USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Environmental Sciences”

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 1,477 records · Page 82Linked to original sources
USGS2003

Amphibian decline: An integrated analysis of multiple stressor effects

Capturing the attention and imagination of the public and the scientific community alike, the mysterious decline in amphibian populations drew scientists and resource managers from ecotoxicology and chemistry, ecology and field biology, conservation biology, and natural resource policy to a SETAC–Johnson Foundation workshop. Facilitating environmental stewardship, increasing capacity of the sciences to explain complex stressors, and educating the public on relationships among communities of all types motivated these experts to address amphibian decline and the role of various stressors in these losses.

Book↗
USGS2022

Landsat data ecosystem case study: Actor perceptions of the use and value of landsat

It is well-known that Earth observation (EO) data plays a critical role in scientific understanding about the global environment. There is also growing support for the use of EO data to provide context-specific insights, with significant implications for their use in decision support systems. Technological development over recent years, including cloud computing infrastructure, machine learning techniques, and rapid expansion of the velocity, volume, and variety of space-borne data sources, offer huge potential to provide solutions to the myriad environmental problems facing society and the planet. The USGS/NASA Landsat Program, the longest continuously gathered source of land surface data, has played a central role in our understanding of environmental change, particularly for its contribution of longitudinal products that offer greater context for present research and decision support activities. The challenge facing the Landsat and EO data community, however, now lies in moving beyond context-specific knowledge generation to translating such knowledge into tangible value for society. Drawing from an open data ecosystem framework and qualitative social science methods, we map the Landsat data ecosystem (LDE) and the relationships linking multiple actors responsible for processing, indexing, analyzing, synthesizing, and translating raw Landsat data into information that is useful, useable, and used by end users in particular social-environmental contexts. Both the role of Big Data and associated technologies are discussed as they relate to the ultimate use of Landsat-derived information products to guide decision-making, and key data ecosystem characteristics that shape the likelihood of these products’ use are highlighted.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗
USGS2024

Identifying priority science information needs for managing public lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management—the largest public land manager in the United States—in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2023

Using public litigation records to identify priority science needs for managing public lands

Relevant science is essential for effective natural resource decision making, including on public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that cover 1/10th of the United States. Most of the BLM’s management decisions require analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of science in these decisions is often challenged. Using coproduction, we assembled an interagency team of scientists and resource managers to develop a method for using public litigation to identify priority science needs for the BLM. We searched publicly available case documents finalized from 2015–2019 in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico within federal courts and the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identified 108 case documents that involved challenges to the BLM’s use of science. We retained 48 case documents that contained at least one challenge about the BLM’s use of science for a specific resource. We categorized all challenges in each case document according to the proposed action, affected resource, type of science challenged (data about resources, science relevant to potential impacts, methods for analyzing potential impacts, and mitigation actions), and specific nature of the challenge (e.g., challenging direct effects analysis). We identified priority science needs based on the frequency of challenges, the number of states where similar challenges occurred, whether the BLM lost the challenge, and whether the case was remanded. Top needs related to oil and gas development actions and included science about effects on air quality and climate, water, and socioeconomics; data for air quality and climate; and methods for analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources and air quality and climate. The BLM can use this information to prioritize actions (e.g., funding new research or science syntheses) to strengthen its science foundation for decision-making.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2020

6&6: A transdisciplinary approach to art-science collaboration

Despite an historical connection between the arts and sciences, in the past century, the two disciplines have been greatly siloed. However, there is a renewed interest in collaboration across the arts and sciences to support conservation practice by understanding and communicating complex environmental, social, and cultural challenges in novel ways. 6&6 was created as a transdisciplinary art–science initiative to promote a deeper appreciation of the Sonoran Desert. Six artists and six scientists were paired to create work that explored conservation issues in the Sonoran Desert and the Gulf of California. In-depth interviews were conducted with the artists and scientists throughout the 4-year initiative to understand the impact of 6&6 on their personal and professional behaviors and outlook. The findings from this case study reveal the role that intensive, place-based, and transdisciplinary art–science programs can play in shaping narratives to better communicate the patterns and processes of nature and human–environment interactions.

