SEARCH · Search USGS
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.
This document was prepared to help scientists and the public, both of whom may not be familiar with bee taxonomy, learn how to practically identify bees in sagebrush steppe and shrubland habitats in southwest Idaho. We provide information to identify bees to the level of family and genus. A tentative list of the bee genera captured at sites used for insect community studies is included.
The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) has been the cornerstone of continental bird conservation and management for hundreds of North American bird species in the United States and Canada for more than 50 years. This strategic plan was developed in collaboration with key partners and stakeholders and charts the ambitious course for the BBS over the next decade (2020–30). Using this plan as a guide, the BBS program will set out to improve the breadth and depth of standardized data collection and analytical products; ensure its products are widely used and recognized as the authoritative source for long-term population change information for most birds; and secure adequate resources, internally and through partnerships, to realize the expanded vision of the BBS intended to support avian management needs through 2030.
Executive Summary Migratory behavior among ungulates in the Western United States occurs in response to changing forage quality and quantity, weather patterns, and predation risk. As snow melts and vegetation green-up begins in late spring and early summer, many migratory ungulates leave their winter range and move to higher elevation summer ranges to access high-quality forage and areas with vegetative cover for protection during fawning. Ungulates remain on these ranges until the fall when increasing snowfall and decreasing temperatures trigger them to migrate back to their lower elevation winter ranges. While researchers have begun to assess the effects of physical barriers such as roads and energy infrastructure on migration, less attention has been paid to understanding how changing climate conditions might affect ungulate movements and range habitats. Does earlier spring green-up make ungulates leave their winter ranges sooner? Do persistent drought conditions reduce the carrying capacity of seasonal range habitats or lead to shifts in migration pathways? These and other questions remain largely unanswered but could have cascading effects on ungulate population dynamics and migratory behavior. In February 2018, the Secretary of the Interior signed Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362 (SO3362), “Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors.” The order, which focuses on elk, mule deer, and pronghorn in 11 Western States, directs the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to partner with State wildlife agencies on their priorities and objectives for identifying and conserving ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat. The USGS Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs) were established to help managers of the Nation’s fish, wildlife, waters, and lands understand the effects of climate change and adapt to changing conditions. To support the recent Department of the Interior (DOI) emphasis on ungulate migration corridors and winter-range habitat, this report assesses current information on how climate change could affect elk, mule deer, and pronghorn migration. The report synthesizes the drivers of migration, outlines what is known about how climate change might affect these drivers, and summarizes management priorities and science needs related to ungulate migration corridors and range habitat. A review of the literature on ungulate migration shows that the core drivers of spring migration are the timing of spring green-up and snowmelt, and the core driver of fall migration is winter severity. After exploring what is known about how these drivers affect or could be affected by climate change, several pathways through which ungulate migration could be altered were identified: (1) ungulates alter migration timing to better track plant phenology or in response to changes in winter conditions; (2) ungulates change their migration route or distance traveled during migration to accommodate changes in environmental conditions; and (3) ungulate populations that are currently migratory may begin to demonstrate interannual variability in whether they migrate, depending on environmental conditions and density-dependence, and may remain resident for sets of consecutive years. Through discussions with managers, physical barriers to movement such as roads and fences were identified as a core concern. In addition, the primary research needs of States are the acquisition and analysis of data on ungulate movements, to refine delineation of winter range, summer range, and corridors, and to support a better understanding of how ungulates use these habitats. When it comes to understanding climate effects, managers were more concerned with understanding the vulnerability of winter- and summer-range habitats than the vulnerability of migration corridors because of the influence of summer and winter forage on ungulate condition and reproductive success. Managers were also concerned about how forage quality and quantity might change because of stressors such as drought, wildfire, and invasive species and how they might need to alter habitat-treatment strategies as a result. More baseline data are needed before effective projections of ungulate migration, at a West-wide scale under climate change, can be made. These data needs include (1) more clearly defined corridors and seasonal range habitats; (2) a comprehensive understanding of the ecological drivers of migration across ungulate species and populations; and (3) the identification of environmental thresholds for key variables that influence migration, above which ungulates alter migratory behavior. The CASCs have several opportunities to play a role in addressing these needs. The CASCs could initiate projects to identify past and potential future changes and trends in key variables known to affect ungulate migration, such as plant phenology, forage quality, or winter severity. However, it would be difficult to use this information to determine what those trends mean for ungulate migration due to the lack of knowledge about environmental thresholds for ungulates. Additional projects would be required to compare multiple years of movement data with key variables to define thresholds. Once available, information on environmental thresholds could be integrated with projections of key variables to forecast the likelihood that the migration routes or the distance traveled could change—another area in which the CASCs could contribute. A more immediate role for the CASCs would be to carry out synthesis projects. One such project could summarize the “state of the science” on the drivers of ungulate migration. Although there are dozens of population- and location-specific studies on this topic, collating this information could help highlight trends in migration drivers that span species and geographies: a necessary first step toward determining the extent to which migration drivers could be affected by climate change. A second project could focus on what is known about how climate variability and change affect ungulate life-histories, population dynamics, and migration in the Western United States. The goal of this effort could be to identify knowledge clusters and information gaps that require further investigation. Together, these synthesized products could focus future scientific activities on the most pressing issues of ungulate migration and climate change in the Western United States.
Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.
Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.
The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across a large portion of the Western United States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, exotic plant invasions, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and insure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for over 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as the iconic species. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat. However, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for Mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, only rely the sagebrush ecosystem for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem and these species and their response to stressors and management actions. The research is tailored specifically to inform and improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush and restoring degraded landscapes. By providing the science to inform these strategies, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. The USGS provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. These have included such actions as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans. The USGS continues to build on that foundation to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.
The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across 251,473 square miles over portions of 13 western States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, invasive plants, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and ensure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for more than 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as an iconic species of this ecosystem. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States, and 2 Canadian Provinces and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat; however, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, rely on various parts of the sagebrush ecosystem but only for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem, wildlife species within the ecosystem, and the species’ response to stressors and management actions. The program provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. By providing the science to inform these decisions, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards the goal of sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. This information can inform planning and management conducted by nongovernmental organizations as well. USGS research is tailored specifically to inform adaptive management, improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush, and restoring degraded landscapes. Examples of research support for partners include providing information for actions such as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans and land use. The USGS continues to provide foundational science to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.
The Energy Lands Program of the U.S. Geological Survey comprises several projects that conduct basic and interpretive earth-science investigations into the environmental aspects of energy-resource recovery, transmission, and conversion. More than half the coal reserves of the United States occur west of the Mississippi River; therefore, the program concentrates mostly on coal-producing regions in the Western interior. Additional studies involve the oil-shale region in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and coal-related work in Alaska and Appalachia. The work is done both by USGS personnel and under USGS grants and contracts through the Energy Lands Program to universities, State Geological Surveys, and private individuals. Maps and reports characterizing many aspects of environmental earth science are being prepared for areas of Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. Types of studies underway include bedrock, surficial, and interpretive geology; engineering geology, geochemistry of surface materials and plants; climatic conditions as they influence rehabilitation potential of mined lands; and feasibility of surface vs. underground mining. The purpose common to all investigations in the Energy Lands Program is to provide timely earth-science information for use by managers, policy-makers, engineers, scientists, planners, and others, in order to contribute to an environmentally sound, orderly, and safe development of the energy resources of the Nation.
This is the ninth annual report highlighting U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science and decision-support activities conducted for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI). The activities address specific management needs identified by WLCI partner agencies. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, there were 26 active USGS WLCI science-based projects. Of these 26 projects, one project was new for FY2016, and three were completed by the end of the fiscal year (though final products were still in preparation or review). USGS WLCI projects were grouped under five categories: (1) Baseline Synthesis, (2) Long-Term Monitoring, (3) Effectiveness Monitoring, (4) Mechanistic Studies of Wildlife, and (5) Data and Information Management. Each of these topic areas is designed to address WLCI management needs: identifying key drivers of change, identifying the condition and distribution of key wildlife species and habitats and of species’ habitat requirements, development of an integrated inventory and monitoring strategy, use of emerging technologies and development and testing of innovative methods for maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of monitoring efforts, evaluating the effectiveness of habitat treatment projects, evaluating the responses of wildlife to development, and developing a data clearinghouse and information management framework to support and provide access to results of most USGS WLCI projects. In FY2016, we assisted with updating the WLCI Conservation Action Plan and associated databases as part of the Comprehensive Assessment, and we also assisted with the Bureau of Land Management 2015 WLCI annual report. By the end of FY2016, we completed or had nearly completed assessments of WLCI energy and mineral resources and had submitted a manuscript on modeled effects of oil and gas development on wildlife to a peer-reviewed journal. We also initiated a study on the effects of wind energy on wildlife in the WLCI region. A USGS circular on WLCI long-term monitoring was in review at the end of the fiscal year, and seven projects monitoring water and vegetation (including changes in sagebrush cover and patterns of sagebrush mortality) continued through the year. USGS scientists continued many projects in FY2016 that evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation actions (including sagebrush, cheatgrass, and aspen habitat treatments) and provide tools in support of mechanistic studies of wildlife. In FY2016, USGS scientists, along with university and State partners, continued work on five focal wildlife species/communities (pygmy rabbits [ Brachylagus idahoensis ], greater sage grouse , mule deer, sagebrush songbirds, and native fish). In FY2016, the USGS Information Management Team presented information to WLCI scientists on how USGS tools and resources can be used to fulfill the requirements of new USGS policies regarding data release, data management, and data visualization.
