SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Working Group Report”

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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources

USGS2016

Regional patterns of total nitrogen concentrations in the National Rivers and Streams Assessment

Patterns of nitrogen (N) concentrations in streams sampled by the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA) were examined semiquantitatively to identify regional differences in stream N levels. The data were categorized and analyzed by watershed size classes to reveal patterns of the concentrations that are consistent with the spatial homogeneity in natural and anthropogenic characteristics associated with regional differences in N levels. Ecoregions and mapped information on human activities including agricultural practices were used to determine the resultant regions. Marked differences in N levels were found among the nine aggregations of ecoregions used to report the results of the NRSA. We identified distinct regional patterns of stream N concentrations within the reporting regions that are associated with the characteristics of specific Level III ecoregions, groups of Level III ecoregions, groups of Level IV ecoregions, certain geographic characteristics within ecoregions, and/or particular watershed size classes. We described each of these regions and illustrated their areal extent and median and range in N concentrations. Understanding the spatial variability of nutrient concentrations in flowing waters and the apparent contributions that human and nonhuman factors have on different sizes of streams and rivers is critical to the development of effective water quality assessment and management plans. This semi-quantitative analysis is also intended to identify areas within which more detailed quantitative work can be conducted to determine specific regional factors associated with variations in stream N concentrations.

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation↗

USGS1890

A classed and annotated bibliography of fossil insects

The present work is an extension to date of a bibliography published in 1882. It has, however, been altered in a few details, and, besides being fuller, differs from that in being a classed list, the works and essays which cover the entire field (which embraces not only insects proper, but also myriapods and arachnids) being placed first, followed by the more special memoirs grouped first by times, next by classes orders, etc., the classification employed in my Systematic Review of Fossil Insects, being used as a convenient basis. This will also form the basis of the Index to Known Fossil Insects, forming a later complementary bulletin. The occasion for the publication of both of these at this time is the completion of the first extended account of the American Tertiary insects given in Vol XIII of the Hayden series of geological reports, by which the numbers of the European and American insects bear for the first time some sort of proper relation to each other, at least in the lower groups. This makes an immediate "account of stock," to employ a commercial term, desirable.

Bulletin↗

USGS2024

Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE): Summary of U.S. Geological Survey URGE pod deliverables

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is in a unique position to be a leader in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Earth sciences. As one of the largest geoscience employers, the USGS wields significant community influence and has a responsibility to adopt and implement robust, unbiased policies so that the science it is charged to deliver is better connected to the diverse communities it serves. Meaningful and effective improvements in implementation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles made within the USGS will be seen across the geoscience community. Despite this opportunity, however, the community, including the USGS, has struggled to diversify the geoscience workforce, which does not reflect the Nation’s diversity. This disparity suggests that the implementation of past policies did not achieve their desired outcomes in sustainable ways. The persistent lack of diversity across the geosciences and the racial justice protests of 2020 motivated a group of geoscience scholars to launch a global, virtual initiative known as Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE) in the winter of 2021. The 16-week facilitated URGE curriculum was designed to highlight existing literature, share expert opinions, and foster discussion within groups (pods) around the world to build action plans for affecting change within their home institutions ( https://urgeoscience.org/ ). Whereas most of the approximately 4,500 participants were university faculty and students or from professional societies and nonprofit organizations, 6 pods totaling over 120 participants from the USGS joined the program—the largest participation of any Federal science agency. Summarizing the recommendations of over 100 USGS employees across the USGS who participated in URGE, this Circular represents a grassroots plan for making the USGS workforce more diverse and inclusive. To identify how peer-reviewed best practices could be implemented at the USGS, participants read existing literature, reviewed USGS policies and procedures, explored new and existing demographic data, and listened to and discussed primary interviews with scholars, all facilitated by the URGE program. This Circular leverages the efforts and momentum of the USGS URGE participants to catalyze and support positive, systemic change throughout the organization in a holistic way that represents an achievable departure from past policies that fell short of success. These recommendations are starting points. Reflecting the overall lack of diversity in the USGS workforce, the USGS URGE participants were predominantly White, meaning recommendations in this document can and should continue to evolve to include the lived perspectives and input from the broader USGS community. Finally, this summary document only highlights some of the key findings of these working groups. Additional details that may be more suitable to specific USGS Centers and programs can be found in the primary documents developed by each USGS URGE pod; a list of all registered pods can be found at https://urgeoscience.org/pods/ .

