SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science and ecosystem management in the national parks”

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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2011

Proceedings of a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop for the Western United States

Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments demonstrate that a fundamental change in our current management system is required to achieve the long-term health of our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes in order to sustain the services and benefits they provide to society. The present (2011) species- and sector-centric way we manage these ecosystems cannot account properly for cumulative effects, sustaining multiple ecosystem services, and holistically and explicitly evaluating the tradeoffs associated with proposed alternative and multiple human uses. A transition to an ecosystem-based approach to management and conservation of coastal and marine resources is needed. Competing uses and activities such as commerce, recreation, cultural practices, energy development, conservation, and national security are increasing pressure for new and expanded resource usage in coastal marine ecosystems. Current management efforts use a sector-by-sector approach that mostly focuses on a limited range of tools and outcomes [for example, oil and gas leases, fishery management plans, and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)]. A comprehensive, ecosystem-based, and proactive approach to planning and managing these uses and activities is needed. Further, scientific understanding and information are essential to achieve an integrated decision-making process that includes knowledge of ecosystem services, existing and possible future conditions, and potential consequences of natural and anthropogenic events. Because no single government agency has executive authority for coastal or ocean resources, conflicting objectives around competing uses abound. In recent years, regional- and state-level initiatives in Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) have emerged to coordinate management activities. In some respects, the components and steps of the overall CMSP process are similar to how existing ocean resources are regulated and managed. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) uses spatial planning exercises in State Renewable Energy Task Force meetings to identify competing and conflicting ocean uses, and to delineate areas suitable for renewable energy development. Similarly terrestrial areas such as in national parks and national wildlife refuges managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) prepare management plans for preservation and restoration of species and habitats of concern, some of which are protected by law. The analogy to CMSP is clear - multiple users and multiple expectations, resulting in the requirement to establish spatial plans for management of different resources and different ecosystem services. A two-day workshop on December 1-2, 2010, was convened for DOI representatives and several key non-DOI participants with roles in CMSP as a step toward clarifying national perspectives and consequences of the National Ocean Policy for the West (appendix 1). Discussions helped to develop an understanding of CMSP from the federal perspective and to identify regional priorities. An overarching theme was to promote a better understanding of current and future science needs. The workshop format included briefings by key Federal agencies on their understanding of the national focus followed by discussion of regional issues, including the needs for scientific information and coordination. The workshop also explored potential science contributions by Federal agencies and others; utilizing current capabilities, data, and information systems; and provided a foundation for possible future regional workshops focusing in turn on the West Coast Region (California, Oregon, and Washington), Pacific Islands (sometimes referred to as Oceania) and Alaska. Participants were asked to share information in the following areas, recognizing that the purpose would be to learn more about the national perspective (see appendixes 2-4): Explore how the Western U.S. (Alaska, Pacific Islands, and West Coast Region) migh

Open-File Report↗

USGS1999

Of elephants and blind men: Deer management in the U.S. National Parks

Overabundant populations of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) are becoming common in the eastern United States. Faced with burgeoning deer populations in eastern parks, the National Park Service (NPS) formulated policy based on its long experience with ungulate management in western parks. That the NPS failed to find a management solution acceptable to its many constituencies was inevitable. Like blind men touching different parts of an elephant and disagreeing about its form, those engaged in the debate about deer management in parks are viewing different parts of the ecological system. None has seen the entire system, and consequently, there is neither common agreement on the nature of the problem nor on the solutions. We explore the quandary of deer management in eastern parks by addressing three questions: (1) Can the National Park Service reconcile its management goals with those of its neighbors? (2) Can thresholds be identified for determining when to intervene in natural processes? (3) Is there a scientific foundation for proceeding with effective management of deer? We argue that reconciling the NPS management with that of state conservation agencies is not possible because management policy guides these agencies in opposite directions: the NPS is charged with limiting human impact on ecological processes, and state agencies are charged with exerting human control over population abundance. Questions about thresholds and a scientific basis for management arise from concern that irrupting deer populations are a manifestation of disrupted natural processes. Several population growth paradigms are at the heart of this ecological question. The science provides no consensus about which of these paradigms are appropriate to deer in eastern ecosystems. Thus, it is premature to expect science to identify if or when natural processes have been disrupted. While the NPS cannot effectively achieve its goals without better science, neither can it wait for science to fully understand the dynamics of plant–herbivore interactions. The best hope for resolving both the biological and political dilemmas surrounding deer management is through an adaptive management approach.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2013

