Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Report”

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

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

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources

Historical Topographic Map Collection bookmark

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Geospatial Program is scanning published USGS 1:250,000-scale and larger topographic maps printed between 1884, the inception of the topographic mapping program, and 2006. The goal of this project, which began publishing the historical scanned maps in 2011, is to provide a digital repository of USGS topographic maps, available to the public at no cost. For more than 125 years, USGS topographic maps have accurately portrayed the complex geography of the Nation. The USGS is the Nation’s largest producer of printed topographic maps, and prior to 2006, USGS topographic maps were created using traditional cartographic methods and printed using a lithographic printing process. As the USGS continues the release of a new generation of topographic maps (US Topo) in electronic form, the topographic map remains an indispensable tool for government, science, industry, land management planning, and leisure.

General Information Product↗

Chantelle postcard

Chantelle is a hydrologist in the Surface Water Investigation Unit. She received her bachelor of science degree in environmental geology from the University of Kansas.

General Information Product↗

Documentation of the U.S. Geological Survey Oceanographic time-series measurement database

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Oceanographic Time-Series Measurement Database contains oceanographic observations made as part of studies designed to increase understanding of sediment transport processes and associated dynamics. Analysis of these data has contributed to more accurate prediction of the movement and fate of sediments and other suspended materials in the coastal ocean. The measurements were collected primarily by investigators at the USGS Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center (WHCMSC) and colleagues, beginning in 1975. Most of the field experiments were carried out on the U.S. continental shelf and slope. This report describes the instrumentation and platforms used to make the measurements; the methods used to process, apply quality-control criteria, and archive the data; the data storage format, and how the data are released and distributed. The report also includes instructions on how to access the data from the online database at http://stellwagen.er.usgs.gov/ . As of 2016, the database contains about 5,000 files, which may include observations of current velocity, wave statistics, ocean temperature, conductivity, pressure, and light transmission at one or more depths over some duration of time.

Open-File Report↗

Short papers in geology, hydrology, and topography; Articles 1-59: Geological Survey Research 1962

This collection of 59 short papers on subjects in the fields of geology, hydrology, topography, and related sciences is one of a, series to be relea~ed during the year as chapters of Professional Paper 450. The papers in this chapter report on the scientific and economic· results of current work by members of the Geologic, Topographic, and 'Vater Resources Division of the United States Geological Survey. Some of the pa.pers annom1ce new discoveries or present observations on problems of limited scope; other papers draw conclusions from more extensive or continuing investigations that in large part will be discussed in greater detail in reports to be published in the future.

Professional Paper↗

Short papers in geology, hydrology, and topography; articles 120-179

This collection of 60 short papers on subjects in the fields of geology, hydrology, topography, and related sciences is the third of a series to be released during the year as chapters of Professional Paper 450. The papers in this chapter report on the scientific and economic results of current work by members of the Geologic, Water Resources, and Topographic Divisions of the United States Geologicai Survey. Some of the papers announce new discoveries or present observations on problems of limited scope; other papers draw conclusions from more extensive or continuing investigations that in large part will be discussed in greater detail in reports to be published in the future. Chapter A of this series, to be published later in the year, will present a synopsis of results from a wide range of work done during the present fiscal year.

Professional Paper↗

Strategic plan for science-U.S. Geological Survey, Ohio Water Science Center, 2010-15

This Science Plan identifies specific scientific and technical programmatic issues of current importance to Ohio and the Nation. An examination of those issues yielded a set of five major focus areas with associated science goals and strategies that the Ohio Water Science Center will emphasize in its program during 2010-15. A primary goal of the Science Plan is to establish a relevant multidisciplinary scientific and technical program that generates high-quality products that meet or exceed the expectations of our partners while supporting the goals and initiatives of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Science Plan will be used to set the direction of new and existing programs and will influence future training and hiring decisions by the Ohio Water Science Center.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗

The geography and geology of Alaska; a summary of existing knowledge, with a section on climate, and a topographic map and description thereof