Circular↗

USGS2014

Estimating magnitude and frequency of floods using the PeakFQ 7.0 program

Flood-frequency analysis provides information about the magnitude and frequency of flood discharges based on records of annual maximum instantaneous peak discharges collected at streamgages. The information is essential for defining flood-hazard areas, for managing floodplains, and for designing bridges, culverts, dams, levees, and other flood-control structures. Bulletin 17B (B17B) of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data (IACWD; 1982) codifies the standard methodology for conducting flood-frequency studies in the United States. B17B specifies that annual peak-flow data are to be fit to a log-Pearson Type III distribution. Specific methods are also prescribed for improving skew estimates using regional skew information, tests for high and low outliers, adjustments for low outliers and zero flows, and procedures for incorporating historical flood information. The authors of B17B identified various needs for methodological improvement and recommended additional study. In response to these needs, the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI, successor to IACWD; http://acwi.gov/ , Subcommittee on Hydrology (SOH), Hydrologic Frequency Analysis Work Group (HFAWG), has recommended modest changes to B17B. These changes include adoption of a generalized method-of-moments estimator denoted the Expected Moments Algorithm (EMA) (Cohn and others, 1997) and a generalized version of the Grubbs-Beck test for low outliers (Cohn and others, 2013). The SOH requested that the USGS implement these changes in a user-friendly, publicly accessible program.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2022

National strategy for landslide loss reduction

Executive Summary Landslide hazards are present in all 50 States and most U.S. territories, and they affect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Landslides are the downslope movement of earth materials under the force of gravity. They can occur without any obvious trigger. Widespread or severe landslide events are often driven by such hazards as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heavy rain events, flooding, and wildfires. Landslides can also cause their own cascading consequences, such as the spread of hazardous materials or the creation of devastating local tsunamis. This strategy document describes goals and strategic actions of a comprehensive strategy to meet key challenges to reducing the Nation’s risk from landslide hazards equitably and effectively. The document follows the direction of the National Landslide Preparedness Act (Public Law 116–323) by presenting a strategy for addressing landslide hazards, including risk reduction and response. The act directs the Department of the Interior to establish a program that will work with State, Tribal, and local governments as well as with academia, the private sector, community-based groups, and nonprofit organizations to identify landslide hazards and risk and improve communication, coordination, and emergency preparedness, with the objective of reducing landslide losses. As the only Federal program dedicated to landslide hazard science, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program will lead and coordinate many of the efforts described in this strategy document. Landslide hazard risk reduction must be undertaken collectively and collaboratively across the Federal Government. This strategy document will provide a framework for the creation of an interagency management plan that describes the programs, projects, workforce, and budgets required to carry out the national strategy. The strategy outlined in this document presents a vision of how to equitably produce, communicate, and apply landslide data and science to support a broad range of land management, infrastructure, planning, and emergency response decisions. These decisions are made by a variety of actors, including private and nonprofit landholders; State, Tribal, territorial, city, and county planners; emergency managers; engineers; infrastructure managers; Federal agencies and their partners; and community leaders and individuals. Supporting those decisions and reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to landslides requires overcoming three main challenges: (1) gaps in basic information needed to describe and understand landslide occurrence and societal risk, (2) difficulty in accurately mapping and forecasting landslide hazards, and (3) communication and coordination among the many jurisdictions and sectors that have responsibility for and interest in reducing landslide losses. To address those challenges, this strategy document puts forward a series of strategic actions to achieve four goals: Assess: Decision makers have access to detailed, nationwide, and contextually relevant information on landslide hazard and risk. Coordinate: Landslide hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are coordinated across Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local levels. Plan: Communities and land managers are prepared and able to plan for landslide hazards. Respond: Landslide surveillance, warnings, and responses to events are effective, efficient, equitable, cooperative, and data-driven to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. These strategic actions focus on expanding the knowledge of societal risk posed by landslides as well as better understanding of where, when, and why they occur. They focus on applying that knowledge to support landslide risk reduction efforts and decisions, including the establishment of new advisory, coordination, and working groups focused on landslide hazard and risk. They take into account that supporting landslide loss reduction decisions also requires new guidance, tools, and training codeveloped with the entities, organizations, and individuals faced with making those decisions. Finally, they address actions needed to support and expand landslide warning information and improve the technical response to landslide emergencies.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1980

