Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Land Use Policy”

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

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

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗
USGS1969

Environmental impact of oil development in northern Alaska

It is reported that in the spring of 1969 a high official of one of the oil companies was flying over the area of oil development in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay. He is quoted as saying "If the American people could see what we are doing to their land here, they would want to abolish the use of the reciprocating engine." The last really large area of wilderness in the United States is the' Brooks Range and the Arctic Coastal Plain which stretches from that range to the Arctic Ocean. The proving of the exploratory oil wells which have been drilled on the coastal plain in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay makes it virtually certain that this heretofore mostly unknown country will rapidly and vigorously be exposed to a variety of changes caused by the influx of men and their equipment. Even within the first four months of 1969 the whole aspect of the central part of the region has been importantly changed by the drilling programs of several large oil companies. So suddenly was this change brought about that no long-range plans have been developed either to soften the effect of such development on the natural environment or even to record the progress of these effects. Yet the absence of a plan provides an inadvertent potential advantage in that there has' been no history of increasingly firm Federal policy which, in other places, has often made it difficult to take newly conceived action in line with the increasing societal interest in environmental preservation. The lack of firm Federal policy provides here a unique opportunity for the application of new rules and investigative techniques aimed at minimizing the adverse effects on the environment while5.at the same time, not unduly hindering the development of the natural resources. But the speed with which the changes are being wrought makes it imperative that the principles applicable here to environmental protection or preservation, be enunciated immediately and that from these principles flow farsighted regulations which reflect the new interest in combining resource development with environmental protection. The present report constitutes a brief summary of the conditions existing in northern Alaska in the spring of 1969, presenting some inferences on the environmental changes which can be expected in the future and offering some specific steps which, if taken immediately and positively, could greatly ameliorate the adverse effects of rapid development in the absence of positive steps for environmental protection. In that regard, then, this report is ephemeral in character because the conditions in northern Alaska will surely change with great rapidity. Considering the"fragility and sensitivity of the ecosystems existing there, the changes can be both harsh and permanent. Therefore, whatever value lies in the recommendations made here., the results of their application will depend on the promptness of their consideration, amendment, and application. Whatever form the actions might take for minimizing the harm to the environment, the urgency of the matter can hardly be overestimated.

Alaska↗
USGS2023

Blue carbon in a changing climate and a changing context

Blue carbon, a convenient term to encompass the climate mitigation value of coastal carbon dynamics, has received global policy attention and growing datasets to support management actions. Carbon stock assessments in mangroves, seagrass, and tidal marshes document significant carbon storage in soils. Models illustrate significant downward fluxes of carbon dioxide and limited methane emissions, making tidal wetland preservation and restoration notably potent for carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Natural variation in different carbon stocks and fluxes has led to prioritization efforts to characterize coastal lands across physical and biological gradients. However, a larger concern beyond upscaling carbon dynamics is the resilience of these stocks and fluxes with global changes. Data-informed models have greatly improved our assessments of the vulnerability of soil and biomass stocks, greenhouse gas (GHG) balance, and spatial extents. Accelerated sea-level rise is increasingly concerning, but its impacts vary by resilience context, as very few coastal lands are without direct human impact. As the landscape context has changed, blue carbon fluxes have also shifted in terms of importance and distribution. New incentives for tidal ecosystem management are expanding boundaries to include algal carbon and tidal transport of alkalinity, which bring additional co-benefits to coastal waters. Using examples from the conterminous USA on blue carbon stocks, radiative balance, and extent, this chapter explores timelines of physical and biogeochemical stressors and their application to past, current, and future climate mitigation functions of coastal ecosystems.