Wetland fire scar monitoring and analysis using archival Landsat data for the Everglades

The ability to document the frequency, extent, and severity of fires in wetlands, as well as the dynamics of post-fire wetland land cover, informs fire and wetland science, resource management, and ecosystem protection. Available information on Everglades burn history has been based on field data collection methods that evolved through time and differ by land management unit. Our objectives were to (1) design and test broadly applicable and repeatable metrics of not only fire scar delineation but also post-fire land cover dynamics through exhaustive use of the Landsat satellite data archives, and then (2) explore how those metrics relate to various hydrologic and anthropogenic factors that may influence post-fire land cover dynamics. Visual interpretation of every Landsat scene collected over the study region during the study time frame produced a new, detailed database of burn scars greater than 1.6 ha in size in the Water Conservation Areas and post-fire land cover dynamics for Everglades National Park fires greater than 1.6 ha in area. Median burn areas were compared across several landscape units of the Greater Everglades and found to differ as a function of administrative unit and fire history. Some burned areas transitioned to open water, exhibiting water depths and dynamics that support transition mechanisms proposed in the literature. Classification tree techniques showed that time to green-up and return to pre-burn character were largely explained by fire management practices and hydrology. Broadly applicable as they use data from the global, nearly 30-year-old Landsat archive, these methods for documenting wetland burn extent and post-fire land cover change enable cost-effective collection of new data on wetland fire ecology and independent assessment of fire management practice effectiveness.

Florida↗

USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2012

Management implications of the science: Chapter 7 in A synthesis of aquatic science for management of Lakes Mead and Mohave

Lake Mead, particularly its Boulder Basin, is one of the most intensively monitored reservoirs in the United States. With its importance to societal needs and ecosystem benefits, interest in water quality and water resources of Lake Mead will remain high. A number of agencies have authorities and management interests in Lake Mead and maintain individual agency monitoring programs. These programs were enhanced on an interagency basis from 2004 to 2012 to facilitate intensive monitoring in all major basins of the lake. Recognition that increasing stressors and influences in individual basins can affect water quality throughout Lake Mead and gave rise to an even stronger effort towards the development of holistic and effective interagency approaches. In 2010, agency monitoring programs were used to develop a management plan for water-dependent resources at Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA). The Long-Term Limnological and Aquatic Resource Monitoring and Research Plan for Lakes Mead and Mohave (the Plan; National Park Service, 2010) documented key management questions to be addressed through monitoring and research, and identified interagency strategic objectives for water quality and water-dependent resources. Moreover, the Plan provides a framework for summarizing water quality and water resource information in five resource categories: water quality and limnology; fish and aquatic biota; sediments; birds; and riparian vegetation. The Plan also addresses three stressors to lake resources: contaminants, invasive species, and climate change. For each of these topics, the current (2012) state of knowledge is summarized for LMNRA (table 7-1), including key scientific questions and findings, management implications, and information needs. A more detailed discussion for each topic follows.