Radiometric dating of sediments using fission tracks in conodonts

Conodonts are microfossils which are commonly found in marine rocks of Cambrian to Triassic age. Although their biological affinities are difficult to assess, conodonts are valuable stratigraphical indices for much of their geological range1. Recent work has also established that conodont colour alteration indices (CAI) are useful guides to diagenetic temperatures and hence burial depth2. Fission tracks3 in conodonts allow measurement of uranium concentrations and estimates of 'age' to be made using isotopic methods4. We report here that fission tracks counted in irradiated, thermally unaltered (as indicated by CAI) middle Palaeozoic conodonts indicate typical uranium concentrations of ???1 part in 10 9, with some samples higher. A single specimen of Siphonodella from the Lower Mississippian yielded an age estimate of 380??140 Myr consistent with conventional interpolations. This method may also allow the unroofing of deeply buried sediments to be dated. ?? 1980 Nature Publishing Group.

Nature↗

USGS2002

Polar bear management in Alaska 1997-2000

Since the Twelfth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group in 1997, a number of changes in the management of polar bears have occurred in Alaska. On October 16, 2000, the governments of the United States and the Russian Federation signed the “Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.” This agreement provides substantial benefits for the effective conservation of polar bears shared between the U.S. and Russia. It will require enactment of enabling legislation by the U.S. Congress and other steps by Russia before the agreement has the force of law. A copy of the agreement is included as Appendix 1 to this report. Also, during this period, regulations were developed to implement 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allow polar bear trophies taken in approved Canadian populations by U.S. citizens to be imported into the U.S. A summary of the regulatory actions and a table listing populations approved for importation and the number of polar bears imported into the U.S. since 1997 is included in this report. Regarding oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat, three sets of regulations were published authorizing the incidental, non-intentional, taking of small numbers of polar bears concurrent to oil and gas activities. Cooperation continued with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, representing the polar bear hunting communities in Alaska, as well as with the North Slope Borough and the Inuvialuit Game Council in their agreement for the management of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population. Harvest summaries and technical assistance in designing and assistance in conducting a National Park Service/Alaska Nanuuq Commission study to collect traditional ecological knowledge of polar bear habitat use in Chukotka were provided. In addition, a long-range plan was developed to address and minimize polar bear-human conflicts in North Slope communities. We continued to monitor the harvest of polar bears in Alaska and collect and analyze specimens for presence and level of organochlorine compounds and trace elements. A paper on genetic assessment of hunter reported sex of harvested bears was recently published (Schliebe et al. 1999). Population status and trend assessment efforts continued. An aerial survey of polar bears in the Eastern Chukchi Sea and western portions of the Southern Beaufort Sea was conducted from the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker “Polar Star” in August 2000. The first year of a multi-year survey of barrier islands and coastlines during the open water and freeze-up phase was conducted in the central Southern Beaufort Sea during fall 2000.

