SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Conservation and resource management.”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources

USGS2010

The Colorado Plateau IV: shaping conservation through science and management

Roughly centered on the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States, the Colorado Plateau covers some 130,000 square miles of sparsely vegetated plateaus, mesas, canyons, arches, and cliffs in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. With elevations ranging from 3,000 to 14,000 feet, the natural systems found within the plateau are dramatically varied, from desert to alpine conditions. This book focuses on the integration of science and resource management issues in this unique and highly varied environment. Broken into three subsections, this volume addresses conservation biology, biophysical resources, and inventory and monitoring concerns. The chapters range in content, addressing conservation issues–past, present, and future–on the Colorado Plateau, measurement of human impacts on resources, grazing and wildland-urban interfaces, and tools and methods for monitoring habitats and species. An informative read for people interested in the conservation and natural history of the region, the book will also serve as a valuable reference for those people engaged in the management of cultural and biological resources of the Colorado Plateau, as well as scientists interested in methods and tools for land and resource management throughout the West.

Utah;Colorado;Arizona;New Mexico↗

USGS2014

Making decisions in complex landscapes: Headwater stream management across multiple federal agencies

Headwater stream ecosystems are vulnerable to numerous threats associated with climate and land use change. In the northeastern US, many headwater stream species (e.g., brook trout and stream salamanders) are of special conservation concern and may be vulnerable to climate change influences, such as changes in stream temperature and streamflow. Federal land management agencies (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, USDA Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and Department of Defense) are required to adopt policies that respond to climate change and may have longer-term institutional support to enforce such policies compared to state, local, non-governmental, or private land managers. However, federal agencies largely make management decisions in regards to headwater stream ecosystems independently. This fragmentation of management resources and responsibilities across the landscape may significantly impede the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation actions, and higher degrees of collaboration may be required to achieve conservation goals. This project seeks to provide an example of cooperative landscape decision-making to address the conservation of headwater stream ecosystems. We identified shared and contrasting objectives of each federal agency and potential collaboration opportunities that may increase efficient and effective management of headwater stream ecosystems in two northeastern US watersheds. These workshops provided useful insights into the adaptive capacity of federal institutions to address threats to headwater stream ecosystems. Our ultimate goal is to provide a decision-making framework and analysis that addresses large-scale conservation threats across multiple stakeholders, as a demonstration of cooperative landscape conservation for aquatic ecosystems. Additionally, we aim to provide new scientific knowledge and a regional perspective to resource managers to help inform local management decisions.

Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, West Virginia↗

USGS2020

Quantifying drought’s influence on moist soil seed vegetation in California’s Central Valley through time-series remote sensing

Californias Central Valley, USA is a critical component of the Pacific Flyway despite loss of more than 90% of its wetlands. Moist soil seed (MSS) wetland plants are now produced by mimicking seasonal flooding in managed wetlands to provide an essential food resource for waterfowl. Managers need MSS plant area and productivity estimates to support waterfowl conservation, yet this remains unknown at the landscape scale. Also the effects of recent drought on MSS plants have not been quantified. We generated Landsat-derived estimates of extents and productivity (seed yield or its proxy, the green chlorophyll index) of major MSS plants including watergrass (Echinochloa crusgalli) and smartweed (Polygonum spp.) (WGSW), and swamp timothy (Crypsis schoenoides) (ST) in all Central Valley managed wetlands from 20072017. We tested the effects of water year, land ownership and region on plant area and productivity with a multifactor nested analysis of variance. For the San Joaquin Valley we explored the association between water year and water supply, and we developed metrics to support management decisions. MSS plant area maps were based on a support vector machine classification of Landsat phenology metrics (2017 map overall accuracy: 89%). ST productivity maps were created with a linear regression model of seed yield (n=68, R2 = 0.53, normalized RMSE = 10.5%). The Central Valley-wide estimated area for ST in 2017 was 32,369 ha 2,524 ha (95% C.I.), and 13,012 ha 1,384 ha for WGSW. Mean ST seed yield ranged from 577 kg/ha in the Delta Basin to 365 kg/ha in the San Joaquin Basin. WGSW area and ST seed yield decreased while ST area increased in critical drought years compared to normal water years (Scheffes test, p<0.05). Greatest ST area increases occurred in the Sacramento Valley (~75%). Voluntary water deliveries increased in normal water years, and ST seed yield increased with water supply. Z-scores of ST seed yield can be used to evaluate wetland performance and aid resource allocation decisions. Updated maps will support habitat monitoring, conservation planning and water management in future years, which are likely to face greater uncertainty in water availability with climate change.