Alaska, the largest outlying possession of the United States, is that great land mass forming the northwestern extremity of the North American continent, whose western point is within 60 miles of the Asiatic coast (PI. II). About one-quarter of this area lies within the Arctic Circle, and from the standpoint of geographic position must be regarded as an arctic province; but the southern seaboard, exposed to the warm winds and waters of the Pacific, gives to the entire southern portion of the territory" a comparatively warm climate. It is not generally realized that the range of climate in Alaska is greater than that between Florida and Maine. At the southernmost point of the Pacific coast the mean annual temperature is not far from that of the city of Washington, the winters being warmer and characterized by less snowfall; the Yukon Valley on the other hand has a winter climate similar to that of northern Montana and Dakota; while in the extreme northern part of the territory the meteorologic conditions are invariably arctic. Though as yet only sparsely settled, Alaska's vast area and great resources make it one of the most important possessions of the United States and promise its rapid development. During the years 1890 to 1900 the population increased from 32,052* to 63,592. The mineral output, which in 1890 was valued at less than $800,000, exceeded $9,000,000 in 1904, and the fisheries show a corresponding growth. This rapid development has attracted public attention and led to urgent demand for explorations, surveys, and other investigations. So actively has this work been pushed, both by public and private enterprise, that exact knowledge of the geography, geology, and mineral resources of the interior has made greater strides within the last eight years than during the preceding thirty-one years since the acquisition of Alaska. The facts regarding the geography and geology, scattered as they are through the many books and reports of this period, are not always readily accessible, and the time seems ripe to present them in a summarized form. The topography of Alaska is varied and complex (see PI. I), and it is not easy to present briefly even the salient features. The limited number of pages here devoted to the subject precludes the possibility of detailed treatment, even if the facts were available. Much of the description has been taken from the results attained by other investigators, the writer being personally familiar with only a part of this large province. A list of the publications consulted is appended. The larger geographic features of Alaska are now fairly well known, though the detailed surveys which are demanded by the development of many localities have hardly been begun. Preliminary surveys have been completed of all but three 8 of the larger rivers. The most important mountain ranges have been at least outlined (fig. 3). Only three large areas remain almost entirely unmapped: One in southwestern Alaska, between Cook Inlet and the lower Kuskokwim, and the others in northern Alaska, embracing the Arctic watershed east and west of the Colville River. Nearly all the surveys of the interior, however, have been of a preliminary and exploratory character, and to meet the requirements of exact geography must be followed by more detailed mensuration. Though the coast line has been fairly well known for more than half a century, knowledge of the interior has been gained chiefly within the last two decades. This has not yet found its way into text-books and has too often been entirely ignored by cartographers. If facts are presented which may seem elementary, it is because even well-informed people have been known to harbor misconceptions in regard to the orographic features, climate, and general character of Alaska. Those who read of the perils and privations of winter travel and explorations are apt to picture a region of ice and snow; others, again, who have personal knowledge of the tourist route of southeastern Alaska, regard the whole district as one of rugged mountains and glaciers. In point of fact, glaciers are now nearly limited to the ranges bordering the Pacific and to the two slopes of the Alaska range; and even during the greatest development of glaciers but a small portion of Alaska was under ice (see map, PI. XXII). As a treatise on geography would hardly be complete without some discussion of the climate, meteorologic data have been compiled by Mr. Cleveland Abbe, jr., but the discussion of this does not pretend to be more than a cursory treatment