USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Technical Report Administrative Summary”

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.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2020

Gear comparison study for sampling nekton in Barataria Basin marshes

This project was funded by the Louisiana Trustee Implementation Group (LA TIG) to support decisions related to investments in long-term monitoring. The LA TIG seeks to ensure long-term monitoring informs coastal restoration activities with the goal of sustaining and improving fisheries impacted by the Deepwater Horizon (DWH) Oil Spill. The project objective was to compare nekton catch across an estuarine gradient using different sampling gear with the goal of identifying trade-offs among nekton sampling approaches. To accomplish this objective, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), The Water Institute of the Gulf (the Institute), Dynamic Solutions, LLC, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (LSU AgCenter), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed a field gear comparison study from 2018 to 2019. This work compared electrofisher and seine sampling at 12 fixed stations in Barataria Basin using data collected by LDWF. In addition, and in conjunction with LDWF monthly sampling, the same 12 fixed stations were sampled in May 2019 using a throw trap to compare nekton catch and assemblages collected with the throw trap, seine and electrofisher. LDWF has been conducting seine sampling since 1986, and seine data are used by the State of Louisiana to assess juvenile shrimp, crab and fish abundances, sizes and overall assemblages. In 2018, LDWF began conducting electrofisher sampling at 12 Barataria Basin seine stations in order to determine if the two gear types sample similar species and assemblages for potential future replacement of long-term seine sampling with electrofishing. Throw traps were included as they provide density estimates, which are ultimately the desired statistic used in modeling trophic webs, and are used in assessing habitat restoration outcomes. The project compared the nekton catch and assemblages collected using seine, electrofisher, and throw trap data from marsh edge habitats located across the estuarine gradient in Barataria Basin. Specifically, catch per unit effort (CPUE), species richness, species-specific total length (mm) distribution and nekton assemblages were compared between gear types. The first dataset was collected in May 2019 with throw trap (Appendix A), seine (LDWF data), and electrofisher (LDWF data) gear, and the second dataset (collected by LDWF) spanned 14 months of seine and electrofisher monthly sampling occurring from May 2018 through June 2019 at 12 stations in Barataria Basin. Key findings include that gear bias was not evident across the range of water quality conditions (salinity, temperature, o C, dissolved oxygen, mg L-1 , turbidity, NTU; Appendix B: scatter plots) captured during this pilot study, but differences in nekton catch per unit effort (CPUE) and assemblages were evident between gear types. However, those differences largely depended on the parameter examined. For example, the overall CPUE was highest for electrofishing, followed by seine, and then throw trap. When grass shrimp (the most abundant taxon collected) were removed from CPUE, the electrofisher and seine results were similar in CPUE. When CPUE was corrected for gear efficiency and total area sampled, the throw trap had the highest reported density of nekton sampled, followed by electrofisher and seine results. Electrofishing captured the highest number of species, which included more unique species compared to seine or throw trap catches, though all gear types captured at least one unique species. These highlight a need for caution in interpreting assemblage and density data when comparing datasets derived from different sampling methodologies. These key findings can help inform implementation and interpretation of long-term monitoring data in Louisiana as management decisions are made about coastal restoration projects to sustain and improve fisheries. There are trade-offs in selecting gear types for estuarine nekton monitoring of density, abundance, species richness, and assemblages. The table below (Table 1) summarizes some considerations when selecting gear types for long-term monitoring of estuarine nekton. In addition to biological and ecological considerations, other important considerations include cost, the labor required to conduct sampling, logistics, and potential uncertainties related to how effective each gear type is for sampling the wide variety of conditions found across Louisiana’s coastal habitats. For example, although electrofishing may capture higher CPUE, the equipment is more expensive to obtain and maintain compared to the other gear types. Most importantly, this table highlights differences in the nekton assemblages sampled by each gear type; this consideration is critical when designing the goals of a long-term monitoring program as it will inform how the data can be used and interpreted in the future. This report provides caveats, assumptions, and recommendations that can help support the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority (CPRA), LDWF and the LA TIG in comparing data from different gear types, and in making decisions for future monitoring. Findings from this study are limited to the range of water quality conditions occurring during these data collection events; these data and analyses could benefit from sampling across a wider range of water quality conditions, and collection of habitat structure and bottom type data which are not routinely collected but critically influence nekton. Further investigation examining how relative differences detected in key species abundances between gear types might impact ecosystem indicators and energetics in a modeled food web would provide valuable input to understand outputs of the Comprehensive Aquatic System Model for Barataria Basin, including the potential impacts of nekton monitoring decisions on food web models.