Arizona, Baja California, Baja California Sur, Cal↗
USGS1995

Rules for success in environmental negotiations

Scientists at the Mid-Continent Ecological Science Center of the National Biological Service conducted a series of case studies of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission license consultations. The goal of these studies was to test hypotheses about factors that contribute to success in interagency negotiations. Based on their analysis of six case studies, the researchers constructed a list of ten "rules for success." Examples include: Analyze the incentives of each party to negotiate, paying special attention to parties who gain by not negotiating; Clarify the technical issues so that all agree and they coincide with resource management objectives; and Make sure the final agreement is feasible from both a physical and a policy perspective so that it can actually be implemented. These rules can be used to plan for negotiations and to diagnose ongoing negotiations.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2020

Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support

Executive Summary There is a growing body of tools available for science support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, and with large populations centers. Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development of USGS science support, include the following: •The national and regional response to spills occurs within an established system that must be respected by all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other efforts to contain and recover spilled materials. •The USGS has tools that have been used throughout spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for the USGS to participate in science support for inland spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This will require the USGS to improve internal and external communication and would be best accomplished by assigning one or more coordinator positions within the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will gofar in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools. •Rapid response to spills requires modeling and mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel estimation for a range of stream sizes across the United States. Many existing models use USGS streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill response community. • A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict plume extent, as well as more followup/longer-term fate and transport models, can be unknown or unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled at using these tools is needed to support spill response with the on-scene responders. • Research for inland spill fate and behavior done outside of an immediate spill response can assist with spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites) and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might behave under a range of environmental conditions. However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce and subject to funding availability. Examples include the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools for stream and impoundment environments. A long-term research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides important insights into transformations and longevity of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface water interactions. • Linking stream models to other components of this inland environment, including groundwater, overland flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models can also be linked with geospatial data such as that contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interactive mapping tools. • The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality data during spills in the United States because of its many geographically dispersed water science centers, its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement and documentation, and its cadre of skilled water-quality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for floods, could also be used for spills if they included spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS water and environmental science centers can be used for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to water quality and ecological communities. • Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance within the Incident Command Structure at the request of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their traditional duties.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Eastern Ecological Science Center — Fish and aquatic animal health

Science provided by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Eastern Ecological Science Center (EESC) helps to protect fish and aquatic animal health and support disease management of our Nation’s fisheries and aquatic animal populations. Our capabilities and expertise span diverse, yet highly integrated disciplines related to all aspects of biology, ecology, and animal health. Our scientists work to identify novel and emerging pathogens and diseases to assess fish and aquatic animal responses to parasites, pathogens, adverse environmental conditions, and chemical exposures. Eastern Ecological Science Center research is conducted both in laboratories and in the field in various aquatic environments ranging from headwater streams to the ocean. The EESC team provides science leadership and support for fisheries and aquatic species specialists nationwide.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2005

Geography for a Changing World - A science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005-2015

This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.

Circular↗
USGS2020

Global challenges for nitrogen science-policy interactions: Towards the International Nitrogen Management System (INMS) and improved coordination between multi-lateral environmental agreements

