Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Society and Natural Resources”

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.

249 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Kullback-Leibler information in resolving natural resource conflicts when definitive data exist

Conflicts often arise in the management of natural resources. Often they result from differing perceptions, varying interpretations of the law, and self-interests among stakeholder groups (for example, the values and perceptions about spotted owls and forest management differ markedly among environmental groups, government regulatory agencies, and timber industries). We extend the conceptual approach to conflict resolution of Anderson et al. (1999) by using information-theoretic methods to provide quantitative evidence for differing stakeholder positions. Importantly, we assume that relevant empirical data exist that are central to the potential resolution of the conflict. We present a hypothetical example involving an experiment to assess potential effects of a chemical on monthly survival probabilities of the hen clam (Spisula solidissima). The conflict centers on 3 stakeholder positions: 1) no effect, 2) an acute effect, and 3) an acute and chronic effect of the chemical treatment. Such data were given to 18 analytical teams to make independent analyses and provide the relative evidence for each of 3 stakeholder positions in the conflict. The empirical evidence strongly supports only one of the 3 positions in the conflict: the application of the chemical causes acute and chronic effects on monthly survival, following treatment. Formal inference from all the stakeholder positions is provided for the 2 key parameters underlying the hen clam controversy. The estimates of these parameters were essentially unbiased (the relative bias for the control and treatment group's survival probability was -0.857% and 1.400%, respectively) and precise (coefficients of variation were 0.576% and 2.761%, respectively). The advantages of making formal inference from all the models, rather than drawing conclusions from only the estimated best model, is illustrated. Finally, we contrast information-theoretic and Bayesian approaches in terms of how positions in the controversy enter the formal analysis.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2017

Long-term spatial heterogeneity in mallard distribution in the Prairie pothole region

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of north-central United States and south-central Canada supports greater than half of all breeding mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ) annually counted in North America and is the focus of widespread conservation and research efforts. Allocation of conservation resources for this socioeconomically important population would benefit from an understanding of the nature of spatiotemporal variation in distribution of breeding mallards throughout the 850,000 km 2 landscape. We used mallard counts from the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey to test for spatial heterogeneity and identify high- and low-abundance regions of breeding mallards over a 50-year time series. We found strong annual spatial heterogeneity in all years: 90% of mallards counted annually were on an average of only 15% of surveyed segments. Using a local indicator of spatial autocorrelation, we found a relatively static distribution of low-count clusters in northern Montana, USA, and southern Alberta, Canada, and a dynamic distribution of high-count clusters throughout the study period. Distribution of high-count clusters shifted southeast from northwestern portions of the PPR in Alberta and western Saskatchewan, Canada, to North and South Dakota, USA, during the latter half of the study period. This spatial redistribution of core mallard breeding populations was likely driven by interactions between environmental variation that created favorable hydrological conditions for wetlands in the eastern PPR and dynamic land-use patterns related to upland cropping practices and government land-retirement programs. Our results highlight an opportunity for prioritizing relatively small regions within the PPR for allocation of wetland and grassland conservation for mallard populations. However, the extensive spatial heterogeneity in core distributions over our study period suggests such spatial prioritization will have to overcome challenges presented by dynamic land-use and climate patterns in the region, and thus merits additional monitoring and empirical research to anticipate future population distribution. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2016

The Maryland Coastal Plain Aquifer Information System: A GIS-based tool for assessing groundwater resources

Groundwater is the source of drinking water for ∼1.4 million people in the Coastal Plain Province of Maryland (USA). In addition, groundwater is essential for commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses. Approximately 0.757 × 109 L d –1 (200 million gallons/d) were withdrawn in 2010. As a result of decades of withdrawals from the coastal plain confined aquifers, groundwater levels have declined by as much as 70 m (230 ft) from estimated prepumping levels. Other issues posing challenges to long-term groundwater sustainability include degraded water quality from both man-made and natural sources, reduced stream base flow, land subsidence, and changing recharge patterns (drought) caused by climate change. In Maryland, groundwater supply is managed primarily by the Maryland Department of the Environment, which seeks to balance reasonable use of the resource with long-term sustainability. The chief goal of groundwater management in Maryland is to ensure safe and adequate supplies for all current and future users through the implementation of appropriate usage, planning, and conservation policies. To assist in that effort, the geographic information system (GIS)–based Maryland Coastal Plain Aquifer Information System was developed as a tool to help water managers access and visualize groundwater data for use in the evaluation of groundwater allocation and use permits. The system, contained within an ESRI ArcMap desktop environment, includes both interpreted and basic data for 16 aquifers and 14 confining units. Data map layers include aquifer and ­confining unit layer surfaces, aquifer extents, borehole information, hydraulic properties, time-series groundwater-level data, well records, and geophysical and lithologic logs. The aquifer and confining unit layer surfaces were generated specifically for the GIS system. The system also contains select groundwater-quality data and map layers that quantify groundwater and surface-water withdrawals. The aquifer information system can serve as a pre- and postprocessing environment for groundwater-flow models for use in water-supply planning, development, and management. The system also can be expanded to include features that evaluate constraints to groundwater development, such as insufficient available drawdown, degraded groundwater quality, insufficient aquifer yields, and well-field interference. Ultimately, the aquifer information system is intended to function as an interactive Web-based utility that provides a broad array of information related to groundwater resources in Maryland’s coastal plain to a wide-ranging audience, including well drillers, consultants, academia, and the general public.

