Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Action”

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 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward

This “U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward” (“Pollinator Science Strategy”) describes the science vision of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to support management, conservation, and policy decisions on animal pollinators and their habitats. As the science arm of the Department of the Interior, the USGS has a primary role in providing scientific information to natural resource managers and policymakers across the United States. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” was drafted by a team of USGS pollinator researchers and was further developed through feedback from Federal, State, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and industry partners. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” highlights the USGS’s role in the research to promote healthy pollinator populations and address partner information gaps so they can make more informed management decisions. By outlining the importance of USGS science in addressing the information needs of other agencies, organizations, and the public, the “Pollinator Science Strategy” reaffirms the USGS’s commitment to pollinator research and showcases our research priorities for 2025–35. With more than 300 research centers nationally, the USGS is equipped to address pollinator science across scales of complexity and geographic range. USGS pollinator science is organized according to the following five thematic areas: Assessing species ecology, distributions, and natural history requirements. Tracking species status and trends. Understanding species threats and stressors. Informing restoration and management actions. Developing novel methods for improving pollinator research, monitoring, and population outcomes that can benefit our Nation. Our pollinator information products and associated data are made widely available to the public to ensure scientific transparency and accessibility. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” concludes with several research goals that the USGS will work towards from 2025 to 2035, representing our vision for USGS science. These research goals include synthesizing and modernizing the latest information on pollinator threats, developing research that assists managers with habitat design and restoration, providing training to partners on native bee identification and monitoring design, and developing new technologies for assessing the status and trends of our nation’s pollinators.

Circular↗
USGS2005

Quantitative assessment of pair formation behavior in captive whooping cranes (Grus americana)

Instantaneous scan sampling for mean distance and synchronous action patterns and all-occurrence sampling for unison call, dance, strut, and hoover-up behaviors were conducted for five potential whooping crane pairs at Patuxent Environmental Science Center, Laurel, Maryland. Dance, strut, and hoover-up differed among pairs, as did total frequency of social behaviors. It was unclear whether or not total frequency of social behaviors during pair formation can be used as an index for potential breeding success. The relative importance of different action patterns should be used as indices of pair compatibility in captive whooping cranes.

Zoo Biology↗
USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2021–22 biennial science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions, and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,050 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗
USGS2025

Bridging social and ecological science to create spatially-explicit models of human-caused mortality of carnivores

Research indicates that human-caused mortality (HCM) is a key factor limiting numerous large carnivore populations. However, efforts to represent HCM in spatially explicit models have generally been limited in scope—often relying on proxies, such as road or human density. Yet such efforts fail to distinguish different sources of HCM, which can arise from different antecedent processes. We offer a systems-based conceptual framework for understanding the antecedents of HCMs that is grounded in theory from the social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, we first explain how HCMs are usefully distinguished into four types (e.g., accidental, harvest, illicit, control actions), then discuss how these different types tend to be driven by different sets of psychological and sociopolitical processes. We contend that improvements in understanding the spatial variation in HCMs would rise from more explicit attention to the various antecedent processes that precede each mortality type.

Ambio↗
USGS2019

Exploring the barriers for people taking protective actions during the 2012 and 2015 New Zealand shakeout drills

To reduce future earthquake injuries and casualties, it is important that people understand how their behavior, during and immediately following earthquake shaking, exposes them to increased risk of injury or death. Research confirms that protective actions can reduce injuries and that prior training can help prepare people to take appropriate actions. In this paper, we examine barriers to participation in the ShakeOut drills in New Zealand. Through citizen science research, volunteers observed people performing the drills in 2012 and 2015. Observers reported how long it took to perform the drill and why they thought some people may not have completed it. Our findings illustrate that children, elderly, and those with both mental and physical disabilities struggled with the drill. Furthermore, embarrassment was a reported leading cause for non-participation; we recommend more inclusive messaging to address potential causes of embarrassment.