Human interference with the nitrogen cycle has doubled reactive nitrogen inputs to the global biosphere over the past century, leading to changes across multiple environmental issues that require urgent action. Nitrogen fertilizers and biological nitrogen fixation have allowed benefits of increased crop harvest and livestock production, while in some areas there is insufficient nitrogen to fertilize crops. Whether in excess or deficit, nitrogen losses from its inefficient use are causing a combination of freshwater and marine pollution, air pollution, alteration of climate balance, stratospheric ozone loss, biodiversity loss and reduction of soil quality. The resulting nitrogen pollution affects human health, well-being and livelihoods. Scientific efforts have begun to bring these issues together. However, there is still a high degree of fragmentation between research on the different benefits and threats of reactive nitrogen and between the respective policy frameworks, especially at the global scale. We argue that a more joined-up approach to managing the global nitrogen cycle is needed to develop the ‘gravity of common cause’ between nitrogen issues and to avoid policy trade-offs. We describe how a coherent system for science evidence provision is being developed to support policy development through the ‘International Nitrogen Management System’ (INMS). There is now a matching challenge to bring together the multiple policy agreements relevant for nitrogen as a foundation to address synergies/trade-offs and to set priorities. Based on review of existing frameworks, we outline the concept for an Interconvention nitrogen coordination mechanism. This could make a major contribution to multiple Sustainable Development Goals by stimulating the next generation of international nitrogen strategies: maximizing the benefits of efficient nitrogen use, while minimizing its many environmental threats.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

Ecosystem services: developing sustainable management paradigms based on wetland functions and processes

In the late nineteenth century and twentieth century, there was considerable interest and activity to develop the United States for agricultural, mining, and many other purposes to improve the quality of human life standards and prosperity. Most of the work to support this development was focused along disciplinary lines with little attention focused on ecosystem service trade-offs or synergisms, especially those that transcended boundaries of scientific disciplines and specific interest groups. Concurrently, human population size has increased substantially and its use of ecosystem services has increased more than five-fold over just the past century. Consequently, the contemporary landscape has been highly modified for human use, leaving behind a fragmented landscape where basic ecosystem functions and processes have been broadly altered. Over this period, climate change also interacted with other anthropogenic effects, resulting in modern environmental problems having a complexity that is without historical precedent. The challenge before the scientific community is to develop new science paradigms that integrate relevant scientific disciplines to properly frame and evaluate modern environmental problems in a systems-type approach to better inform the decision-making process. Wetland science is a relatively new discipline that grew out of the conservation movement of the early twentieth century. In the United States, most of the conservation attention in the earlier days was on wildlife, but a growing human awareness of the importance of the environment led to the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969. Concurrently, there was a broadening interest in conservation science, and the scientific study of wetlands gradually gained acceptance as a scientific discipline. Pioneering wetland scientists became formally organized when they formed The Society of Wetland Scientists in 1980 and established a publication outlet to share wetland research findings. In comparison to older and more traditional scientific disciplines, the wetland sciences may be better equipped to tackle today’s complex problems. Since its emergence as a scientific discipline, the study of wetlands has frequently required interdisciplinary and integrated approaches. This interdisciplinary/integrated approach is largely the result of the fact that wetlands cannot be studied in isolation of upland areas that contribute surface and subsurface water, solutes, sediments, and nutrients into wetland basins. However, challenges still remain in thoroughly integrating the wetland sciences with scientific disciplines involved in upland studies, especially those involved with agriculture, development, and other land-conversion activities that influence wetland hydrology, chemistry, and sedimentation. One way to facilitate this integration is to develop an understanding of how human activities affect wetland ecosystem services, especially the trade-offs and synergisms that occur when land-use changes are made. Used in this context, an understanding of the real costs of managing for a particular ecosystem service or groups of services can be determined and quantified in terms of reduced delivery of other services and in overall sustainability of the wetland and the landscapes that support them. In this chapter, we discuss some of the more salient aspects of a few common wetland types to give the reader some background on the diversity of functions that wetlands perform and the specific ecosystem services they provide to society. Wetlands are among the most complex ecosystems on the planet, and it is often difficult to communicate to a diverse public all of the positive services wetlands provide to mankind. Our goal is to help the reader develop an understanding that management options can be approached as societal choices where decisions can be made within a spatial and temporal context to identify trade-offs, synergies, and effects on long-term sustainability of wetland ecosystems. This will be especially relevant as we move into alternate climate futures where our portfolio of management options for mitigating damage to ecosystem function or detrimental cascading effects must be diverse and effective.

