Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Information Services and Use”

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 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Flood-inundation maps for the Tippecanoe River at Winamac, Indiana

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 6.2 mile reach of the Tippecanoe River at Winamac, Indiana (Ind.), were created by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs. The flood-inundation maps, which can be accessed through the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site at http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/ , depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage 03331753, Tippecanoe River at Winamac, Ind. Current conditions for estimating near-real-time areas of inundation using USGS streamgage information may be obtained on the Internet from the USGS National Water Information System at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/in/nwis/uv?site_no=03331753 . In addition, information has been provided by the USGS to the National Weather Service (NWS) for incorporation into their Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood warning system ( http://water.weather.gov/ahps/ ). The NWS AHPS forecasts flood hydrographs at many sites that are often collocated with USGS streamgages, including the Tippecanoe River at Winamac, Ind. NWS AHPS forecast peak-stage information may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation and forecasts of flood hydrographs at this site. For this study, flood profiles were computed for the Tippecanoe River reach by means of a one-dimensional step-backwater model. The hydraulic model was calibrated by using the most current stage-discharge relations at the Tippecanoe River streamgage, in combination with the current (2014) Federal Emergency Management Agency flood-insurance study for Pulaski County. The calibrated hydraulic model was then used to determine nine water-surface profiles for flood stages at 1-foot intervals referenced to the streamgage datum and ranging from bankfull to the highest stage of the current stage-discharge rating curve. The 1-percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood stage (flood with recurrence intervals within 100 years) has not been determined yet for this streamgage location. The rating has not been developed for the 1-percent AEP because the streamgage dates to only 2001. The simulated water-surface profiles were then used with a geographic information system (GIS) digital elevation model (DEM, derived from Light Detection and Ranging [lidar]) in order to delineate the area flooded at each water level. The availability of these maps, along with Internet information regarding current stage from the USGS streamgage 03331753, Tippecanoe River at Winamac, Ind., and forecast stream stages from the NWS AHPS, provides emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood response activities such as evacuations and road closures, as well as for post-flood recovery efforts.

Indiana↗
USGS2025

Stressor-driven changes in freshwater biological indicators inform spatial management strategies using expert knowledge, observational data, and hierarchical models

Stream ecosystems face continuous pressures from multiple anthropogenic stressors that reshape biological communities and impact ecosystem health and services. Managers can encounter challenges in stewarding ecosystems threatened by multiple stressors, in part because most multiple stressor studies are experimental and, while valuable, offer limited management relevance in targeting these stressors on the landscape. Recent advances in causal inference coupled with large biomonitoring data sets could further understanding of observational stressor-response relationships, aiding management. In this study, we use bioassessment data in the Chesapeake Bay watershed in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States to identify how water quality and physical habitat stressors influence key benthic macroinvertebrate response metrics, considering hierarchical relationships using Bayesian networks. Results suggest water temperature and specific conductivity were prevalent stressors in a mountainous region (northern Appalachians), whereas in an agriculturally dominated region (southern Appalachians) physical habitat alterations were the predominant stressor. In mixed-land use regions (Piedmont & Coastal Plains), specific conductivity was a key stressor, but habitat heterogeneity was important for macroinvertebrate metrics. To illustrate how these stressor-response relationships can be used to guide management decisions, we applied the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework to develop a portfolio of management options based on predicted changes in macroinvertebrate metrics in response to physical habitat and water quality stressors. For example, accepting changes in areas with co-occurring stressors may be the most feasible option, whereas directing changes through stream restoration or water quality improvements may be effective in areas with single stressor groups. By leveraging observational bioassessment data and causal inference to identify key stressor-response relationships, this research supports decision making by building a simple, strategic management portfolio.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2016

Estimated historical distribution of grassland communities of the Southern Great Plains

