Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Impact Assessment Review”

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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Coordinated bird monitoring: Technical recommendations for military lands

The Department of Defense (DoD) is subject to several rules and regulations establishing responsibilities for monitoring migratory birds. The Sikes Act requires all military installations with significant natural resources to prepare and implement Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans (INRMPs). These plans guide the conservation and long-term management of natural resources on military lands in a manner that is compatible with and sustains the military mission. An INRMP also supports compliance with all legal requirements and guides the military in fulfilling its obligation to be a good steward of public land.The management and conservation of migratory birds is addressed in installation INRMPs. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental impacts of their proposed actions. More recently, DoD signed an MOU (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/EO13186_MOU-DoD.pdf) for migratory birds, under Executive Order 13186, with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in July 2006 and a Migratory Bird Rule (http://www.dodpif.org/downloads/MigBirdFINALRule_FRFeb2007.pdf) was passed by Congress in February 2007. The Migratory Bird Rule addresses the potential impacts of military readiness activities on populations of migratory birds and establishes a process to implement conservation measures if and when a military readiness activity is expected to have a significant adverse impact on a population of migratory bird species (as determined through the NEPA process). The MOU states that for nonmilitary readiness activities, prior to initiating any activity likely to affect populations of migratory birds DoD shall (1) identify the migratory bird species likely to occur in the area of the proposed action and determine if any species of concern could be affected by the activity, and (2) assess and document, using NEPA when applicable, the effect of the proposed action on species of concern. By following these procedures, DoD will minimize the possibility for a proposed action to unintentionally take migratory birds at a level that would violate any of the migratory bird treaties and potentially impact mission activities. In addition, implementing conservation and monitoring programs for migratory birds supports the ecosystem integrity necessary to sustain DoD's natural resources for the military mission.Non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the MBTA could result in a private party lawsuit under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). A lawsuit filed under APA involving a Navy bombing range is the basis for a court ruling that unintentional take of migratory birds applies to federal actions. Ensuring the necessary data is available to adequately assess impacts of a proposed action will help avoid lawsuits or help ensure such lawsuits have no grounds. The data gathered in a bird monitoring program will provide the best scientific data available to assess the expected impacts of a proposed action on migratory bird species through the NEPA process. This report presents recommendations developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the Department of Defense (DoD) on establishing a "Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM) Plan." The CBM Plan is intended to ensure that DoD meets its conservation and regulatory responsibilities for monitoring birds (Chapter 1). The report relies heavily on recommendations in the report, "Opportunities for improving avian monitoring" (http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/monitoringreportfinal0307.pdf), by the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (U.S. NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee, 2007) and on a review of 358 current DoD bird monitoring programs carried out as part of this project (Chapter 2). This report contains 12 recommendations which, if followed, would result in a comprehensive, efficient, and useful approach to bird monitoring. The recommendations are based on the entire report but are presented together at the end of Chapter 1. DoD has agreed to consider implementing these recommendations; however, final decisions will be based upon such factors as the availability of resources and military mission considerations. These recommendations from USGS can be summarized into 6 major themes: A major report on monitoring was released in 2007 by the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative (http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html). DoD can be consistent with this report by establishing policy that monitoring will be explicitly acknowledged as an integral element of bird management and conservation (Recommendation 1). The design of monitoring and assessment programs for birds should include the following steps: Preparation of a document describing the program's goals, objectives, and methods similar to a format we provide (Recommendation 2, Chapter 4). Selection of field methods using an "expert system" developed in this project (Recommendation 3, Chapter 5) or another well-documented system. Preparation and storage of metadata describing the monitoring program in the Natural Resources Monitoring Partnership (NRMP), and other appropriate databases Recommendation 4, Chapter 6). Entry of the survey data using eBird (http://ebird.org/content/dod) or the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Database (CBMD) and long-term storage of the data in the CBMD and the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN; Recommendation 5, Chapter 6; http://www.avianknowledge.net/). Submission of major results from the monitoring program for publication in a peer reviewed journal (Recommendation 6). The DoD Legacy Resource Management Program (Legacy; https://www.dodlegacy.org), Environmental Security Technology Certification Program (ESTCP; http://www.serdp.org/), and Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP; http://www.serdp.org/) should be encouraged to continue their significant contributions to the foundations of bird monitoring (Recommendation 7, Chapters 1 and 3). Appropriate monitoring should be conducted to identify species of concern on installations. A year-round, one-time survey of birds on installations with habitat for migratory birds would provide the most information to assist compliance with the MOU, the Final Rule, and the NEPA analyses of proposed actions. However, less intensive survey efforts can still be conducted to yield useful information. We describe how various levels of survey effort might be organized and conducted. In addition, continuing surveys, as feasible, would further assist in documenting effects of military readiness and non-readiness activities on species of concern (SOC) (Recommendation 8, Chapter 7). Participation in well-designed, large-scale surveys [(e.g., North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS; http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/), Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS; http://www.birdpop.org/maps.htm)] on land that DoD manages or on lands where the results will be of high interest to DoD, will provide DoD and other NABCI members with information important to bird conservation (Recommendation 9, Chapter 8). Review and implementation of the CBM Plan should involve both higher level management and installation-level natural resources managers (Recommendation 11), be implemented through cooperative partnerships (Recommendation 12), and be followed on U.S territory lands and Army Corps of Engineers projects (Recommendation 10).Additional recommendations that pertain to implementing the DoD CBM Plan are discussed in Chapter 9.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Risk assessment for bull trout introduction into Sullivan Lake and Harvey Creek, northeastern Washington