Book chapter↗
USGS2008

Methods and sources of data used to develop selected water-quality indicators for streams and ground water for EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment: Science report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was one of numerous governmental agencies, private organizations, and the academic community that provided data and interpretations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report . This report documents the sources of data and methods used to develop selected water–quality indicators for the 2007 edition of the report compiled by USEPA. Stream and ground–water–quality data collected nationally in a consistent manner as part of the USGS’s National Water–Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) were provided for several water–quality indicators, including Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds; Pesticides in Streams in Agricultural Watersheds; and Nitrate and Pesticides in Shallow Ground Water in Agricultural Watersheds . In addition, the USGS provided nitrate (nitrate plus nitrite) and phosphorus riverine load estimates calculated from water–quality and streamflow data collected as part of its National Stream Water Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) and its Federal–State Cooperative Program for the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Discharge from Large Rivers indicator.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Georgia Water Science Center and City of Brunswick–Glynn County Cooperative Water Program— Summary of activities, July 2005 through June 2006

Since 1959, the U.S. Geological Survey has conducted a cooperative water resources program (CWP) with the City of Brunswick and Glynn County in the Brunswick, Georgia, area. Since the late 1950s, the salinity of ground water in the Upper Floridan aquifer near downtown Brunswick, Georgia, has been increasing, and its occurrence has been detected across an area of increasing size. Pumping of the Upper Floridan aquifer near downtown Brunswick has lowered water levels in the aquifer and resulted in an upward hydraulic gradient between the highly saline parts of the Lower Floridan aquifer and the normally fresh Upper Floridan aquifer. Saltwater likely enters the Upper Floridan aquifer through localized, vertically oriented conduits of relatively high permeability and moves laterally in response to the distribution of stresses within the aquifer. The Brunswick-Glynn County CWP for fiscal year 2006 includes the operation and maintenance of 12 continuous water-level recorders. In addition, water-level data were collected from 52 wells and water from 70 wells was analyzed for chloride concentration during June 2005. Geophysical logs were obtained from one well to assess whether the cause of elevated chloride concentration could be due to leaky well casing. A summary of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division (GaEPD) Georgia Coastal Sound Science Initiative (CSSI) activities that directly benefit the CWP-Brunswick-Glynn County is included in this report. The GaEPD CSSI is a program of scientific and feasibility studies to support development of a final strategy to protect the Upper Floridan aquifer from saltwater contamination. These data presented in this report are needed by State and local authorities to manage water resources effectively in the coastal area of Georgia.

Georgia↗
USGS2007

Environmental Assessment of the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center near Butlerville, Indiana, October and November 2005

An environmental assessment of the Muscatatuck Urban Training Center near Butlerville in Jennings County, Indiana, was completed during October and November 2005. As part of the Department of Defense Earth Science Program, the U.S. Geological Survey collected information about environmental conditions at the 825-acre former State of Indiana mental health facility prior to its conversion by the Indiana National Guard into an urban training center. The assessment was designed to investigate the type and extent of potential contamination associated with historical activities in selected areas of the facility. Samples of surface water, ground water, surface soil, and buried sediment were collected for the assessment in seven geographic study areas. Surface-water samples were collected from flowing and pooled surface water, as well as seeps and springs where ground water discharged at the land surface. Ground-water samples were collected from temporary wells installed in boreholes drilled to bedrock. Surface-soil samples were collected near sites of possible contamination. Buried-sediment samples were taken from core material collected near the top of bedrock at depths of 6.4 to 26 feet. For the assessment, 59 environmental, 22 quality-assurance, and 46 laboratory-blank samples were analyzed for as many as 65 volatile organic compounds, 62 semivolatile organic compounds, 20 trace elements, 10 inorganic cations and anions, 3 nutrients, and 4 water-quality characteristics. Concentrations of constituents detected in these samples were compared with regulatory standards (the Indiana Surface-Water-Quality Standards and Indiana Ground-Water-Quality Standards) and guidance criteria from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management's Risk Integrated System of Closures for contaminated soil and ground water. Standards or criteria were exceeded by 17 constituent concentrations in 11 environmental samples from 5 of the 7 geographic study areas. Standards or criteria were exceeded for 10 constituents: ammonia, arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene, beryllium, chloride, chloroform, copper, lead, sulfate, and zinc.