California↗

USGS2015

Modeling elk and bison carrying capacity for Great Sand Dunes National Park, Baca National Wildlife Refuge, and The Nature Conservancy's Medano Ranch, Colorado

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and the neighboring Baca National Wildlife Refuge constitute an extraordinary setting that offers a variety of opportunities for outdoor recreation and natural resource preservation in the San Luis Valley of Colorado. Adjacent to these federal lands, the Nature Conservancy (TNC) manages the historic Medano Ranch. The total land area of these three conservation properties is roughly 121,500 hectares (ha). It is a remote and rugged area in which resource managers must balance the protection of natural resources with recreation and neighboring land uses. The management of wild ungulates in this setting presents challenges, as wild ungulates move freely across public and private landscapes. The San Luis Valley was historically used for irrigated agriculture and ranching. Historically, livestock, including sheep ( Ovis aries ) and cattle ( Bos taurus ), were grazed throughout the valley. The former Luis Marie “Baca” Ranch, which makes up the northern part of Great Sand Dunes National Park (hereafter “Park”) and all of the Baca National Wildlife Refuge (hereafter “Refuge”), was actively grazed by cattle until 2004. Bison ( Bison bison ), elk ( Cervus elaphus ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), and pronghorn ( Antilocapra americana ) were native to the area until about the 1840s, when bison, elk, and pronghorn were extirpated. Elk and pronghorn likely moved back into the area from surrounding populations to the north and south, and mule deer populations have varied through time. A population of 4,400 elk currently inhabits the area. The current bison population was established in 1986 for meat production. In 1999 TNC purchased the ranch and established a bison conservation herd, and eventually subcontracted management to a private rancher in 2005. A population of bison ranging in size from 1,200–2,000 ranges freely within the 16,100 ha Medano Ranch. Ungulate populations in the valley are regulated by hunting, with the exception of bison, which are rounded up and culled annually to maintain population levels. In an effort to create and form the basis of a multi-agency ungulate management plan for the region, the Park sought the development of an elk and bison ecological carrying capacity model to provide guidance to resource managers.

Colorado↗

USGS2020

Moving from decision to action in conservation science

Biodiversity loss is a major threat to the integrity of ecosystems and is projected to worsen, yet the path to successful conservation remains elusive. Decision support frameworks (DSFs) are increasingly applied by resource managers to navigate the complexity, uncertainty, and differing socio-ecological objectives inherent to conservation problems. Most published conservation research that uses DSFs focuses on analytical stages (e.g., identifying an optimal decision), making it difficult to assess and learn from previous examples in a conservation practice context. Here, we (1) evaluate the relationship between the application of decision science and the resulting conservation outcomes, and (2) identify and address existing barriers to the application of DSFs to conservation practice. To do this, we develop a framework for evaluating conservation initiatives using decision science that emphasizes setting attainable goals, building momentum, and obtaining partner buy-in. We apply this framework to a systematic review of amphibian conservation decision support projects, including a follow-up survey of the pertinent conservation practitioners, stakeholders, and scientists. We found that all projects identified optimal solutions to reach stated objectives, but positive conservation outcomes were limited when implementation challenges arose. Further, we identified multiple barriers (e.g., dynamic and hierarchical leadership, scale complexity, limited resource availability) that can inhibit the progression from decision identification to action implementation (i.e., ‘decision-implementation gap’), and to successful conservation outcomes. Based on these results, we provide potential actionable steps and avenues for future development of DSFs to facilitate the transition from decision to action and the realization of conservation successes.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2018

Adaptive management of animal populations with significant unknowns and uncertainties: A case study