The Kalispel Tribe of Indians (KT), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife are engaged in conservation of bull trout ( Salvelinus confluentus ) in the Lake Pend Oreille (LPO) Core Area. The LPO is a complex habitat core area which falls within three states (Montana, Idaho, and Washington) and a tribal entity. As part of the conservation process, KT worked in cooperation with the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) to complete a risk assessment for introduction of bull trout into Sullivan Lake/Harvey Creek, northeastern, Washington. The risk assessment was designed to evaluate potential risks to resident fish species, to bull trout introduced into Sullivan Lake, and to bull trout donor source populations. This risk assessment describes the potential risks associated with pathogens (introduction of pathogens and increased pathogen burden), genetics (such as risk to donor sources, straying and breeding with native bull trout, and introduction of bull-brook hybrids), and ecological interactions (such as predation and competition). Potential donor source populations were identified and evaluated using a qualitative approach based on expert opinion and a decision framework. Literature reviews were completed for fish species composition and abundance in Sullivan Lake basin to assess potential ecological interactions and risks to these populations and to the introduced bull trout. The USGS assessed pathogen risks through two major questions: (1) whether introduced bull trout might bring pathogens into the Sullivan Lake basin that were not previously present and (2) whether the health of introduced bull trout could be adversely affected by pathogens already present in the basin. Assessment of genetic risks included demographic risks to donor source populations, potential for hybridization with native bull trout, and the risk of introducing bull-brook hybrids. Literature reviews were used in conjunction with discussions among regional biologists to identify potential donor source populations and their population attributes. A decision framework was developed by USGS in collaboration with KT biologists that identified desirable population attributes (life history behavior, abundance, population viability, feasibility of collection, and environmental match) associated with donor source populations and established ranking criteria. The population attribute information was used with the (1) decision framework, (2) established ranking criteria, and (3) expert opinion of regional biologists, to assign scores for overall ranking of donor source populations. The LPO source population was the highest ranked and is considered a robust and stable population. The risk of introducing pathogens from LPO into Sullivan Lake via a bull trout introduction program seems low, and indirect pathogen burden risks to resident species can be mitigated using established pathogen surveillance methods. The likelihood that bull trout, introduced into Sullivan Lake, stray and spawn with native bull trout is low. Nearest-neighbor donor source populations, such as LPO, could minimize negative fitness impacts that might occur from straying and interbreeding of individuals that become entrained and help maintain natural patterns of genetic diversity in native populations. The ecological risk that a bull trout introduction presents to resident species seems to be low but with some uncertainty. Pygmy whitefish, a Washington State Sensitive species, is likely most vulnerable to extirpation with increased predation pressure with introduction of an additional piscivore into the ecosystem. The status of the pygmy whitefish in Sullivan Lake is unknown. The ecological risks most likely to reduce the viability of introduced bull trout are predation by burbot and an adequate forage base in Sullivan Lake. Prior fish surveys provided data on resident species abundance, provided an established baseline for effective monitoring, and identifying ecosystem changes post-bull trout introduction to inform future adaptive management decisions.