of the subject. The scope of the paper seems to require also a brief summary of the development of geographic knowledge of Alaska. This subject, with its many ramifications, is of fascinating interest and offers a magnificent field for the trained historian. If the accompanying sketch of discovery and exploration awakens any measure of popular interest the writer will feel amply rewarded for having attacked a theme which hardly falls within the scope of his investigations. When this compilation was begun it was intended to be chiefly a description of the topography of Alaska, as illustrated by the accompanying map (PI. XXXIV, in pocket), which was compiled under the direction of the late R. U. Goode. In the course of the work there accumulated much geologic as well as geographic material which seemed worthy of inclusion in the report. As no comprehensive statement of the geology of Alaska has been made since the modern epoch of investigation was begun, an attempt will be made to give a summary of all results achieved. Since the writer has obtained much of his knowledge of the facts from the work of others, he disclaims any pretense of making an entirely original contribution to geologic science. He feels, however, that a personal familiarity with a considerable part of the province, gained during seven consecutive seasons of field work, will justify Mm in presenting conclusions which may in some cases be at variance with those in the reports on which he must draw for his facts. Throughout this report attempt will be made to credit borrowed material to the source from which it is drawn. Where such matter has been obtained entirely from published reports there is no difficulty in so doing; but as regards investigators of the Geological Survey, with whom the writer has collaborated both in field and in office, the case is somewhat different, for it is not always possible to know whether this or that theory originated with the writer or with one of his colleagues. It will, then, perhaps suffice to state that this report could not have been prepared without the explorations and researches of the geologists, F. C. Schrader, Walter C. Mendenhall, Arthur J. Collier, J. E. Spurr, and Arthur C. Spencer; and the surveys of the topographers, T. G. Gerdine, D. C. Witherspoon, D. L. Reaburn, W. J. Peters, and E. C. Barnard. Each of these men, in the course of from two to six years of field work, has made important contributions to the knowledge of the geography and geology of Alaska, and not all of these results have yet been put in print. In the last season (1903) L. M. Prindle, C. W. Wright, Arthur Hollick, G. C. Martin, F. L. Hess, and Fred H. Moffit have carried on geologic work in Alaska, and the writer has made use of their work now in course of publication. He has also been fortunate in having access to the manuscript reports of Walter C. Mendenhall and F. C. Schrader on the Copper River basin, to which references will be made. The matter here presented should be credited in a measure to all of these investigators, but for many of the theories advanced the writer alone is responsible. As this manuscript goes to press there has been opportunity to incorporate some of the results of the field work of 1904. As far as possible these have been embodied in the text, but in some instances it has been found advisable to add them only as footnotes. During the past summer F. E. and C. W. Wright extended the geologic reconnaissance in southeastern Alaska. In southwestern Alaska G. C. Martin and T. W. Stanton have determined the general Mesozoic section, while F. H. Moffit has made a reconnaissance of the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula. A. J. Collier has mapped the geology of the Cape Lisburne region, and L. M. Prindle and F. L. Hess have made contributions to the knowledge of the metamorphic terranes of the Yukon-Tanana district. It is the writer's purpose to describe in nontechnical language the larger geographic features and discuss their relation as far as the data available will permit. In the treatment of the geology, however, less effort will be made to make the matter acceptable to the lay reader. It is hoped, however, that a brief summary of the salient features of the geologic history' may be not without interest to the general public. If this paper serves in some measure to dispel the popular fallacies regarding Alaska and to disseminate more accurate knowledge of its geographic and geologic features, the purpose of its publication will be accomplished.

