SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Technical Review”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources

USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗

USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-‐2000) -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -‐Japan Tokai-‐oki to Kumano-‐nada Project (2004) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -‐Malaysia Gumusut-‐Kakap Project (2006) -‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -‐MH-‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-‐Production Expedition (2012-‐2013) -‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-‐2008) -‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-‐while-‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-‐situ nature of hydrate-‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗

USGS1996

In memoriam: Harvey I. Fisher, 1916-1994

Harvey Irvin Fisher was born on 15 June 1916 in Edgar, Nebraska, and spent his youth near Blue Springs, Missouri. Following his A.A. from Kansas City in 1935, and B.S. from Kansas State University in 1937, he married Mildred Hoch; they had three sons. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1942. From 1942 through 1945, while at Berkeley, he was Technical Curator, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Biologist with the Crocker Radiation Laboratory, and Assistant Editor of The Condor . In 1944 he joined the AOU, became a Fellow in 1950, and was Editor of The Auk from 1948 to 1952 (to which he contributed numerous book reviews). He later became a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the International Academy of Science.

The Auk↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2020

EMD Gas Hydrates Committee annual report

Global research on the potential commercial viability of gas extraction from gas hydrates is continuing, predominantly in Asia and in the United States, where recent efforts have focused on the exploration and characterization of gas hydrate petroleum systems and conducting controlled production tests of gas hydrate deposits hosted in mostly sand-rich reservoir systems. In 2017, gas hydrate production testing was conducted in marine settings in the offshore of Japan and China. An additional test was conducted in the Shenhu region of the South China Sea in 2020 to further evaluate the effectiveness of various well completion technologies to produce gas from gas hydrates. Late in 2018, a research partnership led by the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation established a new Alaska North Slope test site for an extended gas hydrate production pilot with the completion of a stratigraphic test well. With the successful completion of the Prudhoe Bay Unit Hydrate-01 stratigraphic test well, planning is now underway for drilling of three additional wells at the Alaska test site, which will include a geoscience data well and two production test wells. In 2019, the Government of India released the results of one of the most comprehensive gas hydrate scientific drilling investigations ever undertaken, the leadership of the Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 reported on the discovery of several significant gas hydrate accumulations that were considered suitable for future gas hydrate production testing. In September of 2019, the U.S. Geological Survey released a new assessment of the technically recoverable gas hydrate resources on the Alaska North Slope. In 2018, the University of Texas at Austin released a comprehensive report describing the operational and initial technical results of the UT-GOM2-1 Hydrate Pressure Coring Expedition, which drilled and partially cored two wells in Green Canyon Block 955 in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The results of these recently complete gas hydrate geologic and production studies have been further reviewed in this AAPG-EMD Gas Hydrate Committee report.

Alaska↗

USGS1992

Decomposition techniques

Sample decomposition is a fundamental and integral step in the procedure of geochemical analysis. It is often the limiting factor to sample throughput, especially with the recent application of the fast and modern multi-element measurement instrumentation. The complexity of geological materials makes it necessary to choose the sample decomposition technique that is compatible with the specific objective of the analysis. When selecting a decomposition technique, consideration should be given to the chemical and mineralogical characteristics of the sample, elements to be determined, precision and accuracy requirements, sample throughput, technical capability of personnel, and time constraints. This paper addresses these concerns and discusses the attributes and limitations of many techniques of sample decomposition along with examples of their application to geochemical analysis. The chemical properties of reagents as to their function as decomposition agents are also reviewed. The section on acid dissolution techniques addresses the various inorganic acids that are used individually or in combination in both open and closed systems. Fluxes used in sample fusion are discussed. The promising microwave-oven technology and the emerging field of automation are also examined. A section on applications highlights the use of decomposition techniques for the determination of Au, platinum group elements (PGEs), Hg, U, hydride-forming elements, rare earth elements (REEs), and multi-elements in geological materials. Partial dissolution techniques used for geochemical exploration which have been treated in detail elsewhere are not discussed here; nor are fire-assaying for noble metals and decomposition techniques for X-ray fluorescence or nuclear methods be discussed.