Special Paper of the Geological Society of America↗
USGS2026

Regional conservation planning tool: A spreadsheet model to support spatial prioritization and resource allocation decisions

Prioritization is a central component of natural resource management because conservation needs routinely exceed available resources. Waterfowl and wetland conservation programs in North America are at the forefront of landscape-scale prioritization and transboundary management decisions due to the migratory nature of ducks, geese, and swans. The growing availability of geographic information systems (GIS) and geospatial technologies has accelerated the development of multi-objective landscape prioritization models, including applications of structured decision making and multi-criteria decision analysis to spatial planning for waterfowl and wetlands at the continental scale. However, regional managers and conservationists could benefit from flexibility in downscaling continental tools, selecting objectives, and assigning weights for rapid production of spatial prioritization models at smaller spatial scales without extensive computer coding or GIS analysis. We developed a spatial value model that prioritizes landscapes at sub-continental scales (e.g., states and provinces, bird conservation regions, etc.) and provides flexibility for users to select waterfowl conservation objectives of interest and weights. Our model can be used for direct downscaling of an existing continental geospatial model or further customized with region-specific geospatial data. We illustrate how regional prioritization can vary with the spatial scale selected by the user. The spatial value modeling framework and the downscaling tool presented here could increase the use of multi-criteria decision analysis and linear value modeling in spatial landscape prioritization, while also providing flexibility for selecting scales, objectives, and weights. Our spreadsheet tool was developed specifically for use by regional biologists, conservationists, and managers and does not require knowledge of GIS software (although results can be exported from the spreadsheet for spatial analysis using GIS). Together, the model outputs and the accompanying spreadsheet tool provide a bridge between continental waterfowl conservation and regional implementation, enabling rapid, stakeholder-driven, value-explicit prioritization.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2018

Alaska

Alaska is the largest state in the Nation, almost one-fifth the size of the combined lower 48 United States, and is rich in natural capital resources. Alaska is often identified as being on the front lines of climate change since it is warming faster than any other state and faces a myriad of issues associated with a changing climate. The cost of infrastructure damage from a warming climate is projected to be very large, potentially ranging from $110 to $270 million per year, assuming timely repair and maintenance. Although climate change does and will continue to dramatically transform the climate and environment of the Arctic, proactive adaptation in Alaska has the potential to reduce costs associated with these impacts. This includes the dissemination of several tools, such as guidebooks to support adaptation planning, some of which focus on Indigenous communities. While many opportunities exist with a changing climate, economic prospects are not well captured in the literature at this time. As the climate continues to warm, there is likely to be a nearly sea ice-free Arctic during the summer by mid-century. Ocean acidification is an emerging global problem that will intensify with continued carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and negatively affects organisms. Climate change will likely affect management actions and economic drivers, including fisheries, in complex ways. The use of multiple alternative models to appropriately characterize uncertainty in future fisheries biomass trajectories and harvests could help manage these challenges. As temperature and precipitation increase across the Alaska landscape, physical and biological changes are also occurring throughout Alaska’s terrestrial ecosystems. Degradation of permafrost is expected to continue, with associated impacts to infrastructure, river and stream discharge, water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. Longer sea ice-free seasons, higher ground temperatures, and relative sea level rise are expected to exacerbate flooding and accelerate erosion in many regions, leading to the loss of terrestrial habitat in the future and in some cases requiring entire communities or portions of communities to relocate to safer terrain. The influence of climate change on human health in Alaska can be traced to three sources: direct exposures, indirect effects, and social or psychological disruption. Each of these will have different manifestations for Alaskans when compared to residents elsewhere in the United States. Climate change exerts indirect effects on human health in Alaska through changes to water, air, and soil and through ecosystem changes affecting disease ecology and food security, especially in rural communities. Alaska’s rural communities are predominantly inhabited by Indigenous peoples who may be disproportionately vulnerable to socioeconomic and environmental change; however, they also have rich cultural traditions of resilience and adaptation. The impacts of climate change will likely affect all aspects of Alaska Native societies, from nutrition, infrastructure, economics, and health consequences to language, education, and the communities themselves. The profound and diverse climate-driven changes in Alaska’s physical environment and ecosystems generate economic impacts through their effects on environmental services. These services include positive benefits directly from ecosystems (for example, food, water, and other resources), as well as services provided directly from the physical environment (for example, temperature moderation, stable ground for supporting infrastructure, and smooth surface for overland transportation). Some of these effects are relatively assured and in some cases are already occurring. Other impacts are highly uncertain, due to their dependence on the structure of global and regional economies and future human alterations to the environment decades into the future, but they could be large. In Alaska, a range of adaptations to changing climate and related environmental conditions are underway and others have been proposed as potential actions, including measures to reduce vulnerability and risk, as well as more systemic institutional transformation.