It is difficult to evaluate the factors contributing to aesthetic or nonmonetary aspects of a landscape. In contrast, aspects which lend themselves to cost-benefit comparisons are now treated in a routine way. As a result, nonmonetary values are described either in emotion-loaded words or else are mentioned and thence forgotten. The present report is a preliminary attempt to quantify some elements of aesthetic appeal while eliminating, insofar as possible, value judgments or personal preferences. If methods of recording such factors can be developed, the results promise to be a useful, new kind of basic data needed in many planning and decision-making circumstances. Such data would be especially useful when choices must be made among alternative courses of action. Such data would tend to provide a more prominent consideration of the nonmonetary aspects of a landscape. Assignment of quantitative estimates to aesthetic factors leads not so much to ratios of value as to relative rank positions. In fact, value itself tends to carry a connotation of preference, whereas ranking can more easily be used for categorization without attribution of preference and thus it tends to a void the introduction at too early a stage of differences in preference. Because the Federal Power Commission has been studying an application for a permit to construct one or more additional hydropower dams in the vicinity of Hells Canyon of the Snake River, the localities studied for the present discussion are in that region of Idaho. Hopefully, the data collected will provide some useful information on factors related to nonmonetary values in the region. The present discussion has been kept free of the preference judgments of the writer, and throughout the discussions observations are treated as facts.
This 1:24,000-scale geologic map is a compilation of previous geologic maps and new geologic mapping of areas in and around Chickasaw National Recreation Area. The geologic map includes revisions of numerous unit contacts and faults and a number of previously “undifferentiated” rock units were subdivided in some areas. Numerous circular-shaped hills in and around Chickasaw National Recreation Area are probably the result of karst-related collapse and may represent the erosional remnants of large, exhumed sinkholes. Geospatial registration of existing, smaller scale (1:72,000- and 1:100,000-scale) geologic maps of the area and construction of an accurate Geographic Information System (GIS) database preceded 2 years of fieldwork wherein previously mapped geology (unit contacts and faults) was verified and new geologic mapping was carried out. The geologic map of Chickasaw National Recreation Area and this pamphlet include information pertaining to how the geologic units and structural features in the map area relate to the formation of the northern Arbuckle Mountains and its Arbuckle-Simpson aquifer. The development of an accurate geospatial GIS database and the use of a handheld computer in the field greatly increased both the accuracy and efficiency in producing the 1:24,000-scale geologic map.
This postcard provides details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2017 Year in Review, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1438, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1438 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .
This postcard provides details about the "Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2018 Year in Review," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1452, now available at https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1452 . In this report, you will find details about the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program relating to its background, fish and wildlife science, students, staffing, vacancies, research funding, outreach and training, science themes, accolades, and professional services. You will see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. This is the essence of what we do: science that matters. Throughout the year, keep up with CRU research projects at http://www.coopunits.org .
This report is an important milestone in the effort by the Secretary of the Interior to implement the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 (GCPA; title XVIII, secs. 1801-1809, of Public Law 102-575), the most recent authorizing legislation for Federal efforts to protect resources downstream from Glen Canyon Dam. The chapters that follow are intended to provide decision makers and the American public with relevant scientific information about the status and recent trends of the natural, cultural, and recreational resources of those portions of Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area affected by Glen Canyon Dam operations. Glen Canyon Dam is one of the last major dams that was built on the Colorado River and is located just south of the Arizona-Utah border in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, approximately 15 mi (24 km) upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). The information presented here is a product of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP), a federally authorized initiative to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resource management. The U.S. Geological Survey`s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) has responsibility for the scientific monitoring and research efforts for the program, including the preparation of reports such as this one.
Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that accumulates in fish to levels of concern for human health and the health of fish-eating wildlife. Mercury contamination of fish is the primary reason for issuing fish consumption advisories, which exist in every State in the Nation. Much of the mercury originates from combustion of coal and can travel long distances in the atmosphere before being deposited. This can result in mercury-contaminated fish in areas with no obvious source of mercury pollution. Three key factors determine the level of mercury contamination in fish - the amount of inorganic mercury available to an ecosystem, the conversion of inorganic mercury to methylmercury, and the bioaccumulation of methylmercury through the food web. Inorganic mercury originates from both natural sources (such as volcanoes, geologic deposits of mercury, geothermal springs, and volatilization from the ocean) and anthropogenic sources (such as coal combustion, mining, and use of mercury in products and industrial processes). Humans have doubled the amount of inorganic mercury in the global atmosphere since pre-industrial times, with substantially greater increases occurring at locations closer to major urban areas. In aquatic ecosystems, some inorganic mercury is converted to methylmercury, the form that ultimately accumulates in fish. The rate of mercury methylation, thus the amount of methylmercury produced, varies greatly in time and space, and depends on numerous environmental factors, including temperature and the amounts of oxygen, organic matter, and sulfate that are present. Methylmercury enters aquatic food webs when it is taken up from water by algae and other microorganisms. Methylmercury concentrations increase with successively higher trophic levels in the food web—a process known as bioaccumulation. In general, fish at the top of the food web consume other fish and tend to accumulate the highest methylmercury concentrations. This report summarizes selected stream studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) since the late 1990s, while also drawing on scientific literature and datasets from other sources. Previous national mercury assessments by other agencies have focused largely on lakes. Although numerous studies of mercury in streams have been conducted at local and regional scales, recent USGS studies provide the most comprehensive, multimedia assessment of streams across the United States, and yield insights about the importance of watershed characteristics relative to mercury inputs. Information from other environments (lakes, wetlands, soil, atmosphere, glacial ice) also is summarized to help understand how mercury varies in space and time.
The U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC CASC), established in 2012, is part of a national network supporting climate-informed decisions that benefit wildlife and habitats. The NC CASC provides climate science for the U.S. Department of the Interior, State agencies, and Tribal nations to support effective resource management. Collaborating with the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Center network, the NC CASC addresses multiregion challenges through a partnership involving the U.S. Geological Survey and additional regional partners. Input is collected from an Advisory Committee of State, Federal, and Tribal Government representatives. The center hosts Tribal Climate Resilience Liaisons, which are funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience and aligned with a Tribal Engagement Strategy. Positioned at the meeting point of scientists and managers and guided by core values, the NC CASC studies diverse ecosystems affected by climate change and empowers resource managers with actionable data and innovative science. This report outlines the 5-year Science Plan (hereafter “the Plan”) for the NC CASC. The center uses stakeholder engagement and coproduction of knowledge for effective collaboration, including engagement of Advisory Committee members and other management partners in the development of the Plan. The Plan provides a high-level overview of the NC CASC, covering the center’s geographical scope, key collaborators, stakeholders, and the strategic framework guiding the application of climate science to make informed management decisions. The Plan also summarizes management challenges and scientific objectives related to the impact of climate change on habitat, ecological drought, wildlife disease, invasives and encroachment, fire, and phenology.
This report summarizes major findings about water quality in the upper Tennessee River basin that emerged from an assessment conducted between 1994 and 1998 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Water quality is discussed in terms of local and regional issues and compared to conditions found in all 36 NAWQA study areas, called study units, assessed to date. Findings are also explained in the context of selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. Finally, this report includes information about the status of aquatic communities and the condition of in-stream habitats as elements of a complete water-quality assessment.
On February 27–28, 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey and Department of the Interior (DOI) Office of Emergency Management (OEM) hosted a workshop to gather input from DOI subject matter experts (SMEs), resource managers, facility managers, emergency managers, and law enforcement personnel. Workshop goals were to (1) determine how DOI Bureaus and Offices use risk information for strategic planning and decision-making; (2) understand what types of information are most useful to DOI Bureaus and Offices; (3) establish what data, information, and products are desired; (4) identify the most effective methods for delivery and visualization; and (5) collect ideas for future project directions. The workshop findings presented in this report will influence the development of risk-information products created by the Strategic Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment of Department of the Interior Resources (SHIRA) Project team.