USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Research and Development Report”

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

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

At least 1,099 records · Page 61Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Quantification of shoreline change along Hatteras Island, North Carolina: Oregon Inlet to Cape Hatteras, 1978-2002, and associated vector shoreline data

Shoreline change spanning twenty-four years was assessed along the coastline of Cape Hatteras National Seashore, at Hatteras Island, North Carolina. The shorelines used in the analysis were generated from georeferenced historical aerial imagery and are used to develop shoreline change rates for Hatteras Island, from Oregon Inlet to Cape Hatteras. A total of 14 dates of aerial photographs ranging from 1978 through 2002 were obtained from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Field Research Facility in Duck, North Carolina, and scanned to generate digital imagery. The digital imagery was georeferenced and high water line shorelines (interpreted from the wet/dry line) were digitized from each date to produce a time series of shorelines for the study area. Rates of shoreline change were calculated for three periods: the full span of the time series, 1978 through 2002, and two approximately decadal subsets, 1978–89 and 1989–2002.

North Carolina↗
USGS2017

Manganese

Manganese is an essential element for modern industrial societies. Its principal use is in steelmaking, where it serves as a purifying agent in iron-ore refining and as an alloy that converts iron into steel. Although the amount of manganese consumed to make a ton of steel is small, ranging from 6 to 9 kilograms, it is an irreplaceable component in the production of this fundamental material. The United States has been totally reliant on imports of manganese for many decades and will continue to be so for at least the near future. There are no domestic reserves, and although some large low-grade resources are known, they are far inferior to manganese ores readily available on the international market. World reserves of manganese are about 630 million metric tons, and annual global consumption is about 16 million metric tons. Current reserves are adequate to meet global demand for several decades. Global resources in traditional land-based deposits, including both reserves and rocks sufficiently enriched in manganese to be ores in the future, are much larger, at about 17 billion metric tons. Manganese resources in seabed deposits of ferromanganese nodules and crusts are larger than those on land and have not been fully quantified. No production from seabed deposits has yet been done, but current research and development activities are substantial and may bring parts of these seabed resources into production in the future. The advent of economically successful seabed mining could substantially alter the current scenario of manganese supply by providing a large new source of manganese in addition to traditional land-based deposits. From a purely geologic perspective, there is no global shortage of proven ores and potential new ores that could be developed from the vast tonnage of identified resources. Reserves and resources are very unevenly distributed, however. The Kalahari manganese district in South Africa contains 70 percent of the world’s identified resources and about 25 percent of its reserves. South Africa, Brazil, and Ukraine together accounted for nearly 65 percent of reserves in 2013. The combination of total import reliance for manganese, the mineral commodity’s essential uses in our industrialized society, and the potential for supply disruptions because of the limited sources of the ore makes manganese among the most critical minerals for the United States. Manganese is the 12th most abundant element in Earth’s crust. Its concentration varies among common types of rocks, mostly in the range of from 0.1 to 0.2 percent. The highest quality manganese ores contain from 40 to 45 percent manganese. The formation of these ores requires specialized geologic conditions that concentrate manganese at several hundred times its average crustal abundance. The dominant processes in forming the world’s principal deposits take place in the oceans. As a result, most important manganese deposits occur in ancient marine sedimentary rocks that are now exposed on continents as a result of subsequent tectonic uplift and erosion. In many cases, other processes have further enriched these manganiferous sedimentary rocks to form some of today’s highest grade ores. Modern seabed resources of ferromanganese nodules cover vast areas of the present ocean floor and are still forming by complex interactions of marine microorganisms, manganese dissolved in seawater, and chemical processes on the seabed. Manganese is ubiquitous in soil, water, and air. It occurs most often in solid form but can become soluble under acidic conditions. Manganese mining, like any activity that disturbs large areas of Earth’s surface, has the potential to produce increases in manganese concentrations that could be harmful to humans or the environment if not properly controlled. Although manganese is an essential nutrient for humans and most other organisms, overexposure can lead to neurotoxicity in humans. Workers at manganese mining and processing facilities have the greatest potential to inhale manganese-rich dust. Without proper protective equipment, these workers may develop a permanent neurological disorder known as manganism. Each manganese mine is unique and presents its own suite of potential hazards and preventative measures. Likewise, various nations have their own sets of standards to ensure safe mining, isolation of mine waste, treatment of mine waters, and mine closure and restoration. Interest in mining trace metals contained in ferromanganese nodules and crusts on the seabed has increased rapidly in the past decade. Prime areas for future research include overcoming the technological challenges presented by mining as deep as 6,500 meters below sea level and understanding and mitigating the potential impacts of seabed mining on marine ecosystems.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2021