Indiana↗
USGS2024

Implementation of the CREED approach for environmental assessments

Environmental exposure data are a key component of chemical and ecological assessments, supporting and guiding environmental management decisions and regulations. Measures taken to protect the environment based on exposure data can have social and economic implications. Flawed information may lead to measures being taken in the wrong place or to important action not being taken. Although the advantages of harmonizing evaluation methods have been demonstrated for hazard information, no comparable approach is established for exposure data evaluation. The goal of Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating Exposure Datasets (CREED) is to improve the transparency and consistency with which exposure data are evaluated regarding usability in environmental assessments. Here, we describe the synthesis of the CREED process, and propose methods and tools to summarize and interpret the outcomes of the data usability evaluation in support of decision-making and communication. The CREED outcome includes a summary that reports any key gaps or shortcomings in the reliability (data quality) and relevance (fitness for purpose) of the data being considered. The approach has been implemented in a workbook template (provided as Supporting Information), for assessors to readily follow the workflow and create a report card for any given dataset. The report card communicates the outcome of the CREED evaluation and summarizes important dataset attributes, providing a concise reference pertaining to the dataset usability for a specified purpose and documenting data limitations that may restrict data use or increase environmental assessment uncertainty. The application of CREED is demonstrated through three case studies, which also were used during beta testing of the methodology. As experience with the CREED approach application develops, further improvements may be identified and incorporated into the framework. Such development is to be encouraged in the interest of better science and decision-making, and to make environmental monitoring and assessment more cost-effective.

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management↗
USGS2021

The role of behavioral ecotoxicology in environmental protection

For decades, we have known that chemicals affect human and wildlife behavior. Moreover, due to recent technological and computational advances, scientists are now increasingly aware that a wide variety of contaminants and other environmental stressors adversely affect organismal behavior and subsequent ecological outcomes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. There is also a groundswell of concern that regulatory ecotoxicology does not adequately consider behavior, primarily due to a lack of standardized toxicity methods. This has, in turn, led to the exclusion of many behavioral ecotoxicology studies from chemical risk assessments. To improve understanding of the challenges and opportunities for behavioral ecotoxicology within regulatory toxicology/risk assessment, a unique workshop with international representatives from the fields of behavioral ecology, ecotoxicology, regulatory (eco)toxicology, neurotoxicology, test standardization, and risk assessment resulted in the formation of consensus perspectives and recommendations, which promise to serve as a roadmap to advance interfaces among the basic and translational sciences, and regulatory practices.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2007

Coastal Prairie Restoration Information System: Version 1 (Louisiana)

The Coastal Prairie Restoration Information System (CPR) is a Microsoft Access database that allows users to query and view data about Louisiana coastal prairie species. Less than 0.1% of Louisiana's coastal prairie vegetation remains in a relatively undisturbed condition. Encompassing as much as 1 million hectares of land, coastal prairie is a hybrid of coastal wetlands and tall grass prairie. Over 550 plant species have been identified in Louisiana's coastal prairies to date. Efforts to conserve and restore this endangered ecosystem are limited by the ability of workers to identify and access knowledge about this diverse group of plants. In this database, a variety of data are provided for each of 650 coastal prairie species in Louisiana. The database was developed at the U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center by Larry Allain, with software development by Myra Silva. Additional funding was provided by the biology department of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL), the ULL Center for Environmental and Ecological Technology, and the National Science Foundation.

Data Series↗