USGS ScienceSearch

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “People, Land, and Water”

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

Conservation: Where we stand: Review of Water, land, and people

A distinguished conservationist, just returned from more than a year in those Pacific islands held in trust by the United States, reports that representatives of the government there are nearly completely concerned with the maintenance of an administrative organization. Actual advances in matters of land use, of maintaining the material and mental welfare of the native population, and the preservation of the most interesting remnants of untouched habitat, are just never made. Any such oversimplification is, of course, subject to error in detail, but it nevertheless stands as a touchstone to where we stand in conservation. In much more guarded phrases, and with considerable supporting data, Bernard Frank and Anthony Netboy say much the same thing about governmental conservation in the United States in their recently published Water, Land, and People .

The Living Wilderness

Breccia-pipe uranium mining in northern Arizona: Estimate of resources and assessment of historical effects

About 1 million acres of Federal land in the Grand Canyon region of Arizona were temporarily withdrawn from new mining claims in July 2009 by the Secretary of the Interior because of concern that increased uranium mining could have negative impacts on the land, water, people, and wildlife. During a 2-year interval, a Federal team led by the Bureau of Land Management is evaluating the effects of withdrawing these lands for extended periods. As part of this team, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a series of short-term studies to examine the historical effects of breccia-pipe uranium mining in the region. The USGS studies provide estimates of uranium resources affected by the possible land withdrawal, examine the effects of previous breccia-pipe mining, summarize water-chemistry data for streams and springs, and investigate potential biological pathways of exposure to uranium and associated contaminants. This fact sheet summarizes results through December 2009 and outlines further research needs.

Arizona

Climate adaptation Science Centers—Annual report for 2018

2018 marked the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center! With the passage of the fiscal year 2018 budget on March 23, 2018, our program name was changed from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to the National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC). The eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers were renamed Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs). The name changes more clearly align the national and regional centers and emphasize their focus on meeting natural resource adaptation needs. Although the program has a new name, our mission has not changed. We are still hard at work delivering science to help fish, wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a changing climate. During the past 10 years, the NCASC and the eight regional CASCs funded over 425 science projects and built a network of research partners, resource management stakeholders, interdisciplinary staff, fellows, and early career researchers. In celebration of our work and accomplishments over the last 10 years, the NCASC began a monthly web post series on “10 Things You May Not Know” about topics our science has focused on, including drought, glaciers, and wildfire. Additionally, CASCs that had completed their initial hosting agreement with the USGS underwent a formal review and recompetition process. New hosting agreements were awarded to the Southwest and North Central CASCs in 2018. Read the 2018 annual report to learn more about the CASCs' great science, partnerships, capacity building, and more from 2018.

Open-File Report

Michigan and Landsat

Water means a lot to Michigan, often called the Great Lakes State. The name “Michigan” comes from an Ojibwe word meaning large, or great, water or lake. As the only State touching four of the five Great Lakes—Michigan, Superior, Huron, and Erie—it claims the longest freshwater coastline in the United States. Yet Michigan is not just about water—forests, agriculture, mines, cities, and even sand dunes stretch across the State’s landscape. Much of what happens on the land does connect in some way with Michigan’s inland and coastal waters. Michigan relies on a healthy environment to support its residents, abundant tourists, and diverse species of wildlife that call the State and its surrounding waters home. From hundreds of miles above, Landsat satellites provide a clearer picture of the connections among land, water, and the people and wildlife that inhabit the State.

Michigan

Influenza A virus infections in land birds, People's Republic of China

Water birds are considered the reservoir for avian influenza viruses. We examined this assumption by sampling and real-time reverse transcription-PCR testing of 939 Asian land birds of 153 species. Influenza A infection was found, particularly among migratory species. Surveillance programs for monitoring spread of these viruses need to be redesigned.