Methods of liming to accelerate the reversal of acidic deposition effects in calcium-depleted Adirondack watersheds

Acidic deposition levels in the Adirondack region of New York State at the close of 2020 declined to values estimated for the early 20th century before the emergence of large-scale industrialization. However, chemical recovery of surface waters has lagged as a result of soil calcium (Ca) depletion, and long-term monitoring has not provided a clear indication that soil Ca availability has begun to increase. Recent computer modeling of Adirondack streams suggests that recovery goals may not be met in Ca-depleted watersheds for decades even with aggressive reductions in acidic deposition. The delayed response of soils and surface waters to reduced deposition has prompted consideration of adding Ca in the form of lime to increase the rate at which the effects of acidic deposition are being reversed through decreased pollutant emissions alone. In this regard, an experiment was conducted from 2013–2019 to evaluate the utility of liming to accelerate recovery in Adirondack stream watersheds that drain directly into Honnedaga Lake, near Forestport, NY. Results of this research were combined with relevant research results from prior liming studies to develop a methodology for the use of liming to accelerate reversal of acidic deposition effects tailored for the Adirondack region of New York State. This document presents (1) a rationale for liming in the context of the current acidic deposition regime, (2) an assessment of benefits and risks to be considered with various application methods, (3) a suggested method for selecting watersheds where liming would be most beneficial, and (4) an explanation of the primary factors that need to be addressed to successfully implement watershed liming.

New York↗
USGS2010

The pallid sturgeon: Scientific investigations help understand recovery needs

Understanding of the pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) has increased significantly since the species was listed as endangered over two decades ago. Since 2005, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC) have been engaged in an interdisciplinary research program in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Missouri River Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and numerous other State and Federal cooperators to provide managers and policy makers with the knowledge needed to evaluate recovery options. During that time, the USGS has worked collaboratively with river scientists and managers to develop methods, baseline information, and research approaches that are critical contributions to recovery success. The pallid sturgeon is endangered throughout the Missouri River because of insufficient reproduction and survival of early life stages. Primary management actions on the Missouri River designed to increase reproductive success and survival have focused on flow regime, channel morphology, and propagation. The CERC research strategies have, therefore, been designed to examine the linkages among flow regime, re-engineered channel morphology, and reproductive success and survival. Specific research objectives include the following: (1) understanding reproductive physiology of pallid sturgeon and relations to environmental conditions; (2) determining movement, habitat use, and reproductive behavior of pallid sturgeon; and (3) quantifying availability and dynamics of aquatic habitats needed by pallid sturgeon for all life stages.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2013

Identification and evaluation of scientific uncertainties related to fish and aquatic resources in the Colorado River, Grand Canyon - summary and interpretation of an expert-elicitation questionnaire

Identifying areas of scientific uncertainty is a critical step in the adaptive management process (Walters, 1986; Runge, Converse, and Lyons, 2011). To identify key areas of scientific uncertainty regarding biologic resources of importance to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program, the Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) convened Knowledge Assessment Workshops in May and July 2005. One of the products of these workshops was a set of strategic science questions that highlighted key areas of scientific uncertainty. These questions were intended to frame and guide the research and monitoring activities conducted by the GCMRC in subsequent years. Questions were developed collaboratively by scientists and managers. The questions were not all of equal importance or merit—some questions were large scale and others were small scale. Nevertheless, these questions were adopted and have guided the research and monitoring efforts conducted by the GCMRC since 2005. A new round of Knowledge Assessment Workshops was convened by the GCMRC in June and October 2011 and January 2012 to determine whether the research and monitoring activities conducted since 2005 had successfully answered some of the strategic science questions. Oral presentations by scientists highlighting research findings were a centerpiece of all three of the 2011–12 workshops. Each presenter was also asked to provide an answer to the strategic science questions that were specific to the presenter’s research area. One limitation of this approach is that these answers represented the views of the handful of scientists who developed the presentations, and, as such, they did not incorporate other perspectives. Thus, the answers provided by presenters at the Knowledge Assessment Workshops may not have accurately captured the sentiments of the broader group of scientists involved in research and monitoring of the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons. Yet a fundamental ingredient of resilient decisionmaking and problem-solving is incorporation of a wide range of perspectives (Carpenter and others, 2009). To ensure that a wide range of scientists had an opportunity to weigh in on the strategic science questions, the GCMRC elicited additional perspectives through written questionnaires. Independently soliciting responses from scientists through questionnaires had the added advantage of allowing all scientists to freely and openly share their views on complex and controversial topics—something which may not have occurred in the group setting of the June 2011 Knowledge Assessment Workshop because of dominance by one or more scientists. The purpose of this report is to document and interpret the questionnaire responses.

