USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Environmental and Resource Economics”

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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS1982

Results of a modeling workshop concerning economic and environmental trends and concomitant resource management issues in the Mobile Bay area

During the past decade, the southern regions of the U.S. have experienced rapid change which is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. Growth in population, industry, and resource development has been attributed to a variety of advantages such as an abundant and inexpensive labor force, a mild climate, and the availability of energy, water, land, and other natural resources. While this growth has many benefits for the region, it also creates the potential for increased air, water, and solid waste pollution, and modification of natural habitats. A workshop was convened to consider the Mobile Bay area as a site-specific case of growth and its environmental consequences in the southern region. The objectives of the modeling workshop were to: (1) identify major factors of economic development as they relate to growth in the area over the immediate and longer term; (2) identify major environmental and resource management issues associated with this expected growth; and (3) identify and characterize the complex interrelationships among economic and environmental factors. This report summarizes the activities and results of a modeling workshop concerning economic growth and concomitant resource management issues in the Mobile Bay area. The workshop was organized around construction of a simulation model representing the relationships between a series of actions and indicators identified by participants. The workshop model had five major components. An Industry Submodel generated scenarios of growth in several industrial and transportation sectors. A Human Population/Economy Submodel calculated human population and economic variables in response to employment opportunities. A Land Use/Air Quality Submodel tabulated changes in land use, shoreline use, and air quality. A Water Submodel calculated indicators of water quality and quantity for fresh surface water, ground water, and Mobile Bay based on discharge information provided by the Industry and Human Population/Economy Submodels. Finally, a Fish Submodel calculated indicators of habitat quality for finfish and shellfish, utilizing information on water quality and wetlands acreage. The workshop was successful in identifying many of the critical interrelations between components of the Mobile area system. Not all of those interactions, such as the feedback of air quality as a limitation on development, could be incorporated into the workshop model because of the model's broad spatial scale and because of uncertainties or data gaps. Thus, the value of the modeling workshop was in the areas outlines below, rather than in the predictive power of the initial model developed at the workshop. First, participants developed a holistic perspective on the interactions which will determine future economic and environmental trends within the Mobile Bay area. Potential environmental consequences and limitations to grown identified at the workshop included: shoreline and water access; water quality of Mobile Bay; finfish and shellfish habitat quality with respect to dissolved oxygen and coliforms; air quality; and acreage of critical wetland habitat. Second, the model's requirements for specific, quantitative information stimulated supporting analyses, such as economic input-output calculations, which provide additional insight into the Mobile Bay area system. Third, the perspective of the Mobile area as an interacting system was developed in an open, cooperative forum which my provide a foundation for conflict resolution based on common understanding. Finally, the identification of model limitations and uncertainties should be useful in guiding the efficient allocation of future research effort.

Alabama↗
USGS2010

Large reservoirs: Chapter 17

Large impoundments, defined as those with surface area of 200 ha or greater, are relatively new aquatic ecosystems in the global landscape. They represent important economic and environmental resources that provide benefits such as flood control, hydropower generation, navigation, water supply, commercial and recreational fisheries, and various other recreational and esthetic values. Construction of large impoundments was initially driven by economic needs, and ecological consequences received little consideration. However, in recent decades environmental issues have come to the forefront. In the closing decades of the 20th century societal values began to shift, especially in the developed world. Society is no longer willing to accept environmental damage as an inevitable consequence of human development, and it is now recognized that continued environmental degradation is unsustainable. Consequently, construction of large reservoirs has virtually stopped in North America. Nevertheless, in other parts of the world construction of large reservoirs continues. The emergence of systematic reservoir management in the early 20th century was guided by concepts developed for natural lakes (Miranda 1996). However, we now recognize that reservoirs are different and that reservoirs are not independent aquatic systems inasmuch as they are connected to upstream rivers and streams, the downstream river, other reservoirs in the basin, and the watershed. Reservoir systems exhibit longitudinal patterns both within and among reservoirs. Reservoirs are typically arranged sequentially as elements of an interacting network, filter water collected throughout their watersheds, and form a mosaic of predictable patterns. Traditional approaches to fisheries management such as stocking, regulating harvest, and in-lake habitat management do not always produce desired effects in reservoirs. As a result, managers may expend resources with little benefit to either fish or fishing. Some locally expressed effects, such as turbidity and water quality, zooplankton density and size composition, or fish growth rates and assemblage composition, are the upshot of large-scale factors operating outside reservoirs and not under the direct control of reservoir managers. Realistically, abiotic and biotic conditions in reservoirs are shaped by factors working inside and outside reservoirs, with the relative importance of external factors differing among reservoirs. With this perspective, large reservoirs are viewed from a habitat standpoint within the framework of a conceptual model in which individual reservoir characteristics are influenced by both local- and landscape-scale factors (Figure 17.1). In the sections that follow, how each element of this hierarchical model influences habitat and fish assemblages in reservoirs is considered. Important in-reservoir habitat issues and reservoirs as part of larger systems, where reservoir management requires looking for real solutions outside individual reservoirs are described.

