Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Research 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 1,225 records · Page 68Linked to original sources

Selected U.S. Bureau of Mines reports on Alaska indexed by quadrangle

Most U.S. Bureau of Mines reports on the geology and mineral resources of Alaska that were published or placed in open files through April 30, 1974, are listed by the quadrangles (scale 1:250,000) into which Alaska has been divided for topographic mapping (p. 2). References to reports that deal with Alaska as a whole and cannot be readily assigned to individual quadrangles or deal with many scattered parts of the state are listed under ALASKA - GENERAL, which appears before the alphabetically arranged quadrangle listings. References to the Minerals Yearbook, published annually, are not included as this periodical contains mainly statistical data. Also omitted are reports on mining, milling, and metallurgical practices; compilations of coal, oil, and gas analyses unless data on geological occurrences are also given; and reports on permissible explosives, health, and safety. This index is the second in a planned series of specialized lists, arranged by quadrangle, that will facilitate library research on the geology and mineral resources of Alaska. The first in the series is "Geological Survey open-file reports on Alaska indexed by quadrangle," by Edward H. Cobb, which was released as open-file report 74-7 on May 16, 1974.

Alaska↗

Action plan for restoration of coral reef coastal protection services: Case study example and workbook

This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Office of Research and Development, as part of the Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) research program, with support from Tetra Tech, Inc., and in collaboration with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, and The Nature Conservancy. The ACE research program provides scientific information and tools to support USEPA’s commitment to clean air, clean water and sustainable natural resources, even as environmental conditions change. A key component of this is the development of sound science to support adaptation. Adaptation involves preparing for and adjusting to the effects of climate change and its interactions with other global and local stressors. Because these effects are diverse, interactive, and difficult to predict, adapting management of natural resources in this context can be very challenging. Coral reefs—which provide valued ecosystem services such as fisheries, coastal protection, and tourism—are threatened by the effects of increased sea surface temperatures, sea level rise, and intensifying storms. These large-scale stressors are interacting with local stressors such as pollution, overfishing, and recreational misuse to drive ongoing and accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystems. Thus, there is a rising urgency to design and implement climate change adaptation measures that will enable reef resilience in the face of these changes. This includes accounting for, and adjusting to, the combined effects of climate change and local stressors in coral reef protection and restoration efforts. The action plan, example case study, and workbook found in this report demonstrate a structured process for integrating climate-smart design considerations into restoration planning using A Manager’s Guide to Coral Reef Restoration Planning and Design. The focus is a hypothetical coral reef restoration project that has a goal of recovering nature-based coastal protection services using restoration interventions. The intent is to provide readers with a completed example of how to use the Guide workbook to inform a draft action plan, centering on the topic of coastal protection as a burgeoning area of interest in coral reef science and management communities. The information in this hypothetical case study is not intended for direct use; rather, it provides a starting point for more detailed planning that would occur in specific places. And while a full review of the current literature on reef restoration methods is outside the scope of this report, readers are encouraged to use the examples herein as well as in the Guide as a jumping-off point for exploring the rapidly growing body of information on methods, techniques, successes, failures, monitoring challenges and future directions of coral reef restoration in a changing world. The workbook, together with the action plan, can serve as a valuable record of the planning thought process as well as a living document for adaptive management, to be updated through time as improved information becomes available.

EPA Report↗

Water-resources activities of the Louisiana District in fiscal years 1986-87

The U.S. Geological Survey conducts three types of water resources activities in Louisiana - data collection, investigations, and research. These activities are conducted, in large part, through cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies. Water-resources activities undertaken from October 1, 1985 to September 30, 1987 are described. Specifically, the report presents information on organization of the District Office, cooperating agencies, data-collection activities, interpretive studies and research activities, new publications of the Louisiana District, and sources of information in the U.S. Geological Survey. For each activity, the following information is presented: project title, project number, study location, cooperating agency, project chief, project duration, problem, objective, approach, progress, and plans. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗

The Lake Tahoe Basin Land Use Simulation Model

This U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report describes the final modeling product for the Tahoe Decision Support System project for the Lake Tahoe Basin funded by the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act and the U.S. Geological Survey's Geographic Analysis and Monitoring Program. This research was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey Western Geographic Science Center. The purpose of this report is to describe the basic elements of the novel Lake Tahoe Basin Land Use Simulation Model, publish samples of the data inputs, basic outputs of the model, and the details of the Python code. The results of this report include a basic description of the Land Use Simulation Model, descriptions and summary statistics of model inputs, two figures showing the graphical user interface from the web-based tool, samples of the two input files, seven tables of basic output results from the web-based tool and descriptions of their parameters, and the fully functional Python code.