Journal of Geochemical Exploration↗

USGS2015

Book review: Restoring paradise: Rethinking and rebuilding nature in Hawaii

The native ecosystems of Hawai‘i have been severely degraded by the introduction of herbivorous mammals and a myriad of invasive plant species. Left unmanaged, most natural areas would continue along a trajectory towards domination by nonnative species; however, several projects have undertaken the daunting task of ecological restoration, four of which are the subject of Restoring Paradise by Robert Cabin: Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge; Hawai‘i Volcanoes National Park; the Auwahi dryland forest, Maui and Limahuli Garden and Preserve, Kaua‘i. After an introductory section discussing the setting and factors that have contributed to so much of the degradation and extinction of Hawai‘i’s native biota, Cabin outlines two different views of restoration in two central sections of the book: ad hoc, trial-and-error approaches versus the careful application of science to direct restoration. The time-tested methods of fence construction, ungulate removal, weed control, and replanting native species with the help of numerous volunteers and community support are presented in marked contrast to inconsistent applications of science in guiding restoration, and illustrated by some of the author’s unsuccessful research. The book is largely presented as a non-technical first-person account of travels and meetings with key personalities driving restoration projects. The philosophies of restoration practitioners are embedded in passages from interviews. Setbacks, obstacles, logistical constraints, and successes are narrated in between as Cabin revisits each of the restoration sites. The utility of science in restoration is frequently questioned by the author and sometimes abandoned by practitioners in favour of a ‘let-nature-take-its-course’ approach. Review info: Restoring Paradise: Rethinking and Rebuilding Nature in Hawaii . By Robert J. Cabin, 2013. ISBN: 978-0822836931, 236 pp.

Pacific Conservation Biology↗

USGS2025

Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to advance Chesapeake Bay research and management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities

The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (hereafter “Chesapeake Bay region”) have been the focus of extensive restoration efforts for several decades. These restoration efforts are guided by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2014) which outlines 10 goals and 31 measurable outcomes. The Chesapeake Bay is globally recognized as a model for coastal restoration due to long-term investments in monitoring, modeling, implementation and research by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership. These monitoring network spans tidal and non-tidal regions and provides data across multiple scales. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine-learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing large, complex datasets. These techniques have gained widespread adoption across various disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, and environmental science. In the Bay context, AI/ML is increasingly being used to explore drivers of environmental change, analyze system dynamics, and predict conditions in areas with limited monitoring. The CBP partnership, particularly its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), has increasingly recognized the growing role of AI/ML in watershed and estuarine management. Recent Chesapeake Community Research Symposium sessions and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Global Collaboratory highlight increasing regional momentum to apply big data and AI/ML for environmental solutions. Together, these developments underscore the timely need to explore how AI/ML can help advance Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. This STAC workshop, titled “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to Advance Chesapeake Bay Research and Management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities,” was held from February 24-25, 2025, in Edgewater, Maryland to bring together over 50 federal, state, and academic scientists and partners to synthesize the current state of AI/ML applications and identify research gaps in Chesapeake Bay research and management. The workshop focused on three main objectives: 1. Summarize recent AI/ML applications and lessons learned in both tidal and nontidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay region. 2. Identify challenges and gaps in applying AI/ML approaches to Chesapeake Bay data. Such challenges and gaps may include data limitations, harmonization issues, ineffective communication of AI/ML insights, and a lack of coordination among research and management institutions. 3. Develop recommendations and identify opportunities for leveraging AI/ML to address issues across the Chesapeake Bay region. Key areas of focus may include generating new information to support watershed management, delivering AI/MLgenerated insights to managers in a clear and actionable way, and fostering greater collaboration among stakeholders within the CBP Partnership. Workshop participants engaged in science presentations and breakout sessions to develop recommendations for advancing the integration of AI/ML techniques into research and management across the Chesapeake Bay region. By synthesizing current applications, identifying challenges, and exploring new opportunities, the workshop has provided valuable insights and recommendations for better leveraging AI/ML approaches to support the success of Bay restoration efforts. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for enhancing data-driven, science-based decision making aligned with the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2024