Washington↗
USGS2012

National climate assessment technical report on the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change

This technical report responds to the recognition by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the National Climate Assessment (NCA) of the importance of understanding how land use and land cover (LULC) affects weather and climate variability and change and how that variability and change affects LULC. Current published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and supporting data from both existing and original sources forms the basis for this report's assessment of the current state of knowledge regarding land change and climate interactions. The synthesis presented herein documents how current and future land change may alter environment processes and in turn, how those conditions may affect both land cover and land use by specifically investigating, * The primary contemporary trends in land use and land cover, * The land-use and land-cover sectors and regions which are most affected by weather and climate variability,* How land-use practices are adapting to climate change, * How land-use and land-cover patterns and conditions are affecting weather and climate, and * The key elements of an ongoing Land Resources assessment. These findings present information that can be used to better assess land change and climate interactions in order to better assess land management and adaptation strategies for future environmental change and to assist in the development of a framework for an ongoing national assessment.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Quantifying the substantive influence of public comment on United States federal environmental decisions under NEPA

A citizen’s right to comment on, and criticize, government decisions makes a difference. The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) institutionalized public engagement in environmental review in the belief it would lead to better decisions and more sustainable outcomes. But, 50 years later, NEPA’s public comment process has been criticized as costly and slow, while doing little to change outcomes. Data science now makes it possible to track progress and evaluate the influence of public participation. We examined 108 environmental impact statement (EIS) processes spanning 22 years. Our analysis revealed that public comments resulted in substantive decision alterations in 62% of cases, with 64% showing modifications to alternatives, 42% showing modifications to mitigation plans and 11% leading to the selection of an entirely new preferred alternative. When federal agencies changed project alternatives (78 EISs), 88% of the time (69 of the 78 EISs) they credited public comments as the reason. In 45 of the 108 EISs, agencies modified mitigation plans and credited public comments as the reason 100% of the time. Agencies only occasionally selected a new preferred alternative (21 out of 104 EISs), but when they did, they credited public comments as the reason 100% of the time. As the United States and the 190+ states and countries that have adopted NEPA’s example consider how to address environmental change, it is important to assess the role of public participation in environmental decision making. Our data say public comments matter.

Environmental Research Letters↗
USGS2007

Modeling the biophysical impacts of global change in mountain biosphere reserves

Mountains and mountain societies provide a wide range of goods and services to humanity, but they are particularly sensitive to the effects of global environmental change. Thus, the definition of appropriate management regimes that maintain the multiple functions of mountain regions in a time of greatly changing climatic, economic, and societal drivers constitutes a significant challenge. Management decisions must be based on a sound understanding of the future dynamics of these systems. The present article reviews the elements required for an integrated effort to project the impacts of global change on mountain regions, and recommends tools that can be used at 3 scientific levels (essential, improved, and optimum). The proposed strategy is evaluated with respect to UNESCO's network of Mountain Biosphere Reserves (MBRs), with the intention of implementing it in other mountain regions as well. First, methods for generating scenarios of key drivers of global change are reviewed, including land use/land cover and climate change. This is followed by a brief review of the models available for projecting the impacts of these scenarios on (1) cryospheric systems, (2) ecosystem structure and diversity, and (3) ecosystem functions such as carbon and water relations. Finally, the cross-cutting role of remote sensing techniques is evaluated with respect to both monitoring and modeling efforts. We conclude that a broad range of techniques is available for both scenario generation and impact assessments, many of which can be implemented without much capacity building across many or even most MBRs. However, to foster implementation of the proposed strategy, further efforts are required to establish partnerships between scientists and resource managers in mountain areas.

