Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Research Memorandum”

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.

35 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2007

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

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

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Deep-sea coral research and technology program: Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative final report

Deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems are widespread throughout most of Alaska’s marine waters. In some places, such as the central and western Aleutian Islands, deep-sea coral and sponge resources can be extremely diverse and may rank among the most abundant deep-sea coral and sponge communities in the world. Many different species of fishes and invertebrates are associated with deep-sea coral and sponge communities in Alaska. Because of their biology, these benthic invertebrates are potentially impacted by climate change and ocean acidification. Deepsea coral and sponge ecosystems are also vulnerable to the effects of commercial fishing activities. Because of the size and scope of Alaska’s continental shelf and slope, the vast majority of the area has not been visually surveyed for deep-sea corals and sponges. NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program (DSCRTP) sponsored a field research program in the Alaska region between 2012–2015, referred to hereafter as the Alaska Initiative. The priorities for Alaska were derived from ongoing data needs and objectives identified by the DSCRTP, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and Essential Fish Habitat-Environmental Impact Statement (EFH-EIS) process. This report presents the results of 15 projects conducted using DSCRTP funds from 2012-2015. Three of the projects conducted as part of the Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative included dedicated at-sea cruises and fieldwork spread across multiple years. These projects were the eastern Gulf of Alaska Primnoa pacifica study, the Aleutian Islands mapping study, and the Gulf of Alaska fish productivity study. In all, there were nine separate research cruises carried out with a total of 109 at-sea days conducting research. The remaining projects either used data and samples collected by the three major fieldwork projects or were piggy-backed onto existing research programs at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS1951

Summary of the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the period April 1, 1948-December 31, 1950

This report summarizes the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, from the organization of the Section in April 1948 to December 31, 1950. The research undertaken thus far consists of laboratory and related field studies in the following fields: 1. Mineralogic and petrologic investigations of radioactive rocks, minerals, and ores. 2. Investigations of chemical methods of analysis for uranium, thorium, and other elements and compounds in radioactive materials, and related chemical problems. 3. Investigations of spectrographic methods of analysis for a wide variety of elements in radioactive materials. 4. Investigations of radiometric methods of analysis as applied to radioactive materials. It should be emphasized that the work undertaken thus far, described under the headings "Future work", is almost entirely in the nature of investigations supporting the field appraisal of known important uraniferous deposits. A comprehensive program of more fundamental research was submitted in April 1949 in a report entitled "Proposed program of desirable research in the geochemistry of uranium," but funds for this work have not been authorized. It is hoped, however, that funds to support basic research of the type indicated in that report may be available in the future. This report does not cover the analytical work of the Section nor the public-sample program. The analytical work has been summarized for the fiscal year 1950 in the report, "Numerical summary of the analytical work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the fiscal year 1950," by John C. Rabbit, U.S. Geol. Survey Trace Elements Memorandum Rept. 174, October 1950. A report on the public-sample program is in preparation. Much of the material in this report has been paraphrased from reports prepared by members of the Section. My special thanks are due them; to Earl Ingerson, chief of the Geochemistry and Petrology Branch of the Survey, for his critical review; to my secretary, Marie Woolihan, for her aid in collecting material; and to Virginia Layne of the editorial staff of the Section for typing the manuscript and the multilith mats.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2020

Final project memorandum: Identifying conservation objectives for the Gulf Coast habitats of the black skimmer and gull-billed tern

Many shorebirds and nearshore waterbirds are of conservation concern across the Gulf of Mexico due to stressors such as human disturbance, predation, and habitat loss and degradation. Conservation and protection of these birds is important for the functioning of healthy ecosystems and for maintaining biodiversity in North America. Consequently, resource managers along the Gulf need decision-aiding tools that can help to answer important conservation questions for different species (e.g., how much area should be targeted by management actions to meet a species’ needs). To address this need, project researchers developed statistical models that could help identify habitat conservation objectives and actions for bird species taking into account different Gulf coast conservation scenarios that might occur in response to sea-level rise. The project focused specifically on the Black Skimmer ( Rynchops niger ) and Gull-billed Tern ( Gelochelidon nilotica ), two species designated as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Conservation Concern and Gulf Coast Joint Venture Priority Species. These two birds are also representative of a variety of other beach and barrier-island nesting birds whose nesting habitats are threatened by sea-level rise (e.g., Least Tern, Snowy and Wilson’s Plover). The statistical models linked each bird’s abundance to habitat characteristics that could be influenced by different management actions. This information could be used to identify conservation objectives under different conservation scenarios.

Gulf of Mexico↗
USGS1954

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953

This report combines and brings up-to-date the information previously given in Trace Elements Investigations Report 325, "Numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Reports to April 30, 1953," and Trace Elements Investigations Report 301, "Topical index and bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. It supersedes TEI-325. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1953. Reports that have been published are indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public; this part supersedes Part 2 of the TEI-301 (published as Geological survey Circular 281). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II, although certain TEI and TEM reports, the abstracts of which have been published in NSA, are so indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1953, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of a general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest. Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, areas may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is a finding list of authors. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Jones and Brown indicates that Jones is the senior author. A listing of Jones with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following standard abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; P, Professional Paper; B, Bulletin; C, Circular; J, Journal; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts; QM, Quadrangle Map Series; and OM, Oil and Gas map or Mineral Investigations map or report.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS1955

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1954

This report supersedes TEI-400, "U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S> Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1954. If a report, or portion of a report, has been published, the fact is indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also Part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public (this part supersedes Part I of Bulletin 1019-B). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. If a report, or portion of the report, has been published in more than one form, appropriate cross-references are given to indicate the other forms of publication. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II; however, if the abstract of a Trace Elements report has been published in NSA, the fact is indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1954, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects and supersedes Part II of Bulletin 1019-B. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest, Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, area may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also, where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is an author index. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Smith and Brown indicated that Smith is the senior author. A listing of Smith with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; C, Circular; B, Bulletin; P, Professional Paper; MC, Maps and Charts; J, Journal; and NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2015

Final project memorandum: sea-level rise modeling handbook: resource guide for resource managers, engineers, and scientists

Coastal wetlands of the Southeastern United States are undergoing retreat and migration from increasing tidal inundation and saltwater intrusion attributed to climate variability and sea-level rise. Much of the literature describing potential sea-level rise projections and modeling predictions are found in peer-reviewed academic journals or government technical reports largely suited to reading by other Ph.D. scientists who are more familiar or engaged in the climate change debate. Various sea-level rise and coastal wetland models have been developed and applied of different designs and scales of spatial and temporal complexity for predicting habitat and environmental change that have not heretofore been synthesized to aid natural resource managers of their utility and limitations. Training sessions were conducted with Federal land managers with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserves as well as state partners and nongovernmental organizations across the northern Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas to educate and to evaluate user needs and understanding of concepts, data, and modeling tools for projecting sea-level rise and its impact on coastal habitats and wildlife. As a result, this handbook was constructed from these training and feedback sessions with coastal managers and biologists of published decision-support tools and simulation models for sea-level rise and climate change assessments. A simplified tabular context was developed listing the various kinds of decision-support tools and ecological models along with criteria to distinguish the source, scale, and quality of information input and geographic data sets, physical and biological constraints and relationships, datum characteristics of water and land elevation components, utility options for setting sea-level rise and climate change scenarios, and ease or difficulty of storing, displaying, or interpreting model output. The handbook is designed to be a primer to understanding sea-level rise and a practical synthesis of the current state of knowledge and modeling tools as a resource guide for DOl land management needs and facilitating Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) research and conservation initiatives.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2005

Coral disease and health workshop: Coral histopathology II, July 12-14, 2005

The health and continued existence of coral reef ecosystems are threatened by an increasing array of environmental and anthropogenic impacts. Coral disease is one of the prominent causes of increased mortality among reefs globally, particularly in the Caribbean. Although over 40 different coral diseases and syndromes have been reported worldwide, only a few etiological agents have been confirmed; most pathogens remain unknown and the dynamics of disease transmission, pathogenicity and mortality are not understood. Causal relationships have been documented for only a few of the coral diseases, while new syndromes continue to emerge. Extensive field observations by coral biologists have provided substantial documentation of a plethora of new pathologies, but our understanding, however, has been limited to descriptions of gross lesions with names reflecting these observations (e.g., black band, white band, dark spot). To determine etiology, we must equip coral diseases scientists with basic biomedical knowledge and specialized training in areas such as histology, cell biology and pathology. Only through combining descriptive science with mechanistic science and employing the synthesis epizootiology provides will we be able to gain insight into causation and become equipped to handle the pending crisis. One of the critical challenges faced by coral disease researchers is to establish a framework to systematically study coral pathologies drawing from the field of diagnostic medicine and pathology and using generally accepted nomenclature. This process began in April 2004, with a workshop titled Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Developing Diagnostic Criteria co-convened by the Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC), a working group organized under the auspices of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, and the International Registry for Coral Pathology (IRCP). The workshop was hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, Wisconsin and was focused on gross morphology and disease signs observed in the field. A resounding recommendation from the histopathologists participating in the workshop was the urgent need to develop diagnostic criteria that are suitable to move from gross observations to morphological diagnoses based on evaluation of microscopic anatomy. As a continuation of building the foundation and framework for coral disease diagnostics, the CDHC convened the Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Coral Histopathology II in Charleston, South Carolina, July 11-14, 2005. The workshop was hosted by the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC which provided expertise, facilities and equipment in support of the workshop. All of the histological slides and related photographs used in the discussions were prepared and supplied by the IRCP. This workshop brought together 15 experts in veterinary and medical pathology and coral biology from national and international research institutes and government laboratories. The mission was to devise a standardized approach to examining microscopic anatomy and pathology of corals and a standardized nomenclature to facilitate accurate descriptions of the microscopic morphology of corals and enhance communication among specialists investigating causes of coral death. 2 The participants of this workshop deliberated for 3 days to refine the nomenclature for gross and microscopic anatomy of corals and systematically described microscopic changes associated with selected coral diseases. The findings and recommendations from the deliberations will be submitted to the research community for peer review. The standardized nomenclature and descriptions produced at this workshop will ultimately be made available to the scientific community through a variety of media including the World Wide Web. An exciting highlight of this meeting was provided by Professor Robert Ogilvie (MUSC Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy) when he introduced participants to a new digital technology that is revolutionizing histology and histopathology in the medical field. The Virtual Slide technology creates digital images of histological tissue sections by computer scanning actual slides in high definition and storing the images for retrieval and viewing. Virtual slides now allow any investigator with access to a computer and the web to view, search, annotate and comment on the same tissue sections in real time. Medical and veterinary slide libraries across the country are being converted into virtual slides to enhance biomedical education, research and diagnosis. The coral health and disease researchers at this workshop deem virtual slides as a significant way to increase capabilities in coral histology and a means for pathology consultations on coral disease cases on a global scale.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2022

Lake Tahoe clarity and associated conditions, 2022

Lake Tahoe’s clarity remains a key indicator of overall ecosystem status, and scientific understanding about factors affecting lake clarity continues to evolve. The purpose of this briefing memorandum is to summarize the status of clarity metrics and drivers of change discussed in the 2022 TSAC Data Synthesis and Analysis report. Consistent with the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load analyses, the concentrations of fine particles remain important to lake clarity. These include fine sediment particles from the watershed as well as small phytoplankton cells produced within the lake. This year, in addition to the analysis of Secchi depth clarity response to fine particle and small phytoplankton concentrations, we reviewed available data on fine sediment particles from streams and urban runoff. Information summarized here is discussed further in the Tahoe Science Advisory Council (TSAC) Data Synthesis and Analysis reports (2022, 2021), the TSAC Lake Tahoe Seasonal and Long-Term Clarity Trend Analysis report (2020), and in annual State of the Lake reports produced by UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

California, Nevada↗
USGS2016

Proceedings of the 2015 international summit on fibropapillomatosis: Global status, trends, and population impacts

The 2015 International Summit on Fibropapillomatosis (FP) was convened in Honolulu, Hawaii June 11-14, 2015. Scientists from around the world were invited to present results from sea turtle monitoring and research programs as they relate to the global status, trends, and population impacts of FP on green turtles. The participants engaged in discussions that resulted in the following conclusions: 1.Globally, FP has long been present in wild sea turtle populations the earliest mention was in the late 1800s in the Florida Keys. 2.FP primarily affects medium-sized immature turtles in coastal foraging pastures. 3.Expression of FP differs across ocean basins and to some degree within basins. Turtles in the Southeast US, Caribbean, Brazil, and Australia rarely have oral tumors (inside the mouth cavity), whereas they are common and often severe in Hawaii. Internal tumors (on vital organs) occur in the Atlantic and Hawaii, but only rarely in Australia. Liver tumors are common in Florida but not in Hawaii. 4.Recovery from FP through natural processes, when the affliction is not severe, has been documented in wild populations globally. 5.FP causes reduced survivorship, but documented mortality rates in Australia and Hawaii are low. The mortality impact of FP is not currently exceeding population growth rates in some intensively monitored populations (e.g., Florida, Hawaii) as evidenced by increasing nesting trends despite the incidence of FP in immature foraging populations. 6.Pathogens, hosts, and potential disease and environmental cofactors have the capacity to change; while we are having success now, there needs to be continued monitoring to detect changes in the distribution, occurrence, and severity of the disease. 7.While we do not have clear evidence to provide the direct link, globally, the preponderance of sites with a high frequency of FP tumors are areas with some degree of degradation resulting from altered watersheds. Watershed management and responsible coastal development may be the best approach for reducing the spread and prevalence of the disease. 8.Future research efforts should employ a multi-factorial ecological approach (e.g., virology, parasitology, genetics, health, diet, habitat use, water quality, etc.) since there are likely several environmental cofactors involved in the expression of the disease, which is still thought to be caused by a herpesvirus. 9.Minimum FP data collection in new areas should include: individual identification (photo ID, PIT tags, etc.), standard measurements (length and weight), presence/absence of tumors, tumor severity, body condition, oral examination, method of capture, and effort

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2019

Climate change adaptation for coastal national wildlife refuges

National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) along the East Coast of the United States protect habitat for a host of wildlife species, while also offering storm surge protection, improving water quality, supporting nurseries for commercially important fish and shellfish, and providing recreation opportunities for coastal communities. Yet in the last century, coastal ecosystems in the eastern U.S. have been severely altered by human development activities as well as sea-level rise and more frequent extreme events related to climate change. These influences threaten the ability of NWRs to protect our nation’s natural resources and to sustain their many beneficial services. Through this project, researchers are collaborating with managers of the North Carolina Coastal Refuges Complex, Cape Romain NWR, South Carolina, and other local interested partners to assist with their long-term planning under uncertain conditions regarding sea-level rise and other global change processes. Researchers are using a variety of state-of-the-art approaches, including formal decision science for systematically analyzing management alternatives and scenario planning methods for engaging with stakeholders to explore possible futures. These approaches are aimed at helping NWR staff develop management objectives, identify and weigh potential management actions for adaptation, and generate decision-support tools and models. Outcomes and products from these efforts will aid managers as they plan for and adapt to the complex challenges facing the NWR system as changing climate and other conditions make their work increasingly more difficult.

Final Project Memorandum↗
USGS2017

Developing multi-model ensemble projections of ecologically relevant climate variables for Puerto Rico and the US Caribbean

The global increases in surface air temperature are the most widespread and direct consequence of anthropogenic climate change. However, while 21st century temperatures are projected to increase in the Caribbean, the low variability and high average temperatures suggest that impacts on ecosystems and water resources are more likely through changes to the availability, timing, and pattern of moisture. The lack of local-scale climate model information that can resolve the complex topography and small scale climate features hinders the development of robust adaptation strategies. The goal of this project was to develop a suite of local-scale climate projections using dynamic downscaling to aid the development of adaptation strategies in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI). This project began by engaging the ecologists, hydrologists, and conservation biologists in the region to determine the most valuable types of information to aid research and decision making. The final product provides projections of future climate at a 2km horizontal resolution based on three global climate models and two regional climate models for a scenario with high greenhouse gas emissions. Results from the projections suggest that for Puerto Rico, annual temperature would increase between 1°C and 1.3°C by mid-century with larger temperature increases located in the interior portion of the island. Precipitation totals decrease for much of the island with island average decline between 12% and 19%, with some potentially large localized decreases exceeding 30%. The projected changes for the USVI are dominated by the surrounding ocean environment. The resulting projections will be provided to stakeholders in the region via the USGS and the CLCC.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS2021

A characterization of deep-sea coral and sponge communities along the California and Oregon coast using a remotely operated vehicle on the EXPRESS 2018 expedition

Deep-sea coral and sponge (DSCS) communities serve as essential fish habitats (EFH) by providing shelter and nursery habitat, increasing diversity, and increasing prey availability (Freese and Wing, 2003; Bright, 2007; Baillon et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2020). Threats to these long-lived, fragile organisms from bottom contact fishing gear, potential offshore renewable energy development, and ocean warming and acidification have increased the need for DSCS research along the U.S. West Coast (Gomez et al., 2018; Salgado et al., 2018; Yoklavich, et al., 2018; Gugliotti et al., 2019). The focus of these studies has varied from species distribution and abundance (Yoklavich and Love, 2005; Tissot et al., 2006) to developing and validating predictive distribution models (Huff et al., 2013; Rooper et al., 2017; Kreidler, 2020) to finding medicinal uses for corals and sponges (Essack et al., 2011; Shrestha et al., 2018). Due to the vast area of unexplored seafloor within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ; 200 nautical miles off the coast) and the technological requirements and expanse of deep-sea research, there is still much to learn about the distributions and biology of DSCS. This information is critical to resource managers for effective conservation and management of DSCS habitats. Protections are provided by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) designation of groundfish EFH conservation areas (EFHCA) and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). Areas designated as EFHCA are closed to bottom trawl fishing to protect and preserve seafloor habitats. Recently the PFMC adopted Amendment 28 to the Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (GFMP; Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2019) which modified EFHCAs by closing new areas identified as vulnerable and reopening areas deemed not vulnerable. The NMSA prohibits bottom disturbance from certain activities within areas designated as national marine sanctuaries, such as oil and gas exploration or extraction, cable laying, and other forms of seabed alteration or construction that disturb benthic communities. NOAA’s Deep-Sea Coral and Research Technology Program (DSCRTP) began a 4-yr funding initiative for the U.S. West Coast in 2017. The goals of the West Coast Deep-Sea Coral Initiative (WCDSCI) were to: 1) gather baseline information on areas subject to fishing regulation changes prior to the implementation of Amendment 28; 2) improve our understanding of known DSCS bycatch “hot spots”; and 3) explore and assess DSCS resources within NOAA National Marine Sanctuaries with emphasis on areas of sanctuary resource protection and management concerns. During the first year of the program, a research cruise was developed to survey the West Coast from Oregon to California studying the DSCS ecosystems in priority areas. The 31-day expedition (9 Oct – 8 Nov, 2018) was launched from the NOAA Ship Bell M. Shimada, beginning in Newport, OR and ending in San Diego, CA. The science team assembled for this cruise were members of the EXpanding Pacific Research and Exploration of Submerged Systems (EXPRESS) campaign, which brings together researchers from federal and nonfederal institutions to collaborate on scientific expeditions targeting the deepwater areas off California, Oregon, and Washington. EXPRESS supports researchers leveraging funding, resources, personnel, and expertise to accomplish more science than would have been possible by a single entity alone. The 2018 coastwide expedition included research partners from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) and Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC), National Ocean Service (Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Research objectives for the cruise were to: 1) Collect DSCS baseline information at 10 of the EFHCA sites undergoing protection modifications by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2) Collect DSCS and fish data at previously unexplored sites within West Coast National Marine Sanctuaries. 3) Revisit a subset of previously surveyed sites to document if changes in DCSC have occurred over time. 4) Collect information to validate BOEM supported cross-shelf habitat suitability models for DSCS. 5) Collect samples to help in identifying (and understanding) West Coast DSCS and expand use of new technologies (ROV, AUV, and environmental DNA [eDNA]). 6) Collect water samples for coastwide eDNA, nutrient, and carbon chemistry studies.

California, Oregon↗
USGS2008

An exploration of Bureau of Reclamation approaches for managing conflict over diverging science

As a major institutional agent supplying Western water resources, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides important leadership, technical, and financial resources in water management, serving as the West's "water broker" (Bowersox 2000; Pisani 2003). In recent years, growing numbers of constituencies using water and the over-allocation of water resources have contributed to conflict over the resource in the American West (National Research Council 2004). Although the conflicts arise from many sources, one common theme is that Reclamation managers often must make decisions about water use and allocation when scientific studies provide uncertain or competing recommendations. We conducted a preliminary study of Reclamation water managers and water scientists to try to understand the approaches or techniques they use or consider useful for dealing with scientific conflicts over water allocation and how these compare to techniques found in the relevant literature. We report the results of (1) an electronic survey of Reclamation senior managers and (2) a panel discussion amongst Reclamation senior managers as to the current institutional capabilities for managing diverging scientific findings in water dispute resolution processes. We conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the different tools and techniques managers reported in the survey and in the panel discussion.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2019

Report of the technical expert workshop: Developing recommendations for field response, captive management, and rehabilitation of sea turtles with fibropapillomatosis

Fibropapillomatosis (FP) is a disease of sea turtles that primarily manifests as tumors of the skin. Strandings of green turtles with this disease have dramatically increased in the Southeast U.S. over the last decade, necessitating a review of various practices related to the capture, handling, and treatment of afflicted turtles. NOAA and USFWS hosted a workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida on September 6, 2017 to seek input on the development of recommendations to address the following key issues regarding green turtles with FP: 1) disposition when encountered under various circumstances (e.g., strandings, research activities, incidental capture, opportunistic observations); 2) rehabilitation and release; 3) response options if rehabilitation capacity is exceeded; and 4) biosecurity measures to prevent anthropogenic spread of the disease. Federal and state resource agency staff and rehabilitation veterinarians were invited to this workshop to provide input for these recommendations. A review of rehabilitation practices and outcome was shared with participants to inform discussions related to rehabilitation and stranding response. Draft recommendations were prepared for the meeting and participants were asked to share their opinions during moderated discussions and via a written feedback instrument. This input was considered and applied to amend the recommendations, which were also peer-reviewed by six additional veterinarians and a stranding biologist with expertise in sea turtles,rehabilitation medicine, and fibropapillomatosis. The intended use for the completed Fibropapillomatosis and Sea Turtles: Recommendations for Field Response, Captive Management, and Rehabilitation is to assist resource agencies with management planning and decisions related to green turtles with FP and to inform relevant aspects of policy, permits, and authorizations under federal and state regulations.

Florida↗
USGS2020

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) scenario planning summary report

Scenario planning provides a structured framework that can be used in strategic planning to help manage risk and prioritize actions (Schwartz 1996; Peterson et al. 2003). By providing a mechanism to communicate about complex situations, scenario planning encourages “out-of-the-box” thinking to help groups assess the impacts of plausible future scenarios on a target or resource. The outcomes from scenario planning can be used to improve management decisions, highlight data gaps, and/or identify future science priorities (Star et al. 2015; Borggaard et al. 2019). The application of scenario planning by resource management organizations (e.g., Borggaard et al. 2019; Runyon et al. 2020; Star et al. 2015) and the urgency surrounding the recovery of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), led to a 2018 NOAA Fisheries scenario planning initiative for the species. In addition to complementing the many management and conservation efforts already underway, this initiative was designed to address the uncertainties around future anthropogenic and environmental changes and how these uncertainties may impact species recovery. We used a scenario planning framework to explore plausible future conditions for North Atlantic right whales and to develop possible options to address those conditions and improve recovery. Specific objectives were to: 1) better understand the challenges of right whale management in a changing climate; 2) identify potential research activities and recovery needs across the species’ range; 3) increase coordination and collaboration related to recovery efforts; and 4) explore how scenario planning can be used to support decisions. Using projected changes in ocean conditions coupled with anthropogenic stressors, we built four plausible future scenarios for right whales. These scenarios helped identify priority research and management actions that NOAA Fisheries and our partners can undertake to improve right whale recovery. We identified priority actions related to science, management, and partnerships including, but not limited to, 1) research on shifting spatial and temporal distributions of right whales and prey in a changing climate; 2) development of technology to further reduce impacts from human activities; 3) continuation of ongoing management efforts related to vessel traffic and fishing; and 4) continued maintenance of existing and development of new partnerships (e.g., industry engagement in problem solving). This scenario planning exercise helped prioritize North Atlantic right whale management and science needs in light of changing ocean conditions and anthropogenic impacts. It can also serve as a reference for how NOAA Fisheries and its partners can better prepare for multiple plausible futures while complementing other on-going initiatives. Priorities identified here can be considered in conjunction with implementation and monitoring actions such as with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) and/or regional Right Whale U.S. Implementation Teams. The framework can also be repeated and improved upon as additional information becomes available to support future exercises.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes spatial priorities study

Spatial data about the bathymetry, habitat characteristics, underlying geology, and other features of the ocean and inland seas are essential for decision-making. Marine research and management organizations use these data to help ensure safe navigation, promote sustainable fisheries, extract energy, and protect marine habitats in the coastal and ocean waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Laurentian Great Lakes. Many of these organizations may have overlapping or shared mapping interests without knowing it. In a multi-jurisdictional planning environment, it can be challenging and cumbersome to determine where other entities have shared or overlapping mapping interests, especially across a transnational region such as the Great Lakes. State and provincial governments, federal governments, academia, tribes and First Nations, and other stakeholders from both the U.S. and Canada all have mapping interests across Great Lakes waters. Identifying and communicating target geographies for new data collection that are shared among multiple organizations can both help to avoid redundancy of new mapping efforts, and create opportunities for greater efficiency through collaboration. To address this issue, a spatial priorities study was conducted using a geospatial tool developed by the National Ocean Services National Centers for Coastal and Ocean Science (NCCOS). The tool provided an easy-to-use online interface in which programs can identify their priorities in a simple and straightforward way. This study asked representatives of Great Lakes management and science organizations to identify the areas for which they needed maps of lakebed features on a near-term, mid-term, and long-term timeframe, and why. Then, the responses were analyzed and overlaid to determine areas of shared mapping need and opportunity and to determine the types of map products needed. The analysis revealed high interest among multiple organizations in discrete geographies including the Minnesota and Wisconsin shoreline from Duluth to the eastern extent of the Bayfield Peninsula, Green Bay in Lake Michigan, and the southern coastlines of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the St. Marys River, and the northern Lake Superior coastal waters near Grand Portage, MN. Lower priority mapping interest were distributed widely across all lakes, but tended to be concentrated in nearshore areas (<30 m depth). The analysis also indicated that the top mapping justifications were Habitat/biota/natural area, Benthic exploration, Commercial and recreational fishing, and Scientific research. The top desired map product types were Elevation, Substrate/sub-bottom geologic characterization, and Habitat map/characterization, although participants on some lakes noted other less prevalent product types. Following from previously conducted NOAA and non-NOAA Federal spatial prioritization exercises, the results of this regional focus can help mapping organizations better understand how their priorities align with the needs of regional organizations, allow for more efficient coordination and funding, and enable partners to leverage assets and resources to fill their most pressing data and information gaps across Great Lakes waters. The U.S. Mapping Coordination Site hosts the results of this study and other spatial prioritization studies. Through this website, one can interact with the study results along with recent and planned mapping efforts. NOAA intends to update their spatial priorities on a three- to five-year basis. Future studies should strive to expand participation of federal agencies, state and local governments, federally-recognized tribes, academia, and private industry (among other stakeholders) to seek out ocean mapping partnerships in conjunction with the National Ocean Mapping, Exploration and Characterization (NOMEC) goals map once, use many times.”

Great Lakes↗