Delineating draft inventory analysis units for National Scenic and Historic Trails inventory, assessment, and monitoring programs

As of 2024, there are 32 National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHTs) in the system administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. The BLM administers, manages, and protects 19 of these trails as part of its system of national conservation lands. Various laws, regulations, and policies require that the BLM conduct and maintain an inventory to protect trail-related resources, qualities, values, associated settings, and primary use or uses. There are set procedures for conducting inventory, assessment, and monitoring (IAM) of NSHTs, as outlined in volumes 1 and 2 of BLM Technical Reference 6280-1. One of the first steps in the IAM process is deciding the area along a trail to inventory. However, volumes 1 and 2 of BLM Technical Reference 6280-1 do not specify how the land area to be inventoried should be delineated. The BLM calls these focus areas for IAM efforts “inventory analysis units” (IAUs), which are defined as the geospatial boundary for the location of an inventory along a trail. This report reviews the approach used to delineate the IAUs for an inventory effort and identifies best practices for creating initial IAUs, termed “draft IAUs.” Draft IAUs would provide standardization across multiple management jurisdictions by applying the same parameters for their delineation. These draft IAUs would provide trail managers with an area surrounding NSHTs that would trigger the need for an inventory if a project were proposed within it and are meant to be refined during localized inventory efforts. The best practices herein are for creating draft IAUs using standard parameters for performing a viewshed analysis to identify a proxy of land to include in an initial inventory effort.

New Mexico↗

USGS1996

Damaging earthquakes: A scientific laboratory

This paper reviews the principal lessons learned from multidisciplinary postearthquake investigations of damaging earthquakes throughout the world during the past 15 years. The unique laboratory provided by a damaging earthquake in culturally different but tectonically similar regions of the world has increased fundamental understanding of earthquake processes, added perishable scientific, technical, and socioeconomic data to the knowledge base, and led to changes in public policies and professional practices for earthquake loss reduction.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey research and assessments supporting carbon dioxide removal

Both carbon capture and storage (CCS) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) are methods to limit future global temperature rise and ocean acidification. CCS sequesters (stores) carbon dioxide (CO2) captured from industrial sources thereby preventing the CO2 from reaching the atmosphere. The captured CO2 is injected into underground geologic reservoirs or is converted into stable industrial products. CDR enhances natural processes or uses technical approaches to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is sequestered in natural sinks such as vegetation and soil, or injected into underground reservoirs or converted into durable products. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts research and resource assessments that support biologic and geologic CDR approaches. This report will review some of the ongoing USGS CDR research and assessment efforts.

Conference Paper↗

USGS1995

Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework

This proposal of a data framework to organize and enhance the activities of the geospatial data community to meet needs for basic themes of data was developed in response to a request in Executive Order 12906, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (U.S. Executive Office of the President, 1994). The request stated: in consultation with State, local, and tribal governments and within 9 months of the date of this order, the FGDC shall submit a plan and schedule to OMB [U.S. Office of Management and Budget] for completing the initial implementation of a national digital geospatial data framework ("framework") by January 2000 and for establishing a process of ongoing data maintenance. The framework shall include geospatial data that are significant, in the determination of the FGDC, to a broad variety of users within any geographic area or nationwide. At a minimum, the plan shall address how the initial transportation, hydrology, and boundary elements of the framework might be completed by January 1998 in order to support the decennial census of 2000. The proposal was developed by representatives of local, regional, State, and Federal agencies under the auspices of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The individuals are listed in the appendix of this report. This Framework Working Group identified the purpose and goals for the framework; identified incentives for participation; defined the information content; developed preliminary technical, operational, and business contexts; specified the institutional roles needed; and developed a strategy for a phased implementation of the framework.Members of the working group presented the concepts of the framework for discussion at several national and regional public meetings. The draft of the report also was provided for public, written review. These discussions and reviews were the source of many improvements to the report.The FGDC approved the report for submission to the Office of Management and Budget on March 31, 1995.

Report↗

USGS2012

National climate assessment technical report on the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change

This technical report responds to the recognition by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the National Climate Assessment (NCA) of the importance of understanding how land use and land cover (LULC) affects weather and climate variability and change and how that variability and change affects LULC. Current published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and supporting data from both existing and original sources forms the basis for this report's assessment of the current state of knowledge regarding land change and climate interactions. The synthesis presented herein documents how current and future land change may alter environment processes and in turn, how those conditions may affect both land cover and land use by specifically investigating, * The primary contemporary trends in land use and land cover, * The land-use and land-cover sectors and regions which are most affected by weather and climate variability,* How land-use practices are adapting to climate change, * How land-use and land-cover patterns and conditions are affecting weather and climate, and * The key elements of an ongoing Land Resources assessment. These findings present information that can be used to better assess land change and climate interactions in order to better assess land management and adaptation strategies for future environmental change and to assist in the development of a framework for an ongoing national assessment.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Landsat continuity: Issues and opportunities for land cover monitoring

Initiated in 1972, the Landsat program has provided a continuous record of earth observation for 35 years. The assemblage of Landsat spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions, over a reasonably sized image extent, results in imagery that can be processed to represent land cover over large areas with an amount of spatial detail that is absolutely unique and indispensable for monitoring, management, and scientific activities. Recent technical problems with the two existing Landsat satellites, and delays in the development and launch of a successor, increase the likelihood that a gap in Landsat continuity may occur. In this communication, we identify the key features of the Landsat program that have resulted in the extensive use of Landsat data for large area land cover mapping and monitoring. We then augment this list of key features by examining the data needs of existing large area land cover monitoring programs. Subsequently, we use this list as a basis for reviewing the current constellation of earth observation satellites to identify potential alternative data sources for large area land cover applications. Notions of a virtual constellation of satellites to meet large area land cover mapping and monitoring needs are also presented. Finally, research priorities that would facilitate the integration of these alternative data sources into existing large area land cover monitoring programs are identified. Continuity of the Landsat program and the measurements provided are critical for scientific, environmental, economic, and social purposes. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Landsat; there are no other systems in orbit, or planned for launch in the short-term, that can duplicate or approach replication, of the measurements and information conferred by Landsat. While technical and political options are being pursued, there is no satellite image data stream poised to enter the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive should system failures occur to Landsat-5 and -7.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

USGS2013

Research strategies for addressing uncertainties

There is an immense volume of information pertaining to research needs for addressing climate change uncertainties and resolving key information gaps. Fortunately, multiple independent efforts to establish research priorities have yielded similar results. Input on research needs is being used to craft national scientific priorities and strategies that are being implemented regionally by agencies and organizations. A number of regionally based efforts are already underway to aggregate and synthesize climate-related management needs and research priorities. Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and Climate Science Centers, funded by the Department of the Interior, are conducting strategic syntheses of common resource-management priorities and related science needs across the Southwest, and many of these priorities and needs are related to climate variability and change. The present Assessment includes many examples of the types of research that are needed to address key climate science uncertainties. The Assessment also includes examples of information needs related to understanding climate effects on systems (human, biophysical, ecosystems, and others) in the Southwest. Implementation of research strategies will increase understanding and improve the ability of the scientific community to anticipate the direction or magnitude of future climate-related change in these systems. The assembly of experts for the other chapters of this document provided a unique opportunity to draw upon the authors’ collective expertise to share knowledge about priority research strategies. The peer-reviewed information sources assessed in this chapter highlight research strategies and priorities established by the research community. Other sources cover priorities that are based primarily on management and policy needs. In the latter type, the sources represent the consensus of senior leaders of organizations, generally with substantial input and advice from the organizations’ technical and scientific experts.

Book chapter↗

USGS2021

Habitat suitability index model improvements

Habitat suitability index (HSI) models were developed for the 2023 Coastal Master Plan to evaluate the potential effects of coastal restoration and protection projects on habitat for key coastal fish, shellfish, and wildlife species. These species included: eastern oyster, brown shrimp, white shrimp, blue crab, crayfish, gulf menhaden, spotted seatrout, largemouth bass, American alligator, gadwall, mottled duck, brown pelican, seaside sparrow, and bald eagle. Most of these species were included in the 2017 Coastal Master Plan analyses, and the HSI models from that effort were refined and improved following the recommendations described in the technical memorandum: 2023 Coastal Master Plan Habitat Suitability Index Model Improvement Recommendations (Sable et al., 2019). In addition to model improvements, HSI models were created for seaside sparrow and bald eagle, both of which are new species for the master plan analyses. For the HSI models that are primarily literature-based, literature reviews were conducted for recent studies that could be used to improve the suitability index (SI) relationships that compose the models. As a result of this review, modifications were made to the salinity-related SIs of the oyster model including: expanding the time period used for salinity effects to spawning; adjusting the range of suitable annual average salinity to be more representative of Louisiana populations; and making oyster’s minimum salinity tolerance temperature dependent. In addition, a new SI was incorporated in the oyster HSI model that accounts for the effects of sediment deposition on oysters. The crayfish HSI model was improved by adjusting the time periods used for the SIs that describe the hydrology required for the crayfish life cycle, and the soil characteristics SI that was part of the 2017 crayfish model was removed because soil conditions do not appear to be limiting for crayfish burrow construction in coastal Louisiana. The other literature-based HSI models from the 2017 Coastal Master Plan, i.e., American alligator, gadwall, mottled duck, and brown pelican, were unchanged, with the exception of a small adjustment made to the suitability of forested wetlands for gadwall. Lastly, a literature-based HSI model was created for seaside sparrow that consists of SIs related to vegetated habitat type, marsh vegetation coverage, and marsh elevation. Statistical-based HSI models were developed for brown shrimp (both small and large juvenile stages), white shrimp (small and large juvenile stages), blue crab (juvenile stage), gulf menhaden (juvenile and adult stages), spotted seatrout (juvenile and adult stages), largemouth bass, and bald eagle. The bald eagle HSI model was developed from a bald eagle nest probability of occurrence model that related nest occurrence from survey data with land cover type. The resulting model showed that combinations of forested wetlands, flotant marsh, and open water habitats were most suitable for nesting bald eagles. The 2023 fish, shrimp, and blue crab HSI models were developed using new approaches for the formulation of the water quality and structural habitat SIs that compose the models. For the 2017 models, the water quality SI was derived using only generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) to estimate the relationship between salinity, water temperature, and species’ catch. For the 2023 models, however, multiple GLMMs and generalized additive models (GAMMs) were created for each species or life stage. These alternative models were compared and a single model that performed well statistically and was ecologically reasonable was selected for the species’ water quality SI. The structural habitat SI was developed using a meta-analysis of published literature to estimate the relative importance of various estuarine habitats to the fish and shellfish species. The results of this analysis were then used to modify the 2017 structural habitat SI relationship to account for the added habitat value of submerged aquatic vegetation and oyster reefs, which are also important habitats for juvenile fish and shellfish. Similar to the 2017 fish, shrimp, and blue crab models, the water quality and structural habitat SIs were then combined to create the 2023 HSI models. The 2023 Coastal Master Plan HSI models were integrated with the Integrated Compartment Model (and are referred to as ICM-HSIs) and tested using environmental output from the 2017 Coastal Master Plan Future Without Action scenario. The tests showed that, in general, the models produced reasonable representations of species’ habitat distribution. Furthermore, the improvements made to the oyster, crayfish, fish, shrimp, and blue crab HSI models generally yielded more realistic results compared to the 2017 HSI models.