Mountain Research and Development↗
USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗
USGS2023

Techniques for restoring damaged Mojave and western Sonoran ecosystems, including those for threatened desert tortoises and Joshua trees

Ecological restoration has potential for contributing to conservation activities for threatened Mojave desert tortoises ( Gopherus agassizii ) and Joshua trees ( Yucca brevifolia , Y. jaegeriana ) and their broader ecosystems in the Mojave and western Sonoran deserts. To be effective, restoration actions deployed strategically need to halt and reverse habitat degradation, replenish or enhance resources used by both species (e.g., large shrubs for protection of tortoises and nurse plants facilitating recruitment of Joshua tree seedlings), and ideally foster resilience during likely future environmental changes. We synthesized restoration techniques and their effectiveness in the Mojave and western Sonoran deserts, provide estimated costs of candidate techniques, and anticipate future research needs for effective restoration in changing climates and environments. Over 50 published studies in the Mojave and western Sonoran deserts demonstrate that restoration can improve soil features (e.g., biocrusts), increase cover of native perennial and annual plants, enhance native seed retention and seed banks, and reduce risk of fires to conserve mature shrubland habitat. We placed restoration techniques into three categories: restoration of site environments, revegetation, and management actions to limit further disturbance and encourage recovery. Within these categories, 11 major restoration techniques (and their variations) were evaluated by at least one published study and range from geomorphic (e.g., reestablishing natural topographic patterns) and abiotic structural treatments (e.g., vertical mulching) to active revegetation (e.g., outplanting, seeding). For example, 16 outplanting studies assessed performance of 46 species to begin identifying top-performing species, associated treatments (e.g., protection from herbivory) required to aid outplant survival, and potential for outplants to trigger formation of self-sustaining populations. Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), a shrub that tortoises use for cover and that serves as a nurse plant for Joshua tree recruitment, achieved at least 50% survival in five of eight studies. Estimated costs for restoring desert habitats varied primarily with the severity of the disturbance, site factors including the diversity of vegetation that was lost, logistical factors such as accessibility of sites (influencing transportation costs), and the cost-effectiveness of the restoration techniques chosen. The review highlights six major research and adaptive management needs for advancing desert habitat restoration. These needs include: 1) continued development of innovative techniques and bet-hedging approaches to provide managers with “tool boxes” of candidate treatments to deploy in dynamic environmental and management conditions, 2) identifying how to optimize spatial deployment of limited restoration resources, 3) developing practical techniques for reducing non-native annual grasses across spatial scales, 4) improving linkages between habitat enhancements and short- and long-term indicators of tortoise usage and responses and Joshua tree population sustainability, 5) mitigating multiple, interacting stressors with cumulative impacts, and 6) integrating biotic (e.g., seeding) and abiotic (e.g., fencing, shade structures) treatments to complement each other at site and landscape scales in dynamic climates and environments. It is possible that bet-hedging approaches employing multiple treatment types (or phased treatments across years) and greater incorporation of abiotic treatments, which are less sensitive to timing of precipitation compared with biotic treatments, will become increasingly important under future climates projected to be drier and more variable. Existing research suggests that restoration can be deployed effectively even under adverse climatic conditions, but success requires identifying suitable techniques tailored to dynamic environments.

Arizona, California, Nevada, Sonora↗
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↗
USGS2011

Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB)-Geochemical data for rock, sediment, soil, mineral, and concentrate sample media

The Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska in order to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, environmental impact assessments, and studies in medical geology. This Microsoft Access database serves as a data archive in support of present and future Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects, and contains data tables describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 85 laboratory and field analytical methods on 264,095 rock, sediment, soil, mineral and heavy-mineral concentrate samples. Most samples were collected by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) personnel and analyzed in USGS laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various USGS programs and projects from 1962 to 2009. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB includes historical geochemical data originally archived in the USGS Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database, used from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s and the USGS PLUTO database used from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. All of these data are currently maintained in the Oracle-based National Geochemical Database (NGDB). Retrievals from the NGDB were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. This arduous process of reviewing, verifying and, where necessary, editing all USGS geochemical data resulted in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset. USGS data that were not previously in the NGDB because the data predate the earliest USGS geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB and will be added to the NGDB. The AGDB data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date, and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB data provided in the linked database may be updated or changed periodically. The data on the DVD and in the data downloads provided with this report are current as of date of publication.

Data Series↗
USGS2024

Prefabricated Zero Ascend Omnispecies (ZAO) modular fish passage modules using advanced manufacturing techniques

The Zero Ascend Omnispecies (ZAO) fish passage attraction module “ZAO Attractor” is a novel system designed to facilitate upstream passage for a broad spectrum of fish species, with a particular focus on American shad and river herring (alewife and/or blueback herring). Combining the use of prefabricated, modular components with advanced manufacturing, the ZAO aims to provide a cost-effective and scalable solution for fish passage attractions across various hydropower sites. The system features a surface level entry, so fish do not need to climb. In addition, it is designed to be adjusted and repositioned to create the most effective attraction flows by managing the outflows from hydropower turbines. Budget Period 1 (BP1) focused on the design and modeling of the ZAO Attractor and demonstrated the engineering feasibility of a modular, prefabricated, hydrodynamically efficient structure with surface level entry and passage. During BP1, the hypothesis was that certain structural adaptations, such as the addition of long fins, could direct turbine outflows to create a desirable downstream flow. Simulations, however, were inconclusive, revealing the complex nature of fish preferences for hydraulic conditions. It was discovered that there were limited published studies on the direct correlation between quantified flow patterns and fish attraction, emphasizing the need for controlled studies to observe and measure these effects. In Budget Period 2 (BP2), controlled studies with live fish were prioritized to address these complexities. A partially scaled ZAO Attractor was evaluated in laboratory conditions using native river water to assess its capability to attract and guide fish. Despite challenges with flume flow conditions and the impact of flume dimensions on flow directionality and velocity, the studies provided insights into fish behavior and preferences, particularly the requirement for a consistent flow stream for migration cues. Adjustments to the fin structure demonstrated potential effectiveness in guiding fish toward the module. However, the hydraulic conditions within the flume environment did not accurately reflect typical in-river scenarios, therefore the results were inconclusive with respect to the optimal system configuration for in-river use. In the future, conducting comprehensive field studies can enhance understanding of the interactions between fish behavior and flow conditions created by the ZAO Attractor. Additionally, a design review is advised, particularly regarding the load scenarios throughout the seasons and positioning of the ZAO Attractor. These studies should continue to refine the design to achieve its intended benefits: economical and effective fish attraction and passage that can be adapted to specific site conditions while allowing for continued energy generation at sites up for re-licensure and adding hydropower generation to previously untapped resources in non-powered dams and new stream reaches. In conclusion, the ZAO fish passage attraction module presents a promising approach to fish passage at hydropower stations, with the potential to balance environmental concerns with renewable energy development. However, further field validation and optimization are necessary to ensure its effectiveness and practicality in real-world applications.

Final Technical Report↗
USGS2011

Review of samples of sediments, tailings, and waters adjacent to the Cactus Queen Gold Mine, Kern County, California

The Cactus Queen Mine is located in the western Mojave Desert in Kern County, California. The Cactus Queen gold-silver (Au-Ag) deposit is similar to other Au-Ag deposits hosted in Miocene volcanic rocks that consist of silicic domes and associated flows, pyroclastic rocks, and subvolcanic intrusions. The volcanic rocks were emplaced onto a basement of Mesozoic silicic intrusive rocks. A part of the Cactus Queen Mine is located on Federal land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Staff from the BLM initially sampled the mine area and documented elevated concentrations of arsenic (As) in tailings and sediment. BLM then requested that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with Chapman University, measure and characterize As and other geochemical constituents in sediment, tailings, and waters on the part of the mine on Federal lands. This report is made in response to the request by the BLM, the lead agency mandated to conduct a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) - Removal Site Investigation (RSI). The RSI applies to the potential removal of As-contaminated mine waste from the Cactus Queen Mine as a means of reducing As release and exposure to humans and biota. This report summarizes data obtained from field sampling of sediments, mine tailings, and surface waters at the Cactus Queen Mine on January 27, 2008. Our results provide a preliminary assessment of the sources of As and associated chemical constituents that could potentially impact humans and biota.

California↗
USGS1998

A Review of Semivolatile and Volatile Organic Compounds in Highway Runoff and Urban Stormwater