Book chapter↗
USGS2021

Nitrogen in the Chesapeake Bay watershed—A century of change, 1950–2050

Foreword Sustaining the quality of the Nation’s water resources and the health of our diverse ecosystems depends on the availability of sound water-resources data and information to develop effective, science-based policies. Effective management of water resources also brings more certainty and efficiency to important economic sectors. Taken together, these actions lead to immediate and long-term economic, social, and environmental benefits that will make a difference to the lives of the almost 400 million people projected to live in the United States by 2050. The Chesapeake Bay is the largest and most productive estuary in the United States and is a vital environmental and economic resource. Approximately half of the water volume of the Chesapeake Bay originates from streams and rivers that drain the 64,243 mi 2 Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Bay and its tributaries have been degraded by excessive nutrients, such as nitrogen, from contributing watersheds. Inputs of nitrogen to the Bay lead to increased algal growth, decreased dissolved oxygen, and declining fisheries. In 2000, the Chesapeake Bay was listed as impaired under the Clean Water Act and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for nutrients and sediment have been established to assist with management actions aimed at nutrient reductions. Effective nutrient management requires an understanding of past, present, and future nutrient sources, fate, and transport in the watershed. The Chesapeake Bay community has been a pioneer in science, management, and regulation to improve water quality. Factors like climate, hydrology, source inputs, and management controls play a vital role in determining the delivery and magnitude of nitrogen inputs to the Bay. Science in the form of monitoring data, predictive tools, and interpretive reports can help inform decisions to better balance the use and control of nitrogen in coastal areas. The findings in this report can contribute to effective management of the Bay and its watershed by providing a synthesis of the understanding of how human activities and environmental change in the watershed in the past, present, and future will influence the export of nitrogen to the Bay. We hope this publication will provide you with insights and information to meet your water resource needs and will foster increased civilian awareness and involvement in the protection and restoration of our Nation’s waters. The information in this report is intended primarily for those interested or involved in resource management and protection, conservation, regulation, and policymaking at the regional and national levels.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2004

Predicting water quality by relating secchi-disk transparency and chlorophyll a measurements to satellite imagery for Michigan inland lakes, August 2002

Inland lakes are an important economic and environmental resource for Michigan. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality have been cooperatively monitoring the quality of selected lakes in Michigan through the Lake Water Quality Assessment program. Through this program, approximately 730 of Michigan's 11,000 inland lakes will be monitored once during this 15-year study. Targeted lakes will be sampled during spring turnover and again in late summer to characterize water quality. Because more extensive and more frequent sampling is not economically feasible in the Lake Water Quality Assessment program, the U.S. Geological Survey and Michigan Department of Environmental Quality investigate the use of satellite imagery as a means of estimating water quality in unsampled lakes. Satellite imagery has been successfully used in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to compute the trophic state of inland lakes from predicted secchi-disk measurements. Previous attempts of this kind in Michigan resulted in a poorer fit between observed and predicted data than was found for Minnesota or Wisconsin. This study tested whether estimates could be improved by using atmospherically corrected satellite imagery, whether a more appropriate regression model could be obtained for Michigan, and whether chlorophyll a concentrations could be reliably predicted from satellite imagery in order to compute trophic state of inland lakes. Although the atmospheric-correction did not significantly improve estimates of lake-water quality, a new regression equation was identified that consistently yielded better results than an equation obtained from the literature. A stepwise regression was used to determine an equation that accurately predicts chlorophyll a concentrations in northern Lower Michigan.