Report↗
USGS1989

Population ecology and harvest of the American black duck: a review

1. The purpose of our review was to examine available data on population trends and current status of black ducks and trends in natality and survival and to relate these, where possible, to changes in habitat, predation, disease, contaminants, harvest, and hybridization with mallards. 2. The number of black ducks tallied in the winter survey has declined steadily over the past 30 years at an average rate of about 3%/ year. Reliability and precision of the survey are uncertain; it may not provide an adequate index to the continental population of black ducks. Breeding surveys are incomplete and sporadic, but black ducks have decreased in Ontario and increased in the Maritime Provinces and Quebec. 3. Recent declines in numbers of black ducks tallied in the winter survey are not unusual in magnitude or much different from those that have occurred among several other species of waterfowl. 4. At present, black ducks are not especially scarce relative to numbers of several other ducks in eastern North America. 5. There is no solid evidence of major decreases in quality or quantity of breeding habitat for black ducks in recent years; in some areas, habitat has improved. 6. Natural mortality of black ducks has not been well studied, but does not seem unusually high compared to other dabbling ducks. 7. Harvest rates of black ducks are similar to those of sympatric mallards as determined by banding analyses. 8. There is no strong evidence for direct effects of contaminants on black ducks, but some indirect effects through invertebrate food resources have been detected. 9. Age ratios in black ducks show no trend in the past 18 years. 10. The quality and quantity of wintering habitat for black ducks have decreased substantially in some areas. 11. Disease and other natural mortality that affect black ducks do .not occur in unusually high frequency. 12. A decline in harvest of black ducks has occurred; most of the decline has been in the United States, especially since restrictive regulations were implemented in 1983. 13. Recovery rates of black ducks have declined recently in the U.S., but not in Canada. 14. Survival rates of black ducks are 56-63% for adults and 43% for young. These rates of survival are similar to comparable estimates in sympatric mallards. 15. Long hunting seasons may depress survival in some sex-age classes of black ducks, buteffects of small reductions in survival on population trends are unknown. 16. Available evidence does not support the contention that hunting is either the sole or most important cause of the decline in the winter tally of black duck numbers. 17. Surveys and banding of black ducks should be thoroughly reviewed and maintained or improved as warranted. Obtaining or maintaining a reasonable index to numbers of black ducks is the top priority among survey needs. 18. Experimental manipulation of hunting seasons should be considered to elucidate relationships among regulations, harvest, survival, and population trends. 19. Black ducks and mallards are genetically similar; there is as much genetic differentiation within the 2 species as there is between them. 20. Black duck x mallard hybrids are fertile. Hybrids are difficult to detect by plumage and thus published frequencies (0-13%) of hybrids may be low. 21. Hybridization could be a result of concomitant mallard increases and black duck decreases, or changes in black duck-to-mallard ratios could be from hybridization and genetic swamping of black ducks.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2006

