SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Challenge”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 505 records · Page 28Linked to original sources

USGS2011

Report on the 2010 Chilean earthquake and tsunami response

In July 2010, in an effort to reduce future catastrophic natural disaster losses for California, the American Red Cross coordinated and sent a delegation of 20 multidisciplinary experts on earthquake response and recovery to Chile. The primary goal was to understand how the Chilean society and relevant organizations responded to the magnitude 8.8 Maule earthquake that struck the region on February 27, 2010, as well as how an application of these lessons could better prepare California communities, response partners and state emergency partners for a comparable situation. Similarities in building codes, socioeconomic conditions, and broad extent of the strong shaking make the Chilean earthquake a very close analog to the impact of future great earthquakes on California. To withstand and recover from natural and human-caused disasters, it is essential for citizens and communities to work together to anticipate threats, limit effects, and rapidly restore functionality after a crisis. The delegation was hosted by the Chilean Red Cross and received extensive briefings from both national and local Red Cross officials. During nine days in Chile, the delegation also met with officials at the national, regional, and local government levels. Technical briefings were received from the President’s Emergency Committee, emergency managers from ONEMI (comparable to FEMA), structural engineers, a seismologist, hospital administrators, firefighters, and the United Nations team in Chile. Cities visited include Santiago, Talca, Constitución, Concepción, Talcahuano, Tumbes, and Cauquenes. The American Red Cross Multidisciplinary Team consisted of subject matter experts, who carried out special investigations in five Teams on the (1) science and engineering findings, (2) medical services, (3) emergency services, (4) volunteer management, and (5) executive and management issues (see appendix A for a full list of participants and their titles and teams). While developing this delegation, it was clear that a multidisciplinary approach was required to properly analyze the emergency response, technical, and social components of this disaster. A diverse and knowledgeable delegation was necessary to analyze the Chilean response in a way that would be beneficial to preparedness in California, as well as improve mitigation efforts around the United States. By most standards, the Maule earthquake was a catastrophe for Chile. The economic losses totaled $30 billion USD or 17% of the GDP of the country. Twelve million people, or ¾ of the population of the country, were in areas that felt strong shaking. Yet only 521 fatalities have been confirmed, with 56 people still missing and presumed dead in the tsunami. The Science and Technology Team evaluated the impacts of the earthquake on built environment with implications for the United States. The fires following the earthquake were minimal in part because of the shutdown of the national electrical grid early in the shaking. Only five engineer-designed buildings were destroyed during the earthquake; however, over 350,000 housing units were destroyed. Chile has a law that holds building owners liable for the first 10 years of a building’s existence for any losses resulting from inadequate application of the building code during construction. This law was cited by many our team met with as a prime reason for the strong performance of the built environment. Overall, this earthquake demonstrated that strict building codes and standards could greatly reduce losses in even the largest earthquakes. In the immediate response to the earthquake and tsunami, first responders, emergency personnel, and search and rescue teams handled many challenges. Loss of communications was significant; many lives were lost and effective coordination to support life-sustaining efforts was gravely impacted due to a lack of inter- and intra-agency coordination. The Health and Medical Services Team sought to understand the medical disaster response strategies and operations of Chilean agencies, including perceived or actual failures in disaster preparation that impacted the medical disaster response; post-disaster health and medical interventions to save lives and limit suffering; and the lessons learned by public health and medical personnel as a result of their experiences. Despite devastating damage to the health care and civic infrastructure, the health care response to the Chilean earthquake appeared highly successful due to several factors. Like other first responders, the medical community had the ability and resourcefulness to respond without centralized control in the early response phase. The health care community maintained patient care under austere conditions, despite many obstacles that could have prevented such care. National and international resources were rapidly mobilized to support the medical response. The Emergency Services Team sought to collect information on all phases of emergency management (preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery) and determine what worked well and what could be improved upon. The Chileans reported being surprised that they were not as ready for this event as they thought they were. The use of mass care sheltering was limited, given the scope of the disaster, because of the resiliency of the population. The impacts of the earthquake and the tsunami were quite different, as were the needs of urban and rural dwellers, necessitating different response activities. The Volunteer Services Team examined the challenges faced in mobilizing a large number of volunteers to assist in the aftermath of a disaster of this scale. One of the greatest challenges expressed was difficulty in communication; the need for redundancy in communication mechanisms was cited. The flexibility and ability to work autonomously by the frontline volunteers was a significant factor in effective response. It was also important for volunteer leadership to know the emergency plans. These plans need to be flexible, include alternative options, and be completed in conjunction with local officials and other volunteers. The Executive/Red Cross Management Team took a broad look at the impacts of the earthquake and the implications for California. Some of the most important preparation for the disaster came from relationships formed before the event. The communities with strong connections between different government services generally fared well. The initial response and resilience of individuals and communities was another important component. Communication system failures limited the ability of a central government to assist impacted communities, or to issue tsunami warnings. It also delayed the response since the government did not know (in some case for several days) the impact and needs of local governments. In general, plans for congregate care shelters existed but were little used as most people chose to stay at damaged homes or with relatives. Looting was a surprise to response officials as well as social scientists, but both public and private sector organizations, including NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), must consider security for damaged businesses as a priority in California’s multihazard planning. Class and ethnic divisions that become heightened during some cases of actual or perceived injustice may also emerge in natural disasters in California. Several factors contributed overall to the low casualty rate and rapid recovery. A major factor is the strong building code in Chile and its comprehensive enforcement. In particular, Chile has a law that holds building owners accountable for losses in a building they build for 10 years. A second factor was the limited number of fires after the earthquake. In the last few California earthquakes, 60% of the fires were started by electrical problems, so the rarity of fires may have been affected by the shut down of the electricity grid early in the earthquake. Third, in many areas, the local emergency response was very effective. The most effective regions had close coordination between emergency management, fire, and police and were empowered to respond without communication with the capital. The fourth factor was the overall high level of knowledge about earthquakes and tsunamis by much of the population that helped them respond more appropriately after the event.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