Michigan↗
USGS2003

Geographic analysis and monitoring at the United States Geological Survey

The Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey assesses the Nation's land surface at a variety of spatial and temporal scales to understand the rates, causes, and consequences of natural and human-induced processes and their interactions that affect the landscape over time. The program plays an important role in developing National Map tools and application. The GAM is a science and synthesis program that not only assesses the rates of changes to the Earth's land surface, but also provides reports on the status and trends of the Nation's land resources on a periodic basis, produces a land-use and land- cover database for the periodically updated map and data set-the Geographic Face of the Nation, and conducts research leading to improved understanding and knowledge about geographic processes. Scientific investigations provide comprehensive information needed to understand the environmental, resource, and economic consequences of landscape change. These analyses responds to the needs of resource managers and offers the American public baseline information to help them understand the dynamic nature of our national landscape and to anticipate the opportunities and consequences of our actions.

Cartography and Geographic Information Science↗
USGS2011

Predicting lake trophic state by relating Secchi-disk transparency measurements to Landsat-satellite imagery for Michigan inland lakes, 2003-05 and 2007-08

Inland lakes are an important economic and environmental resource for Michigan. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment have been cooperatively monitoring the quality of selected lakes in Michigan through the Lake Water Quality Assessment program. Sampling for this program began in 2001; by 2010, 730 of Michigan’s 11,000 inland lakes are expected to have been sampled once. Volunteers coordinated by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment began sampling lakes in 1974 and continue to sample (in 2010) approximately 250 inland lakes each year through the Michigan Cooperative Lakes Monitoring Program. Despite these sampling efforts, it still is impossible to physically collect measurements for all Michigan inland lakes; however, Landsat-satellite imagery has been used successfully in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere to predict the trophic state of unsampled inland lakes greater than 20 acres by producing regression equations relating in-place Secchi-disk measurements to Landsat bands. This study tested three alternatives to methods previously used in Michigan to improve results for predicted statewide Trophic State Index (TSI) computed from Secchi-disk transparency (TSI (SDT)). The alternative methods were used on 14 Landsat-satellite scenes with statewide TSI (SDT) for two time periods (2003– 05 and 2007–08). Specifically, the methods were (1) satellitedata processing techniques to remove areas affected by clouds, cloud shadows, haze, shoreline, and dense vegetation for inland lakes greater than 20 acres in Michigan; (2) comparison of the previous method for producing a single open-water predicted TSI (SDT) value (which was based on an area of interest (AOI) and lake-average approach) to an alternative Gethist method for identifying open-water areas in inland lakes (which follows the initial satellite-data processing and targets the darkest pixels, representing the deepest water, before regression equations are created); and (3) checking to see whether the predicted TSI (SDT) values compared well between two regression equations, one previously used in Michigan and an alternative equation from the hydrologic literature. The combination of improved satellite-data processing techniques and the Gethist method to identify open-water areas in inland lakes during 2003–05 and 2007–08 provided a stronger relation and statistical significance between predicted TSI (SDT) and measured TSI than did the AOI lake-average method; differences in results for the two methods were significant at the 99-percent confidence level. With regard to the comparison of the regression equations, there were no statistically significant differences at the 95-percent confidence level between results from the two equations. The previously used equation, in combination with the Gethist method, yielded coefficient of determination (R 2 ) values of 0.71 and 0.77 for the periods 2003–05 and 2007–08, respectively. The alternative equation, in combination with the Gethist method, yielded R 2 values of 0.74 and 0.75 for 2003–05 and 2007–08, respectively. Predicted TSI (SDT) and measured TSI (SDT) values for lakes used in the regression equations compared well, with R 2 values of 0.95 and 0.96 for predicted TSI (SDT) for 2003–05 and 2007–08, respectively. The R 2 values for statewide predicted TSI (SDT) for all inland lakes with available open-water areas for 2003–05 and 2007–08 were 0.91 and 0.93, respectively. Although the two equations predicted similar trophic-state classes, the alternative equation is planned to be used for future prediction of TSI (SDT) values for Michigan inland lakes, to promote consistency in comparing predicted values between States and for potential use in trend analysis.

