USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Science Report”

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 343 records · Page 19Linked to original sources
USGS1978

Understanding natural systems; a perspective for land-use planning in Appalachian Kentucky

An eight-county area at the headwaters of the Kentucky River has been designated the Kentucky River Area Development District (KRADD) by the Appalachian Regional Commission. The objective of the project described in this report has been to provide materials to KRADD planners in a format and containing terminology usable by local people untrained in earth science. Experimental maps (not included in this report) have been prepared largely from preexisting data. Time and cost limitations required a regional analysis as well as somewhat more detailed examples of selected localities. Most of the maps produced to meet these needs show the abundance and distribution of naturally occurring materials and the areas affected by various geomorphic processes. Three types of maps, showing current land use, slope, and flood-prone areas, present both basic and derived data directly applicable to specific land-use decisions. Basic map information on quality and quantity of surface and ground water, bedrock and surficial geology, and mineral fuels can be interpreted for a wide variety of current and potential uses. Texts accompanying the maps explain bedrock control of geomorphic processes, distribution and significance of surficial deposits, and hydrologic characteristics of the intricately dissected eastern Kentucky terrain. Within this conceptual framework, geomorphic processes and the landscape may be evaluated in humanly significant terms of low to high potential risk, thereby indicating both opportunities and limitations for land use.

Kentucky↗
USGS2011

The Lake Tahoe Basin Land Use Simulation Model

This U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report describes the final modeling product for the Tahoe Decision Support System project for the Lake Tahoe Basin funded by the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program. This research was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Western Geographic Science Center. The purpose of this report is to describe the basic elements of the novel Lake Tahoe Basin Land Use Simulation Model, publish samples of the data inputs, basic outputs of the model, and the details of the Python code. The results of this report include a basic description of the Land Use Simulation Model, descriptions and summary statistics of model inputs, two figures showing the graphical user interface from the web-based tool, samples of the two input files, seven tables of basic output results from the web-based tool and descriptions of their parameters, and the fully functional Python code.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Science and the storms: The USGS response to the hurricanes of 2005

This report is designed to give a view of the immediate response of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to four major hurricanes of 2005: Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Some of this response took place days after the hurricanes; other responses included fieldwork and analysis through the spring. While hurricane science continues within the USGS, this overview of work following these hurricanes reveals how a Department of the Interior bureau quickly brought together a diverse array of its scientists and technologies to assess and analyze many hurricane effects. Topics vary from flooding and water quality to landscape and ecosystem impacts, from geotechnical reconnaissance to analyzing the collapse of bridges and estimating the volume of debris. Thus, the purpose of this report is to inform the American people of the USGS science that is available and ongoing in regard to hurricanes. It is the hope that such science will help inform the decisions of those citizens and officials tasked with coastal restoration and planning for future hurricanes. Chapter 1 is an essay establishing the need for science in building a resilient coast. The second chapter includes some hurricane facts that provide hurricane terminology, history, and maps of the four hurricanes’ paths. Chapters that follow give the scientific response of USGS to the storms. Both English and metric measurements are used in the articles in anticipation of both general and scientific audiences in the United States and elsewhere. Chapter 8 is a compilation of relevant ongoing and future hurricane work. The epilogue marks the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. An index of authors follows the report to aid in finding articles that are cross-referenced within the report. In addition to performing the science needed to understand the effects of hurricanes, USGS employees helped in the rescue of citizens by boat and through technology by “geoaddressing” 911 calls after Katrina and Rita so that other rescuers could find persons trapped in attics and porches. They also delivered food and water to residents stranded along the lower Mississippi River for several days. That work is reported in chapter 3 of this volume. A great number of scientists contributed to this peer-reviewed report designed for a general audience. Because they work for USGS—an unbiased, multidisciplinary science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, geospatial information, and water—they are dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the landscape and natural resources of the Nation, as well as natural hazards, like hurricanes, that threaten the Nation. To learn more about their work, visit the USGS Web site (www.usgs.gov).

Circular↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes lake trout thiamine monitoring program annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC), Eastern Ecological Science Center, and Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), and the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport have conducted in collaboration with partner agencies a cooperative program to monitor thiamine concentrations in lake trout eggs since the late 1990s. In 2021, egg thiamine concentrations were highly variable at each sampling site. No eggs samples with thiamine concentrations less than the 4 nmol/g threshold recommended for successful lake trout reproduction were collected in Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Champlain. In contrast, every site in Lakes Michigan and Ontario and Cayuga Lake had some lake trout eggs below 4 nmol/g. Time series of mean lake trout egg thiamine concentrations showed high temporal and spatial variability within the Great Lakes region.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2022

Community established best practice recommendations for tephra studies— From collection through analysis

Tephra is a unique volcanic product with an unparalleled role in understanding past eruptions, long-term behavior of volcanoes, and the effects of volcanism on climate and the environment. Tephra deposits also provide spatially widespread, high-resolution time-stratigraphic markers across a range of sedimentary settings and thus are used in numerous disciplines (e.g., volcanology, climate science, archaeology). Nonetheless, the study of tephra deposits is challenged by a lack of standardization that inhibits data integration across geographic regions and disciplines. We present comprehensive recommendations for tephra data gathering and reporting that were developed by the tephra science community to guide future investigators and to ensure that sufficient data are gathered for interoperability. Recommendations include standardized field and laboratory data collection, reporting and correlation guidance. These are organized as tabulated lists of key metadata with their definition and purpose. They are system independent and usable for template, tool, and database development. This standardized framework promotes consistent documentation and archiving, fosters interdisciplinary communication, and improves effectiveness of data sharing among diverse communities of researchers.

Scientific Data↗
USGS2017

Assessment of critical minerals: Updated application of an early-warning screening methodology

Increasing reliance on non-renewable mineral resources reinforces the need for identifying potential supply constraints before they occur. The US National Science and Technology Council recently released a report that outlines a methodology for screening potentially critical minerals based on three indicators: supply risk ( R ), production growth ( G ), and market dynamics ( M ). This early-warning screening was initially applied to 78 minerals across the years 1996 to 2013 and identified a subset of minerals as “potentially critical” based on the geometric average of these indicators—designated as criticality potential ( C ). In this study, the screening methodology has been updated to include data for 2014, as well as to incorporate revisions and modifications to the data, where applicable. Overall, C declined in 2014 for the majority of minerals examined largely due to decreases in production concentration and price volatility. However, the results vary considerably across minerals, with some minerals, such as gallium, recording increases for all three indicators. In addition to assessing magnitudinal changes, this analysis also examines the significance of the change relative to historical variation for each mineral. For example, although mined nickel’s R declined modestly in 2014 in comparison to that of other minerals, it was by far the largest annual change recorded for mined nickel across all years examined and is attributable to Indonesia’s ban on the export of unprocessed minerals. Based on the 2014 results, 20 minerals with the highest C values have been identified for further study including the rare earths, gallium, germanium, rhodium, tantalum, and tungsten.

Mineral Economics↗
USGS2001

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1999

The collection of nine papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Geologic Studies in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics: Hazards, Geologic Framework, Environment and Climate, and Resources. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of USGS geologic programs currently active in Alaska. The two Hazards studies discuss volcano-related topics in the seismically active southcentral Alaska region. The first paper revisits the eruptive events of Redoubt Volcano that occurred more than a decade ago and the subsequent development of the Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO). This treatise documents the historic impact of this eruption and briefly summarizes the state of our knowledge of the other Cook Inlet, Alaska Peninsula, and Aleutian Island volcanoes. Finally, it discusses the recent role that AVO has had in seismic station installation and hazard assessment at volcanically active sites throughout the world. The second paper discusses the eruptive history of Snowy Mountain in the upper Alaska Peninsula. Because subsets of its 25-30 lava flows erupted as packages in short episodes, calculation of the volcano's lifetime average volumetric eruption rate is problematic. A portion of the cone was hydrothermally weakened and collapsed in the late Holocene producing a 22-km2 debris avalanche. Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth science investigations. The first paper compares and contrasts the Insular-Intermontane suture zone (IISZ) of southeast Alaska with the Adria-Europe suture zone (AESZ) of Switzerland and Hungary. The study develops the hypothesis that the zones have distinct differences as well as similarities and neither is a simple lithotectonic terrane boundary. The second paper discusses the relation among volcanic, glacial, and tectonic activity in the Cold Bay and False Pass 1 :250,000-scale quadrangles on the Alaska Peninsula. During Pleistocene time, continental-shelf glaciations and two massive volcanic centers were the dominant controls over landscape development. The third paper gives detailed geologic information for Paleozoic rocks within the Taylor Mountains D-1 quadrangle portion of the Holitna Lowland of southwestern Alaska. Because of the excellent preservation of megafossils, these Silurian and Ordovician strata lend themselves to detailed statigraphic investigations. Further, low thermal alteration indices of this area have made them a potential target of petroleum exploration. The final report in this section discusses the development of a new spectral enhancement approach for interpreting Multispectral Scanner (MSS) and Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite images. This technique enhances the use of remote sensing data in identifying geologic units in areas that have been poorly investigated. This study used this technique to better define the distribution of a JMtu (mafic, ultramafic, and sedimentary) unit and a PzZrqs (pelitic and quartzitic schist) unit. Environment and climate studies are the emphasis of two papers. One presents the first radiocarbon-dated postglacial vegetation history of the Kenai Mountains of southcentral Alaska. This reconstruction is the result of the analysis of pollen assemblages and peat from sediments collected in Tern Lake and presents a minimum age for deglaciation of these interior valleys at 9,31 0±200 yr B .P. Current vegetation, however, developed within the past ca. 2,500 years. A second study discusses the cycling of arsenic and cadmium in sub-arctic boreal forest ecosystems typical of interior Alaska and defines the importance of various natural (geogenic) sources. The transport and uptake into vegetation of these elements from soils developed from loess as well as soils developed from the major rock units is presented. The bioaccumulation of cadmium in willow (Salix sp.) and its potential consequence to the health of browsing animals is discussed. Papers related to resource issues comprise the topic of the final report. This paper presents a brief statistical summary of the geochemistry of rock samples collected in the east-central portion of the Eagle 1 :250,000-scale quadrangle. This study helps define the rock unit source of both resource- and environmental-based chemical elements of interest in the Fortymile mining district. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports covering Alaska earth science topics in USGS publications during 1999 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications during the same period.

Alaska↗
USGS2008

Where's the Hayward Fault? A green guide to the fault

This report describes self-guided field trips to one of North America's most dangerous earthquake faults: the Hayward Fault. Locations were chosen because of their easy access using mass transit and/or their significance relating to the natural and cultural history of the East Bay landscape. This field-trip guidebook was compiled to help commemorate the 140th anniversary of an estimated M 7.0 earthquake that occurred on the Hayward Fault at approximately 7:50 AM, October 21st, 1868. Although many reports and on-line resources have been compiled about the science and engineering associated with earthquakes on the Hayward Fault, this report has been prepared to serve as an outdoor guide to the fault for the interested public and for educators. The first chapter is a general overview of the geologic setting of the fault. This is followed by ten chapters of field trips to selected areas along the fault, or in the vicinity, where landscape, geologic, and man-made features that have relevance to understanding the nature of the fault and its earthquake history can be found. A glossary is provided to define and illustrate scientific term used throughout this guide. A ?green? theme helps conserve resources and promotes use of public transportation, where possible. Although access to all locations described in this guide is possible by car, alternative suggestions are provided. To help conserve paper, this guidebook is available on-line only; however, select pages or chapters (field trips) within this guide can be printed separately to take along on an excursion. The discussions in this paper highlight transportation alternatives to visit selected field trip locations. In some cases, combinations, such as a ride on BART and a bus, can be used instead of automobile transportation. For other locales, bicycles can be an alternative means of transportation. Transportation descriptions on selected pages are intended to help guide fieldtrip planners or participants choose trip destinations based on transportation options, interests, or special needs.

California↗
USGS2007

Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of Planetary Geologic Mappers, Tucson, AZ 2007

Introduction Report of the Annual Mappers Meeting Planetary Science Institute Tucson, Arizona June 28 and 29, 2007 Approximately 22 people attended this year's mappers meeting, and many more submitted abstracts and maps in absentia. The 2007 meeting was convened by Tracy Gregg, Les Bleamaster, Steve Saunders, and Ken Tanaka and was hosted by David Crown and Les Bleamaster of the Planetary Science Institute (PSI) in Tucson, Arizona. Oral presentations and poster discussions took place on Thursday, June 28 and Friday, June 29. This year's meeting also included a unique opportunity to visit the operations centers of two active Mars missions; field trips to the University of Arizona took place on Thursday and Friday afternoons. Outgoing Geologic Mapping Subcommittee (GEMS) chairperson, Tracy Gregg, commenced the meeting with an introduction and David Crown followed with a discussion of logistics and the PSI facility; Steve Saunders (Planetary Geology and Geophysics Discipline Scientist) then provided a brief program update. Science presentations kicked off with Venus mapper Vicki Hansen and graduate students Eric Tharalson and Bhairavi Shankar of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, showing a 3-D animation of the global distribution of tesserae and discussing the implications, a progress report for V-45 quadrangle mapping, and a brief discussion of circular lows. Les Bleamaster (PSI) followed with a progress report on mapping of the V-50 quadrangle and the 1:10M Helen Planitia quadrangle. David Crown (PSI) concluded the Venus presentations with a discussion of progress made on the V-30 quadrangle. The remainder of Thursday's presentations jumped around the Solar System including Mars, Io, and Earth. Ken Tanaka of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began the afternoon with a general discussion of the status of the planetary mapping program at USGS. Buck Janes (University of Arizona) provided background information about the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) and presented some new element maps, which may be useful for geologic mapping. Dave Williams of Arizona State University reported on the progress of his global Io map and James Dohm (University of Arizona) discussed results of terrestrial remote mapping studies. Thursday afternoon, the mappers were given a tour of the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) operations facility and were given some basic information about how the images are obtained, processed, and publicly released. With official GEMS transition completed at lunch on Thursday, incoming GEMS chair Leslie Bleamaster took the reigns of Friday's meeting. Science presentations began with Ken Tanaka discussing 1:20M-scale global and 1:2M-scale polar mapping of Mars. Jim Zimbelman (Smithsonian Institution) described his 1:1M Medusae Fossae map (MC-8 SE), which is nearing completion, and new mapping (MC-16 NW and MC-23 NW) to further evaluate the Medusae Fossae. Brent Garry, also of the Smithsonian Institution, presented work on Ascraeus Mons. Peter Mouginis-Mark (University of Hawai`i) reported progress on his 1:200K and larger maps of Tooting crater and of the Olympus Mons summit caldera. Laszlo Keszthelyi (USGS) presented mapping of Athabasca Valles, with much of the credit going to Windy Jaeger. Jim Skinner (USGS) introduced a new mapping project including nine MTM quadrangles in the Utopia Planitia region. Tracy Gregg finished off the day's science presentations with discussion of Hesperia Planum. After discussion was complete, the group once again traveled to the University of Arizona - this time for a tour of the Mars Phoenix operations center. Principal Investigator Peter Smith beamed as he led mappers through the multi-million dollar facility. A main topic of discussion throughout the entire meeting was that of nomenclature, specifically how to classify the individual depressions at the tops of volcanoes. Paterae, as has been used for Mars, Venus, and Io, was suggested, but i

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2014 annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researches Earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of Earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups; however, by 2009 it became evident that many members of the Council for Data Integration had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal, grassroots manner, which transformed the Council into a Community for Data Integration (CDI). As of 2014, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across the USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to do the following: • advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques, • provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas and learn new skills and techniques, and • grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical challenges including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. As of 2014, the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that creates data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2013 Annual Report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups. However by 2009, it became apparent that many members of the council had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal grassroots perspective, thus transforming the “Council” into a “Community” for Data Integration (CDI). Today, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas as well as learn new skills and techniques, and grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the Community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical 2 challenges, including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. Today the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that create data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Archive of bathymetry data collected in South Florida from 1995 to 2015

Description Land development and alterations of the ecosystem in south Florida over the past 100 years have decreased freshwater and increased nutrient flows into many of Florida's estuaries, bays, and coastal regions. As a result, there has been a decrease in the water quality in many of these critical habitats, often prompting seagrass die-offs and reduced fish and aquatic life populations. Restoration of water quality in many of these habitats will depend partly upon using numerical-circulation and sediment-transport models to establish water-quality targets and to assess progress toward reaching restoration targets. Application of these models is often complicated because of complex sea floor topography and tidal flow regimes. Consequently, accurate and modern sea-floor or bathymetry maps are critical for numerical modeling research. Modern bathymetry data sets will also permit a comparison to historical data in order to help assess sea-floor changes within these critical habitats. New and detailed data sets also support marine biology studies to help understand migratory and feeding habitats of marine life. This data series is a compilation of 13 mapping projects conducted in south Florida between 1995 and 2015 and archives more than 45 million bathymetric soundings. Data were collected primarily with a single beam sound navigation and ranging (sonar) system called SANDS developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1993. Bathymetry data for the Estero Bay project were supplemented with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL) system. Data from eight rivers in southwest Florida were collected with an interferometric swath bathymetry system. The projects represented in this data series were funded by the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP), the USGS South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project- formally named Placed Based Studies, and other non-Federal agencies. The purpose of the data collection for all these projects was to support one or more of the following scientific aspects: numerical model applications, sea floor change analysis, or marine habitat investigations. This report serves as an archive of processed bathymetry sounding data, digital bathymetric contours, digital bathymetric maps, sea floor surface grids, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Refer to the Abbreviations page for explanations of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. Since 2006, the USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier or Field Activity Number (FAN) for each field data collection. Projects described in this report conducted prior to 2006 do not have a FAN. Data from the 13 projects presented in this report provided critical hydrographic information to support multiple science projects in south Florida. The projects and the types of sounding data collected are: Florida Bay (1995-1999) - single-beam Lake Okeechobee (2001) - single-beam Tampa Bay (2001-2004) - single-beam Caloosahatchee River (2002)- single-beam Estero Bay to Matlacha Pass and offshore to Wiggins Pass (2003) - single-beam and airborne lidar North and Northwest Forks of the Loxahatchee and Lower St. Lucie Rivers (2003) - single-beam South Charlotte Harbor and offshore Sanibel Island (2003-2004) - single-beam Shark River and Trout Creek (2004) - single-beam and interferometric swath Southwest Florida Rivers (2004) - interferometric swath Offshore from Wiggins Pass to Cape Romano (2005) - single-beam Ten Thousand Islands (2009) - single-beam Lemon Bay (2011) - single-beam Southwest Florida Rivers (2015) - interferometric swath

Florida↗
USGS2003

Information technology challenges of biodiversity and ecosystems informatics

Computer scientists, biologists, and natural resource managers recently met to examine the prospects for advancing computer science and information technology research by focusing on the complex and often-unique challenges found in the biodiversity and ecosystem domain. The workshop and its final report reveal that the biodiversity and ecosystem sciences are fundamentally information sciences and often address problems having distinctive attributes of scale and socio-technical complexity. The paper provides an overview of the emerging field of biodiversity and ecosystem informatics and demonstrates how the demands of biodiversity and ecosystem research can advance our understanding and use of information technologies.

Information Systems↗
USGS2005

NOAA-USGS Debris-Flow Warning System - Final Report

Landslides and debris flows cause loss of life and millions of dollars in property damage annually in the United States (National Research Council, 2004). In an effort to reduce loss of life by debris flows, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operated an experimental debris-flow prediction and warning system in the San Francisco Bay area from 1986 to 1995 that relied on forecasts and measurements of precipitation linked to empirical precipitation thresholds to predict the onset of rainfall-triggered debris flows. Since 1995, there have been substantial improvements in quantifying precipitation estimates and forecasts, development of better models for delineating landslide hazards, and advancements in geographic information technology that allow stronger spatial and temporal linkage between precipitation forecasts and hazard models. Unfortunately, there have also been several debris flows that have caused loss of life and property across the United States. Establishment of debris-flow warning systems in areas where linkages between rainfall amounts and debris-flow occurrence have been identified can help mitigate the hazards posed by these types of landslides. Development of a national warning system can help support the NOAA-USGS goal of issuing timely Warnings of potential debris flows to the affected populace and civil authorities on a broader scale. This document presents the findings and recommendations of a joint NOAA-USGS Task Force that assessed the current state-of-the-art in precipitation forecasting and debris-flow hazard-assessment techniques. This report includes an assessment of the science and resources needed to establish a demonstration debris-flow warning project in recently burned areas of southern California and the necessary scientific advancements and resources associated with expanding such a warning system to unburned areas and, possibly, to a national scope.

Circular↗
USGS2002

Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, 2000

The collection of eight papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics Geologic Framework, Resources, and Environment and Climate. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of current USGS geologic programs in Alaska. In particular, Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth-science investigations.

Alaska↗
USGS2011

Documentation of methods and inventory of irrigation data collected for the 2000 and 2005 U.S. Geological Survey Estimated use of water in the United States, comparison of USGS-compiled irrigation data to other sources, and recommendations for future compilations

Every five years since 1950, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP) has compiled water-use information in the United States and published a circular report titled "Estimated use of water in the United States," which includes estimates of water withdrawals by State, sources of water withdrawals (groundwater or surface water), and water-use category (irrigation, public supply, industrial, thermoelectric, and so forth). This report discusses the impact of important considerations when estimating irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals, including estimates of conveyance loss, irrigation-system efficiencies, pasture, horticulture, golf courses, and double cropping. This report also documents the methods and data sources used by the USGS Water Science Centers (WSCs) for estimating irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals reported in the 2000 and 2005 USGS 5-year water-use compilations. For the 2005 USGS water-use compilation, the most common sources used by WSCs for obtaining irrigated crop acreage were the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 2003 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), universities, and local and State agencies. In this report, the authors compare USGS-compiled irrigated acreage to Census of Agriculture- and FRIS- reported irrigated acreage. Nationwide irrigated acreage increased from the 1997 to 2007 Census of Agriculture estimates by about 1 percent and from the 1998 to 2008 FRIS estimates by about 9 percent. Conversely, total irrigated acreage decreased from the 2000 to 2005 USGS water-use compilations by about 2 percent. An indirect method for estimating irrigation withdrawals is presented and results are compared to the 2005 USGS-reported irrigation withdrawals for selected States. This method is meant to demonstrate a way to check data reported or received from a third party, if metered data are unavailable. Of the 11 States where this method was applied, 8 States had estimated irrigation withdrawals that were within 15 percent of what was reported in the 2005 water-use compilation, and 3 States had estimated irrigation withdrawals that were more than 20 percent of what was reported in 2005. Recommendations for improving estimates of irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals also are presented in this report. Conveyance losses and irrigation-system efficiencies should be considered in order to achieve a more accurate representation of irrigation withdrawals. Better documentation of data sources and methods used can help lead to more consistent information in future irrigation water-use compilations. Finally, a summary of data sources and methods used to estimate irrigated acreage and irrigation withdrawals for the 2000 and 2005 compilations for each WSC is presented in appendix 1.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2020

Aquatic invasive species in the Chesapeake Bay drainage—Research-based needs and priorities of U.S. Geological Survey partners and collaborators

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is revising the Chesapeake Bay-based science plan to align it with recent U.S. Department of Interior and USGS science priorities that include, as stated in the plan, providing “an integrated understanding of the factors affecting fish habitat, fish health, and landscape conditions” in Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. A report of partner agencies’ needs and priorities related to aquatic invasive species (AIS) science was identified as an informational gap; a report would help to further development of the science program related to aquatic animal health and habitat. This objective was addressed through review of pertinent documentation and conversations with representatives of State, Federal, and regional agencies with vested interests in AIS management in Chesapeake Bay and the Chesapeake Bay drainage area, and this document was produced to summarize the related findings. All agencies and organizations (13) reported that AIS are of general concern, with most stakeholder groups reporting AIS-related issues to be of high priority, including invasive fishes and invertebrates, invasive plants, and microbes including aquatic animal pathogens. Invasive fishes are of great concern to all partner agencies. Channa argus (northern snakehead) and Ictalurus furcatus (blue catfish) are high priority and represent the two most named AIS of concern for these agencies. Nine of 10 stakeholder groups listed northern snakehead as a high priority species, and 6 listed blue catfish as a high priority species as well. Pylodictis olivaris (flathead catfish), invasive crayfish species , and dressenid mussels were also prioritized by multiple partner groups, each receiving specific mention by at least 3 of the 10 stakeholder groups in discussions or documents. Invasive carp, such as Hypophthalmichthys molatrix (silver carp), also received mention by multiple agencies (3 of the 10 stakeholder groups) because these fish represent priority AIS in nearby watersheds and a threat for introduction and dissemination within the Chesapeake Bay watershed from these neighboring regions. Invasive plants are among priority species, and Hydrilla verticillata (hydrilla) topped the list. Hydrilla was reported as a priority species by 5 of the stakeholder groups queried. Trapa natans and T. bispinosa (water chestnut), Phragmites australis (common reed), and Lythrum salicaria (purple loosestrife) were also among the aquatic invasive plants that were prioritized by multiple partner agencies. Multiple stakeholder groups (5 of the 10 groups) also considered Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) and various aquatic animal pathogens among their priority AIS for management considerations. Science needs that were recurrently indicated by stakeholders to support management of invasive species include Technology to enhance biosurveillance capability, such as reliable environmental DNA based detection methodology; Risk assessment modeling to forewarn of and prioritize AIS-related threats; Increased information and intervention methods related to vectors and pathways of AIS introductions; Increased information about the biology and life history of AIS, including information related to trophic interactions, health and disease, and distribution and abundance; and Potential applications of mitigation strategies, including genetically based biocontrol mechanisms. Potential next steps to address the science needs include Development of biosurveillance and risk assessment tools for identification of AIS in proactive management; Development of proactive management techniques to prevent AIS introductions through recognized vectors and pathways; Development of interagency biosurveillance programs to best utilize personnel, funds, and other resources among interested agencies and organizations; Investigations to address life history, consequences, and movement/dissemination of top priority invasive species in the region; Investigations to determine the potential for novel mitigation technologies, such as the application of synthetic biological (genetic) control methods; and Investigations with focus on emerging and high priority AIS in the region, including fishes (blue catfish, flathead catfish, northern snakehead), invertebrates (invasive crayfish and mollusks) and plants (hydrilla, water chestnut, phragmites).

Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Penns↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016–2017 Research Abstracts

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has several strategic goals that focus its efforts on serving the American people. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area has responsibility for the following objectives under the strategic goal of “Science to Manage and Sustain Resources for Thriving Economies and Healthy Ecosystems”: Understand, model, and predict change in natural systems Conserve and protect wildlife and fish species and their habitats Reduce or eliminate the threat of invasive species and wildlife disease This report provides abstracts of the majority of ongoing research investigations of the USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program and is intended to complement the 2016 Cooperative Research Units Program Year in Review Circular 1424 ( https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1424 ). The report is organized by the following major science themes that contribute to the objectives of the USGS: Advanced Technologies Climate Science Decision Science Ecological Flows Ecosystem Services Endangered Species Conservation, Recovery, and Proactive Strategies Energy Human Dimensions Invasive Species Landscape Ecology Species of Greatest Conservation Need Species Population, Habitat, and Harvest Management Wildlife Health and Disease

Circular↗