Conservation and management decision making in natural resources is challenging due to numerous uncertainties and unknowns, especially relating to understanding system dynamics. Adaptive resource management (ARM) is a formal process to making logical and transparent recurrent decisions when there are uncertainties about system dynamics. Despite wide recognition and calls for implementing adaptive natural resource management, applications remain limited. More common is a reactive approach to decision making, which ignores future system dynamics. This contrasts with ARM, which anticipates future dynamics of ecological process and management actions using a model-based framework. Practitioners may be reluctant to adopt ARM because of the dearth of comparative evaluations between ARM and more common approaches to making decisions. We compared the probability of meeting management objectives when managing a population under both types of decision frameworks, specifically in relation to typical uncertainties and unknowns. We use a population of Sandhill Cranes as our case study. We evaluate each decision process under varying levels of monitoring and ecological uncertainty, where the true underlying population dynamics followed a stochastic age-structured population model with environmentally driven vital rate density dependence. We found that the ARM framework outperformed the currently employed reactive decision framework to manage Sandhill Cranes in meeting the population objective across an array of scenarios. This was even the case when the candidate set of population models contained only naïve representations of the true population process. Under the reactive decision framework, we found little improvement in meeting the population objective even if monitoring uncertainty was eliminated. In contrast, if the population was monitored without error within the ARM framework, the population objective was always maintained, regardless of the population models considered. Contrary to expectation, we found that age-specific optimal harvest decisions are not always necessary to meet a population objective when population dynamics are age structured. Population managers can decrease risks and gain transparency and flexibility in management by adopting an ARM framework. If population monitoring data has high sampling variation and/or limited empirical knowledge is available for constructing mechanistic population models, ARM model sets should consider a range of mechanistic, descriptive, and predictive model types.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2021

Time-to-detection occupancy methods: Performance and utility for improving efficiency of surveys

Occupancy methods propelled the quantitative study of species distributions forward by separating the observation process, or the imperfect detectability of species, from the ecological processes of interest governing species distributions. Occupancy studies come at a cost, however: the collection of additional data to account for nondetections at sites where the species is present. The most common occupancy designs (repeated measures designs) require repeat visits to sites or the use of multiple observers or detection methods. Time‐to‐detection methods have been identified as a potentially efficient alternative, requiring only one visit to each site by a single observer. A comparison of time‐to‐detection methods to repeated measures designs for visual encounter surveys would allow researchers to evaluate whether time‐to‐detection methods might be appropriate for their study system and can inform optimal survey design. We collected time‐to‐detection data during two different repeated measures design occupancy surveys for four amphibians and compared the performance of time‐to‐detection methods to the other designs using the location (potential bias) and precision of posterior distributions for occurrence parameters. We further used results of time‐to‐detection surveys to optimize survey design. Time‐to‐detection methods performed best for species that are widespread and have high detection probabilities and rates, but performed less well for cryptic species with lower probability of occurrence or whose detection was strongly affected by survey conditions. In all cases single surveys were most efficient in terms of person‐hours expended, but under some conditions the survey duration required to achieve high detection probabilities would be prohibitively long for a single survey. Regardless of occupancy survey design, time‐to‐detection methods provide important information that can be used to optimize surveys, allowing researchers and resource managers to efficiently achieve monitoring and conservation goals. Collecting time‐to‐detection data while conducting repeated measures occupancy surveys requires only small modifications to field methods but could have large benefits in terms of time spent surveying in the long‐term.

California↗

USGS2023

Four conservation challenges and a synthesis

Conservation and management of biological systems involves decision-making over time, with a generic goal of sustaining systems and their capacity to function in the future. We address four persistent and difficult conservation challenges: (1) prediction of future consequences of management, (2) uncertainty about the system's structure, (3) inability to observe ecological systems fully, and (4) nonstationary system dynamics. We describe these challenges in terms of dynamic systems subject to different sources of uncertainty, and we present a basic Markovian framework that can encompass approaches to all four challenges. Finding optimal conservation strategies for each challenge requires issue-specific structural features, including adaptations of state transition models, uncertainty metrics, valuation of accumulated returns, and solution methods. Strategy valuation exhibits not only some remarkable similarities among approaches but also some important operational differences. Technical linkages among the models highlight synergies in solution approaches, as well as possibilities for combining them in particular conservation problems. As methodology and computing software advance, such an integrated conservation framework offers the potential to improve conservation outcomes with strategies to allocate management resources efficiently and avoid negative consequences.

Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2017

Advancing mangrove macroecology

Mangrove forests provide a wide range of ecosystem services to society, yet they are among the most anthropogenically impacted coastal ecosystems in the world. In this chapter, we discuss and provide examples for how macroecology can advance our understanding of mangrove ecosystems. Macroecology is broadly defined as a discipline that uses statistical analyses to investigate large-scale, universal patterns in the distribution, abundance, diversity, and organization of species and ecosystems, including the scaling of ecological processes and structural and functional relationships. Macroecological methods can be used to advance our understanding of how non-linear responses in natural systems can be triggered by human impacts at local, regional, and global scales. Although macroecology has the potential to gain knowledge on universal patterns and processes that govern mangrove ecosystems, the application of macroecological methods to mangroves has historically been limited by constraints in data quality and availability. Here we provide examples that include evaluations of the variation in mangrove forest ecosystem structure and function in relation to macroclimatic drivers (e.g., temperature and rainfall regimes) and climate change. Additional examples include work focused upon the continental distribution of aboveground net primary productivity and carbon storage, which are rapidly advancing research areas. These examples demonstrate the value of a macroecological perspective for the understanding of global- and regional-scale effects of both changing environmental conditions and management actions on ecosystem structure, function, and the supply of goods and services. We also present current trends in mangrove modeling approaches and their potential utility to test hypotheses about mangrove structural and functional properties. Given the gap in relevant experimental work at the regional scale, we also discuss the potential use of mangrove restoration and rehabilitation projects as macroecological studies that advance the critical selection and conservation of ecosystem services when managing mangrove resources. Future work to further incorporate macroecology into mangrove research will require a concerted effort by research groups and institutions to launch research initiatives and synthesize data collected across broad biogeographic regions.

Book chapter↗

USGS2021

Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union

The United States and European Union (EU) face common challenges in managing natural capital and balancing conservation and resource use with consumption of other forms of capital. This paper synthesizes findings from 11 individual application papers from a special issue of Ecosystem Services on natural capital accounting (NCA) and their application to the public and private sectors in the EU and U.S. NCA is inherently a data-integration centered exercise, aiming to draw new insights by realigning environmental and economic data into a consistent framework. Drawing primarily on papers from the special issue and other key NCA literature, we identify lessons learned and gaps remaining for NCA’s development and application to decision making. In doing so, we identify eight key similarities and three major differences in NCA development, status, and application between the U.S. and EU. NCA can be highly policy relevant: special issue papers address critical issues including agriculture, water, conservation/land-use planning, climate, and corporate decision making. In both the U.S. and EU, further application is needed to drive demand for the accounts’ production. Based on these experiences, the U.S. and EU can be important leaders in cross-sector, international collaboration toward next-generation environmental economic accounts that advance global NCA practice.

Ecosystem Services↗

USGS2025

A case for assemblage-level conservation to address the biodiversity crisis

Traditional conservation efforts have centred on safeguarding individual species, but these strategies have limitations in a world where entire ecosystems are rapidly changing. Ecosystem conservation can maintain critical ecological functions, but often lacks the detail necessary for the effective conservation of threatened or endangered species. The conservation of such species is mandated by policies and remains a dominant focus of natural resource management. In this Perspective, we propose that assemblage-level conservation targeting groups of taxonomically related or functionally similar species can bridge the gap between species and ecosystems and help to address global biodiversity loss. This approach has previously been limited by data and methodological constraints, but the ongoing growth of biodiversity data, advances in ecological modelling and breakthroughs in computational power have now made effective assemblage-level conservation feasible. Community models provide insights at both the species level and the assemblage level while appropriately accounting for species variability in detection during sampling and uncertainty in biological inferences. Assemblage-level conservation can link both species-specific needs and broader ecological dynamics, ultimately enabling effective strategies for conserving threatened species, ecological communities and ecosystem functions.