Michigan↗
USGS2017

Critical mineral resources of the United States—Economic and environmental geology and prospects for future supply

Summary Mineral commodities are vital for economic growth, improving the quality of life, providing for national defense, and the overall functioning of modern society. Minerals are being used in larger quantities than ever before and in an increasingly diverse range of applications. With the increasing demand for a considerably more diverse suite of mineral commodities has come renewed recognition that competition and conflict over mineral resources can pose significant risks to the manufacturing industries that depend on them. In addition, production of many mineral commodities has become concentrated in relatively few countries (for example, tungsten, rare-earth elements, and antimony in China; niobium in Brazil; and platinum-group elements in South Africa and Russia), thus increasing the risk for supply disruption owing to political, social, or other factors. At the same time, an increasing awareness of and sensitivity to potential environmental and health issues caused by the mining and processing of many mineral commodities may place additional restrictions on mineral supplies. These factors have led a number of Governments, including the Government of the United States, to attempt to identify those mineral commodities that are viewed as most “critical” to the national economy and (or) security if supplies should be curtailed. This book presents resource and geologic information on the following 23 mineral commodities currently among those viewed as important to the national economy and national security of the United States: antimony (Sb), barite (barium, Ba), beryllium (Be), cobalt (Co), fluorite or fluorspar (fluorine, F), gallium (Ga), germanium (Ge), graphite (carbon, C), hafnium (Hf), indium (In), lithium (Li), manganese (Mn), niobium (Nb), platinum-group elements (PGE), rare-earth elements (REE), rhenium (Re), selenium (Se), tantalum (Ta), tellurium (Te), tin (Sn), titanium (Ti), vanadium (V), and zirconium (Zr). For a number of these commodities—for example, graphite, manganese, niobium, and tantalum—the United States is currently wholly dependent on imports to meet its needs. The first two chapters (A and B) deal with general information pertinent to the study of mineral resources. Chapters C through V describe individual mineral commodities and include an overview of current uses of the commodity, identified resources and their distribution nationally and globally, the state of current geologic knowledge, the potential for finding additional deposits nationally and globally, and geoenvironmental issues that may be related to the production and uses of the commodity. These chapters are updates of the commodity chapters published in 1973 in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 820, “United States Mineral Resources.”

Professional Paper↗
USGS2007

Proceedings for a workshop on deposit modeling, mineral resource assessment, and their role in sustainable development

The world's use of nonfuel mineral resources continues to increase to support a growing population and increasing standards of living. The ability to meet this increasing demand is affected especially by concerns about possible environmental degradation associated with minerals production and by competing land uses. What information does the world need to support global minerals development in a sustainable way? Informed planning and decisions concerning sustainability and future mineral resource supply require a long–term perspective and an integrated approach to resource, land use, economic, and environmental management worldwide. Such perspective and approach require unbiased information on the global distribution of identified and especially undiscovered resources, the economic and political factors influencing their development, and the potential environmental consequences of their exploitation. The U.S. Geological Survey and the former Deposit Modeling Program of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) sponsored a workshop on "Deposit Modeling, Mineral Resource Assessment, and Their Role in Sustainable Development" at the 31st International Geological Congress (IGC) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on August 18–19, 2000. The purpose of the workshop was to review the state-of-the-art in mineral deposit modeling and resource assessment and to examine the role of global assessments of nonfuel mineral resources in sustainable development. The workshop addressed questions such as the following: Which of the available mineral deposit models and assessment methods are best suited for predicting the locations, deposit types, and amounts of undiscovered nonfuel mineral resources remaining in the world? What is the availability of global geologic, mineral deposit, and mineral exploration information? How can mineral resource assessments be used to address economic and environmental issues? Presentations included overviews of assessment methods applied in previous national and other small-scale assessments of large regions and of the resulting assessment products and their uses. Twenty-seven people from Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Japan, Peru, Slovenia, South Africa, United States, and Venezuela participated in the 2-day post-Congress workshop. The attendees represented academia, government, environmental organizations, and the mining industry.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Assessment of resource potential from mine tailings using geostatistical modeling for compositions: A methodology and application to Katherine Mine site, Arizona, USA