Circular↗

USGS2022

Increasing the efficiency and power of camera traps for EDRR & ecological monitoring

Invasive species are an ever-growing concern for Florida, especially in important environments like the Greater Everglades Ecosystem. One of the best ways to fight back against invasives is the use of the “Early Detection, Rapid Response” (EDRR) system. The earlier we can detect the presence of a nonnative species, and the faster we respond, the better our chance of stopping its spread. For years, USGS Fort Collins Science Center has been working closely with the National Park Service to use trail cameras to observe the presence of any nonnative species and to monitor research assets in remote locations. Currently, we are working in Everglades National Park to detect invading Black and White Tegu lizards as well as in Big Cypress National Preserve researching the invasive Burmese python and monitoring their nest sites (did you know bobcats eat python eggs!?).

Florida↗

USGS2014

Pollinators in peril? A multipark approach to evaluating bee communities in habitats vulnerable to effects from climate change

In 2010, collaborators from the National Park Service (Ann Rodman, Yellowstone National Park), USGS (Sam Droege and Ralph Grundel), and Harvard University (Jessica Rykken) were awarded funding from the NPS Climate Change Response Program to launch just such an investigation in almost 50 units of the National Park System (fig. 1). The main objectives of this multiyear project were to: Compare bee communities in three “vulnerable” habitats (high elevation, inland arid, coastal) and paired “common” habitats, representative of the landscape matrix, in order to determine whether vulnerable habitats have a distinctive bee fauna that may be at higher risk under climate change scenarios. Inform natural resource managers at each park about the bee fauna at their paired sites, including the presence of rare and endemic species, and make suggestions for active management strategies to promote native bee habitat if warranted. Increase awareness among park natural resource staffs, interpreters, and visitors of native bee diversity and natural history, the essential role of bees in maintaining healthy ecosystems, and potential threats from climate change to pollinator-dependent ecosystems.

Park Science↗

USGS2016

Conservation planning for the Colorado River in Utah

Strategic planning is increasingly recognized as necessary for providing the greatest possible conservation benefits for restoration efforts. Rigorous, science-based resource assessment, combined with acknowledgement of broader basin trends, provides a solid foundation for determining effective projects. It is equally important that methods used to prioritize conservation investments are simple and practical enough that they can be implemented in a timely manner and by a variety of resource managers. With the help of local and regional natural resource professionals, we have developed a broad-scale, spatially-explicit assessment of 146 miles (~20,000 acres) of the Colorado River mainstem in Grand and San Juan Counties, Utah that will function as the basis for a systematic, practical approach to conservation planning and riparian restoration prioritization. For the assessment we have: 1) acquired, modified or created spatial datasets of Colorado River bottomland conditions; 2) synthesized those datasets into habitat suitability models and estimates of natural recovery potential, fire risk and relative cost; 3) investigated and described dominant ecosystem trends and human uses, and; 4) suggested site selection and prioritization approaches. Partner organizations (The Nature Conservancy, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and Utah Forestry Fire and State Lands) are using the assessment and datasets to identify and prioritize a suite of restoration actions to increase ecosystem resilience and improve habitat for bottomland species. Primary datasets include maps of bottomland cover types, bottomland extent, maps of areas inundated during high and low flow events, as well as locations of campgrounds, roads, fires, invasive vegetation treatment areas and other features. Assessment of conditions and trends in the project area entailed: 1) assemblage of existing data on geology, changes in stream flow, and predictions of future conditions; 2) identification of fish and wildlife species present and grouping species into Conservation Elements (CEs) based on habitat needs, and: 3) acquisition, review and creation of spatial datasets characterizing vegetation, fluvial geomorphic and human features within the bottomland. Interpretation of aerial imagery and assimilation of pre-existing spatial data were central to our efforts in characterizing resources conditions. Detailed maps of vegetation and channel habitat features in the project area were generated from true color, high resolution (0.3m) imagery flown September 16, 2010. We also mapped channel habitat features at high flow on 1.0-m resolution, publicly available, true color imagery. We obtained additional layers such as land ownership, roads, fire history, non-native vegetation treatment areas, and recreational use features from public sources and project partners. Habitat suitability models were created for groups of terrestrial species by combining spatial datasets with the habitat needs of conservation elements, guided by literature, where available, and extensive use of expert knowledge. Conservation elements for endangered fish species life stages were identified but not modeled. Terrestrial CE’s included: • Riparian Overstory -yellow-billed cuckoo, Bullock’s oriole, black-headed grosbeak, blue grosbeak, warbling vireo, Cooper's hawk, screech owl, saw-whet owl, and bald eagle, (best: tall trees, dense canopy, diverse shrub understory, no tamarisk); • Riparian Understory - southwestern willow flycatcher, common yellowthroat, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, beaver, northern river otter, black-necked garter snake, (best: dense mesic shrubs near still water, no tamarisk); • Bat Feeding - Allen's big-eared bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, fringed myotis, Yuma myotis, big free-tailed bat, spotted bat (best: diverse vegetation, close to still water); • Bat Watering - big free-tailed and spotted bats (best: still water with no tall vegetation); •

