USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Science Authors 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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2025

Vegetation community monitoring: Forest structure in Klamath Network parks

The Klamath Network, comprising six national park units in northern California and southern Oregon, initiated a vegetation monitoring protocol in 2011 to discern ecologically significant vegetation trends in these parks. The premise of the protocol is that multivariate analyses of species composition data is the most robust means for early detection of vegetation change over time. Here, we present these community metrics based on our sampling efforts from 2011 to 2019. Observations from the first sampling event (2011–2013) were used to establish baseline conditions for the vegetation communities. Observations from subsequent sampling in 2014–2019 were used to identify potential temporal variation in forest structure across habitat types and parks. Park landscapes were categorized into three strata: matrix (low- to mid-elevation upland habitats), riparian (within 10 m of a perennial stream), and high-elevation (above a predefined elevation, park-specific). At the onset of the network’s vegetation monitoring protocol, 241 permanent plots were established at random locations across the three strata. We present summary statistics from three repeated samplings (2011–2019) of each plot, describing variation in forest structure across broad habitat types and parks. Observable differences in forest structure aligned with expected productivity gradients across the parks. Measures of forest structure (vegetation cover, stem density, basal area, tree heights, height to live crown, shrub cover, and surface fuels) were generally higher in mesic sites, compared to sites located in more arid, continental climates. Differences across sampling frames also followed this general pattern of productivity. Matrix and riparian sampling frames had similar ranges of values in most cases, while high elevation sites had relatively lower stem density, basal area, shrub cover, fuels, and recruitment. Notably, we observed a relative lack of change in forest structure over time. This is not surprising given the relatively short (six-year) timespan of observations in each park. The fourth set of Klamath Network surveys (2021–2023) is likely to show substantial changes in vegetation cover and forest structure, particularly for parks that have recently experienced major fires. Continued long-term vegetation monitoring is crucial for understanding ecosystem responses to a rapidly changing world. This report on vegetation composition is the second in a series; upcoming reports will analyze structure and function, aiming to detect spatiotemporal trends.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2001

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

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

Alaska↗
USGS2017

National Park Service Vegetation Mapping Inventory Program: Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve Vegetation Mapping Project

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate comprehensive information and analysis about natural resources and related topics concerning lands managed by the National Park Service. The series supports the advancement of science, informed decision-making, and the achievement of the National Park Service mission. The series also provides a forum for presenting lengthier results that may not be accepted by publications with page limitations. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information. The peer review was led according to the Fundamental Science Practices of the U.S. Geological Survey. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available in digital format from the Gulf Coast Network website and the Natural Resource Publications Management website.

Louisiana↗
USGS2007

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

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

Circular↗
USGS2020

Preliminary analyses of volcanic hazards at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai‘i, 2017–2018

From 2017 to 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) responded to ongoing and changing eruptions at Kīlauea Volcano as part of its mission to monitor volcanic processes, issue warnings of dangerous activity, and assess volcanic hazards. To formalize short-term hazards assessments—and, in some cases, issue prognoses for future activity—and make results discoverable to both the public and the authorities, HVO released reports online. These reports were published rapidly, received peer review under the USGS’s Fundamental Science Practice guidelines, and were intended to address a focused question posed by one or more cooperating agencies—for this reason, they were called “cooperator reports.” This Open-File Report concatenates four such products issued in 2017 and 2018 into a single publication. These reports have been reformatted and lightly edited for clarity, but the content has not otherwise been changed from the versions first publicly released.

Hawaii↗
USGS2022

Presented abstracts from the U.S. Geological Survey 2020 Rocky Mountain Region Science Exchange (September 15–17, 2020)

The U.S. Geological Survey Rocky Mountain Region hosted scientists, managers, program coordinators, and leadership team members for a virtual Science Exchange during September 15–17, 2020. The Science Exchange had 216 registered participants and included 48 talks over the 3-day period. Invited speakers presented information about the novel U.S. Geological Survey Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) concept. Scientists showcased their research and participated in discussions related to the EarthMAP concept and EarthMAP applications. In addition, the Colorado River Basin Pilot Project, one of the first EarthMAP Pilot Projects, was unveiled during the Science Exchange. This report provides synopses of session objectives and corresponding abstracts that were presented along with author affiliations and email address of the lead author. In addition, web links are provided for related programs and projects, and associated publications are referenced.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Groundwater science relevant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: A status report