Alaska↗

USGS2016

Users and uses of Landsat 8 satellite imagery—2014 survey results

Executive Summary In 2013, Landsat 8 began adding high quality, global, moderate-resolution imagery to the more than 40-year archive of Landsat imagery. To assess the potential effects of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on users and their work, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Land Remote Sensing Program (LRS) initiated a survey of Landsat users. The objectives of the survey were to 1. Characterize various Landsat user groups, such as United States (U.S.) and international users and Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users; 2. Identify any differences among user groups in uses and preferences; 3. Measure the importance of and satisfaction with Landsat 8 attributes; 4. Assess the importance to users of the frequency of usable imagery; and 5. Determine any challenges in using Landsat 8. The online survey was sent to 51,617 Landsat users registered with USGS in May 2014. Almost 13,000 people responded to the survey for a response rate of 25 percent (n = 12,966). Current Landsat users (users who had used Landsat in their work in the year prior to the survey) composed 89 percent of the sample (n = 11,549) and past Landsat users composed 11 percent (n = 1,417). The results reported here apply to current Landsat users registered with the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. Users from 161 countries responded to the survey. Of those, 19 percent were citizens or permanent residents of the United States and 81 percent resided in other countries. More than 70 percent of current users had used Landsat 8 in the year prior to the survey. The majority of Landsat 8 users (65 percent) were established users who used Landsat imagery regularly both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available. The average current Landsat user was male, 36 years old, and highly educated, with 9 years of experience using satellite imagery or geographic information system (GIS) software. Landsat 8 users had, on average, two more years of experience than non-Landsat 8 users. Users were employed predominantly by academic institutions (65 percent), followed by private businesses (13 percent), Federal governments (10 percent), State and local governments (6 percent), and nonprofit organizations (6 percent). Of the Landsat imagery obtained in the past year by current users, on average 31 percent came from a Landsat 8 sensor. An equivalent amount came from the Landsat 7 ETM+ sensor (33 percent); slightly less came from Landsats 4 and 5 TM sensors (27 percent). Much less came from Landsats 1 through 5 MSS sensors (5 percent). Overall, more than a third of users’ work used Landsat imagery (38 percent). Of this work, on average, 37 percent of the work was operational. Landsat 8 users considered a greater proportion of their work operational than non-Landsat 8 users (39 percent compared with 29 percent). Environmental sciences and management were the most commonly selected primary applications (selected by 42 percent of users). Land use/land cover (23 percent) was the second most commonly selected primary application, followed by education (12 percent), agriculture (9 percent), and planning and development (6 percent). Landsat 8 users were asked to rank the importance of certain attributes in determining whether to use Landsat 8 imagery in their work. The archive was ranked most important, followed by cost, spatial resolution, extent of coverage, data quality, and frequency of revisit. Users were asked how satisfied they were with these same attributes as they currently apply to Landsat 8 imagery. On average, users were most satisfied with lack of cost, extent of coverage, data quality, and the archive, but they were satisfied with all attributes. Users were asked how often they needed Landsat imagery to meet various requirements for their primary application. The survey question specifically asked how often users needed usable imagery, which differs from how often they would like the Landsat satellites to acquire an image. Users were asked to identify their needed frequency of usable imagery for the following levels: 1. Threshold level—the minimum frequency of usable imagery needed to be of any value to their primary application. 2. Breakthrough level—the frequency of usable imagery that would result in a significant improvement for their primary application of the imagery. 3. Target level—the frequency of usable imagery that would only provide a limited additional increase in the expected performance for their primary application. To meet the threshold level, three-quarters of users needed usable imagery every 17 days or less frequently. At the breakthrough level, two-thirds of users (64 percent) needed a usable image every 5–16 days. The current constellation of two satellites (Landsat 7 and 8) is capable of meeting the threshold and breakthrough needs of most users at least some of the time, but a single satellite would be highly unlikely to do so. Two-fifths of users (40 percent) felt that usable imagery provided every 4 days or more frequently would meet their target level which the current Landsat constellation cannot provide. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than non-Landsat 8 users to need usable imagery more frequently to meet their target levels. Additionally, U.S. Landsat 8 users were significantly more likely than other Landsat users to need usable imagery more frequently in order meet both their breakthrough and target levels. To explore the effect of the availability of Landsat 8 imagery on Landsat imagery use in general, established users (those who had consistently used Landsat imagery both before and after Landsat 8 imagery became available) using Landsat 8 imagery were asked about changes in the amount of Landsat imagery they used. The majority of established users using Landsat 8 imagery (60 percent) reported an average increase of 51 percent in the number of scenes obtained after Landsat 8 imagery became available. Landsat 8 users were asked if they had encountered challenges in using Landsat 8 whereas non-Landsat 8 users were asked if such challenges had played a role in why they were not using Landsat 8 imagery. Although many users did not encounter challenges when using or trying to use Landsat 8 data, slightly less than 30 percent did encounter issues with processing the data to a usable point. The most common issue reported was not being able to create or have access to a surface reflectance corrected product. Other challenges were related to the file sizes of images being too large to download, store, or analyze. There were no statistically significant differences between Landsat 8 and non-Landsat 8 users in terms of challenges encountered when using or trying to use the imagery, which indicates that users were not unduly discouraged by the challenges they may have encountered. When asked about potential consequences of not using Landsat 8, more than half of the non-Landsat 8 users did not report detrimental effects on their work from not using the imagery. Of those who did report detrimental effects, decreased quality of work, decreased scope of work, and increased time spent on work were the most common.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1997