Many studies have been conducted since 1970 to characterize concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) in highway runoff and urban stormwater. To a lesser extent, studies also have characterized concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), estimated loads of SVOCs, and assessed potential impacts of these contaminants on receiving streams. This review evaluates the quality of existing data on SVOCs and VOCs in highway runoff and urban storm- water and summarizes significant findings. Studies related to highways are emphasized when possible. The review included 44 articles and reports that focused primarily on SVOCs and VOCs. Only 17 of these publications are related to highways, and 5 of these 17 are themselves review papers. SVOCs in urban stormwater and sediments during the late 1970's to mid-1980's were the subject of most studies. Criteria used to evaluate data quality included documentation of sampling protocols, analytical methods, minimum reporting limit (MRL) or method detection limit (MDL), qualityassurance protocols, and quality-control samples. The largest deficiency in documenting data quality was that only 10 percent of the studies described where water samples were collected in the stream cross section. About 80 percent of SVOCs in runoff are in the suspended solids. Because suspended solids can vary significantly even in narrow channels, concentrations from discrete point samples and contaminant loads estimated from those samples are questionable without information on sample location or how well streamflow was mixed. Thirty percent or fewer of the studies documented the MRL, MDL, cleaning of samplers, or use of field quality-control samples. Comparing results of different studies and evaluating the quality of environmental data, especially for samples with low concentrations, is difficult without this information. The most significant factor affecting SVOC concentrations in water is suspended solids concentration. In sediment, the most significant factors affecting SVOC concentrations are organic carbon content and distance from sources such as highways and power plants. Petroleum hydrocarbons, oil and grease, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in crankcase oil and vehicle emissions are the major SVOCs detected in highway runoff and urban stormwater. The few loading factors and regression equations that were developed in the 1970's and 1980's have limited use in estimating current (1998) loads of SVOCs on a national scale. These factors and equations are based on few data and use inconsistent units, and some are independent of rainfall. Also, more cars on the road today have catalytic converters, and fuels that were used in 1998 are cleaner than when loading factors and regression equations were developed. Comparisons to water-quality and sedimentquality criteria and guidelines indicate that PAHs, phenolic compounds, and phthalates in runoff and sediment exceeded U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water and aquatic-life standards and guidelines. PAHs in stream sediments adjacent to highways have the highest potential for adverse effects on receiving streams. Few data exist on VOCs in highway runoff. VOCs were detected in precipitation adjacent to a highway in England, and chloromethane, toluene, xylenes, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane were detected in runoff from a highway in Texas. In urban stormwater, gasoline-related compounds were detected in as many as 23 percent of the samples. Land use could be the most significant factor affecting the occurrence of VOCs, with highest concentrations of VOCs found in industrial areas. Temperature is another factor affecting the occurrence and concentrations of VOCs. Urban land surfaces are the primary nonpoint source of VOCs in stormwater. However, the atmosphere is a potential source of hydrophilic VOCs in stormwater, especially during cold seasons when partitioning of VOCs from air into water i

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

Visualization of Flow Alternatives, Lower Missouri River

Background The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 'Missouri River Master Water Control Manual' (Master Manual) review has resulted in consideration of many flow alternatives for managing the water in the river (COE, 2001; 1998a). The purpose of this report is to present flow-management alternative model results in a way that can be easily visualized and understood. This report was updated in October 2001 to focus on the specific flow-management alternatives presented by the COE in the 'Master Manual Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement' (RDEIS; COE, 2001). The original version (February 2000) is available by clicking here. The COE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Missouri River states, and Missouri River basin tribes have been participating in discussions concerning water management of the Missouri River mainstem reservoir system (MRMRS), the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and the Kansas River reservoir system since 1986. These discussions include general input to the revision of the Master Manual as well as formal consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. In 2000, the FWS issued a Biological Opinion that prescribed changes to reservoir management on the Missouri River that were believed to be necessary to preclude jeopardy to three endangered species, the pallid sturgeon, piping plover, and interior least tern (USFWS, 2000). The combined Missouri River system is large and complex, including many reservoirs, control structures, and free-flowing reaches extending over a broad region. The ability to assess future impacts of altered management scenarios necessarily involves complex, computational models that attempt to integrate physical, chemical, biological, and economic effects. Graphical visualization of the model output is intended to improve understanding of the differences among flow-management alternatives.

Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebrask↗
USGS2020

Do empirical observations support commonly-held climate change range shift hypotheses? A systematic review protocol

Background Among the most widely anticipated climate-related impacts to biodiversity are geographic range shifts, whereby species shift their spatial distribution in response to changing climate conditions. In particular, a series of commonly articulated hypotheses have emerged: species are expected to shift their distributions to higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths in response to climate change, reflecting an underlying hypothesis that species will move to cooler locations to track spatial changes in the temperature of their current range. Yet, many species are not demonstrating range shifts consistent with these hypotheses. Resolving this discrepancy and providing effective explanations for the observed variability in species’ range shifts is urgently needed to help support a range of natural resource management decisions. Here, we propose a protocol to review the body of evidence for commonly-held climate change range shift hypotheses at the species level focusing on observed latitudinal, longitudinal, elevational, and depth shifts in response to temperature and precipitation changes. We aim to answer the question: what is the impact of anthropogenic climate change (specifically changes in temperature and precipitation) on species ranges? Methods In this review protocol, we propose to conduct a systematic search of literature from internet databases and search engines in English. Articles will be screened in a two-stage process (title/abstract and full text) to evaluate whether they meet a list of eligibility criteria (e.g., presents species-level data, compares >1 time period). Initial data coding and extraction will be completed by four reviewers and checked by a secondary reviewer from among our co-authors. We will perform a formal meta-analysis to document estimated effect size using the subset of available range-shift data expressed in distance per time (e.g., km/decade). We will also use multinomial logistic regression models to assess the probability that species are shifting in a direction that supports our hypotheses (i.e. towards higher latitudes, greater elevations, and deeper depths). We will account for study methodology as a potential source of variation.

Environmental Evidence↗
USGS2021

Conservation of northwestern and southwestern pond turtles: Threats, population size estimates, and population viability analysis

Accurate status assessments of long-lived, widely distributed taxa depend on the availability of long-term monitoring data from multiple populations. However, monitoring populations across large temporal and spatial scales is often beyond the scope of any one researcher or research group. Consequently, wildlife managers may be tasked with utilizing limited information from different sources to detect range-wide evidence of population declines and their causes. When assessments need to be made under such constraints, the research and management communities must determine how to extrapolate from variable population data to species-level inferences. Here, using three different approaches, we integrate and analyze data from the peer-reviewed literature and government agency reports to inform conservation for northwestern pond turtles (NPT) Actinemys marmorata and southwestern pond turtles (SPT) Actinemys pallida . Both NPT and SPT are long-lived freshwater turtles distributed along the west coast of the United States and Mexico. Conservation concerns exist for both species; however, SPT may face more severe threats and are thought to exist at lower densities throughout their range than NPT. For each species, we ranked the impacts of 13 potential threats, estimated population sizes, and modeled population viability with and without long-term droughts. Our results suggest that predation of hatchlings by invasive predators, such as American bullfrogs Lithobates catesbeianus and Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides, is a high-ranking threat for NPT and SPT. Southwestern pond turtles may also face more severe impacts associated with natural disasters (droughts, wildfires, and floods) than do NPT. Population size estimates from trapping surveys indicate that SPT have smaller population sizes on average than do NPT ( P = 0.0003), suggesting they may be at greater risk of local extirpation. Population viability analysis models revealed that long-term droughts are a key environmental parameter; as the frequency of severe droughts increases with climate change, the likelihood of population recovery decreases, especially when census sizes are low. Given current population trends and vulnerability to natural disasters throughout their range, we suggest that conservation and recovery actions first focus on SPT to prevent further population declines.

Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management↗
USGS2023

Preventing and controlling nonnative species invasions to bend the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss

The Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity recognizes that addressing nonnative species is one of six principal actions needed to bend the curve in freshwater biodiversity loss. This is because introduction rates of nonnative species continue to accelerate globally and where these species develop invasive populations, they can have severe impacts on freshwater biodiversity. The most effective management measure to protect freshwater biodiversity is to prevent introductions of nonnative species. Should a nonnative species be introduced, however, then its early detection and the implementation of rapid reaction measures can avoid it establishing and dispersing. If these measures are unsuccessful and the species becomes invasive, then control and containment measures can minimize its further spread and impact. Minimizing further spread and impact includes control methods to reduce invader abundance and containment methods such as screening of invaded sites and strict biosecurity to avoid the invader dispersing to neighbouring basins. These management actions have benefitted from developments in invasion risk assessment that can prioritize species according to their invasion risk and, for species already invasive, ensure that management actions are commensurate with assessed risk. The successful management of freshwater nonnative species still requires the overcoming of some implementation challenges, including nonnative species often being a symptom of degraded habitats rather than the main driver of ecological change, and eradication methods often being nonspecies specific. Given the multiple anthropogenic stressors in freshwaters, nonnative species management must work with other restoration strategies if it is to deliver the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity.