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI): 5-year report

The Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI) is an innovative, multidisciplinary program that began in 2000 in response to a congressional directive for the Department of the Interior to address the issue of amphibian declines in the United States. ARMI’s formulation was cross-disciplinary, integrating U.S. Geological Survey scientists from Biology, Water, and Geography to develop a course of action (Corn and others, 2005a). The result has been an effective program with diverse, yet complementary, expertise. ARMI’s approach to research and monitoring is multiscale. Detailed investigations focus on a few species at selected local sites throughout the country; monitoring addresses a larger number of species over broader areas (typically, National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges); and inventories to document species occurrence are conducted more extensively across the landscape. Where monitoring is conducted, the emphasis is on an ability to draw statistically defensible conclusions about the status of amphibians. To achieve this objective, ARMI has instituted a monitoring response variable that has nationwide applicability. At research sites, ARMI focuses on studying species/environment interactions, determining causes of observed declines, and developing new techniques to sample populations and analyze data. Results from activities at all scales are provided to scientists, land managers, and policymakers, as appropriate. The ARMI program and the scientists involved contribute significantly to understanding amphibian declines at local, regional, national, and international levels. Within National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, findings help land managers make decisions applicable to amphibian conservation. For example, the National Park Service (NPS) selected amphibians as a vital sign for several of their monitoring networks, and ARMI scientists provide information and assistance in developing monitoring methods for this NPS effort. At the national level, ARMI has had major exposure at a variety of meetings, including a dedicated symposium at the 2004 joint meetings of the Herpetologists’ League, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Several principal investigators have brought international exposure to ARMI through venues such as the World Congress of Herpetology in South Africa in 2005 (invited presentation by Dr. Gary Fellers), the Global Amphibian Summit, sponsored by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Wildlife Conservation International, in Washington, D.C., 2005 (invited participation by Dr. P.S. Corn), and a special issue of the international herpetological journal Alytes focused on ARMI in 2004 (edited by Dr. C.K. Dodd, Jr.). ARMI research and monitoring efforts have addressed at least 7 of the 21 Threatened and Endangered Species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], Chiricahua leopard frog [R. chiricahuensis], arroyo toad [Bufo californicus], dusky gopher frog [Rana sevosa], mountain yellow-legged frog [R. muscosa], flatwoods salamander [Ambystoma cingulatum], and the golden coqui [Eleutherodactylus jasperi]), and 9 additional species of concern recognized by the IUCN. ARMI investigations have addressed time-sensitive research, such as emerging infectious diseases and effects on amphibians related to natural disasters like wildfire, hurricanes, and debris flows, and the effects of more constant, environmental change, like urban expansion, road development, and the use of pesticides. Over the last 5 years, ARMI has partnered with an extensive list of government, academic, and private entities. These partnerships have been fruitful and have assisted ARMI in developing new field protocols and analytic tools, in using and refining emerging technologies to improve accuracy and efficiency of data handling, in conducting amphibian disease, malformation, and environmental effects research, and in implementing a network of monitoring and research sites. Accomplishments from these endeavors include more than 40 publications on amphibian status and trends, nearly 100 publications on amphibian ecology and causes of declines, and over 30 methodological publications. Several databases have emerged as a result of ARMI and its partnerships; one, a digital atlas of ranges for all U.S. amphibian species, was used by the IUCN to display amphibian distribution maps in the Global Amphibian Assessment Project. Given the scope of ARMI and the panoply of projects, findings have had implications for policy. Investigations that demonstrate amphibian declines or illuminate causes of declines provide valuable information about habitat management, environmental effects, mechanisms for the spread of disease, and human/amphibian interfaces. This information has been made available to land managers, scientists, educators, Congress and other policymakers, and the public. The support afforded ARMI by Congress has been influential in the program’s development and success. The value of ARMI’s efforts will continue to increase as we are able to extend our studies spatially and temporally to answer critical questions with more confidence. We are using ARMI’s resources efficiently and continuing to develop innovative mechanisms for leveraging resources for maximum effectiveness during challenging financial times. This report is a 5-year retrospective of the structure, methodology, progress, and contributions to the broader scientific community that have resulted from this national USGS program. We evaluate ARMI’s success to date, with regard to the challenges faced by the program and the strengths that have emerged. We chart objectives for the next 5 years that build on current accomplishments, highlight areas meriting further research, and direct efforts to overcome existing weaknesses.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2015

Collaborative decision-analytic framework to maximize resilience of tidal marshes to climate change

