Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Mainstream”

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.

39 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS1993

Managing biological diversity

Biological diversity is the variety of life and accompanying ecological processes (Off. Technol. Assess. 1987, Wilcove and Samson 1987, Keystone 1991). Conservation of biological diversity is a major environmental issue (Wilson 1988, Counc. Environ. Quality 1991). The health and future of the earth's ecological systems (Lubchenco et al. 1991), global climate change (Botkin 1990), and an ever-increasing rate in loss of species, communities, and ecological systems (Myers 1990) are among issues drawing biological diversity to the mainstream of conservation worldwide (Int. Union Conserv. Nat. and Nat. Resour. [IUCN] et al. 1991). The legal mandate for conserving biological diversity is now in place (Carlson 1988, Doremus 1991). More than 19 federal laws govern the use of biological resources in the United States (Rein 1991). The proposed National Biological Diversity Conservation and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 585 and S.58) notes the need for a national biological diversity policy, would create a national center for biological diversity research, and recommends a federal interagency strategy for ecosystem conservation. There are, however, hard choices ahead for the conservation of biological diversity, and biologists are grappling with how to set priorities in research and management (Roberts 1988). We sense disillusion among field biologists and managers relative to how to operationally approach the seemingly overwhelming charge of conserving biological diversity. Biologists also need to respond to critics like Hunt (1991) who suggest a tree farm has more biological diversity than an equal area of old-growth forest. At present, science has played only a minor role in the conservation of biological diversity (Weston 1992) with no unified approach available to evaluate strategies and programs that address the quality and quantity of biological diversity (Murphy 1990, Erwin 1992). Although actions to conserve biological diversity need to be clearly defined by viewing issues across biological, spatial, and temporal scales (Knopf and Smith 1992), natural resource managers find much conflicting information in the literature on strategies and programs for the conservation of biological diversity (Ehrlich 1992). Moreover, recommendations provided in much of the published information available for planning or decisions not only can be debated but may prove counterproductive if implemented. Current operational efforts beg for clearer focus on fundamental concepts central to daily decisions that impact native biological diversity. Recognizing that many biologists would provide different council and at the risk of oversimplification, we offer the following 4 topical issues as fundamental guidance to wise conservation action. These recommendations are based on our collective experiences working within conservation agencies since our original, collaborative essay (Samson and Knopf 1982). They are offered as initial, rather than authoritative, steps to better align research and management decisions with what we perceive as the critical issues in conserving biological diversity at the landscape and ecosystem levels of resolution.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2018

Groundwater modeling

The state of the science and practice in groundwater modeling brings to mind highly sophisticated computer models that are running in parallel on many multi-processor machines. These models are expected to incorporate many different processes of both saturated and unsaturated groundwater flow and transport and possibly the media to which it connects, like surface waters and the atmosphere. We are increasingly aware we cannot study groundwater flow in isolation if we are to make useful predictions of, for instance, the impacts of climate change on the groundwater regime. We have come a long way. Today we are no longer limited to equations for flow toward a well, perhaps near an infinitely long straight canal (method of images), to sandbox models in the laboratory, or to simple steady state models of flow in a single aquifer. We now have computer models that solve groundwater flow and transport in multi-aquifer settings under transient conditions and with a user-friendly graphical user interface that allows widespread use. Additionally, multi-media models are now leaving the research environment and becoming available to mainstream consultants. So in that sense the science of groundwater modeling has matured. The practice of groundwater modeling, however, has also matured. We have come to realize that model output, being a necessary simplification of an unknowably complex natural world, has inherent limitations. That is, a model of reality is not reality itself. There is uncertainty associated with all facets of our model—parameterization, aquifer geometry and discretization, boundary conditions, and future hydrologic drivers such as future pumping regimes and climates. Today a model is now more appropriately seen as a tool that provides a quantitative framework to make supportable forecasts rather than an oracle that gives us all the answers. In this chapter we set out to briefly review the state of the science and practice in modeling. In doing so, we augment existing assessments from the journal Groundwater (e.g., Hunt and Zheng 2012; Langevin and Panday 2012; Molz 2017a,b; White 2017), specifically in terms of modeling approach. An effective modeling approach is critical. If a modeler does not decompose the societal problem correctly, the model will not be fit-for-purpose, no matter how sophisticated the code’s capabilities. Moreover, capabilities of codes will be ever improving; good modeling practices have a timelessness that is more robust. How best to decompose the problem and provide models that are accepted? We lay out here some approaches for today’s applied groundwater modeling. Specifically, we suggest: (1) a step-wise modeling process; (2) including a two-dimensional areal model within this process; (3) keeping abreast of industry standards; and (4) ways to increase acceptance of the models we produce.

Book chapter↗