Emerging Infectious Diseases

FrogwatchUSA

full text: Frogs and toads are perhaps the most approachable and available of all our wildlife. In many, if not most places, they are abundant. In wetter parts of the East, almost anyone outside on a warm rainy night in spring will hear their dream-like calls, bellows, trills and snores. Even in the deserts of the Southwest, a nocturnal trip after a summer monsoon will yield toads moving across the roads toward a cacophonous orgy of mating and calling in the roadside ditches and desert pools. Birds share with frogs and toads this same sense of presence in our daily lives. But the difference is that birds are like the attractive neighbor who just never gives you the time of day, while frogs are more like the troglodyte who appears regularly to chat, philosophize, and have a beer. Uninvited, frogs appear in our water gardens, toads are on our stoops in the morning, we catch them when we are kids, raise their babies in the aquarium, and feel sorry when we find we have run them over with the lawnmower. When concerns about declining populations of amphibians reached the mass media, the Secretaries' office became involved. In addition to using traditional research mechanisms to investigate the problem, the Secretary also wanted to involve the public directly. The combination of high public appeal and the relative ease with which frog calls can be learned made a large-scale monitoring program for frogs and toads possible. What emerged was a program called Frogwatch USA, modeled after a successful Canadian program with a similar name. A web site was created (www.frogwatch.org) that presented potential frogwatchers with directions and a way to register their site online as well as enter their data. Observers chose where to count frogs depending on what they felt was important. For some it was their backyard, others chose vulnerable wetlands in their neighborhoods, or spots on local refuges and parks. Initially funded at $8,000 a year and then after two years increased to $25,000, most of the first part of this program's life was spent developing the tools and web site to document counts of frogs online. Despite the lack of time available to promote the program, send out press releases and recruit observers, news of the program quickly spread by word of mouth and the electronic media. Many newspaper articles later, we found a large number of people had become involved with counting frogs in their neighborhoods and backyards. Current figures show 1,456 observers who have registered at 1,683 sites logging almost 5,000 visits. These visits yield information on when and what species are calling from wetlands throughout the United States. These records are usually the only records of information about frogs and toads for those sites and become a permanent record that can be revisited in future years. Additionally, when observers make a lot of visits or there are many sites in a region, a phenology of calls can be created that documents when it is most likely in that year for each species to be recorded. Finally, even for those observers whose data we may mistrust and therefore are likely to eliminate from analyses, these people have taken the time to leave their televisions, go outside, and directly experience frogs, toads, and all that occur in Nature. In 1999 it was decided that FrogwatchUSA needed to work with another group that specifically focused on environmental education and outreach. After talking to a number of organizations we found that the National Wildlife Federation, with their Backyard Wildlife Habitat, Endangered Species, and other programs along with their four million members who are interested in nature, would be an excellent match. Thus a partnership was born. After over a year of work between Interior and National Wildlife Federation biologists and lawyers, an agreement has been created that places the Federation as the lead of Frogwatch USA. It will now take care of res

People, Land, and Water

Pepperweed: a growing threat to western wildlife habitat

Counts on photographs and visual estimates of the numbers of territorial gulls are usually reliable indicators of the number of gull nests, but single visual estimates are not adequate to measure the number of nests in individual colonies. To properly interpret gull counts requires that several islands with known numbers of nests be photographed to establish the ratio of gulls to nests applicable for a given local census. Visual estimates are adequate to determine total breeding gull numbers by regions. Neither visual estimates nor photography will reliably detect annual changes of less than about 2.5 percent.

People, Land, and Water

Contaminant studies in the Sierra Nevadas

1. 1. Barred owls fed at a sub-maintenance (SM) level had significantly (P < 0.01) longer meal to pellet intervals (MPI)/g eaten/kg body weight (BW) than those fed at an above maintenance (AM) level; MPI/g per kg for owls fed at a maintenance (M) level was intermediate but significantly (P < 0.01) different from both SM and AM. 2. 2. During SM feeding, MPI/g per kg gradually increased. 3. 3. The proportion of a meal occurring in a pellet was less in ?hungry? owls whether losing weight (SM) or gaining (AM) as compared to owls maintaining their normal body weight (M). 4. 4. SM fed owls appear to be able to increase digestion time as well as thoroughness of digestion.

People, Land, and Water