Report↗

USGS1995

Pinyon-juniper woodlands

Pinyon-juniper woodlands are one of the largest ecosystems in the Southwest and in the Middle Rio Grande Basin (Fig. 1). The woodlands have been important to the region's inhabitants since prehistoric times for a variety of natural resources and amenities. The ecosystems have not been static; their distributions, stand characteristics, and site conditions have been altered by changes in climatic patterns and human use and, often, abuse. Management of these lands since European settlement has varied from light exploitation and benign neglect, to attempts to remove the trees in favor of forage for livestock, and then to a realization that these lands contain useful resources and should be managed accordingly. Land management agencies are committed to ecosystem management. While there are several definitions of ecosystem management, the goal is to use ecological approaches to create and maintain diverse, productive, and healthy ecosystems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). Ecosystem management recognizes that people are an integral part of the system and that their needs must be considered. Ecological approaches are central to the concept, but our understanding of basic woodland ecology is incomplete, and there are different opinions and interpretations of existing information (Gottfried and Severson 1993). There are many questions concerning proper ecosystem management of the pinyon-juniper woodlands and how managers can achieve these goals (Gottfried and Severson 1993). While the broad concept of ecosystem management generally is accepted, the USDA Forest Service, other public land management agencies, American Indian tribes, and private landowners may have differing definitions of what constitutes desired conditions. Key questions about the pinyon-juniper ecosystems remain unanswered. Some concern the basic dynamics of biological and physical components of the pinyon-juniper ecosystems. Others concern the distribution of woodlands prior to European settlement and changes since the introduction of livestock and fire control. This relates to whether tree densities have been increasing or whether trees are invading grasslands and, to a lesser extent, drier ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. In areas where woodlands were heavily used by American Indians for fuelwood prior to European contact, the advance of pinyon and juniper could represent the slow recovery from intensive use (Samuels and Betancourt 1982). There are numerous questions regarding declines in watershed condition related to changes in pinyon-juniper tree stand densities and to the density and composition of understory vegetation. There are different opinions about proper management of woodland ecosystems. Should these lands be managed for a single resource, such as forage for livestock production, or managed for sustained production of multiple resource products and amenities? Depending on site and stand conditions, the woodlands can produce variable quantities of fuelwood, pinyon nuts, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock, and cover for watershed protection. Management must also consider increasing recreational demands, threatened and endangered species, and protection of archeological sites. Many pinyon-juniper woodland watersheds in New Mexico have unsatisfactory soil and watershed conditions (USDA Forest Service 1993); managers must develop restoration procedures that recognize the value of woodland ecosystems. The concerns, questions, and conflicts surrounding management of pinyon-juniper lands, as well as the ecological foundations of ecosystem management, require that all interested parties reevaluate attitudes toward the woodlands. Ecosystem management goals and concepts recognize diversity. Pinyonjuniper woodlands are diverse, and stand characteristics and site productivities vary. Management objectives and prescriptions must evaluate the potential of each site, and decisions must be based on sound scientific information. This information is often unavailable. Therefore, this paper describes what we do know about the characteristics, distribution, and ecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands, including the effects of natural and human factors, within the southwestern United States and particularly the Middle Rio Grande Basin. It also reviews some past and present management options in this widespread and important vegetation type. The review draws on research and management information from the Rio Grande Basin and from similar areas in the Southwest and adjacent regions. It does not attempt to review all of the relevant literature; additional sources can be found within the articles cited in the References.

General Technical Report↗

USGS2012

Monograph for using paleoflood data in Water Resources Applications

The Environmental and Water Resources Institute (EWRI) Technical Committee on Surface Water Hydrology is sponsoring a Task Committee on Paleoflood Hydrology to prepare a monograph entitled, "Use of Paleoflood and Historical Data in Water Resources Applications." This paper introduces the subject of paleoflood hydrology and discusses the topics, which are expected to be included in the monograph. The procedure for preparing and reviewing the monograph will also be discussed. The paleoflood hydrology monograph will include a discussion of types of hydrologic and paleoflood data, paleostage indicators, flood chronology, modeling methods, interpretation issues, water resources applications and case studies, and research needs. Paleoflood data collection and analysis techniques will be presented, and various applications in water-resources investigations will be provided. An overview of several flood frequency analysis approaches, which consider historical and paleoflood data along with systematic streamflow records, will be presented. The monograph is scheduled for completion and publication in 2001. Copyright ASCE 2004.

Conference Paper↗