When the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed in 1972 by the Governments of Canada and the United States (the “Parties”) (Environment Canada, 2013a), groundwater was not recognized as important to the water quality of the Lakes. At that time, groundwater and surface water were still considered as two separate systems, with almost no appreciation for their interaction. When the GLWQA was revised in 1978 (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012), groundwater contamination, such as that reported at legacy industrial sites such as those at Love Canal near the Niagara River, was squarely in the news. Consequently, the potential impacts of contaminated groundwater from such sites on Great Lakes water quality became a concern (Beck, 1979), and Annex 16 was added to the agreement, to address “pollution from contaminated groundwater” (Francis, 1989). However, no formal process for reporting under this annex was provided. The GLWQA Protocol in 1987 modified Annex 16 and called for progress reports beginning in 1988 (USEPA, 1988). The Protocol in 2012 provided a new Annex 8 to address groundwater more holistically (Environment 2 Canada, 2013b). Annex 8 (Environment Canada, 2013b) commits the Parties to coordinate groundwater science and management actions; as a first step, to “publish a report on the relevant and available groundwater science” by February 2015 (this report); and to “identify priorities for science activities and actions for groundwater management, protection, and remediation…” The broader mandate of Annex 8 is to (1) “identify groundwater impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (2) “analyze contaminants, including nutrients in groundwater, derived from both point and non-point sources impacting the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (3) “assess information gaps and science needs related to groundwater to protect the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” and (4) “analyze other factors, such as climate change, that individually or cumulatively affect groundwater’s impact on the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” A binational Annex 8 Subcommittee was formed to lead efforts to fulfill the mandate of this annex (members listed on p. i of this report). In turn, this subcommittee has recruited a task team to prepare this report (listed as authors of each chapter). This report addresses all of the above four objectives, based on a compilation of the “relevant and available groundwater science.” Specifically, the second objective (to “analyze contaminants”) is addressed by incorporating information obtained in ongoing monitoring and research activities conducted by the Parties, and by various other members of the Great Lakes Executive Committee.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2010

Background and introduction: Chapter 1

The Salt Cedar and Russian Olive Control Demonstration Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-320; hereafter the Act) directs the Department of the Interior to submit a report to Congress1 that includes an assessment of several issues surrounding these two nonnative trees, now dominant components of the vegetation along many rivers in the Western United States. Specifically, the Act calls for “…an assessment of the extent of salt cedar and Russian olive infestation on public and private land in the western United States,” which shall “A) consider existing research on methods to control salt cedar and Russian olive trees; B) consider the feasibility of reducing water consumption by salt cedar and Russian olive trees; C) consider methods of and challenges associated with the revegetation or restoration of infested land; and D) estimate the costs of destruction of salt cedar and Russian olive trees, related biomass removal, and revegetation or restoration and maintenance of the infested land.” Finally, the Act calls for discussion of “(i) long-term management and funding strategies…that could be implemented by Federal, State, tribal, and private land managers and owners to address the infestation by salt cedar and Russian olive; (ii) any deficiencies in the assessment or areas for additional study; and (iii) any field demonstrations that would be useful in the effort to control salt cedar and Russian olive.” The primary intent of this report is to provide the science assessment called for under the Act. A secondary purpose is to provide a common background for applicants for prospective demonstration projects, should funds be appropriated for this second phase of the Act. In addition to relying on the direction provided under Section C of the Act, the authors of this report also drew upon the detailed list of considerations presented in Section E of the Act to guide development of more expansive discussions of topics relevant to saltcedar and Russian olive control efforts. In addition to the legislative context described above, this chapter describes the geographic and environmental contexts surrounding the Act, including key terminology used in subsequent chapters of this report. Subsequent chapters synthesize the state-of-the-science on the following topics: distribution and abundance (extent) of saltcedar and Russian olive in the Western United States, potential for water savings associated with control of saltcedar and Russian olive and associated restoration, considerations related to wildlife use of saltcedar and Russian olive habitat or restored habitats, methods to control saltcedar and Russian olive, possible utilization of dead biomass following control, and approaches and challenges associated with revegetation or restoration following control. A concluding chapter includes discussion of possible long-term management strategies, areas for additional study, potentially useful field demonstrations, and a planning process for on-the-ground projects involving removal of saltcedar and Russian olive.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Five years of monitoring a bio-engineered living shoreline: Comparison of oyster population development by reef technology.