The purpose of this project was to map the estimated distribution of grassland communities of the Southern Great Plains prior to Euro-American settlement. The Southern Great Plains Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (REA), under the direction of the Bureau of Land Management and the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative, includes four ecoregions: the High Plains, Central Great Plains, Southwestern Tablelands, and the Nebraska Sand Hills. The REA advisors and stakeholders determined that the mapping accuracy of available national land-cover maps was insufficient in many areas to adequately address management questions for the REA. Based on the recommendation of the REA stakeholders, we estimated the potential historical distribution of 10 grassland communities within the Southern Great Plains project area using data on soils, climate, and vegetation from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) including the Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO) and Ecological Site Information System (ESIS). The dominant grassland communities of the Southern Great Plains addressed as conservation elements for the REA area are shortgrass, mixed-grass, and sand prairies. We also mapped tall-grass, mid-grass, northwest mixed-grass, and cool season bunchgrass prairies, saline and foothill grasslands, and semi-desert grassland and steppe. Grassland communities were primarily defined using the annual productivity of dominant species in the ESIS data. The historical grassland community classification was linked to the SSURGO data using vegetation types associated with the predominant component of mapped soil units as defined in the ESIS data. We augmented NRCS data with Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) Biophysical Settings classifications 1) where NRCS data were unavailable and 2) where fifth-level watersheds intersected the boundary of the High Plains ecoregion in Wyoming. Spatial data representing the estimated historical distribution of grassland communities of the Southern Great Plains are provided as a 30 x 30-meter gridded surface (raster dataset). This information will help to address the priority management questions for grassland communities for the Southern Great Plains REA and can be used to inform other regional-level land management decisions.

Southern Great Plains↗
USGS2025

Adapting visitor use management under a changing climate across the U.S. National Park System

Research shows that climate change is already affecting both resources and visitors in U.S. National Parks. We sought to better understand if and how park staff across the National Park Service are adapting to climatic changes that affect visitor use, as well as barriers and challenges to adaptation and information needs. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 63 staff from 31 representative national park units across the United States. We qualitatively coded interviews for themes using deductive and inductive coding approaches. Results indicate that park staff are already taking action to adapt to changes that are affecting visitor use, including efforts to increase resiliency of infrastructure and to support the health and safety of visitors (e.g., increased communication, preventative search and rescue, changes to programming). Common barriers and challenges include institutional factors (such as funding, staffing capacity, and shifting priorities), uncertainty about future conditions, and difficulties with prioritizing climate adaptation. Data, tool, and information needs varied, but commonly included social science data such as visitor surveys, and tools to help synthesize and standardize information and help translate science into action. These results provide insights into current actions park staff are taking to adapt to climate change and what resources may be helpful in the future to lower the challenges and barriers to adaptation.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2015

Recent changes in annual area burned in interior Alaska: The impact of fire management

The Alaskan boreal forest is characterized by frequent extensive wildfires whose spatial extent has been mapped for the past 70 years. Simple predictions based on this record indicate that area burned will increase as a response to climate warming in Alaska. However, two additional factors have affected the area burned in this time record: the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) switched from cool and moist to warm and dry in the late 1970s and the Alaska Fire Service instituted a fire suppression policy in the late 1980s. In this paper a geographic information system (GIS) is used in combination with statistical analyses to reevaluate the changes in area burned through time in Alaska considering both the influence of the PDO and fire management. The authors found that the area burned has increased since the PDO switch and that fire management drastically decreased the area burned in highly suppressed zones. However, the temporal analysis of this study shows that the area burned is increasing more rapidly in suppressed zones than in the unsuppressed zone since the late 1980s. These results indicate that fire policies as well as regional climate patterns are important as large-scale controls on fires over time and across the Alaskan boreal forest.

Alaska↗
USGS2022

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗
USGS2012

Flood-inundation maps for the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, Allenstown, and Chichester, New Hampshire

Digital flood-inundation maps for a 16.5-mile reach of the Suncook River in Epsom, Pembroke, Allenstown, and Chichester, N.H., from the confluence with the Merrimack River to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Suncook River streamgage 01089500 at Depot Road in North Chichester, N.H., were created by the USGS in cooperation with the New Hampshire Department of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. The inundation maps presented in this report depict estimates of the areal extent and depth of flooding corresponding to selected water levels (stages) at the USGS streamgage at Suncook River at North Chichester, N.H. (station 01089500). The current conditions at the USGS streamgage may be obtained on the Internet (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nh/nwis/uv/?site_no=01089500&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060). The National Weather Service forecasts flood hydrographs at many places that are often collocated with USGS streamgages. Forecasted peak-stage information is available on the Internet at the National Weather Service (NWS) Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) flood-warning system site (http://water.weather.gov/ahps/) and may be used in conjunction with the maps developed in this study to show predicted areas of flood inundation. These maps along with real-time stream stage data from the USGS Suncook River streamgage (station 01089500) and forecasted stream stage from the NWS will provide emergency management personnel and residents with information that is critical for flood-response activities, such as evacuations, road closures, disaster declarations, and post-flood recovery. The maps, along with current stream-stage data from the USGS Suncook River streamgage and forecasted stream-stage data from the NWS, can be accessed at the USGS Flood Inundation Mapping Science Web site http://water.usgs.gov/osw/flood_inundation/.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2006