Utah↗

USGS2000

Managers' summary - Ecological studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997

Ecological Studies of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range, 1992-1997 provides a synthesis of key findings of landscape-scale, interdisciplinary studies of the effects of wild horses and native ungulates on a rugged, mountain ecosystem. This is perhaps the most comprehensive study of a wild horse herd conducted. This was a complex study and one involving a truly interagency approach. Six agencies either provided input to research priority setting, funding, or both. The agencies included the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and U.S. Forest Service. The major research direction and effort came from the U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Ecology Lab, Colorado State University with Montana State University and the University of Kentucky also participating. Ungulate monitoring was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Bureau of Land Management, Billings Field Office and the Montana Fish and Wildlife Parks, with funding by Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Many other individuals and groups were involved and deserve credit. The report printing was made possible with funds from the Bureau of Land Management, Wild Horse and Burro Program, Washington Office. This report was prepared by the Information Management Project, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey.

Montana, Wyoming↗

USGS2015

A formalized approach to making effective natural resource management decisions for Alaska National Parks

A fundamental goal of the National Park Service (NPS) is the long-term protection and management of resources in the National Park System. Reaching this goal requires multiple approaches, including the conservation of essential habitats and the identification and elimination of potential threats to biota and habitats. To accomplish these goals, the NPS has implemented the Alaska Region Vital Signs Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program to monitor key biological, chemical, and physical components of ecosystems at more than 270 national parks. The Alaska Region has four networks—Arctic, Central, Southeast, and Southwest. By monitoring vital signs over large spatial and temporal scales, park managers are provided with information on the status and trajectory of park resources as well as a greater understanding and insight into the ecosystem dynamics. While detecting and quantifying change is important to conservation efforts, to be useful for formulating remedial actions, monitoring data must explicitly relate to management objectives and be collected in such a manner as to resolve key uncertainties about the dynamics of the system (Nichols and Williams 2006). Formal decision making frameworks (versus more traditional processes described below) allow for the explicit integration of monitoring data into decision making processes to improve the understanding of system dynamics, thereby improving future decisions (Williams 2011).

Alaska↗

USGS2015

Monitoring Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem wetlands: Can long-term monitoring help us understand their future?

In the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE), changes in the drying cycles of wetlands have been documented. Wetlands are areas where the water table is at or near the land surface and standing shallow water is present for much or all of the growing season. We discuss how monitoring data can be used to document variation in annual flooding and drying patterns of wetlands monitored across Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks, investigate how these patterns are related to a changing climate, and explore how drying of wetlands may impact amphibians. The documented declines of some amphibian species are of growing concern to scientists and land managers alike, in part because disappearances have occurred in some of the most protected places. These disappearances are a recognized component of what is being described as Earth’s sixth mass extinction.