International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction↗
USGS2023

Integrated science strategy for assessing and monitoring water availability and migratory birds for terminal lakes across the Great Basin, United States

Executive Summary In 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established the Saline Lake Ecosystems Integrated Water Availability Assessment (IWAAs) to monitor and assess the hydrology of terminal lakes in the Great Basin and the migratory birds and other wildlife dependent on those habitats. Scientists from across the USGS (with specialties in water quantity, water quality, limnology, avian biology, data science, landscape ecology, and science communication) formed the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs Team. The team has developed this regional strategic science plan to guide data collection and assessment activities at terminal lakes in the Great Basin. The U.S. Congress requested the USGS to establish the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs in response to historically low water levels at terminal lakes and associated wetlands across the Great Basin. Not all Great Basin terminal lakes have high salinity; however, all terminal lakes occur in endorheic, closed, basins with no surface-water outflow. Low lake levels across the Great Basin are the result of increased water use for agriculture and municipalities, drought conditions, and a warming climate. Great Basin terminal lake water extents have decreased by as much as 90 percent over the last 150 years, and terminal lake wetlands have decreased in area by as much as 47 percent since 1984. Lake elevations and wetland areas are primarily supported by freshwater inputs from snowmelt feeding upgradient rivers, streams, and springs. These freshwater inputs have been severely reduced because of continued and increased surface-water diversions and surface-water capture through groundwater pumping for agriculture, mining, and public supply as well as unprecedented drought conditions and warming temperatures related to climate change. Water quality, specifically salinity, is highly variable for terminal lakes of the Great Basin, and this variability is a result of the balance between freshwater inflow and evaporation. Variability of salinity at each of the terminal lakes can be affected by lake morphology, hydrogeologic features of the basin, annual variability in weather patterns, and changes in upgradient water use. Hypersaline terminal lakes provide abundant food resources such as brine shrimp and brine flies that support nesting and migrating birds. The density and composition of invertebrates are closely tied to lake salinity. Increased salinity can exceed the tolerance of invertebrates, severely limiting their biomass. In contrast, decreased salinity can lead to altered invertebrate community composition, reducing the abundance of optimal avian prey resources. Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems, including open-water and adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environments, provide resources necessary to sustain many animal populations throughout the year. Although a variety of taxa use terminal lakes, these ecosystems are of acute importance for the millions of migratory waterbirds (for example, shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl) dependent on the network of terminal lakes and their associated wetlands. Migratory birds transiting the Pacific and Central Flyways use Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems throughout the year to feed, nest, and transit between wintering and breeding ranges. As such, successful conservation of birds and their habitats requires coordinated management of water and habitats across the Great Basin network of terminal lakes and wetlands. The linkages between water availability and ecosystem vulnerability of terminal lakes in the Great Basin are not well understood. The vulnerability of terminal lakes is related to the factors driving change and adaptive capacity of the lake ecosystem. Saline lake ecosystems are vulnerable when changes in water quantity affect ecosystem function. Water quantity affects salinity, which affects food webs and habitat; these linkages can be investigated with water-quality and food web monitoring. Water quantity also affects inundated habitat, which can be quantified through remote sensing. It is necessary to quantify hydroclimatic and water use controls on water availability to terminal lakes to assess the response of the ecosystems. Remotely sensed data can provide a broad-scale and long-term synoptic view of terminal lake hydrologic characteristics, but ground observations are required to interpret changes in water quality and ecological functions. Some terminal lake basins have ongoing monitoring and modeling efforts within the Great Basin (for example, Great Salt Lake, Carson River Basin), yet most monitoring locations are hydrologically upgradient and too far away from lake inflows to provide an accurate assessment of hydrological trends for the lake ecosystems. Other terminal lakes have no long-term hydrological monitoring in their respective watersheds (for example, Lake Abert). Ecological data collection in the Great Basin is also insufficient to understand how many birds exist on the landscape, how birds use the mosaic of terminal-lake habitats as an interconnected system, and how Great Basin terminal lakes are linked to the larger continental system of the Pacific and Central Flyways. Across agencies and organizations, tracking bird movement, abundance, and diversity is inconsistent, with some lakes having once- or twice-a-year bird survey efforts and a few locations having more intensive ecological data-gathering efforts (for example, Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert). Bridging hydrological and ecological information gaps will improve understanding of the trends in water supply and water quality, habitat availability and usage, and impacts on vulnerable waterbird species, all of which would be used by managers in coordinated conservation of this unique network of terminal-lake habitats. The terminal lakes of the Great Basin are part of the Basin and Range physiographic province that extends from the Colorado Plateau on the east to the Sierra Nevada on the west, and from the Snake River Plain on the north to the Garlock fault and the Mojave block on the south. The Great Basin is larger than 650,000 square kilometers and encompasses most of the State of Nevada but also extends to western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southeastern Oregon. The climate is arid to semiarid with a hydrologic regime that is snowmelt dominated, providing as much as 75 percent of total annual runoff for the region. Terminal lakes of the Great Basin occupy the lowest areas of closed (endorheic) drainage basins, such that lake levels and water quality respond rapidly to surface-water inflow. Terminal lakes provide local and regional economic value to the States in the Great Basin, including mineral extraction, aquaculture, public works, and recreational uses. As an example, assessments of Great Salt Lake’s ecological health and economic impact find hemispheric importance for the former and regional importance for the latter. Great Salt Lake creates about 7,000 jobs and $2 billion of economic output per year, most of which would be lost with further declines in lake level. The objectives of this Science Strategy are threefold: (1) to identify how changing water availability affects the quality, diversity, and abundance of habitats supporting continental waterbird populations; (2) to highlight the scientific monitoring and assessment needs of Great Basin terminal lakes; and (3) to support coordinated management and conservation actions to benefit those ecosystems, migratory birds, and other wildlife. There are long-term hydrological, ecological, and societal challenges associated with terminal lakes ecosystems in the Great Basin. This Science Strategy benefits partners by providing a conceptual model, nested at different spatial extents, that identifies key scientific information needs to inform coordinated implementation of management and conservation plans within and among hydrologic basins to address these complex challenges.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Invasive carps versus native fish: A first-pass trait-based index for assessing competition threats.