Well logging in ground‐water hydrology

In 1966 more than 50 billion gallons of water was pumped daily from an estimated 10 to 15 million water wells in the United States. This was more than one‐sixth of the national withdrawal of water . On the basis of past rates of increase, a much greater future use of ground water is suggested. Our annual investment in water wells is one‐half to three‐quarter billion dollars, not including pumps and plumbing. In 1964 approximately 436,000 new wells were drilled; however, less than 1 percent of these wells were logged by any geophysical means. The application of _ge_o.phy.sical well logging to ground‐water hydrology is comparable to its use in petroleum exploration in the 1930's; however, we can take advantage of equipment and interpretation techniques developed in the oil industry that are available now for use in ground‐water investigations. Although most petroleum well logging techniques may be utilized in hydrology ; modifications in equipment and interpretation are necessary because of basic economic and environmental differences between petroleum and ground‐water evaluation. If logging is to be widely applied to ground‐water exploration and evaluation, the expense of equipment and services must be reduced. Fortunately, this can be accomplished, because most water wells are not as deep as oil wells and the temperatures and pressures are lower. The Water Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey is conducting research on the application of borehole geophysics to ground‐water hydrology . The following logging devices are utilized in the evaluation of ground‐water environments: spontaneous potential, resistivity, gamma, gamma‐gamma, neutron, radioactive tracer, flowmeter, caliper, fluid resistivity, gradient and differential temperature, and sonic velocity. Lightweight logging sondes and control modules are operated by one man, either on a vehicle‐mounted 6,000‐foot logger or on a suitcase‐mounted 500‐foot logger. An inexpensive magnetic tape system has been developed and is used routinely for log recording and playback. If commercial well logging service is to be widely used in ground‐water exploration and development, water well contractors, and State and municipal agencies must be educated on the advantages of obtaining more information from each hole drilled. It will be necessary also to demonstrate how well logging can provide much of this information. In addition, the well logging industry must adapt their equipment and services to the requirements of ground‐water hydrology . The need for additional logging capability in this field exists at the present time and is expected to increase. Hopefully industry will be able to fill the gap.

Groundwater↗
USGS2009

The National Map - geographic names

The Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN), contains information about the official names for places, features, and areas in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the territories and outlying areas of the United States, including Antarctica. It is the geographic names component of The National Map. The BGN maintains working relationships with State names authorities to cooperate in achieving the standardization of geographic names. The GNIS contains records on more than 2 million geographic names in the United States - from populated places, schools, reservoirs, and parks to streams, valleys, springs, ridges, and every feature type except roads and highways. Entries include information such as the federally-recognized name and variant names and spellings for the feature; former names; the status of the name as determined by the BGN; county or counties in which each named feature is located; geographic coordinates that locate the approximate center of an aerial feature or the mouth and source of a linear feature, such as a stream; name of the cell of the USGS topographic map or maps on which the feature may appear; elevation figures derived from the National Elevation Dataset; bibliographic code for the source of the name; BGN decision dates and historical information are available for some features. Data from the GNIS are used for emergency preparedness, mapmaking, local and regional planning, service delivery routing, marketing, site selection, environmental analysis, genealogical research, and other applications.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2009

Search without Boundaries Using Simple APIs

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Library, where the author serves as the digital services librarian, is increasingly challenged to make it easier for users to find information from many heterogeneous information sources. Information is scattered throughout different software applications (i.e., library catalog, federated search engine, link resolver, and vendor websites), and each specializes in one thing. How could the library integrate the functionalities of one application with another and provide a single point of entry for users to search across? To improve the user experience, the library launched an effort to integrate the federated search engine into the library's intranet website. The result is a simple search box that leverages the federated search engine's built-in application programming interfaces (APIs). In this article, the author describes how this project demonstrated the power of APIs and their potential to be used by other enterprise search portals inside or outside of the library.