Alaska↗

Surficial sediment character of the New York-New Jersey offshore continental shelf region: A GIS compilation

Broad continental shelf regions such as the New York Bight are the product of a complex geologic history and dynamic oceanographic processes, dominated by the Holocene marine transgression (>100 m sea-level rise) following the end of the last Pleistocene ice advance ~ 20,000 years ago. The area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) territory, extending 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast, is larger than the continental U.S. and contains submerged landforms that provide a variety of natural functions and societal benefits, such as: critical habitats for fisheries, ship navigation and homeland security, and engineering activities (i.e. oil and gas platforms, pipeline and cable routes, potential wind-energy-generation sites). Some parts of the continental margins, particularly inner-continental shelf regions, also contain unconsolidated hard-mineral deposits such as sand and gravel that are regarded as potential aggregate resources to meet or augment needs not met by onshore deposits (Williams, 1992). The present distribution of surficial sediment off the northeastern United States is shaped from the deposits left by the last glaciation and reflects the cumulative effects of sediment erosion, transport, sorting, and deposition by storm and tidal processes during the Holocene rise in sea level. As a result, the sediments on the sea floor represent both an historical record of former conditions and a guide to possible future sedimentary environments. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) through the Coastal and Marine Geology Program, in cooperation with the University of Colorado and other partners, has compiled extant sediment character and textural data as well as other geologic information on the sea floor from all regions around the U.S. into the usSEABED data system (Reid and others, 2005; Buczkowski and others, 2006; Reid and others, 2006). The usSEABED system, which contains information on sediment grain size and lithology for more than 340,500 stations within the U.S. EEZ. has been developed and populated with data as part of the USGS Marine Aggregate Resources and Processes and the National Benthic Habitats projects in order to provide the base-line data needed to update the current maps of offshore surficial geologic character and sediment distribution. The maps are also used to characterize benthic sea floor environments important for marine ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 118 (Reid and others, 2005), of the usSEABED data release series, represents the combined efforts of the USGS and several other government agencies to provide a unified resource for accessing and preserving records of U.S. east coast sea floor geologic information and sediment texture data. For this present report, we have chosen to focus on the New York-New Jersey region, an area that has been intensely studied by the USGS for many years to address many complex issues. This report illustrates the uses of the usSEABED database for GIS applications, while offering additional insight into the resources and data available from the USGS and its collaborative institutions. This report is based on data contained in U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 118 (Reid and others, 2005) and shows an assortment of example GIS products that are possible using usSEABED. All data are intended to be GIS-ready and should not require any additional cleanup, formatting, or renaming of fields in order to use the data in a Geographic Information System. This project employs the Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView™ software. Many of these maps were made as part of the ongoing USGS study to assess marine aggregate resources offshore New York and New Jersey, but these maps can serve many other purposes. The marine science community, educators, students and others are encouraged to use these data to generate GIS products for their own purposes. The objectives of the Marine Aggregate Resources and Processes project are to produce a series of new geologic maps and reports of the sea floor that will provide scientific insights into the character and geologic development of U.S. continental margins and to use these maps and information to assess the potential availability of offshore sand and gravel resources. The mapping and aggregate resource assessments are being conducted on a national scale using the usSEABED data base as described in Williams and others (2003). Potential uses for these data include: (1) defining the geological variability of the sea floor in relation to benthic habitat diversity; (2) improving our understanding of the processes that control the distribution and transport of bottom sediments and benthic habitats; (3) locating aggregate resources for beach nourishment and industrial applications; and (4) providing a detailed geospatial framework for future marine science research, monitoring, and management activities. The initial assessments are in progress for the New York Bight and Louisiana offshore areas.

New Jersey, New York↗

Integrating climate change into northeast and midwest State Wildlife Action Plans