Introduction: Bigheaded carp ( Hypophthalmichthys spp.) are invasive fish in the Mississippi River basin. Their rapid proliferation has raised concerns about exploitative competition with native fishes, with consequences that remain incompletely understood. We aimed to identify native species most susceptible to competition based on overlap with bigheaded carp in dietary and habitat traits. Methods: We used an established fish traits database to quantify dietary and habitat overlap between bigheaded carp and 100 native fish species. We then integrated dietary and habitat overlap into a composite competition index. Results: Dietary similarity with the native assemblage exceeded habitat similarity, suggesting that while competition with some native species may occur, it may often be limited by spatial separation. Dietary and habitat similarity coefficients were not correlated, indicating that strong dietary overlap did not necessarily coincide with similar habitat use (and vice versa). Approximately 20% of species were classified as high competition risk. The highest-risk species included bigmouth buffalo ( Ictiobus cyprinellus ), threadfin shad ( Dorosoma petenense ), black redhorse ( Moxostoma duquesnii ), bluntnose minnow ( Pimephales notatus ), highfin carpsucker ( Carpiodes velifer ), and gizzard shad ( Dorosoma cepedianum ). Discussion: Although trait-based predictions have limitations, our results are consistent with empirically documented interactions and provide a rapid, first-pass assessment of potential competitive vulnerability. Dietary overlap, habitat overlap, and the derived competition index offer actionable decision-support for managing potential competition between bigheaded carp and native species. We included ten practical recommendations to translate predictions into conservation and management actions.

Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, So↗
USGS2026

The collective application of shorebird tracking data to conservation

Addressing urgent conservation issues, such as the drastic declines of North American migratory birds, requires creative, evidence-based, efficient, and collaborative approaches. The abundance of over 50% of monitored North American shorebird populations has declined by over 50% since 1980. To address these declines, we developed a partnership of scientists and practitioners called the Shorebird Science and Conservation Collective (hereafter the collective ). The collective was founded to translate the combined findings of shorebird tracking data into on-the-ground conservation action. With advice from an advisory group, the collective acts as an intermediary whereby dedicated staff collate and analyze data contributions from scientists to support knowledge requests from conservation practitioners. In its first three years, data contributions from 75 organizations include over 7.1 million shorebird observations forming movement paths of 3420 individuals representing 36 species tracked across the Americas and have informed 18 conservation projects spanning education, land and species management, land conservation, and policy requests. Others engaged in translational science from big data could consider similar knowledge-sharing models that prioritize usable data products, foster collaborative engagement between science experts and practitioners, build focused communities around topics or taxonomic groups, and employ a proof-of-concept phase to develop scalable solutions while making progress toward long-term funding to sustain impact. As the volume of scientific data continues to grow, intermediaries, such as the collective, can be vital liaisons to rapidly integrate and interpret research to support conservation action. Dedicated to the memory of Shiloh Schulte and his conservation achievements for shorebirds.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior, Region 11, Alaska—2023–24 biennial science report

Introduction U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission—The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five interconnected focus areas: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in 3 Alaska-based science centers. USGS science activities are also initiated by the Cooperative Research Unit and USGS centers outside Alaska. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 900 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.usgs.gov/.