Computers in Libraries↗
USGS2016

Archive of Digital Chirp Subbottom Profile Data Collected During USGS Cruise 14BIM05 Offshore of Breton Island, Louisiana, August 2014

From August 11 to 31, 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ), in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS ), conducted a geophysical survey to investigate the geologic controls on barrier island framework and long-term sediment transport offshore of Breton Island, Louisiana as part of a broader USGS study on Barrier Island Mapping ( BIM ). Additional details related to this activity can be found by searching the USGS's Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System (CMGDS), for field activity 2014-317-FA (also known as 14BIM05). These surveys were funded through the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program ( CMGP ) and the Louisiana Outer Coast Early Restoration Project. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital chirp subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System ( GIS ) files, Field Activity Collection System ( FACS ) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee ( FGDC ) metadata. Gained digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Abbreviations page for explanations of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. All chirp systems use an acoustic signal of continuously varying frequency; the EdgeTech 512i system used during this survey produced high-resolution, shallow-penetration (typically less than 50 milliseconds [ ms] ) profile images of sub-seafloor stratigraphy. The towfish contains a transducer that transmits and receives acoustic energy and typically is towed 1–2 meters ( m ) below the sea surface. As transmitted acoustic energy intersects density boundaries, such as the seafloor or sub-surface sediment layers, some energy is reflected back toward the transducer, received, and recorded by a Personal Computer ( PC) -based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at regular intervals (for example, 0.125 seconds ( s) ) and returned energy is recorded for a specific duration (for example, 50 ms ). In this way, a two-dimensional ( 2-D ) vertical image of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship's track is produced. Figure 2 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters and table 2 for trackline statistics. The archived trace data are in standard SEG Y rev. 0 format (Barry and others, 1975); the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header are in American Standard Code for Information Interchange ( ASCII ) format instead of Extended Binary Coded Decimal Interchange Code ( EBCDIC ) format. The SEG Y files are available on the DVD version of this report or online, downloadable via the USGS Coastal and Marine Geoscience Data System ( http://cmgds.marine.usgs.gov ). The data are also available for viewing using GeoMapApp ( http://www.geomapapp.org ) and Virtual Ocean ( http://www.virtualocean.org ) multi-platform open source software. The Web version of this archive does not contain the SEG Y trace files. To obtain the complete DVD archive, contact USGS Information Services at 1-888-ASK-USGS or infoservices@usgs.gov. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix ( SU ) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2010). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles are provided as Graphics Interchange Format ( GIF ) images processed and gained using SU software and can be viewed from the Profiles page or by using the links located on the trackline maps; refer to the Software page for links to example SU processing scripts.

Louisana↗
USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗
USGS2013

Fort Collins Science Center Ecosystem Dynamics branch--interdisciplinary research for addressing complex natural resource issues across landscapes and time

The Ecosystem Dynamics Branch of the Fort Collins Science Center offers an interdisciplinary team of talented and creative scientists with expertise in biology, botany, ecology, geology, biogeochemistry, physical sciences, geographic information systems, and remote-sensing, for tackling complex questions about natural resources. As demand for natural resources increases, the issues facing natural resource managers, planners, policy makers, industry, and private landowners are increasing in spatial and temporal scope, often involving entire regions, multiple jurisdictions, and long timeframes. Needs for addressing these issues include (1) a better understanding of biotic and abiotic ecosystem components and their complex interactions; (2) the ability to easily monitor, assess, and visualize the spatially complex movements of animals, plants, water, and elements across highly variable landscapes; and (3) the techniques for accurately predicting both immediate and long-term responses of system components to natural and human-caused change. The overall objectives of our research are to provide the knowledge, tools, and techniques needed by the U.S. Department of the Interior, state agencies, and other stakeholders in their endeavors to meet the demand for natural resources while conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecosystem Dynamics scientists use field and laboratory research, data assimilation, and ecological modeling to understand ecosystem patterns, trends, and mechanistic processes. This information is used to predict the outcomes of changes imposed on species, habitats, landscapes, and climate across spatiotemporal scales. The products we develop include conceptual models to illustrate system structure and processes; regional baseline and integrated assessments; predictive spatial and mathematical models; literature syntheses; and frameworks or protocols for improved ecosystem monitoring, adaptive management, and program evaluation. The descriptions in this fact sheet provide snapshots of our three research emphases, followed by descriptions of select current projects.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2018