Decision makers that are responsible for stewardship of natural resources face many challenges, which are complicated by uncertainty about impacts from climate change, expanding human development, and intensifying land uses. A systematic process for evaluating the social and ecological risks, trade-offs, and cobenefits associated with future changes is critical to maximize resilience and conserve ecosystem services. This is particularly true in coastal areas where human populations and landscape conversion are increasing, and where intensifying storms and sea-level rise pose unprecedented threats to coastal ecosystems. We applied collaborative decision analysis with a diverse team of stakeholders who preserve, manage, or restore tidal marshes across the San Francisco Bay estuary, California, USA, as a case study. Specifically, we followed a structured decision-making approach, and we using expert judgment developed alternative management strategies to increase the capacity and adaptability to manage tidal marsh resilience while considering uncertainties through 2050. Because sea-level rise projections are relatively confident to 2050, we focused on uncertainties regarding intensity and frequency of storms and funding. Elicitation methods allowed us to make predictions in the absence of fully compatible models and to assess short- and long-term trade-offs. Specifically we addressed two questions. (1) Can collaborative decision analysis lead to consensus among a diverse set of decision makers responsible for environmental stewardship and faced with uncertainties about climate change, funding, and stakeholder values? (2) What is an optimal strategy for the conservation of tidal marshes, and what strategy is robust to the aforementioned uncertainties? We found that when taking this approach, consensus was reached among the stakeholders about the best management strategies to maintain tidal marsh integrity. A Bayesian decision network revealed that a strategy considering sea-level rise and storms explicitly in wetland restoration planning and designs was optimal, and it was robust to uncertainties about management effectiveness and budgets. We found that strategies that avoided explicitly accounting for future climate change had the lowest expected performance based on input from the team. Our decision-analytic framework is sufficiently general to offer an adaptable template, which can be modified for use in other areas that include a diverse and engaged stakeholder group.

California↗
USGS1998

Thunder on the Yellowstone revisited: An assessment of management of native ungulates by natural regulation, 1968-1993

Natural regulation of native ungulates was initiated in 1968 in Yellowstone National Park (YNP) based on the premise that ungulates would reach an equilibrium with their plant resources. The natural-regulation management model stated: density dependence will regulate ungulates (i.e., a dynamic equilibrium will result between ungulates and their food supply, within some bounds of vegetation and soil effects); and no retrogression of soil and vegetation will occur from elk (Cervus elaphus) grazing during this process. The historical record indicated that elk were abundant in the system and elk were primarily food limited before settlement by European man (i.e., wolves [Canis lupus] and Native Americans were only an adjunct to the density dependent population regulation of ungulates). Density dependence was demonstrated in elk, but not in bison (Bison bison). No widespread evidence of overgrazing was observed through 1993 in study sites within vegetation communities that comprised about 97% of the winter range. No evidence of increased exotics, increased sediment yield, warming or drying of the soil, changes in soil nutrients, or differences in aboveground standing-crop biomass of plants was found between grazed and ungrazed plots. Ungulate herbivory apparently stimulated aboveground production of grasses, enhanced nitrogen and macronutrients in grasses, increased nutrient cycling, and enhanced measures of fitness in 6 common plants. However, exposed soil surface (bare ground and pebbles combined) was 11-18% greater on grazed than ungrazed plots, apparently due to a 71% decline in dead and standing litter on grazed plots. Percent live-plant basal cover, however, did not differ on grazed versus ungrazed plots, and there was no difference in soil microclimate or sediment yield. Differences in the abundance of 12% of the herbaceous species were found in grazed versus ungrazed sites (16 of 128 species); 10 were declines and 6 were increases. Willow (Salix spp.) and aspen (Populus tremuloides) declines predated the new management policy, but their slow declines also continued after 1968. Three uncommon plant species (aspen, willow, and Wyoming big sagebrush [Artemisia tridentata tridentata]) and 1 herbivore (moose [Alces alces]) declined under natural-regulation management. Two uncommon species of woody browse (aspen, Wyoming big sagebrush) were overutilized by ungulates (consumption of >2/3 current annual growth occurred). We conclude the natural-regulation model for YNP was flawed in its assumptions of a single, steady state for the park, based on conditions presumed to exist in 1870 prior to establishment of the national park. The period selected as a standard (1870) was an unusual period characterized by frequent large fires and floods, common wolves, few elk, and a cooler, wetter climate. We also conclude there is a high level of uncertainty surrounding what elk densities were in pre-Columbian times (element 3 of the management model) and what effects wolves and Native Americans had in regulating the elk population.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, paying the costs themselves, yet bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗
USGS2011