Book chapter↗
USGS2016

Land uses, fire, and invasion: Exotic annual Bromus and human dimensions

Human land uses are the primary cause of the introduction and spread of exotic annual Bromus species. Initial introductions were likely linked to contaminated seeds used by homesteading farmers in the late 1880s and early 1900s. Transportation routes aided their spread. Unrestricted livestock grazing from the 1800s through the mid-1900s reduced native plant competitors leaving large areas vulnerable to Bromus dominance. Ecosystems with cooler and moister soils tend to have greater potential to recover from disturbances (resilience) and to be more resistant to Bromus invasion and dominance. Warmer and drier ecosystems are less resistant to Bromus and are threatened by altered fire regimes which can lead to Bromus dominance, impacts to wildlife, and alternative stable states. Native Americans used fire for manipulating plant communities and may have contributed to the early dominance of Bromus in portions of California. Fire as a tool is now limited to site preparation for revegetation in most ecosystems where Bromus is a significant problem. Once Bromus dominates, breaking annual grass/fire cycles requires restoring fire-tolerant perennial grasses and forbs, which can compete with Bromus and resist its dominance. Current weed management policies often lack regulations to prevent further expansion of Bromus . Research is needed on how and where livestock grazing might help increase perennial grass and forb cover and density to create ecosystems that are more resistant to Bromus . Also, studies are needed to ascertain the role, if any, of oil and gas development in contributing to the spread of Bromus .

Book chapter↗
USGS1997

Landsat Data

In the mid-1960's, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) embarked on an initiative to develop and launch the first Earth monitoring satellite to meet the needs of resource managers and earth scientists. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) entered into a partnership with NASA in the early 1970?s to assume responsibility for archiving data and distributing data products. On July 23, 1972, NASA launched the first in a series of satellites designed to provide repetitive global coverage of the Earth?s land masses. Designated initially as the "Earth Resources Technology Satellite-A" ("ERTS-A"), it used a Nimbus-type platform that was modified to carry sensor systems and data relay equipment. When operational orbit was achieved, it was designated "ERTS-1." The satellite continued to function beyond its designed life expectancy of 1 year and finally ceased to operate on January 6, 1978, more than 5 years after its launch date. The second in this series of Earth resources satellites (designated ?ERTS-B?) was launched January 22, 1975. It was renamed "Landsat 2" by NASA, which also renamed "ERTS-1" as "Landsat 1." Three additional Landsats were launched in 1978, 1982, and 1984 (Landsats 3, 4, and 5 ). (See table 1). NASA was responsible for operating the program through the early 1980?s. In January 1983, operation of the Landsat system was transferred to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In October 1985, the Landsat system was commercialized and the Earth Observation Satellite Company, now Space Imaging EOSAT, assumed responsibility for its operation under contract to NOAA. Throughout these changes, the USGS EROS Data Center (EDC) retained primary responsibility as the Government archive of Landsat data. The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-5555) officially authorized the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive and assigned responsibility to the Department of the Interior. In addition to its Landsat data management responsibility, the EDC investigates new methods of characterizing and studying changes on the land surface with Landsat data.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

Regional variability in peatland burning at mid-to high-latitudes during the Holocene

Northern peatlands store globally-important amounts of carbon in the form of partly decomposed plant detritus. Drying associated with climate and land-use change may lead to increased fire frequency and severity in peatlands and the rapid loss of carbon to the atmosphere. However, our understanding of the patterns and drivers of peatland burning on an appropriate decadal to millennial timescale relies heavily on individual site-based reconstructions. For the first time, we synthesise peatland macrocharcoal records from across North America, Europe, and Patagonia to reveal regional variation in peatland burning during the Holocene. We used an existing database of proximal sedimentary charcoal to represent regional burning trends in the wider landscape for each region. Long-term trends in peatland burning appear to be largely climate driven, with human activities likely having an increasing influence in the late Holocene. Warmer conditions during the Holocene Thermal Maximum (∼9–6 cal. ka BP) were associated with greater peatland burning in North America's Atlantic coast, southern Scandinavia and the Baltics, and Patagonia. Since the Little Ice Age, peatland burning has declined across North America and in some areas of Europe. This decline is mirrored by a decrease in wider landscape burning in some, but not all sub-regions, linked to fire-suppression policies, and landscape fragmentation caused by agricultural expansion. Peatlands demonstrate lower susceptibility to burning than the wider landscape in several instances, probably because of autogenic processes that maintain high levels of near-surface wetness even during drought. Nonetheless, widespread drying and degradation of peatlands, particularly in Europe, has likely increased their vulnerability to burning in recent centuries. Consequently, peatland restoration efforts are important to mitigate the risk of peatland fire under a changing climate. Finally, we make recommendations for future research to improve our understanding of the controls on peatland fires.