The mining industry, in most cases, targets a specific valuable commodity that is present in small quantities within large volumes of extracted material. After milling and processing, most of the extracted material and the effluents are stored as waste (tailings) in impoundments, such as dams or waste dumps, or are backfilled into underground mines. In time, tailing materials may become an issue of environmental and health concern due to the hazardous elements, ions, and oxides contained within the waste material. In addition, handling and storage of such waste in dams may pose the risk of dam failure with catastrophic consequences to nature and nearby communities. On the other hand, tailings may offer potential as secondary sources of critical elements (CEs), including rare earth elements (REEs), which may have been overlooked during primary production and processing. Therefore, treating mine tailings as a resource has economic and environmental benefits by reducing the waste from new and historical mine sites through remining. One of the critical steps for taking advantage of these benefits is to spatially quantify the resources and the pollutants, which require the application of adequate data analysis and modeling methods, often to compositional geochemical data. Utilizing adequate methods is especially important for correctly quantifying resource potential, as the quantities will often be at low concentrations. This work presents quantification of resource potential (Au, Ag, Cu, Zn, Pb) and elements of environmental concern (Hg and As) from the tailings of a historic mine site, Katherine Mine, AZ, USA. Data reported by the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) after extensive field campaigns in the 1990s, including sampling from tailing impoundment and surrounding areas for geochemical characterization and geophysical surveys, were used. First, compositional data (CoDa) analysis was employed to explore associations of sampling locations, geochemical parts, and the clustering of samples. Next, sequential Gaussian simulation (SGSIM) was applied to samples that showed a genetic link to tailing material after isometric log-ratio transformation (ilr) and mix/max autocorrelation factor (MAF) transformation for spatial modeling and uncertainty evaluation. Geostatistical results revealed spatial variability of concentrations within the tailing area. Uncertainty evaluation based on realizations indicated that Cu (14.27–20.01 t), Zn (44.23–76.23 t), and Pb (22.56–38.28 t) are the most abundant elements within a 5 %–95 % interval, followed by Ag and Au (~5.3 and 0.18 t, at 50th percentile), respectively. Of the elements of health concern, As was found to be ~4.8 t (50th percentile) in the tailing area. The work also showed that ~0.51 t As, 0.005 t Hg, 0.020 t of Au, and 0.62 t of Ag were carried to Lake Mohave by an ephemeral stream called Katherine Wash, which transects the tailings.

Arizona↗
USGS2013

Challenge theme 5: Current and future needs of energy and mineral resources in the Borderlands and the effects of their development: Chapter 7 in United States-Mexican Borderlands: Facing tomorrow's challenges through USGS science

Exploration and extraction activities related to energy and mineral resources in the Borderlands—such as coal-fired power plants, offshore drilling, and mining—can create issues that have potentially major economic and environmental implications. Resource assessments and development projects, environmental studies, and other related evaluations help to understand some of these issues, such as power plant emissions and the erosion/denudation of abandoned mine lands. Information from predictive modeling, monitoring, and environmental assessments are necessary to understand the full effects of energy and mineral exploration, development, and utilization. The exploitation of these resources can negatively affect human health and the environment, its natural resources, and its ecological services (air, water, soil, recreation, wildlife, etc.). This chapter describes the major energy and mineral issues of the Borderlands and how geologic frameworks, integrated interdisciplinary (geobiologic) investigations, and other related studies can address the anticipated increases in demands on natural resources in the region.