Arizona↗
USGS1988

Selawik National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project users guide

Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, 1980) established the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (SNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge. Before developing a plan for the refuge, the Secretary shall "identify and describe--a) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge; b) the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, historical, palentological, scenic, or wilderness value of the refuge; c) areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities...; d) present the potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge...; and e) significant problems which may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described..." (ANILCA, 1980). Vegetation, water, and terrain (elevation, slope, and aspect) are the components of habitat and can be used in the determination of the above requirements. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the responsibility for collecting the resource information to address the research, management, development and planning requirements identified in Section 304. Because of the brief period provided by the Act for data collection, habitat mapping, and habitat assessment, the USFWS in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Field Office, used digital Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS) data and digital terrain data to produce land cover and terrain maps. A computer assisted digital analysis of Landsat MSS data was used because coverage by aerial photographs was incomplete for the refuge and because the level of detail obtained from Landsat data was adequate to meet most USFWS research, management and planning needs. Relative cost and time requirements were also factors in the decision to use the digital analysis approach.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Ecoregions of Arizona (poster)

Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its probable response to disturbance. These general purpose regions are critical for structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same geographical areas. The Arizona ecoregion map was compiled at a scale of 1:250,000. It revises and subdivides an earlier national ecoregion map that was originally compiled at a smaller scale. The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity. These phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of ecological regions. Level I is the coarsest level, dividing North America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 50 regions. At level III, the continental United States contains 105 ecoregions and the conterminous United States has 85 ecoregions. Level IV is a further subdivision of level III ecoregions. Arizona contains arid deserts and canyonlands, semiarid shrub- and grass-covered plains, woodland- and shrubland-covered hills, lava fields and volcanic plateaus, forested mountains, glaciated peaks, and river alluvial floodplains. Ecological diversity is remarkably high. There are 7 level III ecoregions and 52 level IV ecoregions in Arizona and many continue into ecologically similar parts of adjacent states. This poster is part of a collaborative project primarily between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USEPA National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (Corvallis, Oregon), USEPA Region IX, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), The Nature Conservancy, and several Arizona state agencies. The project is associated with an interagency effort to develop a common national framework of ecological regions. Reaching that objective requires recognition of the differences in the conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies applied to develop the most common ecoregion-type frameworks, including those developed by the USDA–Forest Service, the USEPA, and the NRCS. As each of these frameworks is further refined, their differences are becoming less discernible. Collaborative ecoregion projects, such as this one in Arizona, are a step toward attaining consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation.

Arizona↗
USGS2017

The Wetland and Aquatic Research Center strategic science plan

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wetland and Aquatic Research Center (WARC) has two primary locations (Gainesville, Florida, and Lafayette, Louisiana) and field stations throughout the southeastern United States and Caribbean. WARC’s roots are in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Park Service research units that were brought into the USGS as the Biological Research Division in 1996. Founded in 2015, WARC was created from the merger of two long-standing USGS biology science Centers—the Southeast Ecological Science Center and the National Wetlands Research Center—to bring together expertise in biology, ecology, landscape science, geospatial applications, and decision support in order to address issues nationally and internationally. WARC scientists apply their expertise to a variety of wetland and aquatic research and monitoring issues that require coordinated, integrated efforts to better understand natural environments. By increasing basic understanding of the biology of important species and broader ecological and physiological processes, this research provides information to policymakers and aids managers in their stewardship of natural resources and in regulatory functions. This strategic science plan (SSP) was developed to guide WARC research during the next 5–10 years in support of Department of the Interior (DOI) partnering bureaus such as the USFWS, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, as well as other Federal, State, and local natural resource management agencies. The SSP demonstrates the alignment of the WARC goals with the USGS mission areas, associated programs, and other DOI initiatives. The SSP is necessary for workforce planning and, as such, will be used as a guide for future needs for personnel. The SSP also will be instrumental in developing internal funding priorities and in promoting WARC’s capabilities to both external cooperators and other groups within the USGS.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Quantifying seascape structure: Extending terrestrial spatial pattern metrics to the marine realm