The Living Shoreline Demonstration Project (PO-148) used five bio-engineered reef technologies (Reef Balls in two configurations; Figure 1) acting as breakwaters to protect vulnerable shorelines. While the primary goal is to attenuate wave energy, the sustainability and success of these products as “living” shorelines are based on their ability to enhance oyster habitat, enabling the reef to maintain elevation within the rapidly changing environment (i.e., sea level rise, subsidence). This report documents the recruitment, survival, and growth of the living components of the reef – oysters and other encrusting organisms (e.g. mussels, barnacles). This final technical report provides data from five years of monitoring (November 2017 – December 2021) of reefs located along the western side of Eloi Bay in Pontchartrain Basin (Figure 2). Monitoring goals included assessment of (1) annual oyster densities and population dynamics on the reefs, (2) annual density and diversity of other encrusting organisms, and (3) comparisons of outcomes by reef technology, exposure, and water quality. Detailed information on technologies used, construction design, as-built elevations are available in Coast & Harbor Engineering (2016) Design Memorandum dated March 25, 2016, submitted to Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

Louisiana↗
USGS1980

Mapping the Galilean satellites of Jupiter with Voyager data.

The four Galilean satellites of Jupiter are being mapped using image data from the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft. The maps are published at several scales and in several versions. Preliminary maps at 1:25,000,000-required for mission planning and preliminary science reports-were compiled within three weeks of data acquisition and have been published. Later maps incorporate Rand Corporation photogrammetric triangulations. - from Authors

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Science-based management of public lands in southern Nevada

Landmark legislation provides guiding principles for land management planning in southern Nevada and the rest of the United States. Such legislation includes, but is not limited to, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S>C. 473-478, 479-482 and 551), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (U.S.C. Title 16, Secs. 1-4). Wilderness Act 1964 (P.L.88-577), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 91-205), National Forest Management Act of of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). The acts establishing congressionally designated areas within southern Nevada, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Spring Mountains National Restoration Area, and Desert National Wildlife Refuge, also contain guidelines for the management of these lands. These documents variously require preservation of natural and cultural resource and wilderness character, protection of species, and prevention of undesirable environmental effects from land management actions. These requirements must be met while allowing for multiple "uses" of certain public lands (e.g. recreation, ranching, resources extraction, renewable energy development, etc.) to the degree that they do no threaten preservation, protection, and prevention goals,. many considerations some into play in the development and implementation for land management plans and actions. The planning process requires a balancing act that sometimes pit one need or priority against another. When priorities can trump other needs can prioritized and receive disproportionate consideration. Overall, the management of public lands is a very complicated and sometime contentious process. Science provides an objective way to help weigh quantifiable information and draw conclusions about the effects of past and potential future land management policies, decisions, and actions. When effectively integrated into adaptive management, science-based information can reduce uncertainties, increase knowledge, and improve decision making. However, the specific science information needed for effective management is often lacking or difficult to access or interpret. Science is typically reported in scientific journals as discrete units describing individual studies with other scientists as the primary audience. Translations of these studies an synthesis or multiple studies into formats that can be readily used in land management planning efforts are often lacking. Identifying and articulating the highest priority science and research needs is one of the primary purposes of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http://www.SNAP.gov) Science and Research Team (chapter 1; Turner and others 2009). The SNAP Science and Research Strategy (Strategy) calls for a synthesis report to be written every 5 years summarizing the state of knowledge, information gaps and management implications of scientific information as it relates to the SNAP Strategy goals (Turner and others 2009). This General Technical Report serves as the first SNAP Science and Research Synthesis Report (Synthesis Report) commissioned by the Science and Research Team. The Synthesis Report is mostly based on information form the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and is itself peer reviewed and constitutes a new contribution to the scientific literature. This final chapter addresses Sub-goal 2.3, which is to manage current and future authorized southern Nevada land uses in a manner that balances public need and ecosystem sustainability, and Sub-goal 2.5, which is to promote an effective conservation education and interpretation program to improve the quality of resources and enhance public use and enjoyment of southern Nevada public lands. It summarizes information form the previous chapters on what scientific information is known currently and what remains largely unknown, and it discusses how science can be used to make future management decisions that balances public needs and ecosystem sustainability.