U.S. Department of the Interior South Central Climate Science Center strategic science plan, 2013--18

The Department of the Interior (DOI) recognizes and embraces the unprecedented challenges of maintaining our Nation’s rich natural and cultural resources in the 21st century. The magnitude of these challenges demands that the conservation community work together to develop integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies that collectively address the impacts of climate change and other landscape-scale stressors. On September 14, 2009, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010) entitled, “Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources.” The Order establishes the foundation for two partner-based conservation science entities to address these unprecedented challenges: Climate Science Centers (CSCs and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. Eight CSCs have been established and are managed through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC); each CSC works in close collaboration with their neighboring CSCs, as well as those across the Nation, to ensure the best and most efficient science is produced. The South Central CSC was established in 2012 through a cooperative agreement with the University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech University, Louisiana State University, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab; hereafter termed the ”Consortium” of the South Central CSC. The Consortium has a broad expertise in the physical, biological, natural, and social sciences to address impacts of climate change on land, water, fish and wildlife, ocean, coastal, and cultural resources. The South Central CSC will provide scientific information, tools, and techniques that managers and other parties interested in land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources can use to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change, actively engaging LCCs and other partners in translating science into management decisions. This document is the first Strategic Science Plan for the South Central CSC (2013-18). Using the January 2011 DOI guidance as a model, this document (1) describes the role and interactions of the South Central CSC among partners and stakeholders including Federal, State, and non-governmental organizations throughout the region; (2) describes a concept of what the center will provide to its partners; (3) defines a context for climate impacts in the south central United States; and (4) establishes the science priorities the center will address through research. Science priorities are currently organized as immediate or future research needs; however, this document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change and as scientific work progresses.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Emergency management response to a warning-level Alaska-source tsunami impacting California: Chapter J in The SAFRR (Science Application for Risk Reduction) Tsunami Scenario

This chapter is directed towards two audiences: Firstly, it targets nonemergency management readers, providing them with insight on the process and challenges facing emergency managers in responding to tsunami Warning, particularly given this “short fuse” scenario. It is called “short fuse” because there is only a 5.5-hour window following the earthquake before arrival of the tsunami within which to evaluate the threat, disseminate alert and warning messages, and respond. This action initiates a period when crisis communication is of paramount importance. An additional dynamic that is important to note is that within 15 minutes of the earthquake, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) will issue alert bulletins for the entire Pacific Coast. This is one-half the time actually presented by recent tsunamis from Japan, Chile, and Samoa. Second, the chapter provides emergency managers at all levels with insights into key considerations they may need to address in order to augment their existing plans and effectively respond to tsunami events. We look at emergency management response to the tsunami threat from three perspectives:“Top Down” (Threat analysis and Alert/Warning information from the Federal agency charged with Alert and Warning) “Bottom Up” (Emergency management’s Incident Command approach to responding to emergencies and disasters based on the needs of impacted local jurisdictions) “Across Time” (From the initiating earthquake event through emergency response) We focus on these questions: What are the government roles, relationships, and products that support Tsunami Alert and Warning dissemination? (Emergency Planning and Preparedness.) What roles, relationships, and products support emergency management response to Tsunami Warning and impact? (Engendering prudent public safety response.) What are the key emergency management activities, considerations, and challenges brought out by the SAFRR tsunami scenario? (Real emergencies) How do these activities, considerations, and challenges play out as the tsunami event unfolds across the “life” of the event? (Lessons)