Phase 1 studies summary of major findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, South San Francisco Bay, California

Executive Summary The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (Project) is one of the largest restoration efforts in the United States. It is located in South San Francisco Bay of California. It is unique not only for its size—more than 15,000 acres—but also for its location adjacent to one of the nation’s largest urban areas, home to more than 4 million people (Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties). The Project is intended to restore and enhance wetlands in South San Francisco Bay while providing for flood management, wildlife-oriented public access, and recreation. Restoration goals of the project are to provide a mosaic of saltmarsh habitat to benefit marsh species and managed ponds to benefit waterbirds, throughout 3 complexes and 54 former salt ponds. Although much is known about the project area, significant uncertainties remain with a project of this geographic and temporal scale of an estimated 50 years to complete the restoration. For example, in order to convert anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of the existing managed ponds to saltmarsh habitat, conservation managers first enhance the habitat of managed ponds in order to increase use by waterbirds, and provide migratory, wintering, and nesting habitat for more than 90 species of waterbirds. Project managers have concluded that the best way to address these uncertainties is to carefully implement the project in phases and learn from the outcome of each phase. The Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) identifies specific restoration targets for multiple aspects of the Project and defines triggers that would necessitate some type of management action if a particular aspect is trending negatively. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) biologist Laura Valoppi served as the project Lead Scientist and oversaw implementation of the AMP in coordination with other members of the Project Management Team (PMT), comprised of representatives from the California State Coastal Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To implement the AMP, the PMT have selected and funded applied studies and monitoring projects to address key uncertainties. This information is used by the PMT to make decisions about current management of the project area and future restoration actions in order to meet project. This document summarizes the major scientific findings from studies conducted from 2009 to 2016, as part of the science program that was conducted in conjunction with Phase 1 restoration and management actions. Additionally, this report summarizes the management response to the study results under the guidance of the AMP framework and provides a list of suggested studies to be conducted in “Phase 2–A scorecard summarizing the Project’s progress toward meeting the AMP goals for a range of Project objectives.” The scoring to date indicates that the Project is meeting or exceeding expectations for sediment accretion and western snowy plover ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ) recovery. There is uncertainty with respect to objectives for California gulls ( Larus californicus ), California least tern ( Sternula antillarum ), steelhead trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), and regulatory water quality objectives. Water quality and algal blooms, specifically of the managed ponds, is indicated as trending negative. However, the vast majority of objectives are trending positive, including increased abundance for a number of bird guilds, increasing marsh habitat, maintenance of mudflats, visitor experience, estuarine fish numbers, and special-status marsh species numbers.

California↗
USGS2025

Grand Canyon River Alert System—Implementing an emergency alert system for wilderness recreation

The Grand Canyon River Alert System (GCRAS) provides government-issued emergency alerts to wilderness recreationalists in the Grand Canyon, who are often outside the bounds of cellular signal reception. GCRAS is a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center), National Weather Service, Coconino County Emergency Management, and National Park Service. Technological advances in satellite communications have improved satellite signal availability in remote areas and increased the reliability of satellite communications using personal devices such as commercially available satellite messaging devices. These advancements have presented an opportunity to create a novel emergency alert system designed primarily for backcountry visitors to provide improved communications for periods of increased risk and potentially dangerous situations in the backcountry. GCRAS is designed specifically for the distinctive needs of satellite messaging devices and features reduced character count messages, short-code signup capability, and the ability to unsubscribe at any time. After a positive test of the system in March 2024, the system went live to the public and has been used more than two dozen times in 2024 to inform boaters and hikers of hazards (such as debris flows and flash floods) in the Grand Canyon. Satellite signal availability and device response time varies based on location and service provider, but initial testing showed messages arriving within 2–10 minutes. Although GCRAS was developed specifically for the Grand Canyon, the GCRAS framework could be applied to other wilderness areas. It can be used by emergency management authorities, land-management agencies, search and rescue units, and those concerned with public safety to help increase communication with people visiting or living in areas that are outside the signal of more traditional emergency-notification methods, such as cellular, wireless emergency alerts, and sirens.