Spatial pattern metrics have routinely been applied to characterize and quantify structural features of terrestrial landscapes and have demonstrated great utility in landscape ecology and conservation planning. The important role of spatial structure in ecology and management is now commonly recognized, and recent advances in marine remote sensing technology have facilitated the application of spatial pattern metrics to the marine environment. However, it is not yet clear whether concepts, metrics, and statistical techniques developed for terrestrial ecosystems are relevant for marine species and seascapes. To address this gap in our knowledge, we reviewed, synthesized, and evaluated the utility and application of spatial pattern metrics in the marine science literature over the past 30 yr (1980 to 2010). In total, 23 studies characterized seascape structure, of which 17 quantified spatial patterns using a 2-dimensional patch-mosaic model and 5 used a continuously varying 3-dimensional surface model. Most seascape studies followed terrestrial-based studies in their search for ecological patterns and applied or modified existing metrics. Only 1 truly unique metric was found (hydrodynamic aperture applied to Pacific atolls). While there are still relatively few studies using spatial pattern metrics in the marine environment, they have suffered from similar misuse as reported for terrestrial studies, such as the lack of a priori considerations or the problem of collinearity between metrics. Spatial pattern metrics offer great potential for ecological research and environmental management in marine systems, and future studies should focus on (1) the dynamic boundary between the land and sea; (2) quantifying 3-dimensional spatial patterns; and (3) assessing and monitoring seascape change.

Marine Ecology Progress Series↗
USGS2012

Where eagles nest, the wind also blows: consolidating habitat and energy needs

Energy development is rapidly escalating in resource-rich Wyoming, and with it the risks posed to raptor populations. These risks are of increasing concern to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is responsible for protecting the persistence of protected species, including raptors. In support of a Federal mandate to protect trust species and the wind energy industry’s need to find suitable sites on which to build wind farms, scientists at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) and their partners are conducting research to help reduce impacts to raptor species from wind energy operations. Potential impacts include collision with the turbine blades and habitat disruption and disturbance from construction and operations. This feature describes a science-based tool—a quantitative predictive model—being developed and tested by FORT scientists to potentially avoid or reduce such impacts. This tool will provide industry and resource managers with the biological basis for decisions related to sustainably siting wind turbines in a way that also conserves important habitats for nesting golden eagles. Because of the availability of comprehensive data on nesting sites, golden eagles in Wyoming are the prototype species (and location) for the first phase of this investigation.

Report↗
USGS2012

Nature's Notebook 2011: Data & participant summary

Introduction The USA National Phenology Network The USA National Phenology Network (USA‐NPN; www.usanpn.org) seeks to engage a diverse range of citizen scientist volunteers, federal, state, and non‐governmental organizations, educators and professional research scientists to collect phenological observations of plants and animals using consistent standards and to contribute their observations to a national data repository. To guide this effort, the USA‐NPN National Coordinating Office (NCO), based in Tucson, Arizona, implemented an online monitoring program for plants and animals, Nature's Notebook , and has developed phenology monitoring protocols and an information management system, which includes the National Phenology Database (NPDb). We are developing a diversity of materials, tools, techniques, and protocols to assist decision making and education related to ecology, wildlife, human health, ecosystem services, natural resource management, biological conservation, and climate change adaptation.

USA-NPN Technical Series↗
USGS2014

Performance of several low-cost accelerometers

Several groups are implementing low‐cost host‐operated systems of strong‐motion accelerographs to support the somewhat divergent needs of seismologists and earthquake engineers. The Advanced National Seismic System Technical Implementation Committee (ANSS TIC, 2002), managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with other network operators, is exploring the efficacy of such systems if used in ANSS networks. To this end, ANSS convened a working group to explore available Class C strong‐motion accelerometers (defined later), and to consider operational and quality control issues, and the means of annotating, storing, and using such data in ANSS networks. The working group members are largely coincident with our author list, and this report informs instrument‐performance matters in the working group’s report to ANSS. Present examples of operational networks of such devices are the Community Seismic Network (CSN; csn.caltech.edu), operated by the California Institute of Technology, and Quake‐Catcher Network (QCN; Cochran et al., 2009; qcn.stanford.edu; November 2013), jointly operated by Stanford University and the USGS. Several similar efforts are in development at other institutions. The overarching goals of such efforts are to add spatial density to existing Class‐A and Class‐B (see next paragraph) networks at low cost, and to include many additional people so they become invested in the issues of earthquakes, their measurement, and the damage they cause.