Report on the 2010 Chilean earthquake and tsunami response

In July 2010, in an effort to reduce future catastrophic natural disaster losses for California, the American Red Cross coordinated and sent a delegation of 20 multidisciplinary experts on earthquake response and recovery to Chile. The primary goal was to understand how the Chilean society and relevant organizations responded to the magnitude 8.8 Maule earthquake that struck the region on February 27, 2010, as well as how an application of these lessons could better prepare California communities, response partners and state emergency partners for a comparable situation. Similarities in building codes, socioeconomic conditions, and broad extent of the strong shaking make the Chilean earthquake a very close analog to the impact of future great earthquakes on California. To withstand and recover from natural and human-caused disasters, it is essential for citizens and communities to work together to anticipate threats, limit effects, and rapidly restore functionality after a crisis. The delegation was hosted by the Chilean Red Cross and received extensive briefings from both national and local Red Cross officials. During nine days in Chile, the delegation also met with officials at the national, regional, and local government levels. Technical briefings were received from the President’s Emergency Committee, emergency managers from ONEMI (comparable to FEMA), structural engineers, a seismologist, hospital administrators, firefighters, and the United Nations team in Chile. Cities visited include Santiago, Talca, Constitución, Concepción, Talcahuano, Tumbes, and Cauquenes. The American Red Cross Multidisciplinary Team consisted of subject matter experts, who carried out special investigations in five Teams on the (1) science and engineering findings, (2) medical services, (3) emergency services, (4) volunteer management, and (5) executive and management issues (see appendix A for a full list of participants and their titles and teams). While developing this delegation, it was clear that a multidisciplinary approach was required to properly analyze the emergency response, technical, and social components of this disaster. A diverse and knowledgeable delegation was necessary to analyze the Chilean response in a way that would be beneficial to preparedness in California, as well as improve mitigation efforts around the United States. By most standards, the Maule earthquake was a catastrophe for Chile. The economic losses totaled $30 billion USD or 17% of the GDP of the country. Twelve million people, or ¾ of the population of the country, were in areas that felt strong shaking. Yet only 521 fatalities have been confirmed, with 56 people still missing and presumed dead in the tsunami. The Science and Technology Team evaluated the impacts of the earthquake on built environment with implications for the United States. The fires following the earthquake were minimal in part because of the shutdown of the national electrical grid early in the shaking. Only five engineer-designed buildings were destroyed during the earthquake; however, over 350,000 housing units were destroyed. Chile has a law that holds building owners liable for the first 10 years of a building’s existence for any losses resulting from inadequate application of the building code during construction. This law was cited by many our team met with as a prime reason for the strong performance of the built environment. Overall, this earthquake demonstrated that strict building codes and standards could greatly reduce losses in even the largest earthquakes. In the immediate response to the earthquake and tsunami, first responders, emergency personnel, and search and rescue teams handled many challenges. Loss of communications was significant; many lives were lost and effective coordination to support life-sustaining efforts was gravely impacted due to a lack of inter- and intra-agency coordination. The Health and Medical Services Team sought to understand the medical disaster response strategies and operations of Chilean agencies, including perceived or actual failures in disaster preparation that impacted the medical disaster response; post-disaster health and medical interventions to save lives and limit suffering; and the lessons learned by public health and medical personnel as a result of their experiences. Despite devastating damage to the health care and civic infrastructure, the health care response to the Chilean earthquake appeared highly successful due to several factors. Like other first responders, the medical community had the ability and resourcefulness to respond without centralized control in the early response phase. The health care community maintained patient care under austere conditions, despite many obstacles that could have prevented such care. National and international resources were rapidly mobilized to support the medical response. The Emergency Services Team sought to collect information on all phases of emergency management (preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery) and determine what worked well and what could be improved upon. The Chileans reported being surprised that they were not as ready for this event as they thought they were. The use of mass care sheltering was limited, given the scope of the disaster, because of the resiliency of the population. The impacts of the earthquake and the tsunami were quite different, as were the needs of urban and rural dwellers, necessitating different response activities. The Volunteer Services Team examined the challenges faced in mobilizing a large number of volunteers to assist in the aftermath of a disaster of this scale. One of the greatest challenges expressed was difficulty in communication; the need for redundancy in communication mechanisms was cited. The flexibility and ability to work autonomously by the frontline volunteers was a significant factor in effective response. It was also important for volunteer leadership to know the emergency plans. These plans need to be flexible, include alternative options, and be completed in conjunction with local officials and other volunteers. The Executive/Red Cross Management Team took a broad look at the impacts of the earthquake and the implications for California. Some of the most important preparation for the disaster came from relationships formed before the event. The communities with strong connections between different government services generally fared well. The initial response and resilience of individuals and communities was another important component. Communication system failures limited the ability of a central government to assist impacted communities, or to issue tsunami warnings. It also delayed the response since the government did not know (in some case for several days) the impact and needs of local governments. In general, plans for congregate care shelters existed but were little used as most people chose to stay at damaged homes or with relatives. Looting was a surprise to response officials as well as social scientists, but both public and private sector organizations, including NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), must consider security for damaged businesses as a priority in California’s multihazard planning. Class and ethnic divisions that become heightened during some cases of actual or perceived injustice may also emerge in natural disasters in California. Several factors contributed overall to the low casualty rate and rapid recovery. A major factor is the strong building code in Chile and its comprehensive enforcement. In particular, Chile has a law that holds building owners accountable for losses in a building they build for 10 years. A second factor was the limited number of fires after the earthquake. In the last few California earthquakes, 60% of the fires were started by electrical problems, so the rarity of fires may have been affected by the shut down of the electricity grid early in the earthquake. Third, in many areas, the local emergency response was very effective. The most effective regions had close coordination between emergency management, fire, and police and were empowered to respond without communication with the capital. The fourth factor was the overall high level of knowledge about earthquakes and tsunamis by much of the population that helped them respond more appropriately after the event.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Book review: Proceedings of the First International Snakehead Symposium