Wyoming↗

USGS2015

The Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) surface-water model, version 2

The Everglades Depth Estimation Network (EDEN) is an integrated network of water-level gages, interpolation models that generate daily water-level and water-depth data, and applications that compute derived hydrologic data across the freshwater part of the greater Everglades landscape. The U.S. Geological Survey Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystems Science provides support for EDEN in order for EDEN to provide quality-assured monitoring data for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The EDEN surface-water model, version 2 (V2), interpolates water-level data from a network of 240 gages to generate gridded daily water-level surfaces for the freshwater domain of the Everglades. When these spatiotemporal continuous surfaces are combined with EDEN’s digital elevation model of ground surface, derived hydrologic data provide scientists and water managers working in the Everglades with data necessary to analyze ecological and biotic responses to hydrologic changes in the Everglades. Derived datasets include water depth, recession rates, days since last dry, water-surface slopes, and hydroperiod. The V2 model includes enhancements from the previous model (version 1; V1) to accommodate changes in the water-level gage network, adjustments to water-level data, improved understanding of the flow dynamics (particularly near canals), and installation of an elevation benchmark network. Enhancements to the V2 model included Expansion of the EDEN domain: The model domain was expanded to include a part of southern Big Cypress National Preserve and northwestern Everglades National Park upstream of the marsh mangrove wetlands, thus completing the coastal connection along the southwestern boundary of the model; and Development of subdomain models: To account for insufficient water-control structure gage data at some subbasin boundaries, subdomain models were developed for five subdomains, and the resulting water-level surfaces were merged to generate the final water-level surface. Model performance statistics show a general improvement in the V2 model as compared to the V1 model. Overall, the root mean squared error (RMSE) was reduced by 2.42 centimeters (cm) to 4.68 cm. In Water Conservation Area 3A North and Water Conservation Area 3B, the RMSE was reduced by 10.88 and 9.15 cm, respectively. In addition to evaluating model performance statistics, 2-cm water-level maps were generated and evaluated for irregular contours that would indicate a potential problem either with data input or water-level estimates. Three applications of the EDEN-modeled water surfaces and other EDEN datasets are presented in the report to show how scientists and resource managers are using EDEN datasets to analyze biological and ecological responses to hydrologic changes in the Everglades. The biological responses of two important Everglades species, alligators and wading birds, to changes in hydrology are described. The effects of hydrology on fire dynamics in the Everglades are also discussed.

Florida↗

USGS2011

Proceedings of the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds—Observing, Studying, and Managing for Change

These proceedings contain the abstracts, manuscripts, and posters of presentations given at the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds—Observing, Studying, and Managing for Change, held at the Westmark Hotel in Fairbanks, Alaska, September 26–30, 2011. The conference was jointly hosted by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. Watersheds face resource impacts driven by accelerated change related to land use, population, and climate. About every three years a conference is held to bring together watershed researchers, observers, and managers to share scientific advances and management strategies. This year, the Fourth ICRW took a wider perspective on watershed science and examined some pressing issues of watershed science and management in our largest and perhaps most vulnerable state, Alaska. The purpose of the conference was to better understand the processes driving change and help managers incorporate societal needs and scientific uncertainty in the management of natural resources. The conference echoed similar themes to the last, highlighting the challenges of managing watersheds based on available science when considerably uncertainty remains regarding the hypothesized relationships between observed environmental changes and their ultimate effects. For example, while the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has been well presented, confirming possible cause and effect relationships between climatic change and physical and ecological impacts in highly variable, natural systems continues to represent a scientific challenge. This goal becomes even more difficult when superimposed upon a long history of natural resource and land management practices that have fundamentally changed the physical, chemical and biological processes important in maintaining naturally functioning ecosystems. Designing and implementing studies to better understand watersheds and clearly communicating the findings to decisionmakers will be the primary challenge for natural resource scientists and managers into the foreseeable future.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

A Study of the Connection Among Basin-Fill Aquifers, Carbonate-Rock Aquifers, and Surface-Water Resources in Southern Snake Valley, Nevada