Seismological Research Letters↗
USGS1995

USGS global change research

The Earth's global environment--its interrelated climate, land, oceans, fresh water, atmospheric and ecological systems-has changed continually throughout Earth history. Human activities are having ever-increasing effects on these systems. Sustaining our environment as population and demands for resources increase requires a sound understanding of the causes and cycles of natural change and the effects of human activities on the Earth's environmental systems. The U.S. Global Change Research Program was authorized by Congress in 1989 to provide the scientific understanding necessary to develop national and international policies concerning global environmental issues, particularly global climate change. The program addresses questions such as: what factors determine global climate; have humans already begun to change the global climate; will the climate of the future be very different; what will be the effects of climate change; and how much confidence do we have in our predictions? Through understanding, we can improve our capability to predict change, reduce the adverse effects of human activities, and plan strategies for adapting to natural and human-induced environmental change.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2006

GIS of selected geophysical and core data in the northern Gulf of Mexico continental slope collected by the U.S. Geological Survey

Since 1982 the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) has collected a large amount of surficial and shallow subsurface geologic information in the deep-water parts of the US EEZ in the northern Gulf of Mexico. These data include digital sidescan sonar imagery, digital seismic-reflection data, and descriptions and analyses of piston and gravity cores. The data were collected during several different projects that addressed surficial and shallow subsurface geologic processes. Some of these datasets have already been published, but the growing interest in the occurrence and distribution of gas hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico warrants integrating these existing USGS datasets and associated interpretations into a Geographic Information System (GIS) to provide regional background information for ongoing and future gas hydrate research. This GIS is organized into five different components that contain (1) information needed to develop an assessment of gas hydrates, (2) background information for the Gulf of Mexico, (3) cores collected by the USGS, (4) seismic surveys conducted by the USGS, and (5) sidescan sonar surveys conducted by the USGS. A brief summary of the goals and findings of the USGS field programs in the Gulf of Mexico is given in the Geologic Findings section, and then the contents of each of the five data categories are described in greater detail in the GIS Data Catalog section.

Gulf of Mexico↗
USGS2008

A Key to the Pupal Exuviae of the Midges (Diptera: Chironomidae) of Everglades National Park, Florida

A key has been developed for identifying the pupal exuviae of 132 taxa of chironomid midges collected in Everglades National Park, as well as 18 additional species from freshwater habitats adjacent to the Park. Descriptions and illustrations are based upon voucher specimens from extensive collections of chironomid pupal exuviae for faunal surveys and biomonitoring research conducted in ENP and surrounding freshwater areas from 1998 to 2007. The key includes taxonomic comments for confirming identifications, as well as brief summaries of the distribution and ecology of each species in southern Florida waters. Information is also provided on the morphology of chironomid pupal exuviae, recommended references for identifying pupal exuviae, techniques for making slides, and methods to confirm proper identification.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Library classification system

The U.S. Geological Survey Library classification system has been designed for earth science libraries. It is a tool for assigning call numbers to earth science and allied pure science materials in order to collect these materials into related subject groups on the library shelves and arrange them alphabetically by author and title. The classification can be used as a retrieval system to access materials through the subject and geographic numbers. The classification scheme has been developed over the years since 1904 to meet the ever-changing needs of increased specialization and the development of new areas of research in the earth sciences. The system contains seven schedules: Subject schedule Geological survey schedule Earth science periodical schedule Government document periodical schedule General science periodical schedule Earth science map schedule Geographic schedule Introduction provides detailed instructions on the construction of call numbers for works falling into the framework of the classification schedules. The tables following the introduction can be quickly accessed through the use of the newly expanded subject index. The purpose of this publication is to provide the earth science community with a classification and retrieval system for earth science materials, to offer sufficient explanation of its structure and use, and to enable library staff and clientele to classify or access research materials in a library collection.