Snakehead fishes (family Channidae) are among the most maligned aquatic invasive species in the USA and some other countries where they have been introduced outside of their native range in Asia and Africa. Nevertheless, snakeheads continue to be widely exploited in the live‐food trade in aquaculture and wild‐capture fisheries, are highly sought by anglers, and are also popular in the aquarium trade (Courtenay and Williams 2004). The Northern Snakehead Channa argus is the most widespread of the three channid species that are currently naturalized in the USA. This species has generated much concern and controversy, a situation that is partly fueled by sensational media coverage and B‐grade science fiction horror films, such as “Frankenfish,” “Snakehead Terror,” and “Snakehead Swamp.” Media reports of snakehead introductions are often replete with provocative terms, such as “vicious,” “villain,” “voracious,” “monster,” “diabolical,” and even “ecological Armageddon.” When snakeheads first appeared in natural waters of the USA, fisheries professionals became increasingly interested in their status. Established populations rapidly expanded in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas, with scattered reports of introduced snakeheads from isolated locations in Hawaii, California, North Carolina, Florida, the Upper Midwest, and New England. In 2002, snakeheads were added to the list of injurious fishes under the Lacey Act, thereby prohibiting their importation or transport across state lines without a permit. This symposium was conceived by the editors and other concerned fisheries professionals of the Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species. The mission of the symposium, held in Alexandria, Virginia, in July 2018, was to bring together experts on snakehead biology and ecology and to synthesize existing information into summary papers. In this book, 35 authors contributed to 15 peer‐reviewed articles that detail the current state of knowledge about snakehead introductions in the USA. Additionally, 16 abstracts are included from meeting presentations that were not accompanied by full‐length manuscripts. Also included is a summary of a facilitated symposium panel discussion featuring eight experts representing state and federal natural resource agencies and private fishing organizations. The book is organized into six sections. In the first section (Distribution), three papers provide an overview of the Channa species introduced into the USA and historical accounts of occurrence and dispersal of the Northern Snakehead in the mid‐Atlantic region and Arkansas. The second section (Biology/Ecology) consists of two articles that examine growth and energetics of Northern Snakehead populations and two papers that investigate diet, diel feeding activity, and movement of this species in the Potomac River drainage. The third section (Monitoring/Response) includes a paper that models range expansion of the Northern Snakehead in the southeastern USA based on occurrence data and environmental conditions. Also included in this section is a paper summarizing an environmental DNA study to assess the status and range of the Bullseye Snakehead C. marulius in southern Florida. The fourth section (Management/Control) is comprised of four papers that address harvest, age and growth, and development of a stock–recruitment model to inform management decisions regarding control and mitigation for Northern Snakehead populations in the greater Chesapeake Bay area. The fifth section (Perspectives) includes a paper on the history of snakehead introductions in Japan and a thought‐provoking social commentary on the human dimensions of Northern Snakehead management. Abstracts in the final section provide brief summaries of a diversity of snakehead studies, including aspects of distribution, ecology, behavior, control and monitoring efforts, public outreach, and pathology. The summary of the panel discussion is an engaging dialogue about the challenges of snakehead management in the context of conflicts regarding snakeheads as injurious versus their value as game and food species. Most of this book is focused on the Northern Snakehead. Much has been done to document snakehead distributions and certain aspects of snakehead biology, such as diets, age, and growth. Less research has been devoted to understanding the ecological impacts of snakeheads to native aquatic communities and ecosystems. This book would have benefited from a chapter summarizing the current systematics and diversity of the Channidae to inform fisheries biologists about the morphological characteristics of the family, approximate numbers of genera and species, and taxonomic instability. Exemplifying the latter, recent molecular and morphological evidence indicates uncertainty regarding identification of the feral snakehead population in Florida (Adamson and Britz 2019). Those authors suggest that this population may have originated from western Thailand, a possibility that could have implications for understanding historical pathways of snakehead introductions into the USA. In comparison with many published AFS symposia, this volume is relatively narrow in scope and lacks cohesive integration. It will primarily be of interest to those fisheries professionals engaged in the study of snakeheads as well as other nonnative species for which there are contrasting social values regarding their management: whether to monitor and attempt control or eradication efforts or to maintain populations for harvest as game or food species. The book should serve to identify information gaps and guide future research.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗
USGS2013