Open-File Report↗

Get your science used—Six guidelines to improve your products

Introduction Natural scientists, like many other experts, face challenges when communicating to people outside their fields of expertise. This is especially true when they try to communicate to those whose background, knowledge, and experience are far distant from that field of expertise. At a recent workshop, experts in risk communication offered insights into the communication challenges of probabilistic hazard products, suggested tips, and shared their strategies for making products that a targeted audience can understand and use. Although the workshop was held to broaden the understanding and use of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), the workshop outcomes presented in this report can benefit anyone who develops products based on technical information. On the basis of research and practice into how people think, use tools, make decisions, and understand scientific/technical information, the social and behavioral scientists, marketers, and social-impact designers at the NSHM workshop provided remarkably consistent guidelines to develop successful science products, such as text, maps, and other products. In this report the guidelines are numbered for clarity, but they can be applied repeatedly, piecemeal, or out of order to fit each project and your resources.

Circular↗

The Earth Resources Observation Systems data center's training technical assistance, and applications research activities

The Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center (EDO, administered by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, provides remotely sensed data to the user community and offers a variety of professional services to further the understanding and use of remote sensing technology. EDC reproduces and sells photographic and electronic copies of satellite images of areas throughout the world. Other products include aerial photographs collected by 16 organizations, including the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Primary users of the remotely sensed data are Federal, State, and municipal government agencies, universities, foreign nations, and private industries. The professional services available at EDC are primarily directed at integrating satellite and aircraft remote sensing technology into the programs of the Department of the Interior and its cooperators. This is accomplished through formal training workshops, user assistance, cooperative demonstration projects, and access to equipment and capabilities in an advanced data analysis laboratory. In addition, other Federal agencies, State and local governments, universities, and the general public can get assistance from the EDC Staff. Since 1973, EDC has contributed to the accelerating growth in development and operational use of remotely sensed data for land resource problems through its role as educator and by conducting basic and applied remote sensing applications research. As remote sensing technology continues to evolve, EDC will continue to respond to the increasing demand for timely information on remote sensing applications. Questions most often asked about EDC's research and training programs include: Who may attend an EDC remote sensing training course? Specifically, what is taught? Who may cooperate with EDC on remote sensing projects? Are interpretation services provided on a service basis? This report attempts to define the goals and objectives of and policies on the following EDC services: Training Program. User Assistance. Data Analysis Laboratory. Cooperative Demonstration Projects. Research Projects.

Open-File Report↗

Maps and diagrams showing acoustic and textural characteristics and distribution of bottom sedimentary environments, Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay

This report illustrates, describes, and briefly discusses the acoustic and textural characteristics and the distribution of bottom sedimentary environments in Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay. The study is an outgrowth of a larger research program designed to understand the regional processes that distribute sediments and related contaminants in the area. The report highlights the major findings presented in recent papers by Knebel and others (1991), Knebel, (1993), and Knebel and Circe (1995). The reader is urged to consult the full text of these earlier papers for a more definitive treatment of the data and for appropriate supporting references.

Boston Harbor, Massachusetts Bay↗

Mississippi/Alabama pinnacle trend ecosystem monitoring Final Synthesis Report

This Final Synthesis Report summarizes a four-year program to characterize and monitor carbonate mounds on the Mississippi/Alabama outer continental shelf (OCS). The study area is shown in Fig.ES.1. The study was conducted by Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. and the Geochemical and Environmental Research Group (GERG) of Texas A&M University (TAMU), for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Biological Resources Division.