Arizona↗
USGS2003

Historic range of variability in landscape structure in subalpine forests of the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA

A measure of the historic range of variability (HRV) in landscape structure is essential for evaluating current landscape patterns of Rocky Mountain coniferous forests that have been subjected to intensive timber harvest. We used a geographic information system (GIS) and FRAGSTATS to calculate key landscape metrics on two ???130,000-ha landscapes in the Greater Yellowstone Area, USA: one in Yellowstone National Park (YNP), which has been primarily shaped by natural fires, and a second in the adjacent Targhee National Forest (TNF), which has undergone intensive clearcutting for nearly 30 years. Digital maps of the current and historical landscape in YNP were developed from earlier stand age maps developed by Romme and Despain. Maps of the TNF landscape were adapted from United States Forest Service Resource Information System (RIS) data. Key landscape metrics were calculated at 20-yr intervals for YNP for the period from 1705-1995. These metrics were used to first evaluate the relative effects of small vs. large fire events on landscape structure and were then compared to similar metrics calculated for both pre- and post-harvest landscapes of the TNF. Large fires, such as those that burned in 1988, produced a structurally different landscape than did previous, smaller fires (1705-1985). The total number of patches of all types was higher after 1988 (694 vs. 340-404 before 1988), and mean patch size was reduced by almost half (186 ha vs. 319-379 ha). The amount of unburned forest was less following the 1988 fires (63% vs. 72-90% prior to 1988), yet the number of unburned patches increased by nearly an order of magnitude (230 vs. a maximum of 41 prior to 1988). Total core area and mean core area per patch decreased after 1988 relative to smaller fires (???73,700 ha vs. 87,000-110,000 ha, and 320 ha vs. 2,123 ha, respectively). Notably, only edge density was similar (17 m ha-1 after 1988) to earlier landscapes (9.8-14.2 m ha-1). Three decades of timber harvesting dramatically altered landscape structure in the TNF. Total number of patches increased threefold (1,481 after harvest vs. 437 before harvest), and mean patch size decreased by ???70% (91.3 ha vs. 309 ha). None of the post-harvest landscape metrics calculated for the TNF fell within the HRV as defined in YNP, even when the post-1988 landscape was considered. In contrast, pre-harvest TNF landscape metrics were all within, or very nearly within, the HRV for YNP While reference conditions such as those identified by this study are useful for local and regional landscape evaluation and planning, additional research is necessary to understand the consequences of changes in landscape structure for population, community, ecosystem, and landscape function.

Landscape Ecology↗
USGS2018

Advancing marine biological observations and data requirements of the complementary Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) Frameworks

Measurements of the status and trends of key indicators for the ocean and marine life are required to inform policy and management in the context of growing human uses of marine resources, coastal development, and climate change. Two synergistic efforts identify specific priority variables for monitoring: Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) through the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), and Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) from the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON). Both systems support reporting against internationally agreed conventions and treaties. GOOS, established under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), plays a leading role in coordinating global monitoring of the ocean and in the definition of EOVs. GEO BON is a global biodiversity observation network that coordinates observations to enhance management of the world’s biodiversity and promote both the awareness and accounting of ecosystem services. Convergence and agreement between these two efforts are required to streamline existing and new marine observation programs to advance scientific knowledge effectively and to support the sustainable use and management of ocean spaces and resources. In this context, the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON), a thematic component of GEO BON, is collaborating with GOOS, the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), and the Integrated Marine Biosphere Research (IMBeR) project to ensure that EBVs and EOVs are complementary, representing alternative uses of a common set of scientific measurements. This work is informed by the Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), an intergovernmental body of technical experts that helps international coordination on best practices for observing, data management and services, combined with capacity development expertise. Characterizing biodiversity and understanding its drivers will require incorporation of observations from traditional and molecular taxonomy, animal tagging and tracking efforts, ocean biogeochemistry, and ocean observatory initiatives including deep ocean and seafloor. The partnership between large-scale ocean observing and product distribution initiatives (MBON, OBIS, JCOMM, and GOOS) is an expedited, effective way to support international policy-level assessments (e.g., the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services or IPBES), along with the implementation of international development goals (e.g., the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals).