Amphibians and reptiles of Guyana, South America: illustrated keys, annotated species accounts, and a biogeographic synopsis

Guyana has a very distinctive herpetofauna. In this first ever detailed modern accounting, based on voucher specimens, we document the presence of 324 species of amphibians and reptiles in the country; 148 amphibians, 176 reptiles. Of these, we present species accounts for 317 species and color photographs of about 62% (Plates 1–40). At the rate that new species are being described and distributional records are being found for the first time, we suspect that at least 350 species will be documented in a few decades. The diverse herpetofauna includes 137 species of frogs and toads, 11 caecilians, 4 crocodylians, 4 amphisbaenians, 56 lizards, 97 snakes, and 15 turtles. Endemic species, which occur nowhere else in the world, comprise 15% of the herpetofauna. Most of the endemics are amphibians, comprising 27% of the amphibian fauna. Type localities (where the type specimens or scientific name-bearers of species were found) are located within Guyana for 24% of the herpetofauna, or 36% of the amphibians. This diverse fauna results from the geographic position of Guyana on the Guiana Shield and the isolated highlands or tepuis of the eastern part of the Pantepui Region, which are surrounded by lowland rainforest and savannas. Consequently, there is a mixture of local endemic species and widespread species characteristic of Amazonia and the Guianan Region. Although the size of this volume may mislead some people into thinking that a lot is known about the fauna of Guyana, the work has just begun. Many of the species are known from fewer than five individuals in scientific collections; for many the life history, distribution, ecology, and behavior remain poorly known; few resources in the country are devoted to developing such knowledge; and as far as we are aware, no other group of animals in the fauna of Guyana has been summarized in a volume such as this to document the biological resources. We briefly discuss aspects of biogeography, as reflected in samples collected at seven lowland sites (in rainforest, savanna, and mixed habitats below 500 m elevation) and three isolated highland sites (in montane forest and evergreen high-tepui forest above 1400 m elevation). Comparisons of these sites are preliminary because sampling of the local faunas remains incomplete. Nevertheless, it is certain that areas of about 2.5 km2 of lowland rainforest can support more than 130 species of amphibians and reptiles (perhaps actually more than 150), while many fewer species (fewer than 30 documented so far) occur in a comparable area of isolated highlands, where low temperatures, frequent cloudiness, and poor soils are relatively unfavorable for amphibians and reptiles. Furthermore, insufficient study has been done in upland sites of intermediate elevations, where lowland and highland faunas overlap significantly, although considerable work is being accomplished in Kaieteur National Park by other investigators. Comparisons of the faunas of the lowland and isolated highland sites showed that very few species occur in common in both the lowlands and isolated highlands; that those few are widespread lowland species that tolerate highland environments; that many endemic species (mostly amphibians) occur in the isolated highlands of the Pakaraima Mountains; and that each of the isolated highlands, lowland savannas, and lowland rainforests at these 10 sites have distinctive faunal elements. No two sites were identical in species composition. Much more work is needed to compare a variety of sites, and especially to incorporate upland sites of intermediate elevations in such comparisons. Five species of sea turtles utilize the limited areas of Atlantic coastal beaches to the northwest of Georgetown. All of these are listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature as being of global concern for long-term survival, mostly owing to human predation. The categories of Critically Endangered or Endangered are applied to four of the local sea turtles (80%). It is important to protect the few good nesting beaches for the sea turtles of Guyana. We have documented each of the species now known to comprise the herpetofauna of Guyana by citing specimens that exist in scientific collections, many of which were collected and identified by us and colleagues, including students of the University of Guyana (UG). We also re-identified many old museum specimens collected by others in the past (e.g., collections of William Beebe) and we used documented publications and collection records of colleagues, most of whom have been working more recently. We present dichotomous keys for identifying representatives of the species known to occur in Guyana, and we present brief annotated species accounts. The accounts provide the current scientific name, original name (with citation of the original description, which we personally examined in the literature), some outdated names used in the recent past, type specimens, type localities, general geographic distribution, examples of voucher specimens from Guyana, coloration in life (and often a color photograph), and comments pointing out interesting subjects for future research.

Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washingto↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