California↗

USGS2022

National strategy for landslide loss reduction

Executive Summary Landslide hazards are present in all 50 States and most U.S. territories, and they affect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Landslides are the downslope movement of earth materials under the force of gravity. They can occur without any obvious trigger. Widespread or severe landslide events are often driven by such hazards as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heavy rain events, flooding, and wildfires. Landslides can also cause their own cascading consequences, such as the spread of hazardous materials or the creation of devastating local tsunamis. This strategy document describes goals and strategic actions of a comprehensive strategy to meet key challenges to reducing the Nation’s risk from landslide hazards equitably and effectively. The document follows the direction of the National Landslide Preparedness Act (Public Law 116–323) by presenting a strategy for addressing landslide hazards, including risk reduction and response. The act directs the Department of the Interior to establish a program that will work with State, Tribal, and local governments as well as with academia, the private sector, community-based groups, and nonprofit organizations to identify landslide hazards and risk and improve communication, coordination, and emergency preparedness, with the objective of reducing landslide losses. As the only Federal program dedicated to landslide hazard science, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program will lead and coordinate many of the efforts described in this strategy document. Landslide hazard risk reduction must be undertaken collectively and collaboratively across the Federal Government. This strategy document will provide a framework for the creation of an interagency management plan that describes the programs, projects, workforce, and budgets required to carry out the national strategy. The strategy outlined in this document presents a vision of how to equitably produce, communicate, and apply landslide data and science to support a broad range of land management, infrastructure, planning, and emergency response decisions. These decisions are made by a variety of actors, including private and nonprofit landholders; State, Tribal, territorial, city, and county planners; emergency managers; engineers; infrastructure managers; Federal agencies and their partners; and community leaders and individuals. Supporting those decisions and reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to landslides requires overcoming three main challenges: (1) gaps in basic information needed to describe and understand landslide occurrence and societal risk, (2) difficulty in accurately mapping and forecasting landslide hazards, and (3) communication and coordination among the many jurisdictions and sectors that have responsibility for and interest in reducing landslide losses. To address those challenges, this strategy document puts forward a series of strategic actions to achieve four goals: Assess: Decision makers have access to detailed, nationwide, and contextually relevant information on landslide hazard and risk. Coordinate: Landslide hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are coordinated across Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local levels. Plan: Communities and land managers are prepared and able to plan for landslide hazards. Respond: Landslide surveillance, warnings, and responses to events are effective, efficient, equitable, cooperative, and data-driven to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. These strategic actions focus on expanding the knowledge of societal risk posed by landslides as well as better understanding of where, when, and why they occur. They focus on applying that knowledge to support landslide risk reduction efforts and decisions, including the establishment of new advisory, coordination, and working groups focused on landslide hazard and risk. They take into account that supporting landslide loss reduction decisions also requires new guidance, tools, and training codeveloped with the entities, organizations, and individuals faced with making those decisions. Finally, they address actions needed to support and expand landslide warning information and improve the technical response to landslide emergencies.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2023

Grassland management priorities for the North Central Region

Executive Summary Understanding how climate change and variability will impact grassland ecosystems is crucial for successful grassland management in the 21st century. In 2020, the U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (USGS NC CASC) began a project to establish a baseline of information to best serve grassland managers (that is, those who develop grassland management plans or implement those plans on the ground) at Federal, State, and Tribal agen-cies and nongovernmental organizations to help meet regional grassland management goals. This project “A Synthesis of Climate Impacts, Stakeholder Needs, and Adaptation in Northern Great Plains Grassland Ecosystems” (hereafter, the Grasslands Synthesis Project), had two primary goals: (1) to synthesize management goals and challenges for grassland managers across the region and (2) to assess the state-of-the-science and identify knowledge gaps for addressing the goals and challenges within the context of climate change. The findings from the Grasslands Syn-thesis Project are described in two volumes. This report serves several purposes, including providing (1) a synthesis of regional grassland management goals and challenges, (2) identification of information needs relevant to grassland management in a changing climate, and (3) summaries of grassland management issues by ecoregion and management organization or agency.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Noth Dakota, ↗