Alaska↗
USGS2023

Future-proofing the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity

Freshwater biodiversity loss is accelerating globally, but humanity can change this trajectory through actions that enable recovery. To be successful, these actions require coordination and planning at a global scale. The Emergency Recovery Plan for global freshwater biodiversity aims to reduce the risk for freshwater biodiversity loss through six priority actions: (1) accelerate implementation of environmental flows; (2) improve water quality to sustain aquatic life; (3) protect and restore critical habitats; (4) manage exploitation of freshwater species and riverine aggregates; (5) prevent and control nonnative species invasions in freshwater habitats; and (6) safeguard and restore freshwater connectivity. These actions can be implemented using future-proofing approaches that anticipate future risks (e.g., emerging pollutants, new invaders, and synergistic effects) and minimize likely stressors to make conservation of freshwater biodiversity more resilient to climate change and other global environmental challenges. While uncertainty with respect to past observations is not a new concern for freshwater biodiversity, future-proofing has the distinction of accounting for the uncertainty of future conditions that have no historical baseline. The level of uncertainty with respect to future conditions is unprecedented. Future-proofing of the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity will require anticipating future changes and developing and implementing actions to address those future changes. Here, we showcase future-proofing approaches likely to be successful using local case studies and examples. Ensuring that response options within the Emergency Recovery Plan are future-proofed will provide decision makers with science-informed choices, even in the face of uncertain and potentially new future conditions. We are at an inflection point for global freshwater biodiversity loss; learning from defeats and successes can support improved actions toward a sustainable future.

Environmental Reviews↗
USGS2018

Development of the Wildlife Adaptation Menu for Resource Managers

The Climate Change Response Framework is an example of a collaborative, cross-boundary approach to create a set of tools, partnerships, and actions to support climate-informed conservation and land management. Historically, this effort has focused on the needs of forest managers and forestry professionals. In recent years, however, there has been increasing demand for science and tools to address climate change adaptation in wildlife management and conservation. Not only do wildlife and resource managers need the best available science, it must also be presented in a usable format with feasible options within the purview of an individual manager. The research team is first completing a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed studies to summarize what wildlife-related management actions currently exist in climate change adaptation. They will then develop and test a “menu” of climate change adaptation actions that are suitable for wildlife management in terrestrial ecosystems. This Wildlife Adaptation Menu will be modeled off existing adaptation menus for Forestry and Urban Forestry, and it will be designed to be used in conjunction with the Adaptation Workbook . In addition to a menu of adaption strategies and approaches, the scientists will also identify site-level tactics and develop case studies demonstrating the use and implementation of the menu. To ensure that information and tools meet the needs of managers, the team is involving and integrating input from wildlife managers at every step of the process. Managers will be involved in scoping the project, testing the menu, and implementing the menu.

Final Report↗
USGS2024

A regional synthesis of climate data to inform the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plans in the Northeast U.S.

The State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) are proactive planning documents, known as “comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies,” that assess the health of each state’s wildlife and habitats, identify current management and conservation challenges, and outline needed actions to conserve natural resources over the long term. SWAPs are revised every 10 years, with the last revision in 2015 and the next revision anticipated in 2025. State managers have a long history of managing for threats such as land-use change, pollution, and harvest. However, they have expressed a lack of expertise and capacity to keep pace with the rapid advances in climate science and noted that much of the information available is not scaled to meet their needs; thus making the prospect of integrating climate information into SWAPs a daunting task. (Johnson, 2018; Yocum et al., 2021; Blandford, 2022). This report, led by the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center (NE CASC), directly addresses SWAP climate science data needs through a Northeast regional synthesis across four key areas of climate science: 1) observed and projected climate changes, 2) species responses to climate change, 3) climate vulnerabilities and risks, and 4) scale-specific adaptation strategies and actions. In addition, case studies of climate adaptation efforts and climate threat to-action narratives provide illustrative examples of how climate change frameworks and tools are being operationalized in decision-making processes related to Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) and their habitats across the region. Lists of recent climate resources were also synthesized into extensive data tables to provide SWAP writing teams with a comprehensive platform of information to support content development (AFWA 2022).

Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachuse↗
USGS2013

Ecosystem stressors in southern Nevada

Southern Nevada ecosystems and their associated resources are subject to a number of global and regional/local stressors that are affecting the sustainability of the region. Global stressors include elevated carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentrations and associated changes in temperature and precipitation patterns and amount, solar radiation, and nutrient cycles (Smith and others 2009b). Global stressors are ubiquitous in nature and interact both directly and indirectly with regional or local stressors. Regional/local stressors in southern Nevada include: population growth and urbanization and associated increases in nitrogen deposition, energy development, water development, and recreation; increased effects of insects and disease; ongoing effects of livestock, wild horse and burro grazing; new and expanding invasive species; and altered fire regimes. This chapter provides background information on the stressors affecting southern Nevada's ecosystems that is needed to address Goal 1.0 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy, which is to restore, sustain, and enhance southern Nevada's ecosystems (Turner and others 2009). Human population growth and changes in land use strongly affect the type and magnitude of local/regional stressors. From 1960 to 2010, Nevada's growth rate was the highest in the nation (www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf). Clark County has experienced particularly high growth, with a population increase of greater than 40 percent since the 2000 census. Factors like land ownership, historic and current land use, proximity to human and energy developments, and desirability for recreation all influence the level of human-caused stress. The strong elevation/climate gradients and large difference in the environmental characteristics of southern Nevada ecosystems (fig. 1.2; Chapter 1) have a major influence on both patterns of land use and the dominant stressors for different ecosystem types. Shifts in land use related to population growth, urbanization, and energy development and largely focused in lower elevation ecosystems including sagebursh, blackbrush and shadscale, and Mojave Desert scrub. Water divisions influence riparian/aquatic ecosystems and springs, while groundwater pumping also has the potential to affect ecosystems that characterize lower valleys including Mojave Desert scrub. Recreational uses influence all ecosystems, and wild horse and burro use and livestock grazing affect all but alpine and subalpine ecosystems. Insects and disease, as well as invasive species are widespread stressors. Fire is limited to ecosystems with sufficient fuels to carry fire and is strongly influence by invasive species in lower elevation Mojave Desert scrub, blackbrush and shadscale, and sagebursh ecosystems. This chapter address aspects of several of the Goals and Sub-goals listed in the SNAP Science Research Strategy (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009). Altered fire regimes, invasive species, land use practices, and management actions are addressed in Goal 1 -- Sustain, Restore, and Enhance Southern Nevada's Ecosystems. The effects of these stressors on sensitive species and habitat are specifically addressed in Sub-goal 1.4 -- Sustain and Enhance Southern Nevada's Biotic Communities, to Preserve Biodiversity and Maintain Populations. Anthropogenic factors, such a recreation and urbanization, are referred to in Goal 2-- Provide for Responsible Use of Southern Nevada;s Lands in a Manner that Preserve Heritage Resources and Promotes an Understanding of Human Interaction with the Landscape.

Nevada↗
USGS2019

Natural resource management decision-making under climate uncertainty: Building social-ecological resilience in southwestern Colorado

The goal of this project was to facilitate climate change adaptation that contributes to social-ecological resilience, ecosystem and species conservation, and sustainable human communities in southwestern Colorado. The team developed and piloted integrated adaptation planning tools and principles that merge the strengths of the iterative scenario process, the Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) planning framework, institutional analysis, and climate modeling. These tools and principles generated practical strategies and scientific knowledge to advance climate change adaptation in both the Gunnison River Basin and San Juan River Basin and, potentially, other landscapes. A key objective of this project was to work with decision-makers to develop social-ecological adaptation strategies and coordinate actions to reduce the impacts of a changing climate on nature and people. To accomplish this, the project blended science (biophysical and social) and participatory approaches to integrate expert knowledge, land management decision making, and local needs. These adaptation strategies and their creation process were documented by the project team to assist communities and scientists elsewhere who are grappling with the challenges posed by climate change.