Nevada↗
USGS2013

Metallogenic belt and mineral deposit maps of northeast Asia

This report contains explanatory material and summary tables for lode mineral deposits and placer districts (Map A, sheet 1) and metallogenic belts of Northeast Asia (Maps B, C, and D on sheets 2, 3, and 4, respectively). The map region includes eastern Siberia, southeastern Russia, Mongolia, northeast China, and Japan. A large group of geologists—members of the joint international project, Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of Northeast Asia—prepared the maps, tables, and introductory text. This is a cooperative project with the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian Academy of Sciences, Mongolian National University, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolian Technical University, Mineral Resources Authority of Mongolia, Geological Research Institute, Jilin University, China Geological Survey, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Geological Survey of Japan, and U.S. Geological Survey. This report is one of a series of reports on the mineral resources, geodynamics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia. Companion studies include (1) a detailed geodynamics map of Northeast Asia (Parfenov and others, 2003); (2) a compilation of major mineral deposit models (Rodionov and Nokleberg, 2000; Rodionov and others, 2000); (3) a series of metallogenic belt maps (Obolenskiy and others, 2004); (4) location map of lode mineral deposits and placer districts of Northeast Asia (Ariunbileg and others, 2003b); (5) descriptions of metallogenic belts (Rodionov and others, 2004); (6) a database on significant metalliferous and selected nonmetalliferous lode deposits and selected placer districts (Ariunbileg and others, 2003a); and (7) a series of summary project publications (Ariunbileg and 74 others, 2003b).

Asia↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Activities in the Exploration of Antarctica: Introduction to Antarctica (Including USGS Field Personnel: 1946-59)

INTRODUCTION Antarctica is the planet's fifth largest continent [13.2 million km2 (5.1 million mi2)]; it contains the Earth's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets; it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report is the introduction to a series that covers 60 years of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific activity in Antarctica. It will concentrate primarily on three major topics: 1) a brief chronological record of the historical search, discovery, and exploration of the southern continent by humans; 2) early USGS scientific activities in Antarctica, listing expeditions, projects, people and resulting professional publications for Operation Highjump, 1946-47; Operation Windmill, 1947-48; USS Atka Reconnaissance Cruise, 1954-55; and Operation Deep Freeze I, II, III, and IV, 1955-59, including IGY; 3) significant changes that have occurred in Antarctic exploration and research since World War II will be discussed at the end of this report. Subsequent Open-File Reports will provide a year-by-year documentation of USGS scientific activities and accomplishments in Antarctica beginning with the post-IGY, 1959-60 research team. One Open-File Report is planned to be written for each field-based season. For an example of the series format, see Open-File Reports 2006-1113 (Meunier, 2007a) and 2006-1114 (Meunier, 2007b). This report is a companion document to Open-File Report 2006-1116 (Meunier, 2007c). The USGS mapping and science programs in Antarctica are among the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The 2005-06 field season is the 56th consecutive U.S. expedition in which USGS scientists have been participants, starting in 1946. USGS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) cooperation began with the establishment by NSF of the U.S. Antarctic (Research) Program [USA(R)P] in 1958-59 under Operation Deep Freeze IV (DF IV) and was given the responsibility for the principal coordination and management of all U.S. scientific activities in Antarctica in Deep Freeze 60 (DF 60) (1959-60). Financial support from NSF, mostly in the form of Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) and Cooperative Agreements, extends back to this period and can be attributed to the need for accurate geologic, geophysical, and topographic base maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support (Meunier, 1979 [2007], p. 38). The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, has, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, geophysics, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers, scientists, and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958, and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica (Meunier, 1979 [2007], appendix A). Open-File Report 2006-1116 includes scanned facsimiles of postal cachets. It has become an international practice to create postal cachets to commemorate special events and projects in Antarctica. A cachet is defined as a seal or commemorative design printed or stamped on an envelope to mark a philatelic or special event. The inked impression illustrates to the scientist, historian, stamp collector, and general public the multidisciplinary science projects staffed by USGS and collaborating scientists during the field season. Since 1960, philatelic cachets have been created by team members for each USGS field season and, in most cases, these cachets depict the specific geographic areas and field season program objectives. The cachets become a convenient documentation of the people, projects, and geographic places of interest for that year. Because the cachets are representative of USGS activities, each year's cachet is included as a digital facsimile in that year's Open-File Report. In the 1980s, multiple USGS cachets were prepared each year, one for use by the winter team at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and the other for the project work areas of the austral summer field season programs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