Frontiers in Marine Science↗
USGS1989

Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration: a literature summary

Riparian ecosystems generally compose a minor proportion of surrounding areas, but typically are more structurally diverse and more productive in plant and animal biomass than adjacent upland areas. Riparian areas supply food, cover, and water (especially important in the arid West) for a large diversity of animals, and serve as migration routes and forest connectors between habitats for a variety of wildlife, particularly ungulates and birds. Because riparian ecosystems often are relatively small areas and occur in conjunction with waterways, they are vulnerable to severe alteration. Riparian ecosystems throughout the U.S. have been heavily impacted by man's activities. Riparian ecosystem creation and restoration have been used as mitigation for project impacts from highway, bridge, and pipeline construction; water development; flood control channel modifications; industrial and residential development; agriculture; irrigation; livestock grazing; mining; and accidental habitat loss. Creation of a riparian ecosystem in| a more mesic upland area (e.g., ‘grassland or cropland) adjacent to a river requires appropriate water supply and grading the topography to suitable elevations to support plantings of riparian vegetation. Restoration involves returning the ecosystem to pre disturbance conditions and typically implies revegetation. Removing exotic vegetation or restoring water supplies to pre disturbance level also may be involved. Enhancement of riparian ecosystems commonly refers to improving existing conditions to increase habitat value, usually by increasing plant or community diversity to increase value for wildlife. Managing a riparian ecosystem typically involves enhancement techniques. However, creation and restoration projects often involve use of techniques considered more management-oriented (e.g., fencing to prevent cattle grazing until planted vegetation of a created or restored wetland is established). Protection of an existing riparian ecosystem from impact should be of utmost importance during planning and construction phases of development projects. If loss or damage is unavoidable, wetland creation or restoration can be used as mitigation. Compared to other wetland types (e.g., coastal wetlands), projects and techniques involving creation or restoration of riparian ecosystems are not well documented. For example, only 8% of the records in the WCR Data Base contained information on riparian ecosystems, whereas 31% of the records contained information on coastal emergent or forested ecosystems. To provide a source of currently available literature, riparian information from 92 records (primarily published papers or reports) in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Wetland Creation-Restoration (WCR) Data Base (Schneller-McDonald et al. 1988) was used to develop a literature summary of creation and restoration of riparian ecosystems. The summary provides an overview of the status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., a discussion of several riparian functions, and a review of some techniques used for planning, implementing, monitoring, and measuring project success of creation-restoration efforts. Case studies of various creation or restoration projects are used to demonstrate these techniques and to report some results of their use. Several well-documented case studies are discussed in detail to illustrate more extensive efforts to plan, implement, or monitor riparian ecosystem creation-restoration projects. For the purpose of this report, riparian ecosystems are defined as landscapes adjacent to drainageways of floodplains that exhibit vegetation, soil, and hydrologic mosaics along topographic and moisture gradients that are distinct from the predominant landscape surface types. Major plant communities are described under palustrine system in Cowardin et al. (1979). Literature from the WCR Data Base was used to provide a summary of riparian ecosystem creation-restoration literature. Thus, information concerning natural systems is not included unless discussed in these articles. This focus allows the reader to compare relative information available on riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts. However, this focus also results in limited information in some sections of the report (e.g., Status of Riparian Ecosystems in the U.S.). Individuals involved in riparian ecosystem creation-restoration efforts are encouraged to thoroughly examine available literature on natural and altered systems. Brinson et al. (1981) provide a comprehensive review and synthesis of the ecology and status of riparian ecosystems. Over 500 articles are cited in their 124-page report. Chapters include the following topics: status of riparian ecosystems in the U.S., ecological functions and properties of riparian ecosystems (e.g., geomorphology, primary productivity, nutrient cycling, hydrology), importance of riparian ecosystems to fish and wildlife, and considerations in valuation (ecologic and economic) of riparian ecosystems. Brinson et al. (1981) also discuss management of riparian ecosystems. Riparian ecosystem management literature was not included in the WCR Data Base, unless the article also discussed creation or restoration.

Report↗