Bulletin↗
USGS2008

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative Science Workshop Proceedings, May 15-17, 2007

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hosted a Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) Science Workshop at the University of Wyoming on May 15, 16, and 17, 2007. The goal of the workshop was to gather information from stakeholders about research needs and existing data resources to help develop the USGS WLCI science plan. The workshop focused on six research and management needs identified by WLCI partners prior to the workshop: *evaluate the cumulative effects of development activities; *identify key drivers of change; *identify condition and distribution of key wildlife species, habitat, and species habitat requirements; *evaluate wildlife and livestock responses to development; *develop an integrated inventory and monitoring strategy; and *develop a data clearinghouse and an information-management framework. These topics correlated to six plenary panels and discussions and six breakout sessions. Several collective needs were identified: *create a long-term, accessible information database; *identify key habitats, indicator species; *collect and research missing critical baseline data; *begin on-the-ground projects as soon as possible; and *implement a monitoring program to assist with adaptive management techniques. Several concerns were expressed repeatedly: *secure adequate and long-term funding; *meeting the WLCI workload with agencies that are already understaffed; *assess cumulative effects as an analysis approach; *perform offsite mitigation in a way that is valuable and effective; *focus all research on providing practical applications; and *involve the public in WLCI proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2003

Monitoring amphibians in Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Amphibian species have inexplicably declined or disappeared in many regions of the world, and in some instances, serious malformations have been observed. In the United States, amphibian declines frequently have occurred even in protected areas. Causes for the declines and malformations probably are varied and may not even be related. The seemingly sudden declines in widely separated areas, however, suggests a need to monitor amphibian populations as well as identify the causes when declines or malformations are discovered. In 2000, the President of the United States and Congress directed Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies to develop a plan to monitor the trends in amphibian populations on DOI lands and to conduct causes of declines. The DOI has stewardship responsibilities over vast land holdings in the United States, much of it occupied by, or potential habitat for, amphibians. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was given lead responsibility for planning and organizing this program, named the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative (ARMI). Authorization carried the mandate to set up a national amphibian monitoring program on Federal lands, to develop the sampling techniques and biometrical analyses necessary to determine status and trends, and to identify possible causes of amphibian declines and malformations. The biological importance of Great Smoky Mountains National Park has been recognized by its designation as an International Biosphere Reserve. As such, it is clearly the leading region of significance for amphibian research. Although no other region shares the wealth of amphibians as found in the Great Smokies (31 species of salamanders, and 13 of frogs), the entire southern and mid-section of the Appalachian Mountain chain is characterized by a high diversity of amphibians, and inventories and monitoring protocols developed in the Smokies likely will be applicable to other Appalachian National Park Service properties. From 1998 to 2001, USGS biologists carried out a pilot inventory and monitoring research project in Great Smoky Mountains National Park. A variety of inventory, sampling, and monitoring techniques were employed and tested. These included wide-scale visual encounter surveys of amphibians at terrestrial and aquatic sites, intensive monitoring of selected plots, randomly placed small-grid plot sampling, litterbag sampling in streams, monitoring nesting females of selected species, call surveys, and monitoring specialized habitats, such as caves. Coupled with information derived from amphibian surveys on Federal lands using various other techniques (automated frog call data loggers, PVC pipes, drift fences, terrestrial and aquatic traps), an amphibian monitoring program was designed to best meet the needs of biologists and natural resource managers after taking into consideration the logistics, terrain, and life histories of the species found within Great Smoky Mountains National Park. This report provides an overview of the Park’s amphibians, the factors affecting their distribution, a review of important areas of biodiversity, and a summary of amphibian life history in the Southern Appalachians. In addition, survey techniques are described as well as examples of how the techniques are set up, a critique of what the results tell the observer, and a discussion of the limitations of the techniques and the data. The report reviews considerations for site selection, outlines steps for biosecurity and for processing diseased or dying animals, and provides resource managers with a decision tree on how to monitor the Park’s amphibians based on different levels of available resources. It concludes with an extensive list of references for inventorying and monitoring amphibians. USGS and Great Smoky Mountains National Park biologists need to establish cooperative efforts and training to ensure that congressionally mandated amphibian surveys are performed in a statistically rigorous and biologically meaningful manner, and that amphibian populations on Federal lands are monitored to ensure their long-term survival. The research detailed in this report will aid these cooperative efforts.

North Carolina, Tennessee↗