United States-Mexico Borderlands↗
USGS2008

Streamflow characteristics of streams in the Helmand Basin, Afghanistan

A majority of the Afghan population lacks adequate and safe supplies of water because of contamination, lack of water-resources management regulation, and lack of basic infrastructure, compounded by periods of drought and seasonal flooding. Characteristics of historical streamflows are needed to assist with efforts to quantify the water resources of the Helmand Basin. The Helmand Basin is the largest river basin in Afghanistan. It comprises the southern half of the country, draining waters from the Sia Koh Mountains in Herat Province to the eastern mountains in Gardez Province (currently known as the Paktia Province) and the Parwan Mountains northwest of Kabul, and finally draining into the unique Sistan depression between Iran and Afghanistan (Favre and Kamal, 2004). The Helmand Basin is a desert environment with rivers fed by melting snow from the high mountains and infrequent storms. Great fluctuations in streamflow, from flood to drought, can occur annually. Knowledge of the magnitude and time distribution of streamflow is needed to quantify water resources and for water management and environmental planning. Agencies responsible for the development and management of Afghanistan's surface-water resources can use this knowledge for making safe, economical, and environmentally sound water-resource planning decisions. To provide the Afghan managers with necessary streamflow information, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), computed streamflow statistics for data collected at historical gaging stations within the Helmand Basin. The historical gaging stations used are shown in figure 1 and listed in table 1.

Helmand Basin↗
USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
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

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↗
USGS2000

Multicriteria decision analysis applied to Glen Canyon Dam

Conflicts in water resources exist because river-reservoir systems are managed to optimize traditional benefits (e.g., hydropower and flood control), which are historically quantified in economic terms, whereas natural and environmental resources, including in-stream and riparian resources, are more difficult or impossible to quantify in economic terms. Multicriteria decision analysis provides a quantitative approach to evaluate resources subject to river basin management alternatives. This objective quantification method includes inputs from special interest groups, the general public, and concerned individuals, as well as professionals for each resource considered in a trade-off analysis. Multicriteria decision analysis is applied to resources and flow alternatives presented in the environmental impact statement for Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. A numeric rating and priority-weighting scheme is used to evaluate 29 specific natural resource attributes, grouped into seven main resource objectives, for nine flow alternatives enumerated in the environmental impact statement.

Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management↗
USGS2003

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2003

Introduction Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, resources and land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native decisions based in USGS data and analyses support the goals of Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on: water energy and mineral resources; animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance; and natural hazards. Digital data on cartography, energy and mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS also recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year (FY) 2003. Some of these USGS activities were conducted cooperatively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or other Federal entities. Others were collaborations with Tribes, Tribal organizations, and professional societies.

Report↗
USGS2018

The natural capital accounting opportunity: Let's really do the numbers

The nation’s economic accounts provide objective, regular, and standardized information routinely relied upon by public and private decision makers. But they are incomplete. The U.S. and many other nations currently do not account for the natural capital — such as the wildlife, forests, grasslands, soils, and water bodies—upon which all other economic activity rests. By creating formal natural capital accounts (NCA) and ecosystem goods and services (EGS) accounts, governments and businesses can better understand the past, peer into the future, innovate, conserve, and plan for environmental shocks. They would standardize, regularly repeat, and aggregate diverse natural resource, environmental, and social and economic data and could thereby play a significant role in advancing the science of coupled biophysical and social systems.

BioScience↗
USGS2024

Simple stated preference questions can enhance transdisciplinary projects: Linking perceived risks with willingness to spray and pay

Transdisciplinary projects can uncover crucial insights on people’s past and future risk-mitigation behavior. We focus on a novel risk context: increasing health threats from ticks on Staten Island, a New York City borough where the combination of high population density and extensive park systems and green spaces has resulted in a rise in locally-acquired tick-transmitted disease cases. We administered a knowledge, attitudes, and practices survey that additionally included simple economic stated preference questions about people’s willingness to spray tick pesticides in the future. We first analyze factors that are correlated with people’s perceptions of two types of risks: exposure to ticks and infection with Lyme disease. Next, we use the nonmarket valuation questions to test people’s willingness to spray and pay as a function of attributes of the hypothetical pesticides, including cost, effectiveness, and type. Across all model specifications, overall willingness to pay (WTP) to spray increases with increases in pesticide effectiveness, as well as with favorable pesticide type (organic). We uncover threshold pesticide effectiveness levels at which WTP to spray turns positive, and we find that lower pesticide effectiveness is required for organic pesticide. Finally, we test how perceived risks and various individual-specific characteristics correlate with WTP to spray. Combinations of higher perceived risks are linked both with higher WTP and lower breakeven pesticide effectiveness. Our work shows that a broad range of variables influence demand for self-protection actions, both directly and indirectly (through their effects on perceived risks). Such insights on people’s tradeoffs carry important policy implications, but they can be missed if economic information is either not elicited or elicited alone.

New York↗