USGS2007

Proceedings of the first U.S. Geological Survey scientific information management workshop, March 21-23, 2006

In March 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held the first Scientific Information Management (SIM) Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The workshop brought together more than 150 SIM professionals from across the organization to discuss the range and importance of SIM problems, identify common challenges and solutions, and investigate the use and value of “communities of practice” (CoP) as mechanisms to address these issues. The 3-day workshop began with presentations of SIM challenges faced by the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network and two USGS programs from geology and hydrology. These presentations were followed by a keynote address and discussion of CoP by Dr. Etienne Wenger, a pioneer and leading expert in CoP, who defined them as "groups of people who share a passion for something that they know how to do and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better." Wenger addressed the roles and characteristics of CoP, how they complement formal organizational structures, and how they can be fostered. Following this motivating overview, five panelists (including Dr. Wenger) with CoP experience in different institutional settings provided their perspectives and lessons learned. The first day closed with an open discussion on the potential intersection of SIM at the USGS with SIM challenges and the potential for CoP. The second session began the process of developing a common vocabulary for both scientific data management and CoP, and a list of eight guiding principles for information management were proposed for discussion and constructive criticism. Following this discussion, 20 live demonstrations and posters of SIM tools developed by various USGS programs and projects were presented. Two community-building sessions were held to explore the next steps in 12 specific areas: Archiving of Scientific Data and Information; Database Networks; Digital Libraries; Emerging Workforce; Field Data for Small Research Projects; Knowledge Capture; Knowledge Organization Systems and Controlled Vocabularies; Large Time Series Data Sets; Metadata; Portals and Frameworks; Preservation of Physical Collections; and Scientific Data from Monitoring Programs. In about two-thirds of these areas, initial steps to forming CoP are now underway. The final afternoon included a panel in which information professionals, managers, program coordinators, and associate directors shared their perspectives on the workshop, on ways in which the USGS could better manage its scientific information, and on the use of CoP as informal mechanisms to complement formal organizational structures. The final session focused on developing the next steps, an action plan, and a communication strategy to ensure continued development.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2011

Proceedings of the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds—Observing, Studying, and Managing for Change

These proceedings contain the abstracts, manuscripts, and posters of presentations given at the Fourth Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds—Observing, Studying, and Managing for Change, held at the Westmark Hotel in Fairbanks, Alaska, September 26–30, 2011. The conference was jointly hosted by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service. Watersheds face resource impacts driven by accelerated change related to land use, population, and climate. About every three years a conference is held to bring together watershed researchers, observers, and managers to share scientific advances and management strategies. This year, the Fourth ICRW took a wider perspective on watershed science and examined some pressing issues of watershed science and management in our largest and perhaps most vulnerable state, Alaska. The purpose of the conference was to better understand the processes driving change and help managers incorporate societal needs and scientific uncertainty in the management of natural resources. The conference echoed similar themes to the last, highlighting the challenges of managing watersheds based on available science when considerably uncertainty remains regarding the hypothesized relationships between observed environmental changes and their ultimate effects. For example, while the scientific case for anthropogenic climate change has been well presented, confirming possible cause and effect relationships between climatic change and physical and ecological impacts in highly variable, natural systems continues to represent a scientific challenge. This goal becomes even more difficult when superimposed upon a long history of natural resource and land management practices that have fundamentally changed the physical, chemical and biological processes important in maintaining naturally functioning ecosystems. Designing and implementing studies to better understand watersheds and clearly communicating the findings to decisionmakers will be the primary challenge for natural resource scientists and managers into the foreseeable future.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2016