Environmental Reviews↗
USGS2017

The contribution of rice agriculture to methylmercury in surface waters: A review of data from the Sacramento Valley, California

Methylmercury (MeHg) is a bioaccumulative pollutant produced in and exported from flooded soils, including those used for rice ( Oriza sativa L.) production. Using unfiltered aqueous MeHg data from MeHg monitoring programs in the Sacramento River watershed from 1996 to 2007, we assessed the MeHg contribution from rice systems to the Sacramento River. Using a mixed-effects regression analysis, we compared MeHg concentrations in agricultural drainage water from rice-dominated regions (AgDrain) to MeHg concentrations in the Sacramento and Feather Rivers, both upstream and downstream of AgDrain inputs. We also calculated MeHg loads from AgDrains and the Sacramento and Feather Rivers. Seasonally, MeHg concentrations were higher during November through May than during June through October, but the differences varied by location. Relative to upstream, November through May AgDrain least-squares mean MeHg concentration (0.18 ng L −1 , range 0.15–0.23 ng L −1 ) was 2.3-fold higher, while June through October AgDrain mean concentration (0.097 ng L −1 , range 0.6–1.6 ng L −1 ) was not significantly different from upstream. June through October AgDrain MeHg loads contributed 10.7 to 14.8% of the total Sacramento River MeHg load. Missing flow data prevented calculation of the percent contribution of AgDrains in November through May. At sites where calculation was possible, November through May loads made up 70 to 90% of the total annual load. Elevated flow and MeHg concentration in November through May both contribute to the majority of the AgDrain MeHg load occurring during this period. Methylmercury reduction efforts should target elevated November through May MeHg concentrations in AgDrains. However, our findings suggest that the contribution and environmental impact of rice is an order of magnitude lower than previous studies in the California Yolo Bypass.

California↗
USGS2013

Alaska Geochemical Database, Version 2.0 (AGDB2)–Including “best value” data compilations for rock, sediment, soil, mineral, and concentrate sample mediaI

The Alaska Geochemical Database Version 2.0 (AGDB2) contains new geochemical data compilations in which each geologic material sample has one “best value” determination for each analyzed species, greatly improving speed and efficiency of use. Like the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB, http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/637/) before it, the AGDB2 was created and designed to compile and integrate geochemical data from Alaska in order to facilitate geologic mapping, petrologic studies, mineral resource assessments, definition of geochemical baseline values and statistics, environmental impact assessments, and studies in medical geology. This relational database, created from the Alaska Geochemical Database (AGDB) that was released in 2011, serves as a data archive in support of present and future Alaskan geologic and geochemical projects, and contains data tables in several different formats describing historical and new quantitative and qualitative geochemical analyses. The analytical results were determined by 85 laboratory and field analytical methods on 264,095 rock, sediment, soil, mineral and heavy-mineral concentrate samples. Most samples were collected by U.S. Geological Survey personnel and analyzed in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories or, under contracts, in commercial analytical laboratories. These data represent analyses of samples collected as part of various U.S. Geological Survey programs and projects from 1962 through 2009. In addition, mineralogical data from 18,138 nonmagnetic heavy-mineral concentrate samples are included in this database. The AGDB2 includes historical geochemical data originally archived in the U.S. Geological Survey Rock Analysis Storage System (RASS) database, used from the mid-1960s through the late 1980s and the U.S. Geological Survey PLUTO database used from the mid-1970s through the mid-1990s. All of these data are currently maintained in the National Geochemical Database (NGDB). Retrievals from the NGDB were used to generate most of the AGDB data set. These data were checked for accuracy regarding sample location, sample media type, and analytical methods used. This arduous process of reviewing, verifying and, where necessary, editing all U.S. Geological Survey geochemical data resulted in a significantly improved Alaska geochemical dataset. USGS data that were not previously in the NGDB because the data predate the earliest U.S. Geological Survey geochemical databases, or were once excluded for programmatic reasons, are included here in the AGDB2 and will be added to the NGDB. The AGDB2 data provided here are the most accurate and complete to date, and should be useful for a wide variety of geochemical studies. The AGDB2 data provided in the linked database may be updated or changed periodically.

Alaska↗