A revised annotated checklist of the Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) of the southeastern United States

A revised annotated checklist for the chironomid midges (Diptera: Chironomidae) of the southeastern United States is presented that includes the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Much of the information concerns occurrence and habitat preference records based upon the authors' data, as well as published and unpublished data. Some information is also presented that includes aspects of biology, habitat preference, bibliographic sources, and nomenclatorial changes. Based upon the present work, the chironomid fauna of the southeastern states is comprised of 189 genera (172 described, 17 informally or unofficially described) and 754 species (505 described, 17 informally or unofficially described, 33 that are assumed for generic or subgeneric presence only, 197 estimated species, and 2 species groups). Several new species synonyms and generic placements are recognized. Thirty-eight genera known from the Nearctic region remain unknown from the southeastern states. Diversity of species was greatest in the subfamily Chironominae, considering named as well as unnamed and estimated species. There were no significant changes in overall regional distribution patterns of subfamilies or habitat preferences form that which has been previously reported. The greatest totals for regional records, habitat types, and state occurrences were the Coastal Plain (378), streams (271), and North Carolina (373), respectively.

Transactions of the American Entomological Society↗

USGS2016

Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme coastal biodiversity monitoring background paper

In 2014, the United States (U.S.) and Canada agreed to act as co-lead countries for the initial development of the Coastal Expert Monitoring Group (CEMG) as part of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP, www. cbmp.is) under the Arctic Council’s Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF, www.caff.is) working group. The CAFF Management Board approved Terms of Reference for the CEMG in the spring of 2014. The primary goal of the CEMG is to develop a long term, integrated, multi-disciplinary, circumpolar Arctic Coastal Biodiversity Monitoring Plan (the Coastal Plan) that relies on science and Traditional Knowledge, and has direct and relevant application for communities, industry, government decision makers, and other users. In addition to the monitoring plan, the CAFF working group has asked the CBMP, and thus the CEMG, to develop an implementation plan that identifies timeline, costs, organizational structure and partners. This background paper provides a platform for the guidance for the development of the Coastal Plan and is produced by the CEMG with assistance from a number of experts in multiple countries.

Report↗

USGS2013

A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks: Appendix 14: plants of conservation concern

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks are located in the California Floristic Province, which has been named one of world‘s hotspots of endemic biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000). The California Floristic Province is the largest and most important geographic floristic unit in California and extends from the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon to the northwestern portion of Baja California (Hickman 1993). The Sierra Nevada, one of six regions that make up the California Floristic Province, covers nearly 20% of the land in California yet contains over 50% of its flora. Within the Sierra Nevada, the southern Sierra supports more Sierran endemic and rare plant taxa than the central and northern portions of the region (Shevock 1996). Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI) encompass roughly 20% of the southern Sierra Nevada region. The parks overlap three floristic subregions (central Sierra Nevada High, southern Sierra Nevada High, and southern Sierra Nevada Foothills), and border the Great Basin Floristic Province. The parks support a rich and diverse vascular flora composed of over 1,560 taxa. Of these, 150 taxa are identified as having special status. The term special status is applied here to include taxa that are state or federally listed, rare in California, or at risk because they have a limited distribution. Only one species from these parks is listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts ( Carex tompkinsii , Tompkins‘ sedge, is listed as a rare species under the California Endangered Species Act), and one species is under review for federal endangered listing ( Pinus albicaulis , whitebark pine). However, an absence of threatened and endangered species recognized by Endangered Species Acts is not equivalent to an absence of species at risk. There are 83 plant taxa documented as occurring in SEKI that are considered imperiled or vulnerable in the state by the California Department of Fish and Game‘s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010a). There are an additional 66 taxa not formally listed by CNDDB that are recognized as having special status because their distribution is restricted to the Sierra Nevada. Special status plants are distributed throughout the two parks and inhabit a wide range of environments along the length of the elevation gradient that characterizes these parks. Ideally, we would assess the condition (status and trends) of each of the taxa on the SEKI special status plant list, documenting current population sizes, demographic rates and demographic trends. We would also hope to quantify the effects of individual stressors on each species based on existing monitoring and research. However, no data are available for most of the species on the special status plant list. For those few species (12 herbaceous species and two tree species) for which we possess some change over time information, the data are not adequate to make a competent assessment. Note that we have not explored the tree demographic information in any detail, as is covered in the NRCA Intact Forest/Five Needle Pines and Sequoia chapters. In general, we are unable to present an ‗integrity‘ metric for special status species in the parks, since the data to quantify the condition of each species in such a manner is not available. In contrast, the park does possess substantial data describing biodiversity in the parks. Therefore, our analysis focuses on describing the distribution and rarity of special status plants within the parks, with a particular focus on assessing the spatial distribution of species richness. We hope that such information will prove useful to park managers in determining which areas in the parks merit the most attention (for example in developing monitoring protocols). We also assess potential vulnerability of special status species to the stressors chosen by the NRCA working group, using both park data and available literature. As a first step, we spent considerable effort updating and refining the criteria for the special status plant list, as this list defines which taxa are considered in our assessment. Observation data of these species was then compiled from all known sources in order to provide a comprehensive view of where special status plants have been documented and, ultimately, to enable the most informed determinations of areas in the parks that potentially support the highest number of rare and endemic taxa. These ‗hot spot‘ analyses are presented by geographic region, vegetation type and elevation. For these and other analyses presented in this report, we place more focus on summarizing findings for the herbaceous and shrub special status taxa than on special status trees. The trees which qualify as special status are the focus of other NRCA chapters, including Giant Sequoia and Intact Forests/Five-needle Pines. We do, however, present their mapped distributions and provide overviews of research related to the special status tree taxa in the Stressors section of this report.

California↗

USGS2009

Alaska Interagency Ecosystem Health Work Group

The Alaska Interagency Ecosystem Health Work Group is a community of practice that recognizes the interconnections between the health of ecosystems, wildlife, and humans and meets to facilitate the exchange of ideas, data, and research opportunities. Membership includes the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Sea Life Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2010

Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES): using GIS to include social values information in ecosystem services assessments

Ecosystem services can be defined in various ways; simply put, they are the benefits provided by nature, which contribute to human well-being. These benefits can range from tangible products such as food and fresh water to cultural services such as recreation and esthetics. As the use of these benefits continues to increase, additional pressures are placed on the natural ecosystems providing them. This makes it all the more important when assessing possible tradeoffs among ecosystem services to consider the human attitudes and preferences that express underlying social values associated with their benefits. While some of these values can be accounted for through economic markets, other values can be more difficult to quantify, and attaching dollar amounts to them may not be very useful in all cases. Regardless of the processes or units used for quantifying such values, the ability to map them across the landscape and relate them to the ecosystem services to which they are attributed is necessary for effective assessments. To address some of the needs associated with quantifying and mapping social values for inclusion in ecosystem services assessments, scientists at the Rocky Mountain Geographic Science Center (RMGSC), in collaboration with Colorado State University, have developed a public domain tool, Social Values for Ecosystem Services (SolVES). SolVES is a geographic information system (GIS) application designed to use data from public attitude and preference surveys to assess, map, and quantify social values for ecosystem services. SolVES calculates and maps a 10-point Value Index representing the relative perceived social values of ecosystem services such as recreation and biodiversity for various groups of ecosystem stakeholders. SolVES output can also be used to identify and model relationships between social values and physical characteristics of the underlying landscape. These relationships can then be used to generate predicted Value Index maps for areas where survey data are not available. RMGSC will continue to develop more robust versions of SolVES by pursuing opportunities to work with land and resource managers as well as other researchers to apply SolVES to specific ecosystem management problems.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2001

Preliminary evaluation of the importance of existing hydraulic-head observation locations to advective-transport predictions, Death Valley regional flow system, California and Nevada

When a model is calibrated by nonlinear regression, calculated diagnostic statistics and measures of uncertainty provide a wealth of information about many aspects of the system. This report presents a method of ranking the likely importance of existing observation locations using measures of prediction uncertainty. It is suggested that continued monitoring is warranted at more important locations, and unwarranted or less warranted at less important locations. The report develops the methodology and then demonstrates it using the hydraulic-head observation locations of a three-layer model of the Death Valley regional flow system. The predictions of interest are subsurface transport from beneath Yucca Mountain and 14 Underground Test Areas. The advective component of transport is considered because it is the component most affected by the system dynamics represented by the scale model being used. The problem is addressed using the capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey computer program MODFLOW-2000, with its ADVective-Travel Observation (ADV) Package, and an additional computer program developed for this work. The methods presented in this report are used in three ways. (1) The ratings for individual observations are obtained by manipulating the measures of prediction uncertainty, and do not involve recalibrating the model. In this analysis, observation locations are each omitted individually and the resulting increase in uncertainty in the predictions is calculated. The uncertainty is quantified as standard deviations on the simulated advective transport. The increase in uncertainty is quantified as the percent increase in the standard deviations caused by omitting the one observation location from the calculation of standard deviations. In general, observation locations associated with larger increases are rated as more important. (2) Ratings for largely geographically based groups are obtained using a straightforward extension of the method used for individual observation locations. This analysis is needed where observations are clustered to determine whether the area is important to the predictions of interest. (3) Finally, the method is used to evaluate omitting a set of 100 observation locations. The locations were selected because they had low individual ratings and were not one of the few locations at which hydraulic heads from deep in the system were measured. The major results of the three analyses, when applied to the three-layer DVRFS ground-water flow system, are described in the following paragraphs. The discussion is labeled using the numbers 1 to 3 to clearly relate it to the three ways the method is used, as listed above. (1) The individual observation location analysis indicates that three observation locations are most important. They are located in Emigrant Valley, Oasis Valley, and Beatty. Of importance is that these and other observations shown to be important by this analysis are far from the travel paths considered. This displays the importance of the regional setting within which the transport occurs, the importance of including some sites throughout the area in the monitoring network, and the importance of including sites in these areas in particular. The method considered in this report indicates that the 19 observation locations that reflect hydraulic heads deeper in the system (in model layers 1, 2, and 3) are not very important. This appears to be because the locations of these observations are in the vicinity of shallow observation locations that also generally are rated as low importance, and because the model layers are hydraulically well connected vertically. The value of deep observations to testing conceptual models, however, is stressed. As a result, the deep observations are rated higher than is consistent with the results of the analysis presented, and none of these observations are omitted in the scenario discussed under (3) below. (2) The geographic grouping of th

California, Nevada↗

USGS2020

2023 Coastal master plan: Model improvement plan, ICM-wetlands, vegetation, and soil

As part of the model improvement effort for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan, the wetland processes captured by the morphology and vegetation models used during previous master plans were reevaluated to assess how Integrated Compartment Model (ICM) subroutines could be improved. This process considered technical reviews, comments, and suggested improvements provided by model developers, advisory groups, and other experts during previous master plan cycles. The availability of new data and information that could be used to make model improvements was also considered. In many cases, the team considered and tested multiple options or approaches. As a result of this effort, recommended improvements are provided here. The improvements recommended to be included in the 2023 Coastal Master Plan include: adjusting marsh collapse thresholds, refining organic matter accretion calculations, developing an unstructured grid for modeling vegetation, improving flotant marsh and forested wetlands algorithms, creating and applying an updated map of existing vegetation, adjusting model code, and updating the submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) module. This report describes the team’s work through a series of 7 distinct activities to identify and test options for model improvements to ensure the updated ICM used for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan appropriately captures ecological and morphological processes observed in Coastal Louisiana. As appropriate, relevant literature and data are discussed. Test runs to evaluate how changes influence model outputs are also documented. A final list of recommended updates, taking into account consideration of all options and results from test runs, is summarized at the end of the report. A later report will describe the final ICM-LAVegMod and ICM-Morph subroutines for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan, detailing the updates that have been incorporated.

Louisiana↗

USGS2006

Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument

Executive Summary This report summarizes results of the first comprehensive biological inventory of Casa Grande Ruins National Monument (NM) in southern Arizona. Surveys at the monument were part of a larger effort to inventory vascular plants and vertebrates in eight National Park Service units in Arizona and New Mexico. In 2001 and 2002 we surveyed for vascular plants and vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) at Casa Grande Ruins NM to document the presence, and in some cases relative abundance, of species. By using repeatable study designs and standardized field techniques, which included quantified survey effort, we produced inventories that can serve as the basis for a biological monitoring program. Of the National Park Service units in the region, no other has experienced as much recent ecological change as Casa Grande Ruins NM. Once situated in a large and biologically diverse mesquite bosque near the perennially flowing Gila River, the monument is now a patch of sparse desert vegetation surrounded by urban and commercial development that is rapidly replacing agriculture as the dominant land use in the area. Roads, highways, and canals surround the monument. Development, and its associated impacts, has important implications for the plants and animals that live in the monument. The plant species list is small and the distribution and number of non-native plants appears to be increasing. Terrestrial vertebrates are also being impacted by the changing landscape, which is increasing the isolation of these populations from nearby natural areas and thereby reducing the number of species at the monument. These observations are alarming and are based on our review of previous studies, our research in the monument, and our knowledge of the biogeography and ecology of the Sonoran Desert. Together, these data suggest that the monument has lost a significant portion of its historic complement of species and these changes will likely intensify as urbanization continues. Despite isolation of the monument from nearby natural areas, we recorded noteworthy species or observations for all taxonomic groups: * Plants: night-blooming cereus * Amphibians: high abundance of Couch's spadefoot toads * Reptiles: high abundance of long-nosed snakes * Birds: 10 species of diurnal raptors including 4 species of falcons * Mammals: American badger This study is a first step in the process of compiling information about the biological resources of Casa Grande Ruins NM and surrounding areas. We recommend additional inventory and research studies, and we identify aspects of our effort that could be improved upon through application of new techniques or by extending the temporal (and possibly spatial) scope of our work.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Recommended nomenclature for zeolite minerals: Report of the subcommittee on zeolites of the International Mineralogical Association, Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names

This report embodies recommendations on zeolite nomenclature approved by the International Mineralogical Association Commission of New Minerals and Mineral Names. In a working definition of a zeolite mineral used for review, interrupted tetrahedral framework structures are accepted where other zeolitic properties prevail, and complete substitution by elements other than Si and Al is allowed. Separate species are recognized in topologically distinctive compositional series in which different extra-framework cations are the most abundance in atomic proportions. To name these, the appropriate chemical symbol is attached by a hyphen to the series name as a suffix except for the names harmotome, pollucite and wairakite in the phillipsite and analcime series. Differences in space-group symmetry and in order-disorder relationships in zeolites having the same topologically distinctive framework do not in general provide adequate grounds for recognition of separate species. Zeolite species are not to be distinguished solely on Si:Al ratio except for heulandite (Si:Al < 4.0) and clinoptilolite ( Si : Al ⩾ 4.0 ). Dehydration, partial hydration, and over-hydration are not sufficient grounds for the recognition of separate species of zeolites. Use of the term 'ideal formula' should be avoided in referring to a simplified or averaged formula of a zeolite. Newly recognized species in compositional series are as follows: brewsterite-Sr.-Ba: chabazite-Ca.-Na.-K; clinoptilolite-K, -Na, -Ca: dachiardite-Ca, -Na; erionite-K, -Ca: faujasite-Na, -Ca, -Na: paulingite-K. -Ca; phillipsite-Na, -Ca, -Ka; stilbite-Ca, -Na. Key references, type locality, origin of name, chemical data. IZA structure-type symbols, space-group symmetry; unit-cell dimensions, and comments on structure are listed for 13 compositional series, 82 accepted zeolite mineral species, and three of doubtful status. Herschelite, leonhardite, svetlozarite, and wellsite are discredited as mineral species names. Obsolete and discredited names are listed.

Mineralogical Magazine↗

USGS2011

Upper Colorado River Basin Climate Effects Network

The Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) Climate Effects Network (CEN) is a science team established to provide information to assist land managers in future decision making processes by providing a better understanding of how future climate change, land use, invasive species, altered fire cycles, human systems, and the interactions among these factors will affect ecosystems and the services they provide to human communities. The goals of this group are to (1) identify science needs and provide tools to assist land managers in addressing these needs, (2) provide a Web site where users can access information pertinent to this region, and (3) provide managers technical assistance when needed. Answers to the team's working science questions are intended to address how interactions among climate change, land use, and management practices may affect key aspects of water availability, ecosystem changes, and societal needs within the UCRB.

Fact Sheet↗