Nature Reviews Biodiversity↗

USGS2011

Trophic relations of introduced flathead catfish in an atlantic river

The flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris is a large piscivore that is native to the Mississippi and Rio Grande river drainages but that has been widely introduced across the United States. River ecologists and fisheries managers are concerned about introduced flathead catfish populations because of the negative impacts on native fish communities or imperiled species associated with direct predation and indirect competition from this apex predator. We studied the trophic relations of introduced flathead catfish in an Atlantic river to further understand the effects on native fish communities. Crayfish (Astacidea) occurred most frequently in the flathead catfish diet, while sunfish Lepomis spp. comprised the greatest percentage by weight. Neither of two sympatric imperiled fish species (the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas and the Carolina redhorse Moxostoma sp., a federal species of concern) was found in any diet sample. An ontogenetic shift in diet was evident when flathead catfish reached about 300 mm, and length significantly explained the variation in the percent composition by weight of sunfish and darters Etheostoma and Percina spp. Flathead catfish showed positive prey selectivity for taxa that occupied similar benthic microhabitat, highlighting the importance of opportunistic feeding and prey encounter rates. Flathead catfish displayed a highly variable diel feeding chronology during July, when they had a mean stomach fullness of 0.32%, but then showed a single midday feeding peak during August (mean fullness = 0.52%). The gastric evacuation rate increased between July (0.40/h) and August (0.59/h), as did daily ration, which more than doubled between the 2 months (3.06% versus 7.37%). Our findings increase the understanding of introduced flathead catfish trophic relations and the degree of vulnerability among prey taxa, which resource managers may consider in fisheries management and conservation of native fish populations and imperiled species.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society↗

USGS2017

Spatial and temporal genetic analysis of Walleyes in the Ohio River

Previous genetic analyses have shown that Walleyes Sander vitreus in the upper Ohio River comprise two distinct genetic strains: (1) fish of Great Lakes origin that were stocked into the Ohio River basin and (2) a remnant native strain (Highlands strain). Resource agencies are developing management strategies to conserve and restore the native strain within the upper reaches of the Ohio River. Hybridization between strains has impacted the genetic integrity of the native strain. To better understand the extent and effects of hybridization on the native strain, we used mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite markers to evaluate the spatial (river sections) and temporal (pre- and poststocking) genetic diversity of Ohio River Walleyes. Contemporary Lake Erie Walleyes and archival museum specimens collected from the Ohio River basin were used for comparison to contemporary Ohio River samples. Although there was evidence of hybridization between strains, most of the genetic diversity within the Ohio River was partitioned by basin of origin (Great Lakes versus the Ohio River), with greater similarity among river sections than between strains within the same section. Results also suggested that the native strain has diverged from historical populations. Furthermore, notable decreases in measures of genetic diversity and increased relatedness among native-strain Walleyes within two sections of the Ohio River may be related to stocking aimed at restoration of the Highlands strain. Our results suggest that although the Highlands strain persists within the Ohio River, it has diverged over time, and managers should consider the potential impacts of future management practices on the genetic diversity of this native strain.

Ohio River↗

USGS2025

Management strategy evaluation to assess trade-offs associated with invasive Blue Catfish fisheries and predation impacts