Quaternary Science Reviews↗
USGS2012

Reducing Vulnerability of Ports and Harbors to Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards

Recent scientific research suggests the Pacific Northwest could experience catastrophic earthquakes in the near future, both from distant and local sources, posing a significant threat to coastal communities. Damage could result from numerous earthquake-related hazards, such as severe ground shaking, soil liquefaction, landslides, land subsidence/uplift, and tsunami inundation. Because of their geographic location, ports and harbors are especially vulnerable to these hazards. Ports and harbors, however, are important components of many coastal communities, supporting numerous activities critical to the local and regional economy and possibly serving as vital post-event, response-recovery transportation links. A collaborative, multi-year initiative is underway to increase the resiliency of Pacific Northwest ports and harbors to earthquake and tsunami hazards, involving Oregon Sea Grant (OSG), Washington Sea Grant (WSG), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center (CSC), and the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science Policy (CSP). Specific products of this research, planning, and outreach initiative include a regional stakeholder issues and needs assessment, a community-based mitigation planning process, a Geographic Information System (GIS) — based vulnerability assessment methodology, an educational web-site and a regional data archive. This paper summarizes these efforts, including results of two pilot port-harbor community projects, one in Yaquina Bay, Oregon and the other in Sinclair Inlet, Washington. Finally, plans are outlined for outreach to other port and harbor communities in the Pacific Northwest and beyond, using "getting started" workshops and a web-based tutorial.

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—2016 annual report

This is the ninth annual report highlighting U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science and decision-support activities conducted for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI). The activities address specific management needs identified by WLCI partner agencies. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, there were 26 active USGS WLCI science-based projects. Of these 26 projects, one project was new for FY2016, and three were completed by the end of the fiscal year (though final products were still in preparation or review). USGS WLCI projects were grouped under five categories: (1) Baseline Synthesis, (2) Long-Term Monitoring, (3) Effectiveness Monitoring, (4) Mechanistic Studies of Wildlife, and (5) Data and Information Management. Each of these topic areas is designed to address WLCI management needs: identifying key drivers of change, identifying the condition and distribution of key wildlife species and habitats and of species’ habitat requirements, development of an integrated inventory and monitoring strategy, use of emerging technologies and development and testing of innovative methods for maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of monitoring efforts, evaluating the effectiveness of habitat treatment projects, evaluating the responses of wildlife to development, and developing a data clearinghouse and information management framework to support and provide access to results of most USGS WLCI projects. In FY2016, we assisted with updating the WLCI Conservation Action Plan and associated databases as part of the Comprehensive Assessment, and we also assisted with the Bureau of Land Management 2015 WLCI annual report. By the end of FY2016, we completed or had nearly completed assessments of WLCI energy and mineral resources and had submitted a manuscript on modeled effects of oil and gas development on wildlife to a peer-reviewed journal. We also initiated a study on the effects of wind energy on wildlife in the WLCI region. A USGS circular on WLCI long-term monitoring was in review at the end of the fiscal year, and seven projects monitoring water and vegetation (including changes in sagebrush cover and patterns of sagebrush mortality) continued through the year. USGS scientists continued many projects in FY2016 that evaluate the effectiveness of habitat conservation actions (including sagebrush, cheatgrass, and aspen habitat treatments) and provide tools in support of mechanistic studies of wildlife. In FY2016, USGS scientists, along with university and State partners, continued work on five focal wildlife species/communities (pygmy rabbits [ Brachylagus idahoensis ], greater sage grouse , mule deer, sagebrush songbirds, and native fish). In FY2016, the USGS Information Management Team presented information to WLCI scientists on how USGS tools and resources can be used to fulfill the requirements of new USGS policies regarding data release, data management, and data visualization.