Biological Science Report↗

Yellowstone Volcano Observatory 2024 annual report

The Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) monitors volcanic and hydrothermal activity associated with the Yellowstone magmatic system, carries out research into magmatic processes occurring beneath Yellowstone Caldera, and issues timely warnings and guidance related to potential future geologic hazards. YVO is a collaborative consortium that includes the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Yellowstone National Park, University of Utah, University of Wyoming, Montana State University, EarthScope Consortium, Wyoming State Geological Survey, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, and Idaho Geological Survey. The USGS component of YVO also has the operational responsibility for monitoring volcanic activity in the Intermountain West of the United States, including Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado. This report summarizes the activities and findings of YVO during the year 2024, focusing on the Yellowstone volcanic system.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗

Site-specific effects on productivity of an upper trophic-level marine predator: Bottom-up, top-down, and mismatch effects on reproduction in a colonial seabird

We investigated the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down factors in limiting productivity of an upper trophic level marine predator. Our primary working hypothesis was that the reproductive success of black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) a piscivorous, colonial-nesting seabird, was most limited by the abundance, distribution, and species composition of surface-schooling forage fishes. A secondary working hypothesis was that reproductive loss to kittiwake nest predators was greatest during years of reduced prey availability. We report on a broad-scale, integrated study of kittiwakes and their prey in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Our study spanned five breeding seasons (1995-1999) and focused on three colonies that differed in size (ranging from ca. 220 to ca. 7000 breeding pairs) and proximity to each other (50-135 km apart). Kittiwakes in PWS encountered a variety of aquatic habitats, creating a complex foraging environment for breeding birds. We measured kittiwake reproductive success and foraging activities, while simultaneously measuring the abundance of surface schooling forage fishes throughout the foraging range of breeding kittiwakes. The abundance of primary prey species for kittiwakes (Pacific herring Clupea pallasi, Pacific sand lance Ammodytes hexapterus, and capelin Mallotus villosus) varied both annually and regionally, with no one region consistently having the greatest abundance of prey. Likewise, kittiwake reproductive success varied considerably among colonies and years. We found that bottom-up, top-down, timing mismatch, and colony-specific effects were all important to kittiwake productivity. Although bottom-up effects appeared to be strongest, they were not evident in some cases until other effects, such as geographic location (proximity of colony to prey concentrations) and top-down predation, were considered. Important bottom-up effects on kittiwake reproductive success were not only total prey abundance and distribution, but also species, age composition, and chronology of prey occurrence (match/mismatch of timing with critical brood-rearing periods); these effects varied by colony. Top-down effects of predation on kittiwake nest contents (independent of prey abundance) confounded seabird-forage fish relationships. Ultimately, when confounding factors were minimized, non-linear asymptotic relationships were identified between kittiwakes and their prey, with an asymptotic threshold of fish school surface area density of ca. 5 m2/km2, beyond which top-down, physiological, or phylogenetic constraints likely restrict further reproductive output. The integrated approach of our investigations provided a more thorough understanding of the mechanisms underlying predator-prey relationships in the complex marine environment. However, such mechanistic theories can only be tested and refined through long-term research and monitoring of much greater duration than the 5-year study reported herein. ?? 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Progress in Oceanography↗

Maps showing the change in modern sediment thickness on the Inner Continental Shelf offshore of Fire Island, New York, between 1996-97 and 2011

The U.S. Geological Survey mapped approximately 336 square kilometers of the lower shoreface and inner continental shelf offshore of Fire Island, New York, in 1996 and 1997, using high-resolution sidescan-sonar and seismic-reflection systems, and again in 2011, using interferometric sonar and high-resolution chirp seismic-reflection systems. This report presents a comparison of sediment thickness and distribution as mapped during these two investigations. These spatial data support research on the Quaternary evolution of the Fire Island coastal system and provide baseline information for research on coastal processes along southern Long Island.