Objective Many species are intentionally introduced beyond their native range to provide benefits to humans (e.g., food, recreation, or biocontrol). However, introduced species can become invasive and can harm native species, prompting resource managers to explore options to simultaneously conserve native biota and enhance fishing opportunities. Management of Chesapeake Bay Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus is complicated because the species supports a renowned trophy fishery and commercial and recreational harvest but also negatively affects native species. Consequently, there is uncertainty and disagreement on how to balance trade-offs associated with varying stakeholder interests. Methods We used a management strategy evaluation to project Blue Catfish population dynamics into the future under different fishery policies to understand whether fishery yield, trophy fishing opportunities, and predation on the economically and ecologically important blue crab Callinectes sapidus could be optimized in the James River, a Chesapeake Bay subestuary. Results Simulated population trajectories indicated that objectives related to maintaining fisheries and conserving prey populations were in conflict. Policies that increased the yield and abundance of trophy-size Blue Catfish (≥100 cm total length) generally increased predation on the blue crab, which supports a valuable fishery. Intense harvest of smaller length-classes and protection of larger Blue Catfish yielded outcomes in which trophy fish abundance increased and blue crab predation declined compared to baseline conditions. However, these outcomes were generally associated with lower Blue Catfish yields after 25 years. There were zero scenarios in which the fishery yield increased and blue crab predation decreased after 25 years. Policies limiting the harvest of small Blue Catfish resulted in large population abundances, suggesting that reducing the abundance of small fish could be important for reducing impacts on native species. Conclusions This study supports the importance of management planning to develop objectives and performance measures based on an improved understanding of trade-offs associated with harvest management for a nonnative fish with economic value.

Virginia↗

USGS2025

Assessing decadal-scale coastal change likelihood to define the accuracy and application of scientific information

Defining the accuracy and uncertainties of scientific data products is critical to the usability and trustworthiness of scientific information for environmental management and conservation purposes, such as coastal resource prioritization, design, adaptation, and mitigation. The U.S. Geological Survey has a new decadal-scale coastal change assessment product that synthesizes nearly two dozen coastal datasets. A supervised machine-learning framework is used to combine existing datasets that describe the landscape and the hazards that affect it to determine the coastal change likelihood (CCL) in the coming decade at a resolution of 10 m per pixel for the NE United States from Maine to Virginia. Here, results from a series of statistical tests conducted on source data, the supervised classification, and the CCL outcomes as compared with historical land-cover change are presented. The overall accuracy of the aggregated land-cover dataset that serves as the foundation to which other source datasets are appended is 94%. The supervised learning classification that determines the final CCL output has an overall accuracy of 92%. The CCL predictions of high expected coastal change were consistent with 95% of the coastal and low-elevation landscape change in the last 20 years, as recorded by the Coastal Change Analysis Program land-cover change atlas. Results suggest that CCL provides accurate estimates of coastal landscape change in the next decade that are consistent with recent observed change. Additionally, best practices for applying CCL for planning purposes are outlined, and citing limitations, knowledge gaps, and opportunities for improved accuracy and further investigation are considered.

Journal of Coastal Research↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tree Canopy Layer Tile 1, Northwest United States: CNPY01_1

This 30-meter resolution data set represents the tree canopy layer for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System, browse graphic: nlcd01-partition.jpg. The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp. The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping-zones. A total of 68 mapping-zones browse graphic: nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping-zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov

Report↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tree Canopy Layer Tile 2, Northeast United States: CNPY01_2

This 30-meter resolution data set represents the tree canopy layer for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System, browse graphic: nlcd01-partition.jpg The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp. The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping-zones. A total of 68 mapping-zones browse graphic: nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping-zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Report↗

USGS2010

National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD01) Tree Canopy Layer Tile 3, Southwest United States: CNPY01_3

This 30-meter resolution data set represents the tree canopy layer for the conterminous United States for the 2001 time period. The data have been arranged into four tiles to facilitate timely display and manipulation within a Geographic Information System, browse graphic: nlcd01-partition.jpg The National Land Cover Data Set for 2001 was produced through a cooperative project conducted by the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of Federal agencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). One of the primary goals of the project is to generate a current, consistent, seamless, and accurate National Land Cover Database (NLCD) circa 2001 for the United States at medium spatial resolution. For a detailed definition and discussion on MRLC and the NLCD 2001 products, refer to Homer and others (2004) and http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp. The NLCD 2001 was created by partitioning the United States into mapping-zones. A total of 68 mapping-zones browse graphic: nlcd01-mappingzones.jpg were delineated within the conterminous United States based on ecoregion and geographical characteristics, edge-matching features, and the size requirement of Landsat mosaics. Mapping-zones encompass the whole or parts of several states. Questions about the NLCD mapping zones can be directed to the NLCD 2001 Land Cover Mapping Team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.

Report↗