Proceedings of the 12th Biennial Conference of research on the Colorado Plateau

Introduction The Colorado Plateau is a physiographic region that encompasses 330,000 square kilometers in parts of four states in the southwestern United States (Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona). Known for its high deserts, the Colorado Plateau also includes isolated mountains, high plateaus, and rugged canyons. Not only is the region topographically diverse, but geologically, biologically, and culturally diverse as well. The landscape is managed by Federal entities including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Forest Service; Tribal nations including the Navajo Nation, Kaibab Paiute, Mountain Ute, Southern Ute, Hopi, Zuni, Hualapai, Havasupai, and White Mountain Apache Tribes; State land and wildlife management agencies; and privately owned holdings, creating complex interactions and management challenges. Population growth, increased tourism to Federal and State lands, and energy development have increased water demands and altered land-use patterns, and these changes have emerged as management challenges facing the people working and living in the region. Climate change, particularly the ongoing drought, has exacerbated the effects of population growth, land-use change, and other stressors such as invasive species. As managers seek solutions to the challenges facing the region’s natural and cultural resources, the Biennial Conference of Science and Management of the Colorado Plateau has become an important venue for exchanging information about emerging management concerns and recent scientific research. Each biennial conference has sought to promote discussion, information sharing, and productive communication among the managers, scientists, students, administrators, tribal representatives, and others who attend the conference with the goal of enhancing the use of the best available science to manage the region’s incomparable natural and cultural resources. The publication and dissemination of a conference proceedings series expands the reach of the conference beyond those people in attendance and creates a record on the research presented. The idea of producing a conference proceedings, and its subsequent publication, first occurred in 1993 following the first biennial conference in 1991. A published volume of contributed papers has followed each subsequent biennial conference, including this volume. The venue for publishing proceedings has changed over the years and has included the National Park Service, the Government Printing Office, the U.S. Geological Survey, and University of Arizona Press. Recently, van Riper and others (2015) published a compilation of the abstracts from the 11 previous conference proceedings. Collectively, the proceedings highlight approximately 25 years of natural- and cultural-resources research, promoting the integration of research with resource management across the Colorado Plateau. This volume is freely downloadable by the public, thereby further expanding the influence of this conference beyond the Colorado Plateau. The 12th Biennial Conference held in Flagstaff, Arizona, from September 16 to 19, 2013, covered a range of topics in the physical, biological, and socio-cultural sciences. The conference was organized and hosted by Northern Arizona University’s ( NAU) Merriam-Powell Center for Environmental Research, the Colorado Plateau Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit, and the U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center. Financial and in-kind support was provided by a wide range of organizations including the U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Canyon Trust, Colorado Plateau Research Station, and various NAU entities. NAU sponsors include the Landscape Conservation Initiative, School of Forestry, School of Earth Science and Environmental Sustainability, Office of the Provost, and Office of the Vice President of Research. Contributors to these proceedings include researchers and managers from Federal, State, and Tribal governments, universities, private entities, and non-profit organizations. In this regard, this conference has wide-ranging support and participation among private and public entities involved in the science and management of natural resources on the Colorado Plateau.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah↗

USGS2017

A field study of selected U.S. Geological Survey analytical methods for measuring pesticides in filtered stream water, June - September 2012

U.S. Geological Survey monitoring programs extensively used two analytical methods, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry, to measure pesticides in filtered water samples during 1992–2012. In October 2012, the monitoring programs began using direct aqueous-injection liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry as a new analytical method for pesticides. The change in analytical methods, however, has the potential to inadvertently introduce bias in analysis of datasets that span the change. A field study was designed to document performance of the new method in a variety of stream-water matrices and to quantify any potential changes in measurement bias or variability that could be attributed to changes in analytical methods. The goals of the field study were to (1) summarize performance (bias and variability of pesticide recovery) of the new method in a variety of stream-water matrices; (2) compare performance of the new method in laboratory blank water (laboratory reagent spikes) to that in a variety of stream-water matrices; (3) compare performance (analytical recovery) of the new method to that of the old methods in a variety of stream-water matrices; (4) compare pesticide detections and concentrations measured by the new method to those of the old methods in a variety of stream-water matrices; (5) compare contamination measured by field blank water samples in old and new methods; (6) summarize the variability of pesticide detections and concentrations measured by the new method in field duplicate water samples; and (7) identify matrix characteristics of environmental water samples that adversely influence the performance of the new method. Stream-water samples and a variety of field quality-control samples were collected at 48 sites in the U.S. Geological Survey monitoring networks during June–September 2012. Stream sites were located across the United States and included sites in agricultural and urban land-use settings, as well as sites on major rivers. The results of the field study identified several challenges for the analysis and interpretation of data analyzed by both old and new methods, particularly when data span the change in methods and are combined for analysis of temporal trends in water quality. The main challenges identified are large (greater than 30 percent), statistically significant differences in analytical recovery, detection capability, and (or) measured concentrations for selected pesticides. These challenges are documented and discussed, but specific guidance or statistical methods to resolve these differences in methods are beyond the scope of the report. The results of the field study indicate that the implications of the change in analytical methods must be assessed individually for each pesticide and method. Understanding the possible causes of the systematic differences in concentrations between methods that remain after recovery adjustment might be necessary to determine how to account for the differences in data analysis. Because recoveries for each method are independently determined from separate reference standards and spiking solutions, the differences might be due to an error in one of the reference standards or solutions or some other basic aspect of standard procedure in the analytical process. Further investigation of the possible causes is needed, which will lead to specific decisions on how to compensate for these differences in concentrations in data analysis. In the event that further investigations do not provide insight into the causes of systematic differences in concentrations between methods, the authors recommend continuing to collect and analyze paired environmental water samples by both old and new methods. This effort should be targeted to seasons, sites, and expected concentrations to supplement those concentrations already assessed and to compare the ongoing analytical recovery of old and new methods to those observed in the summer and fall of 2012.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2018

Prioritization framework for ranking riverine ecosystem stressors using example sites from the Tualatin River Basin, Oregon

As human populations increase, so does their influence over the environment. Altered terrain, degraded water quality, and threatened or endangered species are all-too-common consequences of a growing anthropogenic influence on the landscape. To help manage these effects, researchers have developed new ways to characterize current environmental conditions and help resource managers seek solutions to bring affected areas back to their best attainable health. Before an ecosystem can be improved, however, its current level of ecological stress must be determined. Characterizing environmental conditions at many sites across a landscape helps managers understand the range of current conditions and prioritize where they might focus restoration and protection efforts. This report details the development of a prioritization framework to score riverine ecosystem stressors in a watershed based on example sites from the Tualatin River Basin in northwestern Oregon. The framework incorporated the most influential site-specific stressors throughout the basin built on a long history of data collection. These stressors were characterized with 13 metrics that were organized into 4 groups: hydrologic, water quality, physical habitat, and biological. Each stressor metric used readily accessible data and was translated to a score between 0 and 10. The higher the score, the healthier the site. This initial application of the framework used field observations and measurements to rank site conditions at two Tualatin River sites and four Tualatin River tributary sites. Given the versatility of this framework, it easily could be expanded to include more sites or new metrics, if necessary. Because stressors varied by season, all metrics for the tributary sites were scored separately during the wet season (November through April) and dry season (May through October). Water-quality data were available over a prolonged period; therefore, water-quality metrics were assessed by season and by decade (1990–99 compared to 2000–12) to evaluate long-term stressor trends. Results for the Tualatin River Basin prioritization framework indicated that the urban tributaries demonstrated the greatest stress throughout the year, especially during the dry summer months. Spatially, the upper Tualatin River was healthier than the lower reaches of the river. Water-quality has improved in the last 10 years, mostly due to improvements in the dry period contaminant scores, but challenges remain with high water temperatures and low dissolved-oxygen conditions. The biggest challenge with this type of research derived from inconsistencies within the available data. Both spatial and temporal data gaps must be addressed to improve the prioritization. Incorporating both discrete and continuous datasets into the prioritization framework remains a challenge because the datasets have slightly different information and criteria and are not always comparable. Regardless, this report provides guidelines for developing a prioritization framework that ranks the ecological health of sites in a watershed and provides guidance on management actions for improving conditions by targeting factors that greatly affect the health of river ecosystems.

Oregon↗

USGS2026

Southeastern Utah Federal lands science needs survey

Evidence-based scientific information can help support defensible decision making in the management of public lands. This report sought to identify current (2024–25) Federal agency research needs in southeastern Utah and to synthesize common management challenges and questions across jurisdictional boundaries. We implemented a science needs assessment focused on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), and National Park Service (NPS) in southeastern Utah—the area delineated by BLM’s Canyon Country District Office, portions of the FS Manti-La Sal National Forest, and Southeast Utah Group NPS units. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers met with and surveyed BLM, NPS, and FS staff in 2024 and 2025 to understand their science needs and preferred modes of information delivery. The USGS’s approach may be unrepresentative in terms of which topic areas were addressed, but the responses nevertheless highlight challenges and high-priority research areas that could contribute positively to agency decision making. Common management challenges and areas where additional research could be beneficial to land managers include the effects of climate change, recreation effects and visitor behavior, hydrology and hydrologic changes due to anthropogenic pressures, and the capacity for inventory and monitoring across essentially all resource types. Research on site-specific restoration techniques and their outcomes was also a common theme. In this report we discuss ways in which researchers can increase the extent to which their work could be actionable for resource managers and provide suggestions for potential priority research areas for the study region.

Utah↗

USGS2001

Mortality and kidney histopathology of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha exposed to virulent and attenuated Renibacterium salmoninarum strains

An isolate of Renibacterium salmoninarum (strain MT 239) exhibiting reduced virulence in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss was tested for its ability to cause bacterial kidney disease (BKD) in chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, a salmonid species more susceptible to BKD. Juvenile chinook salmon were exposed to either 33209, the American Type Culture Collection type strain of R. salmoninarum, or to MT 239, by an intraperitoneal injection of 1 x 10(3) or 1 x 10(6) bacteria fish(-1), or by a 24 h immersion in 1 x 10(5) or 1 x 10(7) bacteria ml(-1). For 22 wk fish were held in 12 degrees C water and monitored for mortality. Fish were sampled periodically for histological examination of kidney tissues. In contrast to fish exposed to the high dose of strain 33209 by either injection or immersion, none of the fish exposed to strain MT 239 by either route exhibited gross clinical signs or histopathological changes indicative of BKD. However, the MT 239 strain was detected by the direct fluorescent antibody technique in 4 fish that died up to 11 wk after the injection challenge and in 5 fish that died up to 20 wk after the immersion challenge. Viable MT 239 was isolated in culture from 3 fish that died up to 13 wk after the immersion challenge. Total mortality in groups injected with the high dose of strain MT 239 (12%) was also significantly lower (p < 0.05) than mortality in groups injected with strain 33209 (73 %). These data indicate that the attenuated virulence observed with MT 239 in rainbow trout also occurs in a salmonid species highly susceptible to BKD. The reasons for the attenuated virulence of MT 239 were not determined but may be related to the reduced levels of the putative virulence protein p57 associated with this strain.

Diseases of Aquatic Organisms↗

USGS2024

Editorial: Enabling people-centered risk communication for geohazards

In the field of natural hazards, communicating science with the public and stakeholders (i.e., interested parties) involves entering the challenging and complex world of hazard and risk communication, the ultimate purpose of which is to reduce the impact of impending hazards on people and property at risk. Hazard and risk communication are adequate if they reach people with the information that they need, at the right time, and in a form that they can use. This task appears to be particularly difficult when decisions by the public and stakeholders have to be made in the presence of uncertainty about what could happen, as is often the case with geohazards. Moreover, decision-making is complex when there are time pressures, human and economic resources are limited, and multiple sources of information need to be considered. This poses several challenges for the development of two-way and people-centered risk communication for geohazards. The “Enabling People-Centered Risk Communication for Geohazards” Research Topic analyses these challenges and identifies innovative pathways to address them. More precisely, it draws together 13 state-of-the-art articles from around the world on improving communication practices, strategies, and understandings relating to a range of various geohazards and weather-related hazards.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

USGS2020

Evaluating contributions of recent tracking-based animal movement ecology to conservation management

The use of animal-born sensors for location-based tracking and bio-logging in terrestrial systems has expanded dramatically in the past 10 years. This rapid expansion has generated new data on how animals interact with and respond to variation in their environment, resulting in important ecological, physiological, and evolutionary insights. Although understanding the finer details of animal locations has important management relevance, applied studies are not prominent in the movement ecology literature. This is despite the long history of applied studies of animal movement and the urgent and growing need for evidence-based conservation guidance, especially in the challenging field of human-wildlife interactions. The goal of this review is to evaluate the realized contribution of tracking-based animal movement ecology to solving specific conservation problems, and to identify barriers that may hinder expansion of that contribution. To do this, we (a) briefly review the history and technologies used in animal tracking and bio-logging, (b) use a series of literature searches to evaluate the frequency with which movement ecology studies are designed to solve specific conservation problems, and (c) use this information to identify challenges that may limit the applied relevance of the field of movement ecology, and to propose pathways to expand that applied relevance. Our literature review quantifies the limited extent to which research in the field of movement ecology is designed to solve specific conservation problems, but also the fact that such studies are slowly becoming more prevalent. We discuss how barriers that limit application of these principles are likely due to constraints imposed by the types of data used commonly in the field. Problems of scale mismatch, error compounding, and data paucity all create challenges that are relevant to the field of movement ecology but may be especially pertinent in applied situations. Finding solutions to these problems will create new opportunity for movement ecologists to contribute to conservation science.

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution↗

USGS2022

Integrating urban planning and water management through green infrastructure in the United States-Mexico border

Creating sustainable, resilient, and livable cities calls for integrative approaches and collaborative practices across temporal and spatial scales. However, practicability is challenged by institutional, social, and technical complexities and the need to build collective understanding of integrated approaches. Rapid urbanization along the United States-Mexico border, fueled by industrialization, trade, and migration, has resulted in cities confronted with recurrent flooding risk, extended drought, water pollution, habitat destruction and systemic vulnerabilities. The international border, which separates natural and built ecosystems, is both a challenge and an opportunity, making a unique social and institutional setting ideal for testing the integration of urban planning and water management. Our research focuses on fusing multi-functional and multi-scalar green infrastructure to restore ecosystem services through a strategic binational planning process. This paper describes this planning process, including the development and application of both a land suitability analysis and a hydrological model to optimally site green infrastructure in the Nogales, Arizona, United States—Nogales, Sonora, Mexico, cross border region. We draw lessons from this process and stakeholder feedback focused on the potential for urban green infrastructure, to allow for adaptation and even transformation in the face of current and future challenges such as limited resources, underdeveloped governance, bordering, and climate change. In sum, a cross border network of green infrastructure can provide a backbone to connect this transboundary watershed while providing both hydrological and social benefits.

Frontiers in Water↗

USGS2019

A phylogenomic supertree of birds

It has long been appreciated that analyses of genomic data (e.g., whole genome sequencing or sequence capture) have the potential to reveal the tree of life, but it remains challenging to move from sequence data to a clear understanding of evolutionary history, in part due to the computational challenges of phylogenetic estimation using genome-scale data. Supertree methods solve that challenge because they facilitate a divide-and-conquer approach for large-scale phylogeny inference by integrating smaller subtrees in a computationally-efficient manner. Here, we combined information from sequence capture and whole-genome phylogenies using supertree methods. However, available phylogenomic trees had limited overlap so we used taxon-rich (but not phylogenomic) megaphylogenies to weave them together. This allowed us to construct a phylogenomic supertree, with support values, that included 707 bird species (~7% of avian species diversity). We estimated branch lengths using mitochondrial sequence data and we used this to estimate divergence times. Our time-calibrated supertree supports radiation of all three major avian clades (Palaeognathae, Galloanseres, and Neoaves) near the Cretaceous-Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary. The approach we used will permit the continued addition of taxa to this supertree as new phylogenomic data are published, and it could be applied to other taxa as well.

Diversity↗

USGS2024

Segment anything model can not segment anything: Assessing AI foundation model's generalizability in permafrost mapping

This paper assesses trending AI foundation models, especially emerging computer vision foundation models and their performance in natural landscape feature segmentation. While the term foundation model has quickly garnered interest from the geospatial domain, its definition remains vague. Hence, this paper will first introduce AI foundation models and their defining characteristics. Built upon the tremendous success achieved by Large Language Models (LLMs) as the foundation models for language tasks, this paper discusses the challenges of building foundation models for geospatial artificial intelligence (GeoAI) vision tasks. To evaluate the performance of large AI vision models, especially Meta’s Segment Anything Model (SAM), we implemented different instance segmentation pipelines that minimize the changes to SAM to leverage its power as a foundation model. A series of prompt strategies were developed to test SAM’s performance regarding its theoretical upper bound of predictive accuracy, zero-shot performance, and domain adaptability through fine-tuning. The analysis used two permafrost feature datasets, ice-wedge polygons and retrogressive thaw slumps because (1) these landform features are more challenging to segment than man-made features due to their complicated formation mechanisms, diverse forms, and vague boundaries; (2) their presence and changes are important indicators for Arctic warming and climate change. The results show that although promising, SAM still has room for improvement to support AI-augmented terrain mapping. The spatial and domain generalizability of this finding is further validated using a more general dataset EuroCrops for agricultural field mapping. Finally, we discuss future research directions that strengthen SAM’s applicability in challenging geospatial domains.

Remote Sensing↗