The Department of Interior Northeast Climate Science Center (NE CSC) conducts research that responds to the regional natural resource management community’s needs to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change. The NE CSC is supported by a consortium of partners that includes the University of Massachusetts Amherst, College of Menominee Nation, Columbia University, Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Minnesota, University of Missouri Columbia, and University of Wisconsin. The NE CSC also engages and collaborates with a diversity of other federal, state, academic, tribal, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to conduct collaborative, stakeholder-driven, and climate-focused work. The State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) are revised every 10 years; states are currently working towards a target deadline of October 2015. SWAP coordinators have been challenged to incorporate climate change impacts and species responses into their current revisions. This synthesis is intended to inform the science going into Northeast and Midwest SWAPs across the 22 NE CSC states ranging from Maine to Virginia, and Minnesota and Missouri in the eastern United States. It is anticipated that this synthesis will help guide SWAP authors in writing specific sections, help revise and finalize existing sections, or be incorporated as an appendix or addendum. The purpose of this NE CSC-led cooperative report is to provide a synthesis of what is known and what is uncertain about climate change and its impacts across the NE CSC region, with a particular focus on the responses and vulnerabilities of Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN) and the habitats they depend on. Another goal is to describe a range of climate change adaptation approaches, processes, tools, and potential partnerships that are available to State natural resource managers across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States. Through illustrative case studies submitted by the NE CSC and partners, we demonstrate climate change adaptation efforts being explored and implemented across local and large-landscape scales. This document is divided into four sections and addresses the following climate and management relevant questions: Climate Change in the Northeast and Midwest United States: How is the climate changing and projected to change across the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States? Northeast and Midwest regional species and habitats at greatest risk and most vulnerable to climate impacts: What are the relative vulnerabilities of fish and wildlife species and their habitats to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Biological responses to climate impacts with a focus on Northeast and Midwest Regional Species of Greatest Conservation Need (RSGCN): How are threatened fish and wildlife likely to respond or adapt to climate change in the Northeast and Midwest? Scale-appropriate adaptation strategies and actions in the Northeast and Midwest United States: What approaches, strategies, and actions could be taken to sustain fish, wildlife and their habitats in the short and long term across the Northeast and Midwest? The outline and content for this document were developed with input from State Coordinators, members of the Northeast Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and Midwest Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, DOI Northeast Climate Science Center affiliated researchers, and other partners including the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Science, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and The Nature Conservancy. Terwilliger Consulting, Inc., was especially instrumental in helping connect and coordinate the authors of this report with State representatives through conference calls and email surveys to develop the most needed and effective information for current SWAP revisions. On a final note, the SWAPs are living documents that can be added to and evolve on timescales beyond the 10-year revision cycle. The development of this report was timed such that SWAP coordinators and writers would have sufficient time to implement this input before their October 2015 deadline. However, this document is also meant to serve as a starting point for coordinated and collaborative climate science and adaptation across the region; the NE CSC 5 endeavors to continue to provide actionable science during the coming years in collaboration with its diverse federal, state, NGO, and academic partners.

Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ke↗

Stressor identification framework of biological impairment in Mississippi streams to support watershed restoration and TMDL development

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters that are impaired for designated uses. These waters are published through a State’s §303(d) list. The CWA also requires that a total maximum daily load (TMDL) be completed for each water body to calculate the maximum amount of contaminants that can be present in that water body and still meet water-quality standards. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) uses a statewide monitoring and assessment strategy to collect benthic macroinvertebrate community data to assess the health of streams and rivers and to identify impaired waters. Waters that are found to be impaired based on the macroinvertebrate community data are listed on the Mississippi §303(d) list, and the cause of impairment is listed as “biological impairment.” Although the CWA requires TMDLs to be developed for applicable contaminants identified in the §303(d) list, TMDLs cannot be computed for stream reaches in Mississippi listed for biological impairment because the actual stressors causing the impairment have not yet been determined. The MDEQ and other water-resource managers in Mississippi require a framework for stressor identification in biologically impaired streams and rivers. This report is organized to (1) provide a general overview of biological impairment and stressor identification in stream ecosystems and (2) provide a detailed framework for stressor identification of Mississippi streams that are biologically impaired. The intent is for the framework to reduce subjectivity, provide consistency, and allow for adaptation as the science evolves. The stressor identification framework for Mississippi involves six key steps: Define the impairment, List the candidate causes of impairment and develop a conceptual model, Compile all relevant data, Evaluate the data, Identify probable causes of impairment by using a weight-of-evidence approach, and Generate a report of results.

Mississippi↗

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗

Vegetation map for the Seboeis Unit of Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, located in the forests of central Maine, is a newly (2016) established unit for the National Park Service. To better understand the condition of lands within the monument and inform management planning, Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument resource managers wanted better information of the vegetation present within the monument. To meet this need, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center worked with ecologists at the Maine Natural Areas Program to catalog and map the vegetation of the Seboeis Unit of the monument. This report details this process, provides results of the survey and mapping efforts, presents results in the form of a vegetation map for the Seboeis Unit, and provides vegetation descriptions and a dichotomous key for the entire Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument.

Maine↗