New York↗

The United States National Climate Assessment - Alaska Technical Regional Report

The Alaskan landscape is changing, both in terms of effects of human activities as a consequence of increased population, social and economic development and their effects on the local and broad landscape; and those effects that accompany naturally occurring hazards such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Some of the most prevalent changes, however, are those resulting from a changing climate, with both near term and potential upcoming effects expected to continue into the future. Alaska's average annual statewide temperatures have increased by nearly 4°F from 1949 to 2005, with significant spatial variability due to the large latitudinal and longitudinal expanse of the State. Increases in mean annual temperature have been greatest in the interior region, and smallest in the State's southwest coastal regions. In general, however, trends point toward increases in both minimum temperatures, and in fewer extreme cold days. Trends in precipitation are somewhat similar to those in temperature, but with more variability. On the whole, Alaska saw a 10-percent increase in precipitation from 1949 to 2005, with the greatest increases recorded in winter. The National Climate Assessment has designated two well-established scenarios developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nakicenovic and others, 2001) as a minimum set that technical and author teams considered as context in preparing portions of this assessment. These two scenarios are referred to as the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios A2 and B1 scenarios, which assume either a continuation of recent trends in fossil fuel use (A2) or a vigorous global effort to reduce fossil fuel use (B1). Temperature increases from 4 to 22°F are predicted (to 2070-2099) depending on which emissions scenario (A2 or B1) is used with the least warming in southeast Alaska and the greatest in the northwest. Concomitant with temperature changes, by the end of the 21st century the growing season is expected to lengthen by 15-25 days in some areas of Alaska, with much of that corresponding with earlier spring snow melt. Future projections of precipitation (30-80 years) over Alaska show an increase across the State, with the largest changes in the northwest and smallest in the southeast. Because of increasing temperatures and growing season length, however, increased precipitation may not correspond with increased water availability, due to temperature related increased evapotranspiration. The extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s, with stronger trends noted since the late 1980s. Alaska has experienced similar trends, with a strong decrease in snow cover extent occurring in May. When averaged across the State, the disappearance of snow in the spring has occurred from 4 to 6 days earlier per decade, and snow return in fall has occurred approximately 2 days later per decade. This change appears to be driven by climate warming rather than a decrease in winter precipitation, with average winter temperatures also increasing by about 2.5°F. The extent of sea ice has been declining, as has been widely published in both national and scientific media outlets, and is projected to continue to decline during this century. The observed decline in annual sea ice minimum extent (September) has occurred more rapidly than was predicted by climate models and has been accompanied by decreases in ice thickness and in the presence of multi-year ice. This decrease was first documented by satellite imagery in the late 1970s for the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and is projected to continue, with the potential for the disappearance of summer sea ice by mid- to late century. A new phenomenon that was not reported in previous assessments is ocean acidification. Uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by oceans has a significant effect on marine biogeochemistry by reducing seawater pH. Ocean acidification is of particular concern in Alaska, because cold sea water absorbs CO2 more rapidly than warm water, and a decrease in sea ice extent has allowed increased sea surface exposure and more uptake of CO2 into these northern waters. Ocean acidification will likely affect the ability of organisms to produce and maintain shell material, such as aragonite or calcite (calcium carbonate minerals structured from carbonate ions), required by many shelled organism, from mollusks to corals to microscopic organisms at the base of the food chain. Direct biological effects in Alaska further along the food chain have yet to be studied and may vary among organisms. Some of the potentially most significant changes to Alaska that could result from a changing climate are the effects on the terrestrial cryosphere - particularly glaciers and permafrost. Alaskan glaciers are changing at a rapid rate, the primary driver appearing to be temperature. Statewide, glaciers lost 13 cubic miles of ice annually from the 1950s to the 1990s, and that rate doubled in the 2000s. However, like temperature and precipitation, glacier ice loss is not spatially uniform; most glaciers are losing mass, yet some are growing (for example Hubbard Glacier in southeast Alaska). Alaska glaciers with the most rapid loss are those terminating in sea water or lakes. With this increasing rate of melt, the contribution of surplus fresh water entering into the oceans from Alaska's glaciers, as well as those in neighboring British Columbia, Canada, is approximately 20 percent of that contributed by the Greenland Ice Sheet. Permafrost degradation (that is, the thawing of ice-rich soils) is currently (2012) impacting infrastructure and surface-water availability in areas of both discontinuous and continuous ground ice. Over most of the State, the permafrost is warming, with increasing temperatures broadly consistent with increasing air temperatures. On the Arctic coastal plain of Alaska, permafrost temperatures showed some cooling in the 1950s and 1960s but have been followed by a roughly 5°F increase since the 1980s. Many areas in the continuous permafrost zone have seen increases in temperature in the seasonally active layer and a decrease in re-freezing rates. Changes in the discontinuous permafrost zone are initially much more observable due to the resulting thermokarst terrain (land surface formed as ice rich permafrost thaws), most notable in boreal forested areas. Climate warming in Alaska has potentially broad implications for human health and food security, especially in rural areas, as well as increased risk for injury with changing winter ice conditions. Additionally, such warming poses the potential for increasing damage to existing water and sanitation facilities and challenges for development of new facilities, especially in areas underlain by permafrost. Non-infectious and infectious diseases also are becoming an increasing concern. For example, from 1999 to 2006 there was a statistically significant increase in medical claims for insectbite reactions in five of six regions of Alaska, with the largest percentage increase occurring in the most northern areas. The availability and quality of subsistence foods, normally considered to be very healthy, may change due to changing access, changing habitats, and spoilage of meat in food storage cellars. These and other trends and potential outcomes resulting from a changing climate are further described in this report. In addition, we describe new science leadership activities that have been initiated to address and provide guidance toward conducting research aimed at making available information for policy makers and land management agencies to better understand, address, and plan for changes to the local and regional environment. This report cites data in both metric and standard units due to the contributions by numerous authors and the direct reference of their data.

Alaska↗

Expanding national-scale wildlife disease surveillance systems with research networks

Efficient learning about disease dynamics in free-ranging wildlife systems can benefit from active surveillance that is standardized across different ecological contexts. For example, active surveillance that targets specific individuals and populations with standardized sampling across ecological contexts (landscape-scale targeted surveillance) is important for developing a mechanistic understanding of disease emergence, which is the foundation for improving risk assessment of zoonotic or wildlife-livestock disease outbreaks and predicting hotspots of disease emergence. However, landscape-scale targeted surveillance systems are rare and challenging to implement. Increasing experience and infrastructure for landscape-scale targeted surveillance will improve readiness for rapid deployment of this type of surveillance in response to new disease emergence events. Here, we describe our experience developing and rapidly deploying a landscape-scale targeted surveillance system for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in two free-ranging deer species across their ranges in the United States. Our surveillance system was designed to collect data across individual, population, and landscape scales for future analyses aimed at understanding mechanisms and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, evolution, and persistence. Our approach leveraged partnerships between state and federal public service sectors and academic researchers in a landscape-scale targeted surveillance research network. Methods describe our approach to developing the surveillance network and sampling design. Results report challenges with implementing our intended sampling design, specifically how the design was adapted as different challenges arose and summarize the sampling design that has been implemented thus far. In the discussion, we describe strategies that were important for the successful deployment of landscape-scale targeted surveillance, development and operation of the research network, construction of similar networks in the future, and analytical approaches for the data based on the sampling design.

Ecology and Evolution↗

Communicating hazards—A social science review to meet U.S. Geological Survey needs

This report is for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—and any other—hazard scientists who want to improve the understanding and use of their scientific information, particularly by non-experts. In order for people to use science, they need to understand it. The highly technical, specialized nature of scientific information makes that difficult, particularly when few scientists are trained to communicate with people outside their fields. These issues are of special importance to the USGS because it has many users who are not scientists and because it develops and applies hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of our Nation. In 2010, the Science Application for Risk Reduction group at the USGS discovered the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED) guide, “The Psychology of Climate Change Communication.” Ever since, a growing number of USGS staff who need to communicate about hazards have used that guide and have asked CRED for a companion report dedicated to hazard communication to harness knowledge from more than 50 years of social science research. In 2016, the USGS and CRED launched a collaboration to develop that companion report. Ultimately, a CRED hazard communication guide would be a Columbia University publication with a wide focus and would include many hazards that are outside the USGS purview. This report is a first step and concentrates strictly on hazard communication needs at the USGS. To identify those needs and tailor this effort to USGS hazard communication priorities, this collaboration began with telephone interviews and an online survey of USGS staff. This report is the result; it summarizes social science research and experience in the areas of hazard communication that USGS participants deemed most important to include.

Circular↗

Data summary report: Unregulated contaminants monitoring project

The Drinking Water Protection Section of the Minnesota Department of Health conducted reconnaissance monitoring of selected public water systems in Minnesota. Funding was obtained primarily from the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund. Sampling was conducted in 2019 and 2021. Laboratory analysis of samples was conducted for a variety of different contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including selected pharmaceuticals, pesticides, PFAS, wastewater indicators and other parameters chosen for the physical and land use setting surrounding the sampling points. Sampling site and parameter selection were designed with several goals, as follows: Characterize occurrence and distribution of selected CECs in settings where such chemicals are most likely to be present; Determine if any such occurrences represent a public health concern; Compare results from coupled source water and finished (i.e., treated) water samples at public water system sites where such sampling is feasible; Assess if results from geologically vulnerable (sensitive subject to rapid recharge) and geologically non-vulnerable settings differ significantly. 306 samples were collected as part of the study, from three networks of public water systems differentiated on the basis of source water type (i.e., surface water or groundwater) and land use environment (agricultural and wastewater influenced). This report provides a preliminary, qualitative evaluation of the results. Additionally, more rigorous research will be conducted on these water quality data to evaluate the below findings in more detail. High-level findings from this assessment include the following: Very few samples exceeded health-based guidance for CECs; o When this occurred, MDH staff conducted follow up sampling at the system and provided technical advice about managing the situation. Only a fraction of the CECs analyzed were detected; o Of the 522 different CECs analyzed in the water samples, 161 were detected in one or more samples; o Additionally, most detections were at low levels; Among the CEC classes included in the analytical work, pesticides and PFAS were generally detected at a greater frequency than other CECs; o See Executive Summary Figure 1. The ten most commonly detected individual compounds include: o Tribromomethane, or bromoform, (a disinfection by-product) (70% of sites where analyzed); o norgestrel (a pharmaceutical) (69% of sites where analyzed); o lithium (68% of sites where analyzed); o Metolachlor SA (52%), Deethylatrazine (49%), atrazine (45%), and deisopropylatrazine (31%) (pesticides); o PFBA (44%) and PFHxS (27%) (PFAS compounds); and o 5-methyl benzotriazole (29%) (a benzotriazole). Some CECs were detected more frequently in samples collected from surface waters than those collected from groundwater sources; CEC concentrations were generally higher in vulnerable settings compared to nonvulnerable settings; Whether CECs were detected more frequently in the source water or finished water varied by CEC class. For example, o Benzotriazoles and pharmaceuticals were more frequently detected in source water samples than finished water samples; and o Tribromomethane, or bromoform, a common disinfection by-product, was more frequently found in finished water samples than in source water samples. This work prompted a series of programmatic changes and innovations: A response framework was established for helping the program and public water systems manage detections of unregulated CECs in drinking water; Results were forwarded to the program within MDH responsible for developing healthbased guidance in order to nominate specific compounds found in drinking water but for which limited or no risk advice is available; MDH is seeking support from the Clean Water Council to support the establishment of permanent capacity within the Drinking Water Protection Section to continue sampling efforts of this type.

Minnesota↗

AMAP Assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean acidification

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

Report↗

Landslide and Land Subsidence Hazards to Pipelines

Landslides and land subsidence pose serious hazards to pipelines throughout the world. Many existing pipeline corridors and more and more new pipelines cross terrain that is affected by either landslides, land subsidence, or both. Consequently the pipeline industry recognizes a need for increased awareness of methods for identifying and evaluating landslide and subsidence hazard for pipeline corridors. This report was prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and Pipeline Research Council International through a cooperative research and development agreement (CRADA) with DGH Consulting, Inc., to address the need for up-to-date information about current methods to identify and assess these hazards. Chapters in this report (1) describe methods for evaluating landslide hazard on a regional basis, (2) describe the various types of land subsidence hazard in the United States and available methods for identifying and quantifying subsidence, and (3) summarize current methods for investigating individual landslides. In addition to the descriptions, this report provides information about the relative costs, limitations and reliability of various methods.

Open-File Report↗