critical for economic and public health benefits, have contributed to the decline of many native species. The endangered delta smelt ( Hypomesus transpacificus ) is endemic to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the heart of California's complex water conveyance system. To aid recovery of delta smelt, fall-timed freshwater pulse flows were implemented, which require water to be either released from reservoirs, or made unavailable to export for consumptive uses. Previous research has indicated that the effectiveness of the current pulse flow action could be improved by reconsidering the timing and magnitude; however, uncertainties in the predicted fish response to flow pulses may hinder decision-making about flow management. Using a water resource planning model, different iterations of an individual-based life cycle model, and decision analysis tools, we assessed the importance of sources of uncertainty to hypothetical flow management decisions, including uncertainty surrounding the predicted responses in delta smelt population growth rates, and variability of decision-maker's values. We found both the choice of which (if any) flow action to take for delta smelt, and the expected value of further research, depended on how decision-makers weight the delta smelt and water supply objectives. There was expected value of information (VOI) only if a decision-maker weighted the delta smelt objective ≥0.59, and within this range, research to improve estimates of changes in delta smelt prey items related to flow actions could be prioritized over other sources of uncertainty to improve outcomes of decision-making. Our study demonstrates how uncertainty, even if large, may not be equally relevant to different decision-makers (e.g., with different agency missions), and how VOI analysis can be used to guide management in an overallocated water system such as California.

California↗

USGS1978

Hydrologic Unit Map-1978, state of South Dakota

This map and accompanying table show Hydrologic Unites that are basically hydrographic in nature. The Cataloging Unites shown supplant the Cataloging Units previously depicted n the 1974 State Hydrologic Unit Map. The boundaries as shown have been adapted from the 1974 State Hydrologic Unit Map, "The Catalog of Information on Water Data" (1972), "Water Resources Regions and Subregions for the National Assessment of Water and Related Land Resources" by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1970), "River Basin of the United States" by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1963, 1970), "River Basin Maps Showing Hydrologic Stations" by the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Hydrology (1961), and State planning maps. The Political Subdivision has been adopted from "Counties and County Equivalents of the States if the United States" presented in Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 6-2, issued by the National Bureau of Standards (1973) in which each county or county equivalent is identified by a 2-character State code and a 3-character county code. The Regions, Subregions and Accounting Units are aggregates of the Cataloging Unites. The Regions and Sub regions are currently (1978) used by the U.S> Water Resources Council for comprehensive planning, including the National Assessment, and as a standard geographical framework for more detailed water and related land-resources planning. The Accounting Units are those currently (1978) in use by the U.S. Geological Survey for managing the National Water Data Network. This map was revised to include a boundary realinement between Cataloging Units 10140103 and 10160009.

South Dakota↗