Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Research and Development Report”

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

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

At least 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources

Earthquake history of the United States

This publication is a history of the prominent earthquakes in the United States from historical times through 1970. It supersedes all previous editions with the same or similar titles (see page ii) and, in addition to updating earthquake listings through 1970, contains several additions and corrections to previous issues. It also brings together under a common cover earthquake data previously listed in two separate reports: Earthquake History of the United States, Part I, Stronger Earthquakes of the United States (Exclusive of California and Western Nevada) and Earthquake History of the United States, Part II, Stronger Earthquakes of California and Western Nevada . Another addition to this publication is the inclusion of a section describing earthquakes in the Puerto Rico region. For the purpose of listing and describing earthquakes, the United States has been divided into nine regions: (1) Northeastern Region, which includes New England and New York activity and observations of the principal earthquakes of eastern Canada; (2) Eastern Region, including the central Appalachian seismic region activity and the area near Charleston, S.C.; (3) Central Region, which consists of the area between the region just described and the Rocky Mountains; (4) Western Mountain Region, which includes all remaining states except those on the Pacific coast; (5) Washington and Oregon; (6) Alaska; (7) Hawaii; (8) Puerto Rico; and (9) California and Western Nevada. This arrangement has been made chiefly with reference to the natural seismic divisions. It also is a convenient arrangement because there are only three states where there is an important division of earthquake activity: In Tennessee, there are quite distinct areas at opposite ends of the state that fall into different regions. Only central and eastern Nevada are included in the Western Mountain Region, as the activity of the western part is closely associated with that of California. Some earthquake activity has occurred in the part of Texas located in the Western Mountain Region. The map facing page 1 shows locations of all earthquakes in the regions that follow. A small map showing the area covered by each region immediately precedes the résumé of each chapter (except for the Alaska, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii regions). The seismic risk map below was developed in January 1969 for the conterminous United States by Dr. S. T. Algermissen of NOAA's Environmental Research Laboratories. Subject to revision as continuing research warrants, it is an updated edition of a map divides the United States into four zones: Zone 0, areas with no reasonable expectancy of earthquake damage; Zone 1, expected minor damage; Zone 2, expected moderate damage; and Zone 3, major destructive earthquakes may occur.

Publication↗

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here and built on to incorporate new information. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter “GRSG”) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” under the Endangered Species Act was in part a result of a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the USGS has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. Our most recent GRSG literature summary was published in 2020 (Carter and others, 2020) and included products published through October 2, 2019. Here, we consider products published between October 2, 2019, and July 21, 2022. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and USGS Open-File Reports) on greater sage-grouse. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products for which greater sage-grouse was not a research focus or the study did not present new data or findings about greater sage-grouse. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified management topics addressed by each product; for example, species and population characteristics. We also identified projects that provided new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 221 total products, of which 147 met our criteria for inclusion. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and population estimates or targets were the most commonly addressed management topics. The online version of this bibliography, which will be available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ), will be searchable by topic, location, and year, and will include links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GRSG populations across the GRSG range.

Open-File Report↗

Water-quality data-collection activities in Colorado and Ohio; Phase II, Evaluation of 1984 field and laboratory quality-assurance practices

Serious questions have been raised by Congress about the usefulness of water-quality data for addressing issues of regional and national scope and, especially, for characterizing the current quality of the Nation's streams and ground water. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey has undertaken a pilot study in Colorado and Ohio to (1) determine the characteristics of current (1984) water-quality data-collection activities of Federal, regional, State, and local agencies, and academic institutions; and (2) determine how well the data from these activities, collected for various purposes and using different procedures, can be used to improve our ability to answer major broad-scope questions, such as: A. What are (or were) natural or near-natural water-quality conditions? B. What are existing water-quality conditions? C. How has water quality changed, and how do the changes relate to human activities? Colorado and Ohio were chosen for the pilot study largely because they represent regions with different types of waterquality concerns and programs. The study has been divided into three phases, the objectives of which are: Phase I--Inventory water-quality data-collection programs, including costs, and identify those programs that met a set of broad criteria for producing data that are potentially appropriate for water-quality assessments of regional and national scope. Phase II--Evaluate the quality assurance of field and laboratory procedures used in producing the data from programs that met the broad criteria of Phase I. Phase III--Compile the qualifying data and evaluate the adequacy of this data base for addressing selected water-quality questions of regional and national scope. Water-quality data are collected by a large number of organizations for diverse purposes ranging from meeting statutory requirements to research on water chemistry. Combining these individual data bases is an appealing and potentially cost-effective way to attempt to develop a data base adequate for regional or national water-quality assessments. However, to combine data from diverse sources, field and laboratory procedures used to produce the data need to be equivalent and need to meet specific qualityassurance standards. It is these factors that are the focus of Phase II, which is described in this report. In the first phase of this study, an inventory was made of all public organizations and academic institutions that undertook water-quality data-collection activities in Colorado and Ohio in 1984. Water-quality programs identified in Phase I were tested against a set of broad screening criteria. A total of 44 waterquality programs in Colorado and 29 programs in Ohio passed the Phase-I screen and were examined in Phase II. These programs accounted for an estimated 165,000 analyses in Colorado and 76,300 analyses in Ohio for 20 selected constituents and properties. Although qualifying programs included both surface- and ground-water sampling, they emphasized surface waters and produced few groundwater analyses (3,660 for Colorado and 470 for Ohio). For Phase II, information about field and laboratory qualityassurance practices was provided by each organization and its supporting laboratories through questionnaires. This information was evaluated against a set of specific criteria for field and laboratory practices. The criteria were developed from guidelines published by public agencies and professional organizations such as the American Public Health Association, the U.Sc, Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Each of the eight criteria that comprise the Phase-II screen fall into one of two major categories--field practices or laboratