SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Project Summary”

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 487 records · Page 27Linked to original sources

USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey Community for Data Integration 2017 Workshop Proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Community for Data Integration (CDI) Workshop was held May 16–19, 2017 at the Denver Federal Center. There were 183 in-person attendees and 35 virtual attendees over four days. The theme of the workshop was “Enabling Integrated Science,” with the purpose of bringing together the community to discuss current topics, shared challenges, and steps forward to advance integrated science at the USGS. The CDI welcomed several keynote speakers, including Bill Werkheiser, USGS Acting Director; Kevin T. Gallagher, USGS Associate Director of the Core Science Systems Mission Area; Bruce Caron, Earth Science Information Partners Community Architect; and Tim Quinn, Chief of the USGS Office of Enterprise Information. Their presentations focused on the importance of collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and open science and the role of the CDI in identifying and supporting new opportunities in these areas for the USGS and its partners. In addition to the stated theme, the workshop agenda was driven by the needs of the CDI, with topics highlighting current resources and technologies that could help attendees in their daily work. Topical sessions were proposed by CDI members and included subjects such as data citation, information technology architecture, legacy data, real-time data, and many more. Plenary speakers from the community talked about USGS activities in data science, elevation and hydrography data integration, advanced scientific computing solutions, cloud computing, data-management training, and data-sharing agreements. Two panels addressed the role of the CDI in enabling integrated science and examples of CDI-supported projects in action. Breakout discussions focused on the workshop theme of “Enabling Integrated Science” and covered five topics: Data and Data Integration, Modeling, Computing Capacity, Science Data Integration, and User Needs and Experience. Sessions on each topic identified actions that could bring the USGS and the broader Earth science community closer to the goal of making integrated science commonplace. The breakouts produced recommendations with the broad themes of improving communication and connections across the USGS, reducing duplication and increasing knowledge transfer, increasing training and testbed opportunities to learn and experiment, and creating community-supported standards to enable better integration and interoperability. The DataBlast poster and live demonstration session showcased 36 projects from around the CDI and included recent CDI-funded projects as well as other USGS and partner initiatives that were related to data and software integration and discovery. Importantly, the CDI workshop provided a forum for scientists, technologists, data and resource managers, program managers, and others to convene face to face to discuss common methods, interests, challenges, and solutions related to scientific data and technologies. As a result of this rare convergence, new connections were made across disciplines, backgrounds, and geographical locations, seeding future activities and collaborations. Sharing of ideas from all attendees was encouraged through the use of a mobile application to collect real-time questions and feedback from the audience The primary outcomes of the workshop are the recommendations from the breakout sessions titled “Roadmap Discussions on Enabling Integrated Science” and from the topical sessions detailed in these proceedings. These sessions, as well as the plenary discussions, identified new areas of collaboration and learning that the CDI will facilitate, such as data science, software development, scientific modeling practices, and user needs and experience. The CDI will build on the results of the workshop to guide its future topics, events, and funding opportunities to support an integrated science capacity for the USGS.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Summary of juvenile salmonid passage and survival at McNary Dam-Acoustic survival studies, 2006-09

Passage and survival data were collected at McNary Dam between 2006 and 2009. These data have provided critical information for resource managers to implement structural and operational changes designed to improve the survival of juvenile salmonids as they migrate past the dam. Given the importance of these annual studies, the primary objectives of this report were to summarize the findings of these annual studies to ensure that passage and survival metrics are consistently calculated and reported across all years and to consolidate this information in a single document, thereby making it easier to reference. It is worth noting that this report does not contain all the information from all the annual reports. The intent of this report was to summarize the key findings from multiple years of research. The reader is encouraged to reference the annual reports if more detailed information is needed. Chapter 1 summarizes existing behavior, passage, and survival results for fish released 10 rkm upstream of McNary Dam and from the McNary Dam tailrace during 2006-09. Chapter 2 summarizes existing behavior, passage, and survival results for fish released in the mid-Columbia River and detected at McNary Dam during 2006-09. Results from 2006 indicated that higher spill discharge generally resulted in higher fish passage through spill, and in turn, higher fish survival through the entire dam. Within the spillway, passage effectiveness was highest for the south spill bays, adjacent to the powerhouse. Increased passage in this area, combined with detailed 3-dimensional approach paths, aided in the design and location of the temporary spillway weirs (TSWs) at McNary Dam prior to the 2007 migration of juvenile salmonids. During the 2007 study, the TSWs were tested under two spill treatments during the spring and summer: a "2006 Modified spill," and a "2007 test spill." In the spring, slightly higher discharge through spill bays 14-17 was the primary difference between the spill treatments tested. During the summer, spill treatments were characterized by a high (60 percent) and low (40 percent) percent flow of the total discharge going through the spillway. Flow through the TSWs represented about 7-8 percent of total project discharge in spring and about 10-11 percent of total project discharge in summer. Overall, the TSWs passed 24 percent of yearling Chinook salmon and 27 percent of subyearling Chinook salmon, but passed about 65 percent of juvenile steelhead. In spring, there was little evidence for an effect of spill treatment on either fish passage or survival, however, this was not surprising given there was a relatively small difference between spill treatments. For subyearling Chinook salmon during the summer study, high spill discharge resulted in higher fish passage through the spillway and lower fish passage through the powerhouse. Season wide survival (paired-release) for yearling and subyearling Chinook salmon was 0.98 and 0.92 (SE<0.04) through TSW 20, and 0.96 and 0.97 (SE<0.04) through TSW 22, respectively. Season-wide survival (single-release) for juvenile steelhead was 0.98 (SE=0.024) through TSW 20, and 0.90 (SE=0.02) through TSW 22. The extent to which location and structural design contributed to the differences observed between the two TSWs was uncertain. Nonetheless, the TSWs performed similarly to surface-oriented fish passage structures at other locations and appear to be a useful fish passage alternative at McNary Dam. The 2008 and 2009 studies confirmed previous results showing high survival for fish passing through the TSWs, especially juvenile steelhead. Although the number of all fish species passing through the TSWs was lower in 2008 and 2009 compared to 2007, fish passage efficiency for juvenile steelhead and subyearling Chinook salmon was higher in years with the TSWs, compared to 2006, before the TSWs were in place.

Washington;Oregon↗

USGS2012

Archive of digital boomer subbottom profile data collected in the Atlantic Ocean offshore northeast Florida during USGS cruises 03FGS01 and 03FGS02 in September and October of 2003

In September and October of 2003, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey, conducted geophysical surveys of the Atlantic Ocean offshore northeast Florida from St. Augustine, Florida, to the Florida-Georgia border. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer subbottom profile data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Filtered and gained (a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansions of all acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 03FGS01 tells us the data were collected in 2003 as part of cooperative work with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) and that the data were collected during the first field activity for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity identification (ID). The naming convention used for each seismic line is as follows: yye##a, where 'yy' are the last two digits of the year in which the data were collected, 'e' is a 1-letter abbreviation for the equipment type (for example, b for boomer), '##' is a 2-digit number representing a specific track, and 'a' is a letter representing the section of a line if recording was prematurely terminated or rerun for quality or acquisition problems. The boomer plate is an acoustic energy source that consists of capacitors charged to a high voltage and discharged through a transducer in the water. The transducer is towed on a sled floating on the water surface and when discharged emits a short acoustic pulse, or shot, which propagates through the water, sediment column, or rock beneath. The acoustic energy is reflected at density boundaries (such as the seafloor, sediment, or rock layers beneath the seafloor), detected by hydrophone receivers, and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at timed intervals (for example, 0.5 seconds) and recorded for specific intervals of time (for example, 100 milliseconds). In this way, a two-dimensional (2-D) vertical profile of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Refer to the handwritten FACS operation log (PDF, 442 KB) for diagrams and descriptions of acquisition geometry, which varied throughout the cruises. Table 1 displays a summary of acquisition parameters. See the digital FACS equipment logs (PDF, 9-13 KB each) for details about the acquisition equipment used. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG Y (Barry and others, 1975) format (rev. 0), except for the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header, which are stored in ASCII format instead of the standard EBCDIC format. The SEG Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2005). See the How To Download SEG Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles provided here are Graphics Interchange Format (GIF) images that were filtered and gained using SU software. Refer to the Software page for details about the processing and links to example SU processing scripts and USGS software for viewing the SEG Y files (Zihlman, 1992).

Florida;Georgia↗

USGS2022

National strategy for landslide loss reduction

Executive Summary Landslide hazards are present in all 50 States and most U.S. territories, and they affect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Landslides are the downslope movement of earth materials under the force of gravity. They can occur without any obvious trigger. Widespread or severe landslide events are often driven by such hazards as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heavy rain events, flooding, and wildfires. Landslides can also cause their own cascading consequences, such as the spread of hazardous materials or the creation of devastating local tsunamis. This strategy document describes goals and strategic actions of a comprehensive strategy to meet key challenges to reducing the Nation’s risk from landslide hazards equitably and effectively. The document follows the direction of the National Landslide Preparedness Act (Public Law 116–323) by presenting a strategy for addressing landslide hazards, including risk reduction and response. The act directs the Department of the Interior to establish a program that will work with State, Tribal, and local governments as well as with academia, the private sector, community-based groups, and nonprofit organizations to identify landslide hazards and risk and improve communication, coordination, and emergency preparedness, with the objective of reducing landslide losses. As the only Federal program dedicated to landslide hazard science, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program will lead and coordinate many of the efforts described in this strategy document. Landslide hazard risk reduction must be undertaken collectively and collaboratively across the Federal Government. This strategy document will provide a framework for the creation of an interagency management plan that describes the programs, projects, workforce, and budgets required to carry out the national strategy. The strategy outlined in this document presents a vision of how to equitably produce, communicate, and apply landslide data and science to support a broad range of land management, infrastructure, planning, and emergency response decisions. These decisions are made by a variety of actors, including private and nonprofit landholders; State, Tribal, territorial, city, and county planners; emergency managers; engineers; infrastructure managers; Federal agencies and their partners; and community leaders and individuals. Supporting those decisions and reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to landslides requires overcoming three main challenges: (1) gaps in basic information needed to describe and understand landslide occurrence and societal risk, (2) difficulty in accurately mapping and forecasting landslide hazards, and (3) communication and coordination among the many jurisdictions and sectors that have responsibility for and interest in reducing landslide losses. To address those challenges, this strategy document puts forward a series of strategic actions to achieve four goals: Assess: Decision makers have access to detailed, nationwide, and contextually relevant information on landslide hazard and risk. Coordinate: Landslide hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are coordinated across Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local levels. Plan: Communities and land managers are prepared and able to plan for landslide hazards. Respond: Landslide surveillance, warnings, and responses to events are effective, efficient, equitable, cooperative, and data-driven to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. These strategic actions focus on expanding the knowledge of societal risk posed by landslides as well as better understanding of where, when, and why they occur. They focus on applying that knowledge to support landslide risk reduction efforts and decisions, including the establishment of new advisory, coordination, and working groups focused on landslide hazard and risk. They take into account that supporting landslide loss reduction decisions also requires new guidance, tools, and training codeveloped with the entities, organizations, and individuals faced with making those decisions. Finally, they address actions needed to support and expand landslide warning information and improve the technical response to landslide emergencies.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2022

Perceptions of conservation introduction to inform decision support among U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees

Executive Summary Around the globe, fish and wildlife managers are facing increasingly complex management issues because of multiscale ecological effects like climate change, species invasion, and land-use change. Managers seeking to prevent extinctions or preserve ecosystems are increasingly considering more interventionist techniques to overcome the resulting changes. Among those techniques, translocation methods that intentionally move species into new, less impacted habitats are being considered. These types of translocations are known by a range of terms, including “managed relocation” and “assisted migration,” but the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Species Survival Commission (IUCN SSC, 2013) has proposed “conservation introduction” (CI) as a standard term. As defined by the IUCN SSC, CI is the intentional movement of a species or population outside its indigenous range for conservation purposes. CI can be divided into two forms: assisted colonization and ecological replacement. Assisted colonization is moving species outside its indigenous range to prevent extinction or extirpation of a population. Ecological replacement is moving species to fulfill an important niche that is necessary within an ecosystem. Proponents suggest these methods are necessary to address the ecological challenges managers are trying to overcome. Opponents point out the potential for species to become invasive, introduce disease or parasites, and cause other cascading impacts throughout the ecosystem. The result is controversy and disagreement. As such, it will be imperative to develop clear guidelines and best practices to be followed within wildlife management agencies to prevent potential To this end, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) partnered with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop the current project. The intent was to describe the perceptions of USFWS personnel across many aspects of CI so that the USFWS could use this information in the planning and development of their own internal decision-support framework for CI. This report is presented in five sections. Section 1 introduces the project and provides an in-depth overview of background literature related to CI. Section 2 describes the study design, methods, and study participant characteristics. Section 3 describes key results and recommendations related to the development of a USFWS decision framework. Section 4 investigates a range of perceptions held by participants and establishes baseline information for how USFWS personnel may view CI and its application. Types of viewpoints surveyed include preferred terms and definitions, perceived barriers, perceived risks and tradeoffs, and aspects of success. Perceived barriers refers to factors that may prevent successful implementation of CI and perceived risks refers to potential negative outcomes that may occur as a result of implementing CI. Section 5 provides an overview of our conclusions for this project. Overall, we found that CI is likely to be viewed positively within the USFWS, but employees offered cautions and caveats. Most participants we interviewed feel that it is a necessary tool that will be indispensable in certain situations but also feel that there is more risk associated than with more traditional methods. For this reason, many participants are concerned about the assessment and planning that should be conducted prior to any CI effort. Our results indicate that many USFWS personnel will be open to CI being adopted more regularly but will be looking for clear guidance on how it should be implemented.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2007

Antarctica: A Keystone in a Changing World--Online Proceedings for the Tenth International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences. Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.--August 26 to September 1, 2007

Overview: The International Symposium on Antarctic Earth Sciences (ISAES) is held once every four years to provide an international forum for presenting research results and new ideas and for planning future Antarctic geoscience research projects. This Tenth ISAES coincides with the International Polar Year (IPY; 50th Anniversary of the International Geophysical Year) and has been structured to showcase the great breadth of geoscience research being done in Antarctic regions by more than more than 100 institutions located in over 30 countries. The science program of the Symposium encompasses six broad themes that cover key topics on evolution and interactions of the geosphere, cryosphere and biosphere and their cross-linkages with past and historic paleoclimates. Emphasis is also on deciphering the climate records in ice cores, geologic cores, rock outcrops and those inferred from climate models. New technologies for the coming decades of geoscience data collection are also highlighted. Ten keynote presentations at the symposium outline the foundation for the research sessions of the symposium and the structure of the Online Proceedings and Proceedings Book for the Tenth ISAES. The ISAES is traditionally a cornerstone meeting for the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). In recognition of the Tenth ISAES being held in the U.S. for the first time in 30 years and during IPY, the publication of the symposium proceedings is being handled as a special collaborative effort of the U.S. National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey, The National Academies Polar Research Board and The National Academies Press. The National Academies Polar Research Board oversees the activities of SCAR in the U.S. Special attention has been directed at publication formats for the symposium, to expedite the open and wide sharing of mature and preliminary research results presented in talks and posters at the Tenth ISAES. All symposium presentations are documented by a short Summary printed in the Symposium Program Booklet and either a short research paper or an extended abstract. The research papers and extended abstracts are compiled in this Online Proceedings and are replicated on a DVD-ROM that is placed in the back of the Tenth ISAES Proceedings Book. The Proceedings Book has printed versions of the keynote talks and an overview paper of the symposium. The short research papers and extended abstracts have been handled differently. Research papers present mature research results and syntheses. They have been peer-reviewed using standard journal procedures. Following revisions and acceptances by co-editors, the papers have been formatted for publication and proofread by authors. Each paper has been assigned a Digital Object Identification (DOI) number and separate html link, and posted online (as part of this USGS Open-File Report series) to ensure open and wide access to the research results. Extended abstracts focus on preliminary research results and have not been peer reviewed. They have had only minimal editorial review and revision. Authors have formatted and proofread their papers. Extended abstracts were not given DOI numbers and are included together in a separate chapter of this online Proceedings. USGS publications staff and Stanford-student editorial assistants indexed and compiled the PDF versions of the short research papers and extended abstracts for inclusion in this online Proceedings. USGS staff created the master DVD-ROM that contains a replica of the Online Proceedings for the Tenth ISAES, and provided the DVD-ROM copies that are included in the Tenth ISAES Proceedings Book published by The National Academies Press in the U.S. A team of more than 25 co-editors coordinated with the numerous authors and peer reviewers in handling the many research papers and extended abstracts that are included herein. Handling the large volume of short papers and extended abstracts, getting most of them onli

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Simulated flow of groundwater and brine from a flooded salt mine in Livingston County, New York, and effects of remedial pumping on an overlying aquifer

Two ceiling collapses in the Retsof salt mine near Geneseo in upstate New York in spring 1994 resulted in the upward propagation of two columns of rubble through 600 feet of overlying shale and carbonate bedrock. This upward propagation formed a hydraulic connection between the lower confined aquifer (LCA) and the mine and allowed water from the aquifer and bedrock fracture zones that intersected the rubble columns to flow into the mine at a rate of 18,000 gallons per minute (gal/min) . All salt mining ceased in September 1995, and the mine was completely flooded by January 1996. The flow of water from the lower confined aquifer into the mine caused widespread drawdowns, and water levels in the aquifer declined by as much as 400 feet near the collapse area and by more than 50 feet at wells 7 miles to the north and south. Within 3 to 4 weeks of the collapses, water levels in about a dozen domestic and industrial wells had declined severely, and some wells went dry. Water levels in at least 58 wells in the lower and middle confined aquifers were affected by mine flooding. Groundwater in the upper unconfined aquifer and surface water in streams were unaffected by water-level drawdown, but channels of the Genesee River and Beards Creek were altered by land subsidence related to the mine collapse. Water levels recovered from 1996 through 2006, but the mine is now filled with about 15 billion gallons of saturated halite brine. The weight of the overlying rock and sediment is expected to cause the salt beds to deform and fill the mine cavity during the next several hundred years; this in turn could displace as much as 80 percent of the brine and cause it to move upward through the rubble chimneys, rendering the LCA unusable as a source of water supply. Saline water was detected in the LCA in 2002 but was found to be derived primarily from fractures in the limestone and shale units between the mine and the LCA, rather than from the mine. In September 2006, the mine company began a brine-mitigation project that entailed pumping five wells finished in limestone and shale units within the collapse areas to alter the flow gradient and thereby prevent further movement of brine and saline water into the LCA. The pumped brine was routed to an onsite desalination plant. At the same time, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a study in cooperation with the New York State Office of the Attorney General to construct numerical models to analyze the groundwater chemistry and delineate the directions of flow. Specific objectives of the study were to: * Assess the sources of salinity within the collapse area and identify the factors that control the movement and mixing of freshwater, saline waters from fracture zones, and brine; * Evaluate the likelihood that the pumping will induce anhydrite dissolution and lead to continued land subsidence; * Construct variable-density groundwater flow models to predict the effect of remedial pumping on salinity within the LCA; * Evaluate the effectiveness of remedial pumping in preventing the movement of saline water into the LCA; and * Predict the extent of brine migration 8 years after a hypothetical shutdown of all pumping in 2008. This report (1) summarizes the hydrogeologic setting and effects of mine flooding, (2) describes the geochemical and variable-density model simulations and their principal results, (3) discusses the implications of (a) continued pumping and desalination to protect the LCA and (b) a full shutdown of pumping after 2008, and (4) suggests further research that could lead to refinement of model predictions. Additional information may be found in Yager and others (2001 and 2009). These reports can be accessed at http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1611/ and http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/pp1767/, respectively. A summary of simulation results can be accessed at http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projects/Coram/seawat/seawat.html.

New York↗

USGS2003

Geologic map and digital database of the Redlands 7.5' quadrangle, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California

This geologic database of the Redlands 7.5' quadrangle was prepared by the Southern California Areal Mapping Project (SCAMP), a regional geologic-mapping project sponsored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey. The database was developed as a contribution to the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program's National Geologic Map Database, and is intended to provide a general geologic setting of the Redlands quadrangle. The database and map provide information about earth materials and geologic structures, including faults and folds that have developed in the quadrangle due to complexities in the San Andreas Fault system. The Redlands 7.5' quadrangle contains earth materials and structures that provide insight into the late Cenozoic geologic evolution of the southern California Inland Empire region. Important stratigraphic and structural elements include (1) the modern trace of the San Andreas and San Jacinto faults and (2) late Tertiary and Quaternary sedimentary materials and geologic structures that formed during the last million years or so and that record complex geologic interactions within the San Andreas Fault system. These materials and the structures that deform them provide the geologic framework for investigations of earthquake hazards and ground-water recharge and subsurface flow. Geologic information contained in the Redlands database is general-purpose data that is applicable to land-related investigations in the earth and biological sciences. The term "general-purpose" means that all geologic-feature classes have minimal information content adequate to characterize their general geologic characteristics and to interpret their general geologic history. However, no single feature class has enough information to definitively characterize its properties and origin. For this reason the database cannot be used for site-specific geologic evaluations, although it can be used to plan and guide investigations at the site-specific level. This summary pamphlet discusses major categories of surficial materials in the Redlands quadrangle, and provides a conceptual framework and basis for how geologicmap units containing such materials are recognized and correlated.

California↗

USGS2018

Executive summary. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report

Central to life on Earth, carbon is essential to the molecular makeup of all living things and plays a key role in regulating global climate. To understand carbon’s role in these processes, researchers measure and evaluate carbon stocks and fluxes. A stock is the quantity of carbon contained in a pool or reservoir in the Earth system (e.g., carbon in forest trees), and a flux is the direction and rate of carbon’s transfer between pools (e.g., the movement of carbon from the atmosphere into forest trees during photosynthesis). This document, the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2), examines the patterns of carbon stocks and fluxes—collectively called the “carbon cycle.” Emphasis is given to these patterns in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture and energy) and ecosystems (e.g., forests and coastal waters) and to the response of the carbon cycle to human activity. The purpose of SOCCR2 is to assess the current state of the North American carbon cycle and to present recent advances in understanding the factors that influence it. Concentrating on North America—Canada, the United States, and Mexico—the report describes carbon cycling for air, land, inland waters (streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs), and coastal waters (see Figure ES.1, p. 23). The questions framing the publication A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (Michalak et al., 2011) inspired development of three slightly modified questions that guide SOCCR2’s content and focus on North America in a global context: How have natural processes and human actions affected the global carbon cycle on land, in the atmosphere, in the ocean and other aquatic systems, and at ecosystem interfaces (e.g., coastal, wetland, and urban-rural)? How have socioeconomic trends affected atmospheric levels of the primary carbon-containing gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)? How have species, ecosystems, natural resources, and human systems been impacted by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, associated changes in climate, and carbon management decisions and practices? SOCCR2 synthesizes the most recent understanding of carbon cycling in North America, assessing new carbon cycle findings and information, the state of knowledge regarding core methods used to study the carbon cycle, and future research needed to best inform carbon management and policy options. Focusing on scientific developments in the decade since the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR1; CCSP 2007), SOCCR2 summarizes the past, current, and projected state of carbon sources, sinks, and natural processes, as well as contributions by human activities. In addition to CO2 and CH4, the report sometimes discusses nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG associated with activities and processes that affect fluxes of carbon gases.1 SOCCR2 also describes improvements in analysis tools; developments in decision support; and new insights into ecosystem carbon cycling, human causes of changes in the carbon cycle, and social science perspectives on carbon. Since publication of SOCCR1, coordinated research from agencies in the three North American countries has enabled innovative observational, analytical, and modeling capabilities to further advance understanding of the North American carbon cycle (see Appendix D: Carbon Measurement Approaches and Accounting Frameworks, p. 834). Some of the report’s main conclusions, based on the Key Findings of each chapter, are highlighted in Box ES.1, Main Findings of SOCCR2, p. 24.

Report↗

USGS2019

Preface: Marine gas hydrate reservoir systems along the eastern continental margin of India: Results of the National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02

The 2015 India National Gas Hydrate Program (NGHP) Expedition 02 was conducted to obtain new information on the occurrence of gas hydrate systems and to advance the understanding of geologic controls on the formation of gas hydrate accumulations in the offshore of India. The ultimate goal of the NGHP effort is to assess the energy resource potential of marine gas hydrates in India. The Guest Editors for this special thematic issue of the Journal of Marine and Petroleum Geology (JMPG) have worked with more than 100 scientists and engineers to prepare the 45 individual reports included in this special issue to address the operational and technical contributions of the NGHP-02 Expedition. This thematic issue on natural gas hydrates in the offshore of India is built on the foundation of five previous JMPG thematic issues that focused on the scientific results of other marine gas hydrate expeditions. These foundational contributions include: (1) the “Scientific Results of the 2005 USDOE-Chevron JIP Drilling for Methane Hydrates Objectives in the Gulf of Mexico” (Volume 25, Issue 9, November 2008), (2) the “Resource and Hazard Implications of Gas Hydrates in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Results of the 2009 Joint Industry Project Leg II Drilling Expedition” (Volume 34, Issue 1, June 2012), (3) the “Scientific Results of the Second Gas Hydrate Drilling Expedition in the Ulleung Basin (UBGH2), East Sea of Korea” (Volume 47, November 2013), (4) “Geologic Implications of Gas Hydrates in the Offshore of India: Results of the National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 01” (Volume 58, Part A, December 2014), and (5) “Gas Hydrate Drilling in Eastern Nankai” (Volume 66, Part 2, September 2015). The NGHP-02 Expedition was conducted from 03-March- 2015 to 28-July- 2015 off the eastern coast of India. The first two months of the expedition were dedicated to establishing 25 new research sites that featured the drilling of a dedicated downhole logging hole at each site. The next three months of the NGHP-02 Expedition were dedicated to sediment coring and other downhole measurement operations at 10 of the sites established during the expedition’s first phase. The results of downhole logging, coring and formation pressure testing operations during NGHP-02 have confirmed the presence of large, highly concentrated gas hydrate accumulations in coarse-grained, sand-rich depositional systems throughout large portions of the Krishna-Godavari Basin. Post expedition research and reporting efforts included collaborative analysis of the unprecedented number of shipboard acquired data sets and core samples obtained during NGHP-02. The presentation of the scientific results of the NGHP-02 Expedition has culminated in the publication of the NGHP Expedition 02 Scientific Results Volume, which is represented by this Special Issue of the Journal of Marine and Petroleum Geology. This Special Issue features a series of four reports that summarize the operational and scientific results of NGHP-02 Expedition that are presented in the 41 technical reports included this Special Issue. The first summary report, “India National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02: Operational and Technical Summary,” focuses on reviewing the tools and operational procedures for the NGHP-02 Expedition that led to the acquisition of an unprecedented amount of high-quality downhole logging and core data from numerous pore-filling, fracture-filling, and sediment-displacement type gas hydrate occurrences. The summary report titled “India National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 Summary of Scientific Results: Gas Hydrate Systems Along the Eastern Continental Margin of India” documents gas hydrate occurrences discovered during the NGHP-02 Expedition and examines geologic controls on the gas hydrate systems along the Eastern Continental Margin of India.

Journal of Marine and Petroleum Geology↗

USGS2009

Rebuttal of "Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit"

Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior's listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces 38 (5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were "unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers." We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.

Interfaces↗

USGS1981

Gulf of Mexico summary report 2, August 1981: A revision of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and their onshore impacts: A summary report, September 1980

The Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) continues to be the most intensively developed offshore oil- and gas-producing region in the world. With the development of technology, exploration, development, and production are being extended to include areas off the coast of southwest Florida and deep-water areas near the Mississippi River Delta. Development in both areas requires careful analyses of local considerations. The hydrocarbon potential of the region, while not well established in the frontier portions, generally remains favorable. A total of 482 fields have been discovered to date in the federally regulated part of the Gulf of Mexico. Reserve estimates have been made for the 435 producing fields in the region. Through December 31, 1980, those fields have produced 5.0 billion barrels of oil and condensate, and 48.7 trillion cubic feet of gas. Remaining recoverable reserves are 3.1 billion barrels of oil and 40.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable resources for the Gulf of Mexico are 6.6 billion barrels of oil and 71.9 trillion cubic feet of gas. Since enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 1953, there have been 42 oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. An average of three lease sales per year are scheduled through 1986. Since 1953, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has leased 3,119 tracts in the Gulf of Mexico; 1,825 leases are currently active. The distribution of leased tracts exhibits a regionwide pattern as shown by Lease Sales A62, 62, A66, and 66. Proposed Lease Sales 67, 69, 72, and 74 will probably continue that pattern. Tracts off the coast of southwest Florida in the Charlotte Harbor, Howell Hook, and Pulley Ridge Areas will be offered in upcoming sales. Operations on tracts in deepwater areas slated for future sales may require additional technology. Exploration, development, and production in the Gulf of Mexico Region are continuing at a rapid pace throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Between January 1, 1980, and April 15, 1981, 197 initial plans of exploration and 165 supplemental plans of exploration were submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). During the same period, 107 initial and 131 supplemental plans of development/production were submitted to the USGS. As of May 1981, there were 121 offshore mobile drilling units operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Pipelines continue to be the preferred mode of transport for Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas production. Pipeline additions to the existing network average 69 miles (111 km) per month. At any given time, numerous pipeline projects are under way in the Gulf of Mexico. To supplement OCS oil and gas production several deepwater port projects, designed to handle imported crude oil, are being planned or constructed in the region. The process of transportation planning in the Gulf of Mexico is done by industry and government through BLM's Intergovernmental Planning Program and its Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG). The RTWG has completed the First Edition Gulf of Mexico Regional Transportation Management Plan. The nearshore and onshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico service both the domestic onshore and offshore oil and gas industry as well as the global market. Most of the major centers along the Gulf Coast, including Houston, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Freeport, Texas; New Orleans, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, Morgan City, and Houma, Louisiana; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and Port Manatee, Florida, have ties to the offshore industry. A wide array of services and support industries, ranging from small independent vendors to major international manufacturing contractors, can be found within the region. Profiles of selected centers reveal typical industries and patterns of activity that are characteristic throughout the Gulf Coast region.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas↗

USGS2024

Integrated science for the study of microplastics in the environment—A strategic science vision for the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Evidence of the widespread occurrence of microplastics throughout our environment and exposure to humans and other organisms over the past decade has led to questions about the possibility of health hazards and mitigation of exposures. This document discusses nanoplastics as well as microplastics (referred to solely as microplastics); the microplastics have a range from 1 micrometer to 5 millimeters (1 μm–5 mm) in length, whereas the nanoplastics are less than 1 μm in length (sidebar ES1). A myriad of environmental exposure pathways with microplastics to humans and wildlife, including ingestion, inhalation, and bodily absorption, are likely to exist. A growing body of evidence has documented bioaccumulation of microplastics in tissues and organs of humans and wildlife, benthic community effects, and potential nutritional and reproductive effects in some wildlife species. Understanding if or when environmental exposures pose a health risk is complicated by the diversity of microplastic sizes, morphologies, polymer types, and chemicals added during manufacturing or sorbed from the environment; ongoing challenges in analytical methods used to detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics and associated chemicals in our ecosystems; and the fact that ecotoxicological studies regarding microplastics are still in their infancy. Therefore, the study of environmental exposures and potential related health hazards of microplastics to the public and wildlife is a One Health (sidebar ES2) research topic that necessitates integrated science approaches. A better understanding of the sources, pathways, fate, and biological effects of microplastics has become a priority of the Federal Government, State governments, Tribes, stakeholders, and the public. Examples of Federal and State microplasticfocused legislation and programs to prioritize microplastic research and reduction include the Federal Microbead-Free Waters Act of 2015, California Senate Bills 1422 and 1263 (2018), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Trash Free Waters Program, the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Microplastic and Nanoplastic Metrology project, and Minnesota’s microplastic project. With its unique expertise and capabilities, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is well positioned to help fill some of the most important microplastic science gaps. This strategic science vision document for microplastics identifies current (2023) microplastic science gaps and prioritizes research relevant to the mission, expertise, and capabilities of the USGS. It is intended for USGS scientists and stakeholders to use as a starting point for planning, prioritizing, and designing collaborative environmental microplastic science. Many of the microplastic science gaps and priorities are scalable, from local to national, and thus, can be made commensurate with available funding and evolving analytical and field tools, laboratory capacity, and stakeholder needs. Current (2023) or future research by academia and other Federal or State agencies, and Tribes may be aimed at some of the same microplastic science gaps identified in this document. Therefore, this document can be used as an information resource to maximize strengths and capabilities and minimize redundancy in communication and collaboration.

Circular↗

USGS2010

USGS-NPS Servicewide Benthic Mapping Program (SBMP) workshop report

Executive Summary The National Park Service (NPS) Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program recently allocated funds to initiate a benthic mapping program in ocean and Great Lakes parks in alignment with the NPS Ocean Park Stewardship 2007-2008 Action Plan. Seventy-four (ocean and Great Lakes) parks, spanning more than 5,000 miles of coastline, many affected by increasing coastal storms and other natural and anthropogenic processes, make the development of a Servicewide Benthic Mapping Program (SBMP) timely. The resulting maps and associated reports will be provided to NPS managers in a consistent servicewide format to help park managers protect and manage the 3 million acres of submerged National Park System natural and cultural resources. Of the 74 ocean and Great Lakes park units, the 40 parks with submerged acreage will be the focus in the early years of the SBMP. The NPS and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) convened a workshop (June 3-5, 2008) in Lakewood, CO. The assembly of experts from the NPS and other Federal and non-Federal agencies clarified the needs and goals of the NPS SBMP and was one of the key first steps in designing the benthic mapping program. The central needs for individual parks, park networks, and regions identified by workshop participants were maps including bathymetry, bottom type, geology, and biology. This workshop, although not an exhaustive survey of data-acquisition technologies, highlighted the more promising technologies being used, existing sources of data, and the need for partnerships to leverage resources. Workshop products include recommended classification schemes and management approaches for consistent application and products similar to other long-term NPS benthic mapping efforts. As part of the SBMP, recommendations from this workshop, including application of an improved version of the Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard (CMECS), will be tested in several pilot parks. In 2008, in conjunction with the findings of this workshop, the NPS funded benthic mapping projects in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Golden Gate National Recreational Area, Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Gulf Islands National Seashore, Virgin Islands National Park, and Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument. Full design and protocols of the SBMP based on the findings of this workshop are detailed in a second document dedicated to the subject.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2023

Modeling, mapping, and measuring the risk of freshwater invasive species across Alaska

Freshwater ecosystems of the Alaskan Arctic and Subarctic provide resources that are culturally, ecologically, and economically invaluable. Presently, these regions are relatively free of the impacts from invasive species compared to southern latitudes. To date, there have been relatively few verified introductions of aquatic invasive species (AIS) to freshwater ecosystems in Alaska. The expanding list and distribution of AIS has led to significant negative ecological and economic impacts (e.g., waterweed Elodea nuttalli ; E. canadensis and northern pike Esox Lucius introduced outside its native range in Alaska). Escalating human activity across Alaskan lands and waters, coupled with rapidly shifting environmental conditions, increases the potential for new species introductions and subsequent establishment. Creating a proactive framework for well-informed decision-making and action can improve the effectiveness of prevention efforts and bolster decision support tools that help resource managers direct limited resources. Prioritizing AIS that may be introduced and become established, as well as the locations at highest risk of invasion, is foundational to building a proactive invasive species management framework in Alaska. This project sought to identify and prioritize AIS known to be invasive in the contiguous United States, evaluate current and future habitat suitability for AIS in Alaska, and assess potential for AIS to be transported to habitats across Alaska, utilizing similar assessment methods as implemented for Bering Sea marine invasive species and non-native plants in Alaska. To accomplish this goal, the objectives of the project were to: 1) develop a formal ranked list of potential AIS to freshwater systems of Alaska; 2) assess the level of establishment risk for potential AIS by developing habitat suitability models for waterbodies across Alaska; and 3), identify potential pathways and specific vectors for high-risk AIS to invade Alaska and develop a framework for how vector analysis will be completed to understand transport risk. Overall, our goal is horizon scanning which is defined by Roy et al. (2019) as “a systematic examination of potential threats and opportunities, within a given context, and likely future developments, which are at the margin of current thinking and planning.” The scans include pathway analyses and risk screening of species present at pathway origin points, with a focus on identifying species at high risk of being introduced, becoming established, spreading, and causing harm. We refined a list of 28 AIS from a list of hundreds based on characterizations of species’ invasiveness and species’ proximity to Alaska (USGS 2020; GBIF 2022). Next, we evaluated the relative invasiveness of individual species to create an initial AIS ranking. We sought to characterize habitat suitability of AIS by selecting variables that were continental in scale, covering North America to include Alaska as well as the lower 48 states comparing natural discharge, sub-basin average terrain slope (degrees), average silt fraction, average organic carbon, lithological class, and human footprint in sub-basin in 2009. We estimated AIS habitat suitability across the entire state of Alaska using the physiological tolerances of the AIS (Appendix 2). We also evaluated pathways and vectors for the introduction of AIS (Appendix 2). Many pathways and vectors considered did not meet the criteria for Alaska or freshwater systems. Of the 28 ranked species that we categorized as very high, high, and moderate levels of invasiveness; all three risk groups included fish and mollusks (Appendix 2). One commonality of the very high-invasiveness-ranked species was the availability of Ecological Risk Screening Summary documents (USFWS, 2022) produced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), except for the goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) and the New Zealand mudsnail ( Potamopyrgus antipodarum ). The Ecological Risk Screening Summary is now available for New Zealand mudsnails. In general, fish species often ranked very high or high in invasiveness and included sportfish and aquarium fish, suggesting the importance of pathways such as aquarium trade, fishing industry, intentional (but illegal) introductions of sportfishes and aquarium fishes for establishment. The technique we used for habitat suitability models necessitated aquatic environmental datasets that were continental in scale, which was often interpolated from very coarse resolution source data layers, particularly in Alaska. Better spatial data representing aquatic environments would likely improve this approach. While the lack of introductions in Alaska and nearby provinces and states is encouraging, the lack of occurrence data for the focal species also created complications for habitat suitability modeling. Despite the challenges, the habitat suitability models indicated limited suitability for warmwater species while some species, such as Brook trout (S alvelinus fontinalis ), have high habitat suitability across Alaska no matter what threshold approach is taken. Some environmental predictors were more important than others. Specifically, the most important predictor variable, ‘frost free days,’ was critical for 15 out of 28 species as expected due to harsh winter conditions in Arctic and Subarctic regions. The second most important predictor was ‘subbasin land surface runoff’, a variable that indicates the amount of discharge and runoff, while the third most important predictor was ‘snow cover’ another indication of winter conditions. Overall, the ability to understand the effect of future climate scenarios on the establishment of AIS was challenging. A detailed dataset of freshwater temperatures and water chemistry (e.g., pH, calcium) would greatly improve the ability to predict invasiveness of freshwater species to Alaska’s ecosystems on a regional basis. Future studies may benefit from a more focused geographic scope examining a group of subbasins or a regional basin rather than the entire state. These drainages could be selected based upon the mostly likely locations of introduction pathways. The two most prevalent pathway risks for AIS are in-state transfer and stowaways/contaminants. Although there are examples of introductions from other pathways, the risk is somewhat mitigated by Alaska’s climate and regulations. However, variable application of protocols for inspection and cleaning of fishing gear, watercraft, and other similar items while traveling into Alaska as well as transferring from waterbody to waterbody within the state creates a substantial risk in introducing invasive species. We plot cumulative invasive vulnerability for all subbasins and for the top 10% of subbasins (Appendix 3).

Alaska↗

USGS2010

Archive of digital Chirp sub-bottom profile data collected during USGS Cruise 07SCC01 offshore of the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, June 2007

In June of 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted a geophysical survey offshore of the Chandeleur Islands, Louisiana, in cooperation with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) as part of the USGS Barrier Island Comprehensive Monitoring (BICM) project. This project is part of a broader study focused on Subsidence and Coastal Change (SCC). The purpose of the study was to investigate the shallow geologic framework and monitor the enviromental impacts of Hurricane Katrina (Louisiana landfall was on August 29, 2005) on the Gulf Coast's barrier island chains. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital 512i and 424 Chirp sub-bottom profile data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, observer's logbook, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Gained (a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the seismic profiles are also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansion of acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 07SCC01 tells us the data were collected in 2007 for the Subsidence and Coastal Change (SCC) study and the data were collected during the first field activity for that study in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity identification (ID). All Chirp systems use a signal of continuously varying frequency; the Chirp systems used during this survey produce high resolution, shallow penetration profile images beneath the seafloor. The towfish is a sound source and receiver, which is typically towed 1 - 2 m below the sea surface. The acoustic energy is reflected at density boundaries (such as the seafloor or sediment layers beneath the seafloor), detected by a receiver, and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at timed intervals (for example, 0.125 s) and recorded for specific intervals of time (for example, 50 ms). In this way, a two-dimensional vertical image of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Figure 1 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters. See the digital FACS equipment log (11-KB PDF) for details about the acquisition equipment used. Table 2 lists trackline statistics. Scanned images of the handwritten FACS logs and handwritten science logbook (449-KB PDF) are also provided. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG-Y rev 1 format (Norris and Faichney, 2002); ASCII character encoding is used for the first 3,200 bytes of the card image header instead of the SEG-Y rev 0 (Barry and others, 1975) EBCDIC format. The SEG-Y files may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2010). See the How To Download SEG-Y Data page for download instructions. The web version of this archive does not contain the SEG-Y trace files. These files are very large and would require extremely long download times. To obtain the complete DVD archive, contact USGS Information at 1-888-ASK-USGS or infoservices@usgs.gov. The printable profiles provided here are GIF images that were processed and gained using SU software; refer to the Software page for links to example SU processing scripts and USGS software for viewing the SEG-Y files (Zihlman, 1992). The processed SEG-Y data were also exported to Chesapeake Technology, Inc. (CTI) SonarWeb software to produce an interactive version of the profile that allows the user to obtain a geographic location and depth from the profile for a given cursor position. This information is displayed in the status bar of the browser.

Louisiana↗

USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗

USGS2024

Identifying transportation data and system needs for a Federal lands transportation data platform

Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.

Open-File Report↗