The Secretary of the Interior through the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act approved funding for research to improve understanding of hydrologic systems that sustain numerous water-dependent ecosystems on Federal lands in Snake Valley, Nevada. Some of the streams and spring-discharge areas in and adjacent to Great Basin National Park have been identified as susceptible to ground-water withdrawals (Elliott and others, 2006) and research has shown a high potential for ground-water flow from southern Spring Valley into southern Snake Valley through carbonate rocks that outcrop along a low topographic divide known as the Limestone Hills (Welch and others, 2007). Comprehensive geologic, hydrologic, and chemical information will be collected and analyzed to assess the hydraulic connection between basin-fill aquifers and surface-water resources, water-dependent ecological features, and the regional carbonate-rock aquifer, the known source of many high-discharge springs. Understanding these connections is important because proposed projects to pump and export ground water from Spring and Snake Valleys in Nevada may result in unintended capture of water currently supplying springs, streams, wetlands, limestone caves, and other biologically sensitive areas (fig. 1). The methods that will be used in this study may be transferable to other areas in the Great Basin. The National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service submitted the proposal for funding this research to facilitate science-based land management. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources and Geologic Disciplines, and the University of Nevada, Reno, will accomplish four research elements through comprehensive data collection and analysis that are concentrated in two distinct areas on the eastern and southern flanks of the Snake Range (fig. 2). The projected time line for this research is from July 2008 through September 2011.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

Biodiversity losses and conservation trade-offs: Assessing future urban growth scenarios for a North American trade corridor

The Sonoran Desert and Apache Highlands ecoregions of North America are areas of exceptionally high plant and vertebrate biodiversity. However, much of the vertebrate biodiversity is supported by only a few vegetation types with limited distributions, some of which are increasingly threatened by changing land uses. We assessed the impacts of two future urban growth scenarios on biodiversity in a binational watershed in Arizona, USA and Sonora, Mexico. We quantified and mapped terrestrial vertebrate species richness using Wildlife Habitat Relation models and validated the results with data from National Park Service biological inventories. Future urban growth, based on historical trends, was projected to the year 2050 for 1) a “Current Trends” scenario and, 2) a “Megalopolis” scenario that represented a transnational growth corridor with open-space conservation attributes. Based on Current Trends, 45% of existing riparian woodland (267 of 451species), and 34% of semi-desert grasslands (215 of 451 species) will be lost, whereas, in the Megalopolis scenario, these types would decline by 44% and 24% respectively. Outcomes of the two models suggest a trade-off at the taxonomic class level: Current Trends would reduce and fragment mammal and herpetofauna habitat, while Megalopolis would result in loss of avian-rich riparian habitat.

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Eco↗

USGS2012

Linking physical monitoring to coho and Chinook salmon populations in the Redwood Creek Watershed, California—Summary of May 3–4, 2012 Workshop

On Thursday, May 3, 2012, a science workshop was held at the Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP) office in Arcata, California, with researchers and resource managers working in RNSP to share data and expert opinions concerning salmon populations and habitat in the Redwood Creek watershed. The focus of the workshop was to discuss how best to synthesize physical and biological data related to the freshwater and estuarine phases of salmon life cycles in order to increase the understanding of constraints on salmon populations. The workshop was hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Status and Trends (S&T) Program National Park Monitoring Project ( http://www.fort.usgs.gov/brdscience/ParkMonitoring.htm ), which supports USGS research on priority topics (themes) identified by the National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring Program (I&M) and S&T. The NPS has organized more than 270 parks with significant natural resources into 32 Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Networks ( http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/networks.cfm ) that share funding and core professional staff to monitor the status and long-term trends of selected natural resources ( http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor ). All 32 networks have completed vital signs monitoring plans (available at http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/monitor/MonitoringPlans.cfm ), containing background information on the important resources of each park, conceptual models behind the selection of vital signs for monitoring the condition of natural resources, and the selection of high priority vital signs for monitoring. Vital signs are particular physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes of park ecosystems that represent the overall health or condition of the park, known or hypothesized effects of stressors, or elements that have important human values (Fancy and others, 2009). Beginning in 2009, the I&M program funded projects to analyze and synthesize the biotic and abiotic data generated by vital signs monitoring and previous in-park natural resource monitoring and inventories to provide useful information, models, and tools to park managers for addressing resource management issues. The workshop described in this report is an element of the project funded by USGS NPS-I&M program to conduct a synthesis of salmon-related datasets in the Klamath (KLMN) and San Francisco Bay Area (SFAN) networks of national parks. The synthesis focused on four park units: Redwood National Park (KLMN), Point Reyes National Seashore, Muir Woods National Monument, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (SFAN).

