SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 433 records · Page 24Linked to original sources

USGS2012

How well do the rosgen classification and associated "natural channel design" methods integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response?

Over the past 10 years the Rosgen classification system and its associated methods of "natural channel design" have become synonymous (to many without prior knowledge of the field) with the term "stream restoration" and the science of fluvial geomorphology. Since the mid 1990s, this classification approach has become widely, and perhaps dominantly adopted by governmental agencies, particularly those funding restoration projects. For example, in a request for proposals for the restoration of Trout Creek in Montana, the Natural Resources Conservation Service required "experience in the use and application of a stream classification system and its implementation." Similarly, classification systems have been used in evaluation guides for riparian areas and U.S. Forest Service management plans. Most notably, many highly trained geomorphologists and hydraulic engineers are often held suspect, or even thought incorrect, if their approach does not include reference to or application of a classification system. This, combined with the para-professional training provided by some involved in "natural channel design" empower individuals and groups with limited backgrounds in stream and watershed sciences to engineer wholesale re-patterning of stream reaches using 50-year old technology that was never intended for engineering design. At Level I, the Rosgen classification system consists of eight or nine major stream types, based on hydraulic-geometry relations and four other measures of channel shape to distinguish the dimensions of alluvial stream channels as a function of the bankfull stage. Six classes of the particle size of the boundary sediments are used to further sub-divide each of the major stream types, resulting in 48 or 54 stream types. Aside from the difficulty in identifying bankfull stage, particularly in incising channels, and the issue of sampling from two distinct populations (beds and banks) to classify the boundary sediments, the classification provides a consistent and reproducible means for practitioners to describe channel morphology although difficulties have been encountered in lower-gradient stream systems. Use of the scheme to communicate between users or as a conceptual model, however, has not justified its use for engineering design or for predicting river behavior; its use for designing mitigation projects, therefore, seems beyond its technical scope. Copyright ASCE 2005.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2018

Applying recreation ecology science to sustainably manage camping impacts: A classification of camping management strategies

Wilderness and other protected natural areas such as national forests, parks, and refuges are managed to provide high-quality recreational opportunities while preserving natural resource conditions. In managing recreation visitation, land managers could allow visitors to create their own infrastructure of trails and campsites, or they could choose to apply an impact management strategy to provide an infrastructure that includes sustainably designed trails and campsites. Recreation ecology studies have repeatedly demonstrated that informal “visitor-created” trails and campsites are generally not sustainably designed or located (Cole 1981, 1982a, 2013; Marion 2016; Wimpey and Marion 2011). For example, informal trails frequently occur in flat terrain where trail widening and muddiness can be chronic problems, or are fall-aligned (perpendicular to contour lines) in sloping terrain, where they are considerably more vulnerable to soil loss and widening (Marion et al. 2016; Marion and Wimpey 2017). Similarly, visitors are highly attracted to flat terrain near water for camping, where they frequently create substantial numbers of large and unnecessary campsites at densities that threaten visitor solitude, experiential qualities, and natural resources.

International Journal of Wilderness↗

USGS2017

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Appalachian National Scenic Trail vegetation mapping project

The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program classifies, describes, and maps existing vegetation of national park units for the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS VMI Program is managed by the NPS I&M Division and provides baseline vegetation information to the NPS Natural Resource I&M Program. The U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, NPS Northeast Temperate Network, and NPS Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of APPA for the NPS VMI Program. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to affirm vegetation types within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) of APPA and to determine how best to map the vegetation types by using aerial imagery. Analyses of data from 1,618 vegetation plots were used to describe USNVC associations of APPA. Data from 289 verification sites were collected to test the field key to vegetation associations and the application of vegetation associations to a sample set of map polygons. Data from 269 validation sites were collected to assess vegetation mapping prior to submitting the vegetation map for accuracy assessment (AA). Data from 3,265 AA sites were collected, of which 3,204 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer. The collective of these datasets affirmed 280 USNVC associations for the APPA vegetation mapping project. To map the vegetation and land cover of APPA, 169 map classes were developed. The 169 map classes consist of 150 that represent natural (including ruderal) vegetation types in the USNVC, 11 that represent cultural (agricultural and developed) vegetation types in the USNVC, 5 that represent natural landscapes with catastrophic disturbance or some other modification to natural vegetation preventing accurate classification in the USNVC, and 3 that represent nonvegetated water (non-USNVC). Features were interpreted from viewing 4-band digital aerial imagery using digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems (GIS). (Digital aerial imagery was collected each fall during 2009–11 to capture leaf-phenology change of hardwood trees across the latitudinal range of APPA.) The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial-database layers usable in GIS. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5-hectare (ha) or 0.25-ha minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type or scenario; however, polygon units were mapped to 0.1 ha for alpine vegetation. A geodatabase containing various feature-class layers and tables provide locations and support data to USNVC vegetation types (vegetation map layer), vegetation plots, verification sites, validation sites, AA sites, project boundary extent and zones, and aerial image centers and flight lines. The feature-class layer and related tables of the vegetation map layer provide 30,395 polygons of detailed attribute data covering 110,919.7 ha, with an average polygon size of 3.6 ha; the vegetation map coincides closely with the administrative boundary for APPA. Summary reports generated from the vegetation map layer of the map classes representing USNVC natural (including ruderal) vegetation types apply to 28,242 polygons (92.9% of polygons) and cover 106,413.0 ha (95.9%) of the map extent for APPA. The map layer indicates APPA to be 92.4% forest and woodland (102,480.8 ha), 1.7% shrubland (1866.3 ha), and 1.8% herbaceous cover (2,065.9 ha). Map classes representing park-special vegetation (undefined in the USNVC) apply to 58 polygons (0.2% of polygons) and cover 404.3 ha (0.4%) of the map extent. Map classes representing USNVC cultural types apply to 1,777 polygons (5.8% of polygons) and cover 2,516.3 ha (2.3%) of the map extent. Map classes representing nonvegetated water (non-USNVC) apply to 332 polygons (1.1% of polygons) and cover 1,586.2 ha (1.4%) of the map extent.

Appalachian National Scenic Trail↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior, Region 11, Alaska—2023–24 biennial science report

Introduction U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission—The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five interconnected focus areas: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in 3 Alaska-based science centers. USGS science activities are also initiated by the Cooperative Research Unit and USGS centers outside Alaska. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 900 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.usgs.gov/.

Alaska↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center science highlights for fiscal year 2023

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center is based in Bozeman, Montana, and has field offices in Glacier National Park, Mont.; Missoula, Mont.; and Knoxville, Tennessee. Our scientists respond to the natural resource management needs of Federal, Tribal, and State partners—directly engaging in the coproduction and application of integrated, interdisciplinary science—and perform place-based research throughout the northern Rocky Mountains, including Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks and the northern Great Plains. However, the scope and implications of our research extend across the Nation. Our research themes are as follows: (1) climate change and drought, (2) species at risk, (3) habitat in changing landscapes, and (4) invasive species and wildlife disease. This Fact Sheet highlights examples of dynamic partnerships and key advances in our themes in fiscal year 2023 (October 2022–September 2023).

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2009

Greater Platte River Basins - Science to sustain ecosystems and communities

The Greater Platte River Basins (GPRB), located in the heartland of the United States, provides a collaborative opportunity for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its partners to understand the sustainability of natural and managed ecosystems under changing climate and resource requirements.The Greater Platte River Basins, an area of about 140,000 square miles, sustains thousands of acres of lakes and wetlands, which provide a staging and resting area for the North American Central Flyway. Part of the GPRB is within the U.S. Corn Belt, one of the most productive agricultural ecosystems on Earth. Changes in water and land use, changing patterns of snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, drought, and increasing demands for irrigation have reduced flows in the Platte River. These changes raise questions about the sustainability of the region for both wildlife and agriculture.The USGS and partners are developing a science strategy that will help natural-resource managers address and balance the needs of this region.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2016

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Natchez Trace Parkway vegetation mapping project report

The National Park Service (NPS) Vegetation Mapping Inventory (VMI) Program is an effort to classify, describe, and map existing vegetation of national park units for the NPS Natural Resource Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program. The NPS VMI Program is managed by the NPS I&M Division and provides baseline vegetation information to the NPS Natural Resource I&M Program. The U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center, NatureServe, NPS Gulf Coast Network, and NPS Natchez Trace Parkway (NATR; also referred to as Parkway) have completed vegetation classification and mapping of NATR for the NPS VMI Program. Mappers, ecologists, and botanists collaborated to affirm vegetation types within the U.S. National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) of NATR and to determine how best to map them by using aerial imagery. Analyses of data from 589 vegetation plots had been used to describe an initial 99 USNVC associations in the Parkway; this classification work was completed prior to beginning this NATR vegetation mapping project. Data were collected during this project from another eight quick plots to support new vegetation types not previously identified at the Parkway. Data from 120 verification sites were collected to test the field key to vegetation associations and the application of vegetation associations to a sample set of map polygons. Furthermore, data from 900 accuracy assessment (AA) sites were collected (of which 894 were used to test accuracy of the vegetation map layer). The collective of all these datasets resulted in affirming 122 USNVC associations at NATR. To map the vegetation and open water of NATR, 63 map classes were developed. including the following: 54 map classes represent natural (including ruderal) vegetation types in the USNVC, 5 map classes represent cultural (agricultural and developed) vegetation types in the USNVC, 3 map classes represent nonvegetation open-water bodies (non-USNVC), and 1 map class represents landscapes that had received tornado damage a few months prior to the time of aerial imagery collection. Features were interpreted from viewing 4-band digital aerial imagery by means of digital onscreen three-dimensional stereoscopic workflow systems in geographic information systems. (The aerial imagery was collected during mid-October 2011 for the northern reach of the Parkway and mid-November 2011 for the southern reach of the Parkway to capture peak leaf-phenology of trees.) The interpreted data were digitally and spatially referenced, thus making the spatial-database layers usable in geographic information systems. Polygon units were mapped to either a 0.5 hectare (ha) or 0.25 ha minimum mapping unit, depending on vegetation type or scenario. A geodatabase containing various feature-class layers and tables present the locations of USNVC vegetation types (vegetation map), vegetation plot samples, verification sites, AA sites, project boundary extent, and aerial image centers. The feature-class layer and related tables for the vegetation map provide 13,529 polygons of detailed attribute data covering 21,655.5 ha, with an average polygon size of 1.6 ha; the vegetation map coincides closely with the administrative boundary for NATR. Summary reports generated from the vegetation map layer of the map classes representing USNVC natural (including ruderal) vegetation types apply to 12,648 polygons (93.5% of polygons) and cover 18,542.7 ha (85.6%) of the map extent for NATR. The map layer indicates the Parkway to be 70.5% forest and woodland (15,258.7 ha), 0.3% shrubland (63.0 ha), and 14.9% herbaceous cover (3,221.0 ha). Map classes representing USNVC cultural types apply to 678 polygons (5.0% of polygons) and cover 2,413.9 ha (11.1%) of the map extent.

Natural Resource Report↗

USGS1988

FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF EXPERT SYSTEMS FOR THE EVALUATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES.

The loss of professional experience and expertise in the domain of the earth sciences may prove to be one of the most serious outcomes of the boom-and-bust cyclic nature of the volatile energy and mining industries. Promising new applications of powerful computer systems, known as 'expert systems' or 'knowledge-based systems', are predicted for use in the earth science. These systems have the potential capability to capture and preserve the invaluable knowledge bases essential to the evaluation of US energy and mineral resources.

JPT, Journal of Petroleum Technology↗

USGS2016

Student and recent graduate employment opportunities

As an unbiased, multidisciplinary science organization, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the health of our ecosystems and environment, our natural resources, the impacts of climate and land-use change, and the natural hazards that affect our lives. Opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as recent graduates, to participate in USGS science are available in the selected programs described in this publication. Please note: U.S. citizenship is required for all government positions.

General Information Product↗

USGS2021

Student and recent graduate opportunities

General Information Product↗

USGS2025

Scientific opportunities in the National Landscape Conservation System

The National Landscape Conservation System consists of unique and beautiful places across America’s landscapes where identified resources and values are protected and science is highlighted. The mission of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and is often referred to as the agency’s National Conservation Lands, is to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes for their cultural, ecological, and scientific values. This clear inclusion of science in the NLCS mission sets the stage for individual units to serve as places of learning, teaching, discovery, and innovation. Science is an integral part of managing the National Conservation Lands, and science conducted within and across the more than 900 units that make up the NLCS can inform and influence conservation and public land management well beyond its boundaries. Here, we highlight seven core aspects of National Conservation Lands that present valuable science opportunities: (1) the scientific values for which individual units are designated; (2) the many other resources, objects, and values within units; (3) the value of units as “control” sites for understanding the effects of activities such as mineral extraction that commonly occur elsewhere on multiple-use public lands but are often prohibited within National Conservation Lands; (4) the value of units for studying the effects of activities such as recreation that regularly occur and may be intensified on National Conservation Lands; (5) the high visibility of units, which draws strong interest and engagement from scientists, partners, and the public; (6) the functioning of the units as a network managed for a common purpose, which provides an opportunity to explore cross-cutting science questions across widely varying contexts and geographies; and (7) the opportunities units provide to promote and apply Indigenous Knowledge to scientific research to manage natural and cultural resources. Because of all of these characteristics, National Conservation Lands can serve as hubs for basic and applied science that can inform management of all public lands and resources into the future. We highlight these science opportunities through examples from existing units and suggest two actions that could help further science activities and impact on National Conservation Lands.

Parks Stewardship Forum↗

USGS2014

Resource manager information needs regarding hydrologic regime shifts for the North Pacific Landscape Conservation

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) are a network of 22 public-private partnerships, defined by ecoregion, that share and provide science to ensure the sustainability of land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources in North America. LCCs were established by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) in recognition of the fact that response to climate change must be coordinated on a landscape-level basis because important resources, ecosystem processes, and resource management challenges extend beyond most of the boundaries considered in current natural resource management. The North Pacific LCC (NPLCC) covers the range of the Pacific coastal temperate rainforest, including an area of 528,360 km 2 spanning 22 degrees of latitude from the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska, to Bodega Bay, California. The coverage area includes parts of four States, two Canadian provinces, and more than 100 Tribes and First Nation language groups. It extends from alpine areas at the crest of coastal mountains across subalpine, montane, and lowland forests to the nearshore marine environment. This wide range of latitudes and elevation zones; terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats; and complex jurisdictional boundaries hosts a diversity of natural resources and their corresponding management issues are equally diverse. As evidenced by the Science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge (S-TEK) Strategy guiding principles, identifying and responding to the needs of resource managers is key to the success of the NPLCC. To help achieve this goal of the NPLCC, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has organized several workshops with resource managers and resource scientists to identify management information needs relevant to the priority topics identified in the S-TEK Strategy. Here, we detail the results from a first workshop to address the effects of changes in hydrologic regime on rivers, streams, and riparian corridors. The workshop focused on a subset of the full NPLCC geography and was structured to answer the following questions: What are the valued resources and services that may be affected by hydrologic regime changes in the region? What are the management goals for those resources? How is climate change anticipated to affect valued resources and goals? What adaptation strategies may managers use in response to anticipated changes in resources due to climate-related hydrologic change? What information is needed to inform and use management responses?

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Multiple conceptualizations of nature are key to inclusivity and legitimacy in global environmental governance

Despite increasing scientific understanding of the global environmental crisis, we struggle to adopt the policies and practices science suggests we should. One of the reasons for this is the general absence of inclusive engagement and dialogue among a wide range of actors with distinct interactions with nature. Furthermore, there is little consideration of the role of language in understanding and shaping human-nature relations across different worldviews and cultures. In this paper, we propose that engagement and dialogue between the different actors involved in, or affected by, efforts to address the global environmental crisis can be strengthened by being mindful of the breadth of the diverse human-nature relations found around the globe. Examininge diverse conceptualizations of “nature” in more than 60 languages, we find that concpetualisaitions of nature fall into three broad clusters: inclusive conceptualizations where humans are viewed as an integral component of nature; non-inclusive conceptualizations where humans are separate from nature; and deifying conceptualizations where nature is understood and experienced within a spiritual dimension. Considering and respecting this rich repertoire for describing, thinking about and relating to nature can help us articulating global environmental governance in ways that resonate across cultures and worldviews. This repertoire also provides a resource we can draw on when defining policies, sustainability scenarios and practical interventions for the future thus offering opportunities for finding solutions to global environmental challenges, such as illustrated by the different laws granting legal personality to nature adopted around the world.

Environmental Science and Policy↗

USGS2003

Science for avian conservation: Priorities for the new millennium

Over the past decade, bird conservation activities have become the preeminent natural resource conservation effort in North America. Maturation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), establishment of Partners in Flight (PIF), and creation of comprehensive colonial waterbird and shorebird conservation plans have stimulated unprecedented interest in, and funding for, bird conservation in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and other countries in the western hemisphere. Key to that success in the United States has been active collaboration among federal, state and local governments, conservation organizations, academia, and industry. The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), which has primary statutory responsibility for migratory bird conservation and management, has been a key partner. Despite the great strides that have been made in bird conservation science, historical approaches to research and monitoring have often failed to provide sufficient information and understanding to effectively manage bird populations at large spatial scales. That shortcoming, and the lack of an integrated strategy and comprehensive set of research priorities, is more evident in light of the goals established by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The NABCI is a trinational, coalition-driven effort to provide an organizational umbrella for existing conservation initiatives. The expanded focus of NABCI and individual bird conservation initiatives is to work together in an integrated, holistic fashion to keep common birds common and to increase populations of declining, threatened, and endangered species. To assist bird conservation initiatives in defining goals and developing new approaches to effective research, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the research agency of DOI, convened a workshop, “Science for Avian Conservation: Understanding, Modeling, and Applying Ecological Relationships,” on 31 October–2 November 2000, which brought together 51 scientists from USGS, as well as scientists and conservationists from other agencies and organizations actively participating in NABCI. As the lead federal agency involved in bird conservation research, USGS has a clear legislative mandate to provide scientific information upon which future management plans and actions will be built. This article summarizes key issues and recommendations that arose from that workshop. The principal goal of the workshop was to guide USGS in defining its role, assessing capabilities, and directing future agency planning in support of bird conservation. A major component was to identify key areas of research needed in this new era of bird conservation science. Although tailored to the mission of USGS, workshop recommendations visualize a bold direction for future avian conservation science in which research and monitoring work in tandem with management to increase our understanding of avian populations and the processes that affect them. The USGS is a science agency whose role is to provide objective scientific information to management agencies and therefore is not directly involved in high-level resource policy-making or on-the-ground management decision making. Nevertheless, it is important to note that effective policy decision making must integrate the best available science with political and economic realities to achieve successful avian conservation—an important subject acknowledged in the workshop, but largely beyond its scope of discussion. Williams (2003) questions regarding how scientific information can be effectively communicated to decision makers and incorporated into natural resource policy. Without an aggressive vision and the willingness of researchers, managers, and policy makers to implement it, conservation of North American birds is likely to proceed without the full benefit of scientific investigation. These recommendations represent the principal conclusions drawn by workshop participants and do not necessarily reflect official USGS policy.

The Auk↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program decadal science strategy, 2024–33

Executive Summary Earthquakes represent one of our Nation’s most significant and costly natural hazards, with estimated annual loses from earthquakes close to $15 billion in 2023. Over the past two centuries, 37 U.S. States have experienced an earthquake exceeding a magnitude of 5, and 50 percent of States have a significant potential for future damaging shaking; these statistics speak to the need for nationwide interest and investment in earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction. Authorized under the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) provides the scientific information, situational awareness, and knowledge necessary to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses from earthquakes and earthquake-induced tsunamis, landslides, and soil liquefaction. The EHP supports activities in three focused topical areas: (1) earthquake monitoring, (2) hazard assessment, and (3) applied research, using the results of each—and the coordination among them—to further support risk translation and communication in regions at risk nationwide. For earthquake monitoring, the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS), a cooperative effort of USGS networks, university partner regional seismic networks, and real-time geodetic networks, collects and analyzes data on earthquakes; issues timely, reliable notifications of their occurrence and impacts; and provides data for earthquake research, hazard, and risk assessment as a foundation for building an earthquake-resilient Nation. The USGS-operated ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system is a recent addition to EHP’s ANSS infrastructure. In the realm of earthquake hazard assessment, the EHP contributes to earthquake risk mitigation strategies by developing the National Seismic Hazard Model and maps, and other related products, that describe the likelihood and potential effects of earthquakes nationwide, especially in the urban areas of highest risk. The EHP also conducts research on the causes, characteristics, and effects of earthquakes and prioritizes work that directly increases the accuracy and precision of earthquake hazards assessments, earthquake forecasts, and earthquake monitoring and situational-awareness products and that supports the Nation’s earthquake mitigation practices. Bridging the EHP’s efforts across research, hazard assessments, and earthquake monitoring is a broad and comprehensive collection of earthquake information products, including the National Seismic Hazard Model, ShakeAlert, and other products describing impact, such as ShakeMap and PAGER (Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response), which have been developed and integrated into EHP’s real-time monitoring systems. EHP funds external partners to carry out many important collaborative activities through an active external grants program—one of the largest in the USGS—and through cooperative agreements with other partners such as the university-operated regional seismic networks, funded as part of the ANSS. To continue its support of earthquake hazard characterization and risk reduction, the EHP aims to strengthen its foundational products and practices while positioning itself to respond to the evolving needs of the Nation and follow best practices of the scientific community. This document describes a strategy for the program to ensure it can meet these demands. The foundational priorities outlined in this strategy represent those activities that remain critical to the core functionality of the program and those that can be supported under current fiscal year 2024-level appropriations. Priorities described as aspirational are important for future growth, and to maintain the program’s position as a leading global resource in earthquake science, but would require increases in appropriated funding to be fully realized. Across the program’s portfolio of activities, several major themes have been identified as the most critical activities to advance EHP science over the coming decade. Together, these activities provide the framework necessary to integrate critical hazard characterization and risk reduction activities across the program. They provide the structure for research to advance the understanding of where, when, and why earthquakes occur and how we can use improved knowledge to drive short-term and actionable forecasts of seismic activity. They expand the usefulness of critical earthquake products and advance the sophistication of those products to keep pace with the rapidly evolving needs of an ever-expanding user base while maintaining the position of the USGS as a global leader in earthquake science. Focus on system-level science. Establish an automated earthquake-processing pipeline. Enhance the accuracy and reliability of the ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning system and plan for extension to other regions. Implement time-dependent earthquake forecasting. Develop physically realistic models. Expand computational capacity. This science strategy is organized into three primary sections. The first section provides an overview of the EHP and its budget, governance, and program council. Readers familiar with the program may wish to focus on the second section, which describes the core of the science strategy, including priorities across each of the EHP’s major program activities in monitoring, hazard assessment, and targeted research. The third section outlines science priorities that cut across program activities, including those involving collaborations external to the EHP.

American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas Islands, U↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Virginia and West Virginia Water Science Center

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. In support of this mission, the USGS Virginia and West Virginia Water Science Center works in cooperation with many entities to provide reliable, impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and the public.

Virginia, West Virginia↗

USGS2012

Review and update of the applications of organic petrology: Part 2, geological and multidisciplinary applications

The present paper is focused on organic petrology applied to unconventional and multidisciplinary investigations and is the second part of a two part review that describes the geological applications and uses of this branch of earth sciences. Therefore, this paper reviews the use of organic petrology in investigations of: (i) ore genesis when organic matter occurs associated with mineralization; (ii) the behavior of organic matter in coal fires (self-heating and self-combustion); (iii) environmental and anthropogenic impacts associated with the management and industrial utilization of coal; (iv) archeology and the nature and geographical provenance of objects of organic nature such as jet, amber, other artifacts and coal from archeological sites; and (v) forensic science connected with criminal behavior or disasters. This second part of the review outlines the most recent research and applications of organic petrology in those fields.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗

USGS2011

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

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

Scientific Investigations Report↗