Colorado↗
USGS2015

At the crossroads: Hazard assessment and reduction of health risks from arsenic in private well waters of the northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada

This special issue contains 12 papers that report on new understanding of arsenic (As) hydrogeochemistry, performance of household well water treatment systems, and testing and treatment behaviors of well users in several states of the northeastern region of the United States and Nova Scotia, Canada. The responsibility to ensure water safety of private wells falls on well owners. In the U.S., 43 million Americans, mostly from rural areas, use private wells. In order to reduce As exposure in rural populations that rely on private wells for drinking water, risk assessment, which includes estimation of population at risk of exposure to As above the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level, is helpful but insufficient because it does not identify individual households at risk. Persistent optimistic bias among well owners against testing and barriers such as cost of treatment mean that a large percentage of the population will not act to reduce their exposure to harmful substances such as As. If households are in areas with known As occurrence, a potentially large percentage of well owners will remain unaware of their exposure. To ensure that everyone, including vulnerable populations such as low income families with children and pregnant women, is not exposed to arsenic in their drinking water, alternative action will be required and warrants further research.

Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, ↗
USGS2016

The Water-Quality Partnership for National Parks—U.S. Geological Survey and National Park Service, 1998–2016

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Park Service (NPS) work together through the USGS–NPS Water-Quality Partnership to support a broad range of policy and management needs related to high-priority water-quality issues in national parks. The program was initiated in 1998 as part of the Clean Water Action Plan, a Presidential initiative to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. Partnership projects are developed jointly by the USGS and the NPS. Studies are conducted by the USGS and findings are used by the NPS to guide policy and management actions aimed at protecting and improving water quality. The National Park Service manages many of our Nation’s most highly valued aquatic systems across the country, including portions of the Great Lakes, ocean and coastal zones, historic canals, reservoirs, large rivers, high-elevation lakes and streams, geysers, springs, and wetlands. So far, the Water-Quality Partnership has undertaken 217 projects in 119 national parks. In each project, USGS studies and assessments ( http://water.usgs.gov/nps_partnership/pubs.php ) have supported science-based management by the NPS to protect and improve water quality in parks. Some of the current projects are highlighted in the NPS Call to Action Centennial initiative, Crystal Clear, which celebrates national park water-resource efforts to ensure clean water for the next century of park management ( http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/crystalclear/ ). New projects are proposed each year by USGS scientists working in collaboration with NPS staff in specific parks. Project selection is highly competitive, with an average of only eight new projects funded each year out of approximately 75 proposals that are submitted. Since the beginning of the Partnership in 1998, 189 publications detailing project findings have been completed. The 217 studies have been conducted in 119 NPS-administered lands, extending from Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska to Everglades National Park in Florida, and from Acadia National Park in the Northeast to park lands in Hawaii and Pacific Island territories in the West. Project goals range from periodic stream monitoring, to determining the occurrence and concentrations of contaminants and the potential for them to exceed human health or aquatic life criteria, to conducting interpretive studies to evaluate the effect(s) on or vulnerability of national park resources to visitor usage and other natural and anthropogenic activities.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2012

U.S. Geological Survey energy and minerals science strategy

The economy, national security, and standard of living of the United States depend heavily on adequate and reliable supplies of energy and mineral resources. Based on current population and consumption trends, the Nation's use of energy and minerals can be expected to grow, driving the demand for ever broader scientific understanding of resource formation, location, and availability. In addition, the increasing importance of environmental stewardship, human health, and sustainable growth place further emphasis on energy and mineral resources research and understanding. Collectively, these trends in resource demand and the interconnectedness among resources will lead to new challenges and, in turn, require cutting-edge science for the next generation of societal decisions. The contributions of the U.S. Geological Survey to energy and minerals research are well established. Based on five interrelated goals, this plan establishes a comprehensive science strategy. It provides a structure that identifies the most critical aspects of energy and mineral resources for the coming decade. * Goal 1. - Understand fundamental Earth processes that form energy and mineral resources. * Goal 2. - Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products. * Goal 3. - Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources. * Goal 4. - Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources. * Goal 5. - Understand the availability and reliability of energy and mineral resource supplies. Within each goal, multiple, scalable actions are identified. The level of specificity and complexity of these actions varies, consistent with the reality that even a modest refocus can yield large payoffs in the near term whereas more ambitious plans may take years to reach fruition. As such, prioritization of actions is largely dependent on policy direction, available resources, and the sequencing of prerequisite steps that will lead up to the most visionary directions. The science strategy stresses early planning and places an emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and leveraging of expertise across the U.S. Geological Survey.

Open-File Report↗