AMAP Assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean acidification

This assessment report presents the results of the 2013 AMAP Assessment of Arctic Ocean Acidification (AOA). This is the first such assessment dealing with AOA from an Arctic-wide perspective, and complements several assessments that AMAP has delivered over the past ten years concerning the effects of climate change on Arctic ecosystems and people. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is a group working under the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council Ministers have requested AMAP to: - produce integrated assessment reports on the status and trends of the conditions of the Arctic ecosystems; - identify possible causes for the changing conditions; - detect emerging problems, their possible causes, and the potential risk to Arctic ecosystems including indigenous peoples and other Arctic residents; and to - recommend actions required to reduce risks to Arctic ecosystems. This report provides the accessible scientific basis and validation for the statements and recommendations made in the Arctic Ocean Acidification Assessment Summary for Policy-makers that was delivered to Arctic Council Ministers at their meeting in Kiruna, Sweden in May 2011 and the related AMAP State of the Arctic Environment report Arctic Ocean Acidification 2013: An Overview . It includes extensive background data and references to the scientific literature, and details the sources for figures reproduced in the overview report. Whereas the Summary for Policy-makers report contains recommendations that focus mainly on policy-relevant actions concerned with addressing the consequences of AOA, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report also cover issues of a more scientific nature, such as proposals for filling gaps in knowledge, and recommendations relevant to future monitoring and research work. The AOA assessment was conducted between 2010 and 2013 by an international group of over 60 experts. Lead authors were selected based on an open nomination process coordinated by AMAP. A similar process was used to select international experts who independently reviewed this report. Information contained in this report is fully references and based on first and foremost peer-reviewed and published results of research and monitoring undertaken since 2006. It also incorporates some new (unpublished) information from monitoring and research conducted according to well-established and documented national and international standards of quality assurance/quality control protocols. Care has been taken to ensure that no critical probability statements are based on non-peer-reviewed materials. Access to reliable and up-to-date information is essential for the development of science-based decision-making regarding ongoing changes in the Arctic and their global implications. The AOA assessment summary reports and films have therefore been developed specifically for policy-makers, summarizing the main findings of the AOA assessment. The AOA lead authors have confirmed that both this report and its derivative products accurately and fully reflect their scientific assessment. The AOA reports and the films are freely available from the AMAP Secretariat and on the AMAP website: www.amap.no, and their use for educational purposes is encouraged. AMAP would like to express its appreciation to all experts who have contributed their time, efforts and data, in particular the lead authors who coordinated the production of this report. Thanks are also due to the reviewers who contributed to the AOA peer-review process and provided valuable comments that helped to ensure the quality of the report. A list of the main contributors is included at the start of each chapter. The list is not comprehensive. Specifically, it does not include the many national institutes, laboratories and organizations, and their staff, which have been involved in various countries in AOA-related monitoring and research. Apologies, and no lesser thanks are given to any individuals unintentionally omitted from the list. The support from the Arctic countries and non-Arctic countries implementing research and monitoring in the Arctic is vital to the success of AMAP. The AMAP work is essentially based on ongoing activities within these countries, and the countries that provide the necessary support for most the experts involved in the preparation of the AMAP assessments. In particular, AMAP would like to acknowledge Norway for taking the lead-country role in this assessment and thank Canada, Norway, Sweden, USA and the Nordic Council of Ministers for their financial support to the AOA work. The AMAP Working Group is pleased to present its assessment to the Arctic Council and the international science community. Richard Bellerby (AOA assessment Chair) Russel Shearer (AMAP Chair) Lars-Otto Reiersen (AMAP Executive Secretary) Oslo, May 2013

