Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Communications Biology”

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.

135 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Home in the heat: Dramatic seasonal variation in home range of desert golden eagles informs management for renewable energy development

Renewable energy is expanding quickly with sometimes dramatic impacts to species and ecosystems. To understand the degree to which sensitive species may be impacted by renewable energy projects, it is informative to know how much space individuals use and how that space may overlap with planned development. We used global positioning system–global system for mobile communications (GPS-GSM) telemetry to measure year-round movements of golden eagles ( Aquila chrysaetos ) from the Mojave Desert of California, USA. We estimated monthly space use with adaptive local convex hulls to identify the temporal and spatial scales at which eagles may encounter renewable energy projects in the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan area. Mean size of home ranges was lowest and least variable from November through January and greatest in February–March and May–August. These monthly home range patterns coincided with seasonal variation in breeding ecology, habitat associations, and temperature. The expanded home ranges in hot summer months included movements to cooler, prey-dense, mountainous areas characterized by forest, grasslands, and scrublands. Breeding-season home ranges (October–May) included more lowland semi-desert and rock vegetation. Overlap of eagle home ranges and focus areas for renewable energy development was greatest when eagle home ranges were smallest, during the breeding season. Golden eagles in the Mojave Desert used more space and a wider range of habitat types than expected and renewable energy projects could affect a larger section of the regional population than was previously thought.

California↗
USGS2015

Wildlife specimen collection, preservation, and shipment

Specimens are used to provide supporting information leading to the determination of the cause of disease or death in wildlife and for disease monitoring or surveillance. Commonly used specimens for wildlife disease investigations include intact carcasses, tissues from carcasses, euthanized or moribund animals, parasites, ingested food, feces, or environmental samples. Samples from live animals or the environment (e.g., contaminated feed) in the same vicinity as a mortality event also may be helpful. The type of specimen collected is determined by availability of samples and biological objectives. Multiple fresh, intact carcasses from affected species are the most useful in establishing a cause for a mortality event. Submission of entire carcasses allows observation of gross lesions and abnormalities, as well as disease testing of multiple tissues. Samples from live animals may be more appropriate when sick animals cannot be euthanized (e.g., threatened or endangered species) or for research and monitoring projects examining disease or agents circulating in apparently healthy animals or those not exhibiting clinical signs. Samples from live animals may include collections of blood, hair, feathers, feces, or ectoparasites, or samples obtained by swabbing lesions or orifices. Photographs and videos are useful additions for recording field and clinical signs and conveying conditions at the site. Collection of environmental samples (e.g., feces, water, feed, or soil) may be appropriate when animals cannot be captured for sampling or the disease agent may persist in the environment. If lethal collection is considered necessary, biologists should refer to the policies, procedures, and permit requirements of their institution/facility and the agency responsible for species management (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or State natural resource agency) prior to use in the field. If threatened or endangered species are found dead, or there is evidence of illegal take, field personal should contact local wildlife law enforcement authorities immediately and prior to handling the carcass. Prior to collecting samples, it is important to determine the capabilities and submission criteria of the laboratory receiving the samples. Some laboratories may specialize in a limited number of tests, be equipped to accept only certain types of tissues (instead of entire carcasses), or specialize in particular species or group of animals (e.g., reptiles, birds, mammals). Diagnostic laboratories have specific requirements regarding preparation, labeling, and shipping of samples. Adherence to these requirements helps ensure the usefulness of any submitted specimens. Although laboratories may vary in the cost and turnaround times for diagnostic tests, some laboratories may be able to prioritize samples and accommodate accelerated time frames if communicated at the time of submission. Keeping a prepacked kit with basic carcass-collection supplies, including a paper copy of the specimen history form (available for download from the Web sites of most diagnostic laboratories), in the office or vehicle will decrease the chances of forgetting an essential item and decrease response time for arriving at an event.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗
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↗
USGS2000

Field guide to malformations of frogs and toads: with radiographic interpretations

In 1995, students found numerous malformed frogs on a field trip to a Minnesota pond. Since that time, reports of malformed frogs have increased dramatically. Malformed frogs have now been reported in 44 states in 38 species of frogs, and 19 species of toads. Estimates as high as 60% of the newly metamorphosed frog populations have had malformations at some ponds (NARCAM, ’99). The wide geographic distribution of malformed frogs and the variety of malformations are a concern to resource managers, research scientists and public health officials. The potential for malformations to serve as a signal of ecosystem disruption, and the affect this potential disruption might have on other organisms that share those ecosystems, has not been resolved. Malformations represent an error that occurred early in development. The event that caused the developmental error is temporally distant from the malformation we see in the fully developed animal. Knowledge of normal developmental principles is necessary to design thoughtful investigations that will define the events involved in abnormal development in wild frog populations. Development begins at the time an egg is fertilized and progresses by chemical communication between cells and cell layers. This communication is programmed through gene expression. Malformations represent primary errors in development, errors in chemical communication or translation of genetic information. Deformations arise later in development and usually result from the influence of mechanical factors (such as amputation) that alter shape or anatomy of a structure that has developed normally. The occurrence and the type of malformations are influenced by the type of error or insult as well as the timing of the error (the developmental stage at which the error occurred). The appearance of the malformation can therefore provide clues that suggest when the error may have occurred. If the malformation is an incomplete organ, such as an incomplete limb, the factor or insult acted during a susceptible period prior to organ completion. Although defining the anatomy of the malformed metamorphosed frog can give us an idea of the approximate window during which the developmental insult was initiated, and might even suggest the type of insult that may have occurred, the morphology of the malformation does not define the cause. To define causes and mechanisms of frog malformations we need to use well designed investigations that are different from traditional tests used in acute toxicity or disease pathogenicity studies. When investigating malformations in metamorphosed frogs, we are looking at the affect of exposure to an agent that occurred early in tadpole development. Therefore investigations to determine causes of malformations need to look at agents that are present in the tadpoles or their environments at these early developmental times. Laboratory experiments need to expose embryos and tadpoles to suspect agents at appropriate developmental stages and look at acute results, such as toxicity and death, as well as following the developmental process to completion to determine the impact of the agent on the developing tadpole and the fully developed frog. This means holding animals past metamorphic climax to assure that the anatomy and physiology of the adult have developed normally. As we look at field collections of abnormal frogs, we need to keep in mind that these collections reflect survivors only. We are looking at malformations that were not fatal to tadpoles. We cannot assume that because we do not collect other malformations, they did not exist. More work needs to be done on the developing tadpole, in the field and in the laboratory, to better elucidate the range, frequency, character and causes of anuran malformations.

Biological Science Report↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Strategic Plan for the North American Breeding Bird Survey: 2006-2010

Executive Summary The mission of the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is to provide scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales to inform biologically sound conservation and management actions. Determining population trends, relative abundance, and distributions of North American avifauna is critical for identifying conservation priorities, determining appropriate conservation actions, and evaluating those actions. The BBS program, jointly coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey and Environment Canada’s Canadian Wildlife Service, provides the U.S. and Canadian Federal governments, state and provincial agencies, other conservation practitioners, and the general public with science-based avian population trend estimates and other information for regional and national species’ population assessments. Despite the demonstrated value of the BBS for furthering avian conservation across North America, its importance is often underappreciated, and it is underfunded compared with many other government-supported programs that report on status of the environment. Today, BBS resources, adjusted for inflation, are below the amount allocated in the 1970s and are still only sufficient to support two biologists. Yet the number of routes, participants, data, and data requests has quadrupled. Data and information management and delivery requirements and security concerns, non-existent in 1966, impose further demands on BBS resources. In addition, the Mexican expansion of the BBS offers new hope for a truly continental approach to avian conservation, but also brings additional challenges. Meeting the goals of this plan will take cooperation among myriad stakeholders; yet, even with collaboration, most objectives of this plan will be unattainable if BBS program support is not increased. The BBS developed this strategic plan to help set priorities and identify resources required for the program to continue to meet the evolving needs of the conservation community for information on bird population change. By setting clear goals, strategies, and measures of success, this plan provides a cohesive framework and vision for maintenance and development of the BBS. The plan identifies two major goals for the BBS, with a number of strategies and objectives to achieve these goals. Over the next 5 years, progress made in addressing each long-term goal and its associated 5-year strategies and objectives will gage the plan’s success. Specific actions, projected outcomes, and measures of success related to accomplishing these are outlined in Table 1, with a timeline in Table 2. The two main goals for the program, with a summary of the strategies to achieve them, are: Goal 1: Collect scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional scales. The North American Breeding Bird Survey will continue to support North American natural resource conservation through the collection of scientifically credible measures of the status and trends of continental bird populations. While doing this, the BBS will work to improve the science behind the program to better meet its mission and the changing needs of the avian conservation community. In partnership with collaborators, the BBS will address detection probability bias and habitat bias, improve analytical methods, and more fully assess and account for observer quality. Moreover, the BBS will improve the quality and breadth of avian population data through strategic increases in route density and the establishment of a Mexican BBS program. Goal 2: Ensure BBS data and analytical results are widely available and easily accessible for use by the avian conservation and management communities. At the heart of the BBS lies a four-million-record database containing more than 40 years of data on more than 600 bird species. These data are of no value if not well maintained, appropriately analyzed, and widely and easily accessible. The USGS has greatly improved data management and accessibility in recent years. Trend estimates were first made available via the Internet in the mid-1990s, followed closely by the raw data with baseline metadata and standard operating procedures. Nevertheless, numerous enhancements to data management and the usability of BBS results will greatly improve the ability of the BBS to serve avian conservation goals. The BBS needs to ensure that BBS data and results presented on the web site use the best data-management practices and statistical methods, with adequate documentation for users to understand them and any differences between different trend estimates. Moreover, the BBS needs to increase communication with BBS partners and stakeholders to ensure that it continues to meet the avian population status and trends needs of the conservation community and to encourage the development of new products. Working with collaborators, the BBS will develop tools for integrating environmental parameters like habitat change into the analyses, and for integrating BBS data with other avian survey results. In addition, the BBS will continue to improve data and database management through the incorporation of additional data and data fields, such as georeferenced stop locations and more complete metadata for the raw data and results, thus enhancing the uses that can be made of the data.

Circular↗