Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Planning”

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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2019

Planning for ecological drought: Integrating ecosystem services and vulnerability assessment

As research recognizes the importance of ecological impacts of drought to natural and human communities, drought planning processes need to better incorporate ecological impacts. Drought planning currently recognizes the vulnerability of some ecological impacts from drought (e.g., loss of instream flow affecting fish populations). However, planning often does not identify all the ecological aspects in a landscape that stakeholders value, nor does it examine the extent to which those aspects are vulnerable to drought. One approach for identifying ecological aspects is ecosystem services (ES) -- i.e., the benefits humans receive from nature. To incorporate ecological impacts into drought planning in the Upper Missouri Headwaters region (Montana, USA), we combined ES elicitation using the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services and a vulnerability assessment using semi-structured interviews. We juxtaposed results from the interviews and the ES elicitation to assess which ES might be vulnerable to drought and which impacts from interviews were associated with losses of ES. While both methods suggested common drought vulnerabilities, each method also suggested drought vulnerabilities not reported using the other method. The ES elicitation produced more detail about services present in the UMH ecosystem today while interviews resulted in more discussion about ecological transformation from future droughts. Results suggest that some combination of open-ended vulnerability assessment methods and ES elicitation using a structured framework can result in greater understanding of ecological drought vulnerability in a given region.

Montana↗
USGS2021

Divergent, plausible, and relevant climate futures for near- and long-term resource planning

Scenario planning has emerged as a widely used planning process for resource management in situations of consequential, irreducible uncertainty. Because it explicitly incorporates uncertainty, scenario planning is regularly employed in climate change adaptation. An early and essential step in developing scenarios is identifying “climate futures”—descriptions of the physical attributes of plausible future climates that could occur at a specific place and time. Divergent climate futures that describe the broadest possible range of plausible conditions support information needs of decision makers, including understanding the spectrum of potential resource responses to climate change, developing strategies robust to that range, avoiding highly consequential surprises, and averting maladaptation. Here, we discuss three approaches for generating climate futures: a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)-ensemble, a quadrant-average, and an individual-projection approach. All are designed to capture relevant uncertainty, but they differ in utility for different applications, complexity, and effort required to implement. Using an application from Big Bend National Park as an example of numerous similar efforts to develop climate futures for National Park Service applications over the past decade, we compare these approaches, focusing on their ability to capture among-projection divergence during early-, mid-, and late-twenty-first century periods to align with near-, mid-, and long-term planning efforts. The quadrant-average approach and especially the individual-projection approach captured a broader range of plausible future conditions than the RCP-ensemble approach, particularly in the near term. Therefore, the individual-projection approach supports decision makers seeking to understand the broadest potential characterization of future conditions. We discuss tradeoffs associated with different climate future approaches and highlight suitable applications.

Climatic Change↗
USGS2016

Regional analysis of social characteristics for evacuation resource planning: ARkStorm scenario

Local planning is insufficient for regional catastrophes; regional exercises are needed to test emergency plans and decision-making structures. The ARkStorm scenario would trigger a mass evacuation that would be complicated by the social characteristics of populations [e.g., vehicle ownership, age, poverty, English language limitation (ELL), and shelter needs]. Land cover data and dasymetric mapping improves the allocation of residential populations and their social characteristics to the ARkStorm flood zone in 21 counties in California. Numbers and concentrations of county, urban, and rural residents exposed to flooding as well as populations in and out of the scenario flood zone are profiled. The results inform mass evacuation planning by providing a means to (1) examine the sufficiency of mutual aid agreements, (2) underscore planning for carless populations, and (3) tailor multilingual communication strategies. The various geographical distinctions emphasize different challenges throughout the region. It will be important to investigate behavioral responses to warnings, identify evacuation constraints (e.g., shelter capacity versus need), and obtain comparable data on transient populations.

Natural Hazards Review↗
USGS2016

Fine‐resolution conservation planning with limited climate‐change information

Climate‐change induced uncertainties in future spatial patterns of conservation‐related outcomes make it difficult to implement standard conservation‐planning paradigms. A recent study translates Markowitz's risk‐diversification strategy from finance to conservation settings, enabling conservation agents to use this diversification strategy for allocating conservation and restoration investments across space to minimize the risk associated with such uncertainty. However, this method is information intensive and requires a large number of forecasts of ecological outcomes associated with possible climate‐change scenarios for carrying out fine‐resolution conservation planning. We developed a technique for iterative, spatial portfolio analysis that can be used to allocate scarce conservation resources across a desired level of subregions in a planning landscape in the absence of a sufficient number of ecological forecasts. We applied our technique to the Prairie Pothole Region in central North America. A lack of sufficient future climate information prevented attainment of the most efficient risk‐return conservation outcomes in the Prairie Pothole Region. The difference in expected conservation returns between conservation planning with limited climate‐change information and full climate‐change information was as large as 30% for the Prairie Pothole Region even when the most efficient iterative approach was used. However, our iterative approach allowed finer resolution portfolio allocation with limited climate‐change forecasts such that the best possible risk‐return combinations were obtained. With our most efficient iterative approach, the expected loss in conservation outcomes owing to limited climate‐change information could be reduced by 17% relative to other iterative approaches.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2024

Advancing at-risk species recovery planning in an era of rapid ecological change with a transparent, flexible, and expert-engaged approach

In the face of unprecedented ecological changes, the conservation community needs strategies to recover species at risk of extinction. On the Island of Maui, we collaborated with species experts and managers to assist with climate-resilient recovery planning for 36 at-risk native plant species by identifying priority areas for the management of recovery populations. To do this, we developed a tailored spatial conservation prioritization (SCP) approach distinguished by its emphasis on transparency, flexibility, and expert (TFE) engagement. Our TFE SCP approach consisted of 2 iterative steps: first, the generation of multiple candidate conservation footprints (i.e., prioritization solutions) with a flexible greedy algorithm that reflects conservation practitioners’ priorities and, second, the selection of an optimal conservation footprint based on the consideration of trade-offs in expert-agreed criteria among footprints. This process maximized buy-in by involving conservation practitioners and experts throughout, from setting goals to reviewing optimization data, defining optimization rules, and designating planning units meaningful to practitioners. We minimized the conservation footprint area necessary to meet recovery goals while incorporating species-specific measures of habitat suitability and climate resilience and retaining species-specific information for guiding recovery efforts. Our approach reduced the overall necessary conservation area by 36%, compared with selecting optimal recovery habitats for each species separately, and still identified high-quality habitat for individual species. Compared with prioritizr (an existing SCP tool), our approach identified a conservation area of equal size but with higher quality habitat. By integrating the strengths of existing techniques in a flexible and transparent design, our approach can address natural resource management constraints and provide outputs suitable for local recovery planning, consequently enhancing engagement and buy-in from conservation practitioners and experts. It demonstrates a step forward in making conservation planning more responsive to real-world complexities and helps reduce barriers to implementation for local conservation practitioners.

Hawaii↗
USGS2026

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest↗
USGS2008

Planning riparian restoration in the context of tamarix control in Western North America

Throughout the world, the condition of many riparian ecosystems has declined due to numerous factors, including encroachment of non-native species. In the western United States, millions of dollars are spent annually to control invasions of Tamarix spp., introduced small trees or shrubs from Eurasia that have colonized bottomland ecosystems along many rivers. Resource managers seek to control Tamarix in attempts to meet various objectives, such as increasing water yield and improving wildlife habitat. Often, riparian restoration is an implicit goal, but there has been little emphasis on a process or principles to effectively plan restoration activities, and many Tamarix removal projects are unsuccessful at restoring native vegetation. We propose and summarize the key steps in a planning process aimed at developing effective restoration projects in Tamarix-dominated areas. We discuss in greater detail the biotic and abiotic factors central to the evaluation of potential restoration sites and summarize information about plant communities likely to replace Tamarix under various conditions. Although many projects begin with implementation, which includes the actual removal of Tamarix, we stress the importance of pre-project planning that includes: (1) clearly identifying project goals; (2) developing realistic project objectives based on a detailed evaluation of site conditions; (3) prioritizing and selecting Tamarix control sites with the best chance of ecological recovery; and (4) developing a detailed tactical plan before Tamarix is removed. After removal, monitoring and maintenance as part of an adaptive management approach are crucial for evaluating project success and determining the most effective methods for restoring these challenging sites. ?? 2008 Society for Ecological Restoration International.

Restoration Ecology↗
USGS2023

Future-proofing the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity

Freshwater biodiversity loss is accelerating globally, but humanity can change this trajectory through actions that enable recovery. To be successful, these actions require coordination and planning at a global scale. The Emergency Recovery Plan for global freshwater biodiversity aims to reduce the risk for freshwater biodiversity loss through six priority actions: (1) accelerate implementation of environmental flows; (2) improve water quality to sustain aquatic life; (3) protect and restore critical habitats; (4) manage exploitation of freshwater species and riverine aggregates; (5) prevent and control nonnative species invasions in freshwater habitats; and (6) safeguard and restore freshwater connectivity. These actions can be implemented using future-proofing approaches that anticipate future risks (e.g., emerging pollutants, new invaders, and synergistic effects) and minimize likely stressors to make conservation of freshwater biodiversity more resilient to climate change and other global environmental challenges. While uncertainty with respect to past observations is not a new concern for freshwater biodiversity, future-proofing has the distinction of accounting for the uncertainty of future conditions that have no historical baseline. The level of uncertainty with respect to future conditions is unprecedented. Future-proofing of the Emergency Recovery Plan for freshwater biodiversity will require anticipating future changes and developing and implementing actions to address those future changes. Here, we showcase future-proofing approaches likely to be successful using local case studies and examples. Ensuring that response options within the Emergency Recovery Plan are future-proofed will provide decision makers with science-informed choices, even in the face of uncertain and potentially new future conditions. We are at an inflection point for global freshwater biodiversity loss; learning from defeats and successes can support improved actions toward a sustainable future.

Environmental Reviews↗
USGS2013

Land use planning and wildfire: development policies influence future probability of housing loss

Increasing numbers of homes are being destroyed by wildfire in the wildland-urban interface. With projections of climate change and housing growth potentially exacerbating the threat of wildfire to homes and property, effective fire-risk reduction alternatives are needed as part of a comprehensive fire management plan. Land use planning represents a shift in traditional thinking from trying to eliminate wildfires, or even increasing resilience to them, toward avoiding exposure to them through the informed placement of new residential structures. For land use planning to be effective, it needs to be based on solid understanding of where and how to locate and arrange new homes. We simulated three scenarios of future residential development and projected landscape-level wildfire risk to residential structures in a rapidly urbanizing, fire-prone region in southern California. We based all future development on an econometric subdivision model, but we varied the emphasis of subdivision decision-making based on three broad and common growth types: infill, expansion, and leapfrog. Simulation results showed that decision-making based on these growth types, when applied locally for subdivision of individual parcels, produced substantial landscape-level differences in pattern, location, and extent of development. These differences in development, in turn, affected the area and proportion of structures at risk from burning in wildfires. Scenarios with lower housing density and larger numbers of small, isolated clusters of development, i.e., resulting from leapfrog development, were generally predicted to have the highest predicted fire risk to the largest proportion of structures in the study area, and infill development was predicted to have the lowest risk. These results suggest that land use planning should be considered an important component to fire risk management and that consistently applied policies based on residential pattern may provide substantial benefits for future risk reduction.

California↗
USGS2011

Comparison of statistical and theoretical habitat models for conservation planning: The benefit of ensemble prediction

Selection of a modeling approach is an important step in the conservation planning process, but little guidance is available. We compared two statistical and three theoretical habitat modeling approaches representing those currently being used for avian conservation planning at landscape and regional scales: hierarchical spatial count (HSC), classification and regression tree (CRT), habitat suitability index (HSI), forest structure database (FS), and habitat association database (HA). We focused our comparison on models for five priority forest-breeding species in the Central Hardwoods Bird Conservation Region: Acadian Flycatcher, Cerulean Warbler, Prairie Warbler, Red-headed Woodpecker, and Worm-eating Warbler. Lacking complete knowledge on the distribution and abundance of each species with which we could illuminate differences between approaches and provide strong grounds for recommending one approach over another, we used two approaches to compare models: rank correlations among model outputs and comparison of spatial correspondence. In general, rank correlations were significantly positive among models for each species, indicating general agreement among the models. Worm-eating Warblers had the highest pairwise correlations, all of which were significant ( P , 0.05). Red-headed Woodpeckers had the lowest agreement among models, suggesting greater uncertainty in the relative conservation value of areas within the region. We assessed model uncertainty by mapping the spatial congruence in priorities (i.e., top ranks) resulting from each model for each species and calculating the coefficient of variation across model ranks for each location. This allowed identification of areas more likely to be good targets of conservation effort for a species, those areas that were least likely, and those in between where uncertainty is higher and thus conservation action incorporates more risk. Based on our results, models developed independently for the same purpose (conservation planning for a particular species in a particular geography) yield different answers and thus different conservation strategies. We assert that using only one habitat model (even if validated) as the foundation of a conservation plan is risky. Using multiple models (i.e., ensemble prediction) can reduce uncertainty and increase efficacy of conservation action when models corroborate one another and increase understanding of the system when they do not.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2022

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

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

Great Lakes↗
USGS1993

Planning and acquiring a national center for the United States Geological Survey

In August 1973, the U.S. Geological Survey moved its first group of employees into the John Wesley Powell Federal Building of its newly constructed National Center at Reston, Virginia. The move signaled the fruition of more than 20 years of dedicated planning and work following World War II, to consolidate the agency's widespread activities into one location, which could truly serve as a national center. Architecture of distinction and quality, in the words of its principal architect, Walter A. Netsch , ''was considered to be quite radical at the time." The John Wesley Powell Federal Building provides requisite and adequate facilities in an architectural style and form which reflect the dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of the United States Government. It symbolizes the dedication to the public service that must continue to motivate and guide the Geological Survey. This history of building a National Center for the U.S. Geological Survey is a "nuts and bolts" account of the planning, design and construction, forgotten happenings, and frustrations in the planning and authorization process, and the political and other considerations which played a significant role in the culmination of a dream about a National Center for the Geological Survey. This documented data of unique procedures in the acquisition and financing of Federal buildings, the choice and development of the building site, and its location as a contribution to the enhancement of the "new town" concept of the 1960's in the planning and development of the National Capital Area, may well provide guidance in the future to those who have to decide whether a building of true worth should be preserved.

Virginia↗
USGS2003

The plan to coordinate NEHRP post-earthquake investigations

This is the plan to coordinate domestic and foreign post-earthquake investigations supported by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The plan addresses coordination of both the NEHRP agencies—Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Science Foundation (NSF), and U. S. Geological Survey (USGS)—and their partners. The plan is a framework for both coordinating what is going to be done and identifying responsibilities for post-earthquake investigations. It does not specify what will be done. Coordination is addressed in various time frames ranging from hours to years after an earthquake. The plan includes measures for (1) gaining rapid and general agreement on high-priority research opportunities, and (2) conducting the data gathering and fi eld studies in a coordinated manner. It deals with identifi cation, collection, processing, documentation, archiving, and dissemination of the results of post-earthquake work in a timely manner and easily accessible format.

Circular↗
USGS2006

USGS Information Technology Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2007-2011

Introduction: The acquisition, management, communication, and long-term stewardship of natural science data, information, and knowledge are fundamental mission responsibilities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). USGS scientists collect, maintain, and exchange raw scientific data and interpret and analyze it to produce a wide variety of science-based products. Managers throughout the Bureau access, summarize, and analyze administrative or business-related information to budget, plan, evaluate, and report on programs and projects. Information professionals manage the extensive and growing stores of irreplaceable scientific information and knowledge in numerous databases, archives, libraries, and other digital and nondigital holdings. Information is the primary currency of the USGS, and it flows to scientists, managers, partners, and a wide base of customers, including local, State, and Federal agencies, private sector organizations, and individual citizens. Supporting these information flows is an infrastructure of computer systems, telecommunications equipment, software applications, digital and nondigital data stores and archives, technical expertise, and information policies and procedures. This infrastructure has evolved over many years and consists of tools and technologies acquired or built to address the specific requirements of particular projects or programs. Developed independently, the elements of this infrastructure were typically not designed to facilitate the exchange of data and information across programs or disciplines, to allow for sharing of information resources or expertise, or to be combined into a Bureauwide and broader information infrastructure. The challenge to the Bureau is to wisely and effectively use its information resources to create a more Integrated Information Environment that can reduce costs, enhance the discovery and delivery of scientific products, and improve support for science. This Information Technology Strategic Plan for the USGS outlines key information technology (IT) strategic goals and objectives that will support the Bureau's science mission, while also aligning with the Department of the Interior (DOI) IT Strategic Plan and the DOI Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Strategic Plan.

Circular↗
USGS2013

Meeting the Science Needs of the Nation in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy-- A U.S. Geological Survey Science Plan for Support of Restoration and Recovery

n late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy came ashore during a spring high tide on the New Jersey coastline, delivering hurricane-force winds, storm tides exceeding 19 feet, driving rain, and plummeting temperatures. Hurricane Sandy resulted in 72 direct fatalities in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, and widespread and substantial physical, environmental, ecological, social, and economic impacts estimated at near $50 billion. Before the landfall of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided forecasts of potential coastal change; collected oblique aerial photography of pre-storm coastal morphology; deployed storm-surge sensors, rapid-deployment streamgages, wave sensors, and barometric pressure sensors; conducted Light Detection And Ranging (lidar) aerial topographic surveys of coastal areas; and issued a landslide alert for landslide prone areas. During the storm, Tidal Telemetry Networks provided real-time water-level information along the coast. Long-term network and rapid-deployment real-time streamgages and water-quality monitors reported on river levels and changes in water quality. Immediately after the storm, the USGS serviced real-time instrumentation, retrieved data from over 140 storm-surge sensors, and collected other essential environmental data, including more than 830 high-water marks mapping the extent and elevation of the storm surge. Post-storm lidar surveys documented storm impacts to coastal barriers informing response and recovery and providing a new baseline to assess vulnerability of the reconfigured coast. The USGS Hazard Data Distribution System served storm related information from many agencies on the Internet on a daily basis. This science plan was developed immediately following Hurricane Sandy to coordinate continuing USGS activities with other agencies and to guide continued data collection and analysis to ensure support for recovery and restoration efforts. The data, information, and tools that are produced by implementing this plan will: (1) further characterize impacts and changes, (2) guide mitigation and restoration of impacted communities and ecosystems, (3) inform a redevelopment strategy aimed at developing resilient coastal communities and ecosystems, (4) improve preparedness and responsiveness to the next hurricane or similar coastal disaster, and (5) enable improved hazard assessment, response, and recovery for future storms along the hurricane prone shoreline of the United States. The activities outlined in this plan are organized in five themes based on impact types and information needs. These USGS science themes are: Theme 1: Coastal topography and bathymetry. Theme 2: Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers. Theme 3: Impacts of storm surge and estuarine and bay hydrology. Theme 4: Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures. Theme 5: Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. A major emphasis in the implementation of this plan will be on interacting with stakeholders to better understand their specific data and information needs, to define the best way to make information available, and to support applications of USGS science and expertise to decisionmaking.

Connecticut;Delaware;Maine;Maryl;Massachusetts;New↗
USGS2015

The U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS)—A master catalog and collections management plan for U.S. Geological Survey geologic samples and sample collections

**Updated guidance is available in USGS Instructional Memorandum CSS 2019-01 .** Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is widely recognized in the earth science community as possessing extensive collections of earth materials collected by research personnel over the course of its history. In 2006, a Geologic Collections Inventory was conducted within the USGS Geology Discipline to determine the extent and nature of its sample collections, and in 2008, a working group was convened by the USGS National Geologic and Geophysical Data Preservation Program to examine ways in which these collections could be coordinated, cataloged, and made available to researchers both inside and outside the USGS. The charge to this working group was to evaluate the proposition of creating a Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS), a centralized database that would (1) identify all existing USGS geologic collections, regardless of size, (2) create a virtual link among the collections, and (3) provide a way for scientists and other researchers to obtain access to the samples and data in which they are interested. Additionally, the group was instructed to develop criteria for evaluating current collections and to establish an operating plan and set of standard practices for handling, identifying, and managing future sample collections. Policies and procedures promoted by the GCMS would be based on extant best practices established by the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. The resulting report—USGS Circular 1410, “The U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS): A Master Catalog and Collections Management Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Samples and Sample Collections”—has been developed for sample repositories to be a guide to establishing common practices in the collection, retention, and disposal of geologic research materials throughout the USGS. While constructing this report, the GCMS’s potential customers and their needs were considered. Two critical definitions have been clarified: a repository is a facility for the long-term management of geologic collections, and a collection is a set of specimens that have been brought together on the basis of some common characteristic. Required sample metadata for newly collected samples, as well as for older collections, were also stipulated and are listed and explained in this report. Several basic policies are also recommended by the GCMS in order to standardize operations among the physical repositories where collections are currently housed. The GCMS Collection Management Plan provides a set of protocols and templates for the management of scientific collections, including access, storage, transfer, and disposal of physical geologic samples and data. This plan is flexible to allow each repository to adapt the practices best suited to its collections. The general consideration for implementation of the GCMS is that all active USGS geologic sample repositories will form the core of GCMS and that participating science centers will develop procedures based on proposed GCMS methodologies. The GCMS is a collective resource for the entire USGS community and the users who discover the geologic materials kept in these repositories and seek to access them.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide—U.S. Geological Survey subduction zone science plan

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information and tools to build resilience in communities exposed to subduction zone earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic eruptions. Improving the application of USGS science to successfully reduce risk from these events relies on whole community efforts, with continuing partnerships among scientists and stakeholders, including researchers from universities, other government labs and private industry, land-use planners, engineers, policy-makers, emergency managers and responders, business owners, insurance providers, the media, and the general public. Motivated by recent technological advances and increased awareness of our growing vulnerability to subduction-zone hazards, the USGS is uniquely positioned to take a major step forward in the science it conducts and products it provides, building on its tradition of using long-term monitoring and research to develop effective products for hazard mitigation. This science plan provides a blueprint both for prioritizing USGS science activities and for delineating USGS interests and potential participation in subduction zone science supported by its partners. The activities in this plan address many USGS stakeholder needs: High-fidelity tools and user-tailored information that facilitate increasingly more targeted, neighborhood-scale decisions to mitigate risks more cost-effectively and ensure post-event operability. Such tools may include maps, tables, and simulated earthquake ground-motion records conveying shaking intensity and frequency. These facilitate the prioritization of retrofitting of vulnerable infrastructure; Information to guide local land-use and response planning to minimize development in likely hazardous zones (for example, databases, maps, and scenario documents to guide evacuation route planning in communities near volcanoes, along coastlines vulnerable to tsunamis, and built on landslide-prone terrain); New tools to assess the potential for cascading hazards, such as landslides, tsunamis, coastal changes, and flooding caused by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions; Geospatial models of permanent, widespread land- and sea-level changes that may occur in the immediate aftermath of great ( M ≥8.0) subduction zone earthquakes; Strong partnerships between scientists and public safety providers for effective decision making during periods of elevated hazard and risk; Accurate forecasts of far-reaching hazards (for example, ash clouds, tsunamis) to avert catastrophes and unnecessary disruptions in air and sea transportation; Aftershock forecasts to guide decisions about when and where to re-enter, repair, or rebuild buildings and infrastructure, for all types of subduction zone earthquakes.

Circular↗
USGS2020

Geomagnetism Program research plan, 2020–2024

The Geomagnetism Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitors geomagnetic field variation through operation of a network of observatories across the United States and its territories, and it pursues scientific research needed to estimate and assess geomagnetic and geoelectric hazards. Over the next five years (2020–2024 inclusive) and in support of national and agency priorities, Geomagnetism Program research scientists plan to pursue an integrated set of research projects broadly encompassing empirical estimation and mapping of geomagnetic disturbance, modeling of solid-Earth conductivity structure and surface impedance, and mapping of magnetic-storm-induced geoelectric fields. Analyses are empirically based, relying on measured time series as well as statistical and numerical modeling of geomagnetic-monitoring data from ground-based observatories and surface-impedance tensors acquired during magnetotelluric surveys. The plan describes augmentation and development of the Geomagnetism Program's existing research portfolio, assuming present funding levels and staffing numbers. Because the projects are interdependent, they cannot be straightforwardly prioritized. They will all be pursued as resources and time permit; additional funding and staffing would enable the projects to be broadened and more rapidly completed. Where appropriate and subject to budgetary constraints and staffing numbers, research on specific projects might be accelerated or even judiciously expanded—some opportunities for expansion are discussed in this plan. Results will provide realistic illumination of the nature of the ground-level expression of space-weather disturbance, a subject of particular importance for projects focused on evaluating the vulnerability of electric-power-grid systems. This plan does not cover Geomagnetism Program operations, which are primarily concerned with the operation of magnetic observatories and, now, magnetotelluric surveys, although the context of such observatories and surveys is discussed. The research element of the program provides guidance for the expansion of program operations and research projects. In addition to the research projects summarized here, program scientists continue to provide leadership to the national and international geomagnetic, magnetotelluric, and space-weather communities.

Circular↗