California↗

USGS2010

White-nose syndrome in bats: a primer for resource managers

White-nose syndrome emerged as a devastating new disease of North American hibernating bats over the past four winters. The disease has spread more than 1,600 kilometers (1,000 mi) since it was first observed in a small area of upstate New York, and has affected six species of bats in the caves and mines they rely on for winter survival. A newly discovered, cold-loving fungus (Geomyces destructans) causes the characteristic skin infection of white-nose syndrome and can infect presumably healthy bats when they hibernate. Although clear links between skin infection by G. destructans and death have not yet been established, the fungus is the most plausible cause of the disease. Thousands of caves and mines are administered by the National Park Service. Although bats testing positive for white-nose syndrome have been detected only at two sites in the National Park System thus far, the National Park Service (NPS) has been preparing for the spread and effects of white-nose syndrome through a proactive national program of response coordination, research support and interpretation, and education. National park areas across the nation are uniquely situated to help understand white-nose syndrome and its ecosystem impacts, and assist in the conservation and recovery of affected bat species.

Park Science↗

USGS2008

USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona

Executive Summary Glen Canyon Dam is located in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on the Colorado River, approximately 15 miles upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA; title XVIII, sec. 1801?1809, of Public Law 102-575), which seeks ?to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.? The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resources management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). On November 3, 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) announced it would develop a long-term experimental plan environmental impact statement (LTEP EIS) for operational activities at Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on the Colorado River. The purpose of the long-term experimental plan is twofold: (1) to increase the scientific understanding of the ecosystem and (2) to improve and protect important downstream resources. The proposed plan would implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation to include dam operations, potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam intake structures, and other management actions such as removal of nonnative fish species. The development of the long-term experimental plan continues efforts begun by the GCDAMP to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including Grand Canyon, through adaptive management and scientific experimentation. The LTEP EIS will rely on the extensive scientific studies that have been undertaken as part of the adaptive management program by the U.S. Geological Survey?s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), one of the four research stations within the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. On April 10 and 11, 2007, at the behest of Reclamation, the GCMRC convened a workshop with scientific experts to identify one or more scientifically credible, long-term experimental options for Reclamation to consider for the LTEP EIS that would be consistent with the purpose and need for the plan. Workshop participants included government, academic, and private scientists with broad experience in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon and regulated rivers around the world. Resource managers and GCDAMP participants were also present on the second day of the workshop. In advance of the workshop, Reclamation and LTEP EIS cooperating agencies identified 14 core scientific questions. Workshop participants were asked to consider how proposed options would address these questions, which fall primarily into four areas: (1) conservation of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and other high-priority biological resources, (2) conservation of sediment resources, (3) enhancement of recreational resources, and (4) preservation of cultural resources. A secondary objective of the workshop was the evaluation of four long-term experimental options developed by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) (appendix B). The flow and nonflow treatments called for in the four experimental options were an important starting point for workshop discussions. At the beginning of the workshop, participants were provided with the final LTEP EIS scoping report prepared by Reclamation. Participants were also advised that Reclamation had committed to ?make every effortEto ensure that a new population of humpback chub is established in the mainstem or one or more of the tributaries within Grand Canyon? in the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). This decision was consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s 1995 bi

Open-File Report↗