Report↗
USGS2020

Moving beyond p<0.05 in ecotoxicology: A guide for practitioners

Statistical inferences play a critical role in ecotoxicology. Historically, Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) has been the dominant method for inference in ecotoxicology. As a brief and informal definition of the NHST approach, researchers compare (or test) an experimental treatment or observation against a hypothesis of no relationship or effect (the null hypothesis) using the collected data to see if the observed values are statistically significant given predefined error rates. The resulting probability of observing a value equal to or greater than the observed value assuming the null hypothesis is true is the p-value. Historically, criticisms of NHST have existed for almost a century and more recently these have grown to the point where statisticians, including the American Statistical Association, have felt the need to clarify the role of NHST and p-values in science beyond their current, common use. These limitations also exist in ecotoxicology. For example, a review of the 2010 Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (ET&C) volume found many authors did not correctly report p-values. We repeated this review looking at the 2019 volume of ET&C and the incorrect reporting of p-values still occurred almost a decade later. Problems with NHST and p-values highlight the need for statistical inferences besides NHST, something that has long been known in ecotoxicology and the broader scientific and statistical communities. Furthermore, concerns such as these led the Executive Director of the American Statistical Association to recommend against use of statistical significance in 2019. In light of these criticisms, however, ecotoxicologists require alternative methods. In this paper, we describe some alternative methods including confidence intervals, regression analysis, dose-response curves, Bayes factors, survival analysis, and model selection. Lastly, we provide insights for what ecotoxicology might look like in a post-p-value world.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗
USGS2000

Water quality modeling in the systems impact assessment model for the Klamath River basin - Keno, Oregon to Seiad Valley, California

This report describes the water quality model developed for the Klamath River System Impact Assessment Model (SIAM). The Klamath River SIAM is a decision support system developed by the authors and other US Geological Survey (USGS), Midcontinent Ecological Science Center staff to study the effects of basin-wide water management decisions on anadromous fish in the Klamath River. The Army Corps of Engineersa?? HEC5Q water quality modeling software was used to simulate water temperature, dissolved oxygen and conductivity in 100 miles of the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and California. The water quality model simulated three reservoirs and the mainstem Klamath River influenced by the Shasta and Scott River tributaries. Model development, calibration and two validation exercises are described as well as the integration of the water quality model into the SIAM decision support system software. Within SIAM, data are exchanged between the water quantity model (MODSIM), the water quality model (HEC5Q), the salmon population model (SALMOD) and methods for evaluating ecosystem health. The overall predictive ability of the water quality model is described in the context of calibration and validation error statistics. Applications of SIAM and the water quality model are described.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2018

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published since January 2015

The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter GRSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” was in part due to a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. To identify articles and reports published about GRSG, we first conducted a structured search of three reference databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the search term “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by (1) removing duplicates, (2) excluding products that were not published as research or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal government technical reports, and (3) retaining only those products for which GRSG or their habitat was a research focus. We summarized the contents of each product by using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assessed the content of each product relevant to a list of 31 management topics. These topics include GRSG biology and habitat characteristics along with potential management actions, land uses, and environmental factors related to GRSG management and conservation. We also noted which articles/reports created new geospatial data. The final search was conducted on January 6, 2018, and application of our criteria resulted in the inclusion of 169 published products (2 of these products were published corrections to journal articles). The management topics most commonly addressed were GRSG behavior or demographics and GRSG habitat selection or habitat characteristics at broad or site scales. Few products addressed captive breeding, recreation, wild horses and burros, and range management structures (including fences). We include in this annotated bibliography the full citation, product summary, and management topics addressed by each product. The online version of this bibliography ( https://apps.usgs.gov/gsgbib/index.php ) is searchable by topic and location and includes links to the original publications. A substantial body of literature has been compiled based on research explicitly related to the conservation, management, monitoring, and assessment of GRSG. These studies may inform planning and management actions that seek to balance conservation, economic, and social objectives and manage diverse resource uses and values across the western United States. The review process for this product included requesting input on each summary from one or more authors of the original peer-reviewed article or report and a formal review of the entire document by three independent reviewers and, subsequently, the USGS Bureau Approving Official. This process is consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices.

Open-File Report↗