Louisiana↗
USGS2024

System characterization report on the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) sensor

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) sensor, an imaging spectrometer developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This report is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior) and radiometric performances. Results of these analyses indicate that the EMIT sensor has a band-to-band geometric performance in the range of −0.355 to 0.210 pixel with a few exceptions of shortwave infrared channels. Geometric offset relative to the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager ranged from −15.966 meters (−0.266 pixel) to 43.844 meters (0.731 pixel). Offset of a radiometric comparison ranged from −0.016 to 0.025, and slope of a radiometric comparison ranged from 0.837 to 0.985. EMIT agreed with Radiometric Calibration Network measurements within 5 percent across most of the spectral channels.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1975

Author index to published ERTS-1 reports

This index has been compiled to assist the reader in locating and obtaining reports on the 334 scientific experiments conducted under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Earth Resources Technology Satellite-1 (ERTS-1) (renamed Landsat) program. Each NASA-designated experimenter was required to submit written reports on his investigation: these were designated type 1, type 2, and type 3 reports. Type 1 reports were periodic (monthly or bimonthly) progress summaries; type 2 were comprehensive scientific and technical reports; and type 3 were final report. Investigators were also encourage to present their more significant findings in professional or technical journals and proceedings of symposia.

Report↗
USGS1990

Forum on orthophotography: Summary Report

A Forum on Orthophotography was held on May 15, 1990, at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The forum was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Governors' Association, and the National Association of Counties. The purpose of the forum was to expand the understanding and use of orthophoto products among the user community, as well as among those currently considering, or as yet unfamiliar with, the use of these products. It was also intended to provide a forum for assessing requirements for, and interest in, orthophoto products and for the identification and discussion of issues and future needs concerning orthophoto use and coordination. The 1-day forum was organized into three major sessions that focussed on technical aspects, user applications, and management issues. The first session presented a brief background and overview of the technical characteristics of standard and digital orthophotos. The second session included formal presentations by Federal, State, and county government agencies on their current and planned applications of orthophoto products, with particular emphasis on their use within geographic information systems. In the third session, private industry addressed their community's interest, capabilities, and potential role. This session also included a proposal by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for a national cooperative program for the production of l:12,000-scale orthophotoquad products. In addition to the formal presentations, the forum provided a time for open discussion in which attendees had an opportunity to exchange information and make statements about their needs or other items pertinent to the production and dissemination of orthophoto products. Several agency orthophoto product exhibits and interactive demonstrations were also available throughout the day. This report includes a forum agenda and summaries of the various presentations given by the program participants. The appendixes to the report include a list of forum cosponsoring agencies and cooperating organizations, a summary listing of forum registrants by organizational affiliation, and the forum registration list. Also included in the appendkes is the Higher Resolution Orthophoto Products Survey that was sent to each participant following the forum to assist in the identification of near- and longer-term applications, and the determination of requirements, for higher-resolution orthophoto products.

Summary Report↗
USGS2009

Results and Interpretations of U.S. Geological Survey Data Collected In and Around the Tuba City Open Dump, Arizona

This Open-File Report was originally an Administrative Report presentation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs based on U.S. Geological Survey data that has been collected and presented in four previous reports (Open-File Reports 2009-1020, 2008-1380, and 2008-1374, and an Administrative Report on geophysical data). This presentation was given at a technical meeting requested by the BIA on March 3 and 4, 2009, in Phoenix, Arizona. The idea for this meeting was for all the technical people working on issues related to the Tuba City Open Dump site to come together and share their data collection procedures, results, interpretations, and working hypotheses. The meeting goal was to have a clear record of each party's interpretations and a summary of additional data that would be needed to solve differences of opinion. The intention of this presentation is not to provide an exhaustive summary of U.S. Geological Survey efforts at the Tuba City Open Dump site given in the four previously published Open-File Reports listed above, since these reports have already been made available. This presentation briefly summarizes the data collected for those reports and provides results, interpretations, and working hypotheses relating to the data available in these reports. The major questions about the Tuba City Open Dump addressed by the U.S. Geological Survey are (1) what are the sources for uranium and other constituents found in the ground water in and around the Tuba City Open Dump, (2) what is the current distribution of ground water contaminants away from the Tuba City Open Dump (can plume limits be delineated), and (3) what controls the mobility of uranium and other constituents in and around the Tuba City Open Dump? Data collection, results, and interpretations by the U.S. Geological Survey that address these questions are presented herein.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Earth science and public health: Proceedings of the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. As the Nation?s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the USGS can play a significant role in providing scientific knowledge and information that will improve our understanding of the relations of environment and wildlife to human health and disease. USGS human health-related research is unique in the Federal government because it brings together a broad spectrum of natural science expertise and information, including extensive data collection and monitoring on varied landscapes and ecosystems across the Nation. USGS can provide a great service to the public health community by synthesizing the scientific information and knowledge on our natural and living resources that influence human health, and by bringing this science to the public health community in a manner that is most useful. Partnerships with health scientists and managers are essential to the success of these efforts. USGS scientists already are working closely with the public health community to pursue rigorous inquiries into the connections between natural science and public health. Partnering agencies include the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Collaborations between public health scientists and earth scientists can lead to improved solutions for existing and emerging environmental health problems. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions held at the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research, held at the USGS national headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The report presents 68 abstracts of technical presentations made at the conference and summaries of six topical breakout sessions. The abstracts cover a broad range of issues and demonstrate connections between human health and the quality and condition of our environment and wildlife. The summaries of the topical breakout sessions present ideas for advancing interdisciplinary science in areas of earth science and human health.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2013

National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources: Summary

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed an evaluation of the technically accessible storage resource ( TA SR ) for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) for 36 sedimentary basins in the onshore areas and State waters of the United States. The TA SR is an estimate of the geologic storage resource that may be available for CO 2 injection and storage and is based on current geologic and hydrologic knowledge of the subsurface and current engineering practices. By using a geology-based probabilistic assessment methodology, the USGS assessment team members obtained a mean estimate of approximately 3,000 metric gigatons (Gt) of subsurface CO 2 storage capacity that is technically accessible below onshore areas and State waters; this amount is more than 500 times the 2011 annual U.S. energy-related CO 2 emissions of 5.5 Gt (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2012, http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/). In 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (Public Law 110–140) directed the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a national assessment of geologic storage resources for CO 2 in consultation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and State geological surveys. The USGS developed a methodology to estimate storage resource potential in geologic formations in the United States (Burruss and others, 2009, USGS Open-File Report (OFR) 2009–1035; Brennan and others, 2010, USGS OFR 2010–1127; Blondes, Brennan, and others, 2013, USGS OFR 2013–1055). In 2012, the USGS completed the assessment, and the results are summarized in this Fact Sheet and are provided in more detail in companion reports (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013a,b; see related reports at right). The goal of this project was to conduct an initial assessment of storage capacity on a regional basis, and results are not intended for use in the evaluation of specific sites for potential CO 2 storage. The national assessment was a geology-based examination of all sedimentary basins in the onshore and State waters area of the United States that contain storage assessment units (SAUs) that could be defined according to geologic and hydrologic characteristics. Although geologic storage of CO 2 may be possible in some areas not assessed by the USGS, the SAUs identified in this assessment represent those areas within sedimentary basins that met the assessment criteria. A geologic description of each SAU was prepared; descriptions for SAUs in several basins are in Warwick and Corum (2012, USGS OFR 2012–1024).

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1978

Coastal mapping handbook

Passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 focused attention on the Nation's coastal land and water areas. As plans for more effective management of the coastal zone evolved, it soon became apparent that improved maps and charts of these areas were needed. This handbook was prepared with the requirements of the entire coastal community in mind, giving greatest attention to the needs of coastal zone managers and planners at the State and local levels. Its principal objective is to provide general information and guidance; it is neither a textbook nor a technical manual, but rather a primer on coastal mapping. This handbook should help planners and managers of coastal programs to determine their mapping requirements, select the best maps and charts for their particular needs, and to deal effectively with personnel who gather data and prepare maps. The sections on "Sources of Assistance and Advice" and "Product and Data Sources" should be especially useful to all involved in mapping the coastal zone. Brief summaries of the mapping efforts of several State coastal zone management programs are included. "Future outlook" discusses anticipated progress and changes in mapping procedures and techniques. Illustrations are inserted, where appropriate, to illustrate the products and equipment discussed. Because of printing restrictions, the colors in map illustrations may vary from those in the original publication. The appendixes include substantial material which also should be of interest. In addition a glossary and an index are included to provide easy and quick access to the terms and concepts used in the text. For those interested in more technical detail than is provided in this handbook, the "Selected references" will be useful. Also, the publications of the professional societies listed in appendix 4 will provide technical information in detail.

Report↗
USGS2014

Summary and abstracts of the Planetary Data Workshop, June 2012

The recent boom in the volume of digital data returned by international planetary science missions continues to both delight and confound users of those data. In just the past decade, the Planetary Data System (PDS), NASA’s official archive of scientific results from U.S. planetary missions, has seen a nearly 50-fold increase in the amount of data and now serves nearly half a petabyte. In only a handful of years, this volume is expected to approach 1 petabyte (1,000 terabytes or 1 quadrillion bytes). Although data providers, archivists, users, and developers have done a creditable job of providing search functions, download capabilities, and analysis and visualization tools, the new wealth of data necessitates more frequent and extensive discussion among users and developers about their current capabilities and their needs for improved and new tools. A workshop to address these and other topics, “Planetary Data: A Workshop for Users and Planetary Software Developers,” was held June 25–29, 2012, at Northern Arizona University (NAU) in Flagstaff, Arizona. A goal of the workshop was to present a summary of currently available tools, along with hands-on training and how-to guides, for acquiring, processing and working with a variety of digital planetary data. The meeting emphasized presentations by data users and mission providers during days 1 and 2, and developers had the floor on days 4 and 5 using an “unconference” format for day 5. Day 3 featured keynote talks by Laurence Soderblom (U.S. Geological Survey, USGS) and Dan Crichton (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL) followed by a panel discussion, and then research and technical discussions about tools and capabilities under recent or current development. Software and tool demonstrations were held in break-out sessions in parallel with the oral session. Nearly 150 data users and developers from across the globe attended, and 22 National Aeronautics and space Administration (NASA) and non-NASA data providers and missions were represented. Presentations (some in video format) and tutorials are posted on the meeting site ( http://astrogeology.usgs.gov/groups/Planetary-Data-Workshop ).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Gas shale/oil shale

The production of natural gas from shales continues to increase in North America, and shale gas exploration is on the rise in other parts of the world since the previous report by this committee was published by American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Energy Minerals Division (2009). For the United States, the volume of proved reserves of natural gas increased 11% from 2008 to 2009, the increase driven largely by shale gas development (Energy Information Administration 2010c). Furthermore, shales have increasingly become targets of exploration for oil and condensate as well as gas, which has served to greatly expand their significance as ‘‘unconventional’’ petroleum reservoirs. This report provides information about specific shales across North America and Europe from which gas (biogenic or thermogenic), oil, or natural gas liquids are produced or is actively being explored. The intent is to reflect the recently expanded mission of the Energy Minerals Division (EMD) Gas Shales Committee to serve as a single point of access to technical information on shales regardless of the type of hydrocarbon produced from them. The contents of this report were drawn largely from contributions by numerous members of the EMD Gas Shales Advisory Committee, with much of the data being available from public websites such as state or provincial geological surveys or other public institutions. Shales from which gas or oil is being produced in the United States are listed in alphabetical order by shale name. Information for Canada is presented by province, whereas for Europe, it is presented by country.

Natural Resources Research↗
USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2015

Palila Restoration Research, 1996−2012. Summary and management implications

The Palila Restoration Project was initiated in 1996 by the U.S. Geological Survey to assist government agencies mitigate the effects of realigning Saddle Road (Highway 200) through Palila Critical Habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998, Federal Highway Administration 1999). Ecological research on the palila (Loxioides bailleui), an endangered Hawaiian forest bird, carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly organized as the Research Division of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) since 1987 and research conducted by the Palila Restoration Project provided the scientific bases for developing a recovery strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) and its adaptive implementation. The main objectives of the Palila Restoration Project were to develop techniques for reintroducing the palila to a portion of its former range, investigate the biological threats to the palila and its habitat, and synthesize the existing body of ecological knowledge concerning the palila. Five broad study themes formed the research framework: 1. Population reintroduction and restoration 2. Demography and breeding ecology 3. Habitat use and food ecology 4. Vegetation ecology 5. Predator ecology and management An element that was not included in the research program of the project was the ecology and management of introduced ungulates, which has historically constituted the single greatest threat to Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009). The absence of ungulate studies should not be interpreted to mean that we believe ungulates no longer damage palila habitat. Other research has already established that removing alien browsers and grazers from Mauna Kea is essential for the recovery of the subalpine forest on which palila now depend (Scowcroft and Giffin 1983; Scowcroft and Sakai 1983; Scowcroft and Conrad 1988, 1992; Hess et al. 1999). Moreover, the Federal District Court of Hawai‘i has ordered the State of Hawai‘i to remove browsing ungulates from Palila Critical Habitat (Banko et al. 2009, Hess and Banko 2011). This final report summarizes results of Palila Restoration Project research from December 1996 to December 2012. Even though some results contained in this report have been published in scientific journals and other technical reports (Appendix I), they are included here to provide a comprehensive chronicle of all project activities.

Hawaii↗
USGS2018

Science support for evaluating natural recovery of polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations in fish from Crab Orchard Lake, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois

Introduction Crab Orchard Lake in southern Illinois is one of the largest and most popular recreational lakes in the state. Construction of the nearly 7,000-acre reservoir in the late 1930s created employment opportunities through the Works Progress Administration, and the lake itself was intended to supply water, control flooding, and provide recreational opportunities for local communities (Stall, 1954). In 1942, the Department of War appropriated or purchased more than 20,000 acres of land around Crab Orchard Lake and constructed the Illinois Ordnance Plant, which manufactured bombs and anti-tank mines during World War II. After the war, an Act of Congress transferred the property to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 5, 1947, for the joint purposes of wildlife conservation, agriculture, recreation, and industry. Production of explosives continued, but new industries also moved onsite. More than 200 tenants have held leases with Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge and have operated a variety of manufacturing plants (electrical components, plated metal parts, ink, machined parts, painted products, and boats) on-site. Soils, water, and sediments in several areas of the refuge were contaminated with hazardous substances from handling and disposal methods that are no longer acceptable environmental practice (for example, direct discharge to surface water, use of unlined landfills). Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at the refuge was identified in the 1970s, and a PCB-based fish-consumption advisory has been in effect since 1988 for Crab Orchard Lake. The present advisory covers common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) and channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ); see Illinois Department of Public Health (2017). Some of the most contaminated areas of the refuge were actively remediated, and natural ecosystem recovery processes are expected to further reduce residual PCB concentrations in the lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought technical support to understand environmental drivers of current (2017) PCB residues in fish tissue and patterns in PCB residues through time to inform the fish-consumption advisory for Crab Orchard Lake. This project is planned in two phases (Tasks 1 and 2); the first phase is included in this report. Task 1, reported here, includes a review of existing literature and a brief overview focused on environmental and biochemical/physiological processes that drive PCB residues in fish tissue. This review specifically targets processes that are relevant for freshwater lacustrine environments such as those at Crab Orchard Lake. In addition to discussions of environmental fate, metabolism, and accumulation of PCBs, this review includes a brief scientifically based explanation of approaches used to establish fish-consumption advisories. A planned second task (Task 2) will include a compilation and summary of existing data on PCB residues in fish tissue samples from Crab Orchard Lake. This summary will also place Crab Orchard Lake data in a broader geographic context through a comparison with fish data from other Midwestern lakes. When Task 1 and Task 2 are complete, resource managers will have (a) a synthesis of existing literature that characterizes the processes influencing the fate of residual PCBs remaining in systems such as Crab Orchard Lake, (b) a summary of natural PCB attenuation processes for use in risk communication with the public, and (c) a summary of existing data on PCBs in fish tissues from Crab Orchard Lake, including exploratory plots of tissue residues through time. Overall, this project will provide data to help resource managers better understand the ecological and public health consequences of residual PCBs in Crab Orchard Lake.

Illinois↗
USGS1986

USGS research on energy resources, 1986; program and abstracts

The extended abstracts in this volume are summaries of the papers presented orally and as posters in the second V. E. McKelvey Forum on Mineral and Energy Resources, entitled "USGS Research on Energy Resources-1986." The Forum has been established to improve communication between the USGS and the earth science community by presenting the results of current USGS research on nonrenewable resources in a timely fashion and by providing an opportunity for individuals from other organizations to meet informally with USGS scientists and managers. It is our hope that the McKelvey Forum will help to make USGS programs more responsive to the needs of the earth science community, particularly the mining and petroleum industries, and Win foster closer cooperation between organizations and individuals. The Forum was named after former Director Vincent E. McKelvey in recognition of his lifelong contributions to research, development, and administration in mineral and energy resources, as a scientist, as Chief Geologist, and as Director of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Forum will be an annual event, and its subject matter will alternate between mineral and energy resources. We expect that the format will change somewhat from year to year as various approaches are tried, but its primary purpose will remain the same: to encourage direct communication between USGS scientists and the representatives of other earth-science related organizations. Energy programs of the USGS include oil and gas, coal, geothermal, uranium-thorium, and oil shale; work in these programs spans the national domain, including surveys of the offshore Exclusive Economic Zone. The topics selected for presentation at this McKelvey Forum represent an overview of the scientific breadth of USGS research on energy resources. They include aspects of petroleum occurrence in Eastern United States rift basins, the origin of magnetic anomalies over oil fields, accreted terranes and energy-resource implications, coal quality, geothermal energy sources, integrated geology and chemistry in uranium-deposit studies, and interpretations of sea-floor geology seen in reconnaissance-scale sidescan-sonar mosaics of the Gulf of Mexico and west coast Exclusive Economic Zone. Data are presented that are being used in building models of geothermal energy settings, basin histories, and the occurrence of energy resources. In addition to the technical sessions presenting the results of USGS research, each congressionally mandated USGS Mineral Resource Program has a display outlining plans and progress. We are all excited about this continuing opportunity to disseminate and discuss our research with our colleagues in industry and academia, and we welcome your suggestions on improving this series of Forums.

Circular↗