Wyoming↗
USGS2002

Sociocultural and institutional drivers and constraints to mineral supply; the meaning of scarcity in the 21st century: drivers and constraints to the supply of minerals using regional, national and global perspectives

The sociocultural dimensions of mineral supply at the outset of the 21st century are making the supply process increasingly complex. The dimensions encompass legal, financial, environmental, cultural, and global implications of mining, and are driving unprecedented change in the way minerals supply will be accomplished in the future. Minerals scarcity on a global scale is subordinate to other societal issues about mineral resources and reserves estimated to meet society's demands for decades to centuries in the future. This report reviews historical and present-day sociocultural drivers of change, and reactions of the minerals industry to these drivers. It is reflective primarily of conditions in the United States, but also uses examples from other countries. It expresses viewpoints on sociocultural drivers as seen by constituents of the minerals industry and several other communities of interest including Aboriginal peoples, non-government organizations; labor; mining-dependent communities; mining-affected communities; researchers; and government (federal, state/provincial, and local). It provides overviews of the demand for minerals in the United States, and the status of land available for mining. The report uses a case study of a metals mining project in Wisconsin to illustrate specific sociocultural drivers and constraints to minerals supply, and how these influence the minerals industry. Over the past 150 years, a progression of sociocultural movements under the headings of conservationism, environmentalism, and sustainable development have nurtured societal values that have come to influence the mineral supply process in important ways. These movements reflect a continuing tension between the demand for minerals and other resources, and the simultaneous demand for aesthetic, spiritual, ecological, cultural, and other attributes of the land. The tension is an important element in current international debates about the meaning and future of sustainable development. This report focuses on some of the social challenges to the minerals industry to supply minerals, while at the same time providing environmental protection, economic growth, and sociocultural acceptance. All these issues fall under the rubric of sustainable development. It also describes current industry responses to sustainability, including the Global Mining Initiative (2001a), an attempt to introduce major changes in global industry practices to begin the 21st century. This report complements other documents in the series on physical supply, technological advancement, and economic and policy drivers (Wilburn and others, 2001).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Prairie Pothole Region wetlands and subsurface drainage systems: Key factors for determining drainage setback distances

Use of agricultural subsurface drainage systems in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America continues to increase, prompting concerns over potential negative effects to the Region's vital wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protects a large number of wetlands through conservation easements that often utilize standard lateral setback distances to provide buffers between wetlands and drainage systems. Because of a lack of information pertaining to the efficacy of these setback distances for protecting wetlands, information is required to support the decision making for placement of subsurface drainage systems adjacent to wetlands. We used qualitative graphical analyses and data comparisons to identify characteristics of subsurface drainage systems and wetland catchments that could be considered when assessing setback distances. We also compared setback distances with catchment slope lengths to determine if they typically exclude drainage systems from the catchment. We demonstrated that depth of a subsurface drainage system is a key factor for determining drainage setback distances. Drainage systems located closer to the surface (shallow) typically could be associated with shorter lateral setback distances compared with deeper systems. Subsurface drainage systems would be allowed within a wetland's catchment for 44–59% of catchments associated with wetland conservation easements in North Dakota. More specifically, results suggest that drainage setback distances generally would exclude drainage systems from catchments of the smaller wetlands that typically have shorter slopes in the adjacent upland contributing area. For larger wetlands, however, considerable areas of the catchment would be vulnerable to drainage that may affect wetland hydrology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service easements are associated with > 2,000 km 2 of wetlands in North Dakota, demonstrating great potential to protect these systems from drainage depending on policies for installing subsurface drainage systems on these lands. The length of slope of individual catchments and depth of subsurface drainage systems could be considered when prescribing drainage setback distances and assessing potential effects to wetland hydrology. Moreover, because of uncertainties associated with the efficacy of standard drainage setback distances, exclusion of subsurface drainage systems from wetland catchments would be ideal when the goal is to protect wetlands.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗
USGS2023

Value-aligned planning objectives for restoring North Carolina aquatic resources

Rapid population growth and development in the southeastern United States have resulted in substantial impairment to freshwater aquatic ecosystems. National or regional restoration policies strive to address impaired ecosystems but can suffer from inconsistent and opaque processes. The Clean Water Act, for example, establishes reallocation mechanisms to transfer ecosystem services from sites of disturbance to compensation sites to offset aquatic resource functions that are unavoidably lost through land development. However, planning for the prioritization of compensatory mitigation areas is often hampered by unstructured decision-making processes that are narrowly framed because they are not co-produced with stakeholders affected by, or having an interest in, the impacts and mitigation. This summary report represents the collaborative efforts of the U.S. Geological Survey and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services, to co-develop an applied decision framework following the principles of structured decision-making for prioritizing watershed catchments by their potential for realizing a range of beneficial outcomes from future mitigation projects. The framework focuses on supporting the State’s nationally recognized stream and wetlands compensatory mitigation program by clarifying a discrete decision problem and specifying agency and stakeholder values to formulate fundamental and means objectives for prioritizing restoration sites. The co-development of this decision framework resulted in a number of useful insights from the perspective of the decision maker, including recognition (1) that the problem is a multi-objective decision driven by values beyond restoring lost functionality of ecosystems (that is, biogeophysical goals), (2) that the decision comprises a linked and sequential planning-to-implementation process, and (3) that future risk associated with land-use and climate change must be considered. The outcomes of this collaboration can serve as a systematic and transparent framework to prioritize a wide range of restoration, conservation, and resource-allocation activities in similar environmental contexts across the Nation.

North Carolina↗
USGS2014

Ecological risks of shale oil and gas development to wildlife, aquatic resources and their habitats

Technological advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have led to the exploration and exploitation of shale oil and gas both nationally and internationally. Extensive development of shale resources has occurred within the United States over the past decade, yet full build out is not expected to occur for years. Moreover, countries across the globe have large shale resources and are beginning to explore extraction of these resources. Extraction of shale resources is a multistep process that includes site identification, well pad and infrastructure development, well drilling, high-volume hydraulic fracturing and production; each with its own propensity to affect associated ecosystems. Some potential effects, for example from well pad, road and pipeline development, will likely be similar to other anthropogenic activities like conventional gas drilling, land clearing, exurban and agricultural development and surface mining (e.g., habitat fragmentation and sedimentation). Therefore, we can use the large body of literature available on the ecological effects of these activities to estimate potential effects from shale development on nearby ecosystems. However, other effects, such as accidental release of wastewaters, are novel to the shale gas extraction process making it harder to predict potential outcomes. Here, we review current knowledge of the effects of high-volume hydraulic fracturing coupled with horizontal drilling on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems in the contiguous United States, an area that includes 20 shale plays many of which have experienced extensive development over the past decade. We conclude that species and habitats most at risk are ones where there is an extensive overlap between a species range or habitat type and one of the shale plays (leading to high vulnerability) coupled with intrinsic characteristics such as limited range, small population size, specialized habitat requirements, and high sensitivity to disturbance. Examples include core forest habitat and forest specialists, sagebrush habitat and specialists, vernal pond inhabitants and stream biota. We suggest five general areas of research and monitoring that could aid in development of effective guidelines and policies to minimize negative impacts and protect vulnerable species and ecosystems: (1) spatial analyses, (2) species-based modeling, (3) vulnerability assessments, (4) ecoregional assessments, and (5) threshold and toxicity evaluations.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2025

Global methane budget 2000-2020

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH 4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH 4 emissions compared to those of CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr −1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr −1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr −1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH 4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH 4 yr −1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty ( ∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH 4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH 4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH 4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH 4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH 4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning.

Earth System Science Data↗
USGS2025

Decision analysis in support of the National Elk Refuge bison and elk management plan

Preface This report was developed to evaluate the performance of a set of proposed alternatives for Cervus elaphus canadensis (elk) and Bison bison (bison) management at the National Elk Refuge (NER) in Wyoming, U.S.A., and to inform a National Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement focused on developing the next “Bison and Elk Management Plan” (BEMP). The U.S. Geological Survey facilitated a structured decision-making process for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop the alternatives and the criteria (performance metrics) for evaluating the alternatives. Chapter A provides scoping details of the report, a summary of the 19 metrics that are used to evaluate the performance of each of 6 alternatives, and methodological details of 2 performance metrics that were not covered in other technical chapters. Chapter B analyzes elk population and chronic wasting disease dynamics under the five initial alternatives. Chapter C evaluates elk space-use based on data collected from global positioning system collars on elk and expert elicitation for scenarios with limited data. Chapter D evaluates bison population dynamics, conflict, and harvest patterns under the five initial alternatives. Chapter E assesses social and economic consequences. Chapter F is newly added to this superseding report and details the analysis and results of a new alternative that was developed after discussion among the lead and cooperating agencies working on the BEMP. The full set of six alternatives are anticipated to have varying affects on bison and elk population abundance and private land use, wildlife-related recreation and tourism, and hunters and outfitters in the region. Each chapter was developed under advisement of a technical team, made up science experts from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and Wyoming Game and Fish Department.

Wyoming↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

River network saturation concept: factors influencing the balance of biogeochemical supply and demand of river networks

River networks modify material transfer from land to ocean. Understanding the factors regulating this function for different gaseous, dissolved, and particulate constituents is critical to quantify the local and global effects of climate and land use change. We propose the River Network Saturation (RNS) concept as a generalization of how river network regulation of material fluxes declines with increasing flows due to imbalances between supply and demand at network scales. River networks have a tendency to become saturated (supply ≫ demand) under higher flow conditions because supplies increase faster than sink processes. However, the flow thresholds under which saturation occurs depends on a variety of factors, including the inherent process rate for a given constituent and the abundance of lentic waters such as lakes, ponds, reservoirs, and fluvial wetlands within the river network. As supply increases, saturation at network scales is initially limited by previously unmet demand in downstream aquatic ecosystems. The RNS concept describes a general tendency of river network function that can be used to compare the fate of different constituents among river networks. New approaches using nested in situ high-frequency sensors and spatially extensive synoptic techniques offer the potential to test the RNS concept in different settings. Better understanding of when and where river networks saturate for different constituents will allow for the extrapolation of aquatic function to broader spatial scales and therefore provide information on the influence of river function on continental element cycles and help identify policy priorities.

Biogeochemistry↗
USGS2016

Spatial and temporal variability of contaminants within estuarine sediments and native Olympia oysters: A contrast between a developed and an undeveloped estuary

Chemical contaminants can be introduced into estuarine and marine ecosystems from a variety of sources including wastewater, agriculture and forestry practices, point and non-point discharges, runoff from industrial, municipal, and urban lands, accidental spills, and atmospheric deposition. The diversity of potential sources contributes to the likelihood of contaminated marine waters and sediments and increases the probability of uptake by marine organisms. Despite widespread recognition of direct and indirect pathways for contaminant deposition and organismal exposure in coastal systems, spatial and temporal variability in contaminant composition, deposition, and uptake patterns are still poorly known. We investigated these patterns for a suite of persistent legacy contaminants including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and chemicals of emerging concern including pharmaceuticals within two Oregon coastal estuaries (Coos and Netarts Bays). In the more urbanized Coos Bay, native Olympia oyster ( Ostrea lurida ) tissue had approximately twice the number of PCB congeners at over seven times the total concentration, yet fewer PBDEs at one-tenth the concentration as compared to the more rural Netarts Bay. Different pharmaceutical suites were detected during each sampling season. Variability in contaminant types and concentrations across seasons and between species and media (organisms versus sediment) indicates the limitation of using indicator species and/or sampling annually to determine contaminant loads at a site or for specific species. The results indicate the prevalence of legacy contaminants and CECs in relatively undeveloped coastal environments highlighting the need to improve policy and management actions to reduce contaminant releases into estuarine and marine waters and to deal with legacy compounds that remain long after prohibition of use. Our results point to the need for better understanding of the ecological and human health risks of exposure to the diverse cocktail of pollutants and harmful compounds that will continue to leach from estuarine sediments over time.

Oregon↗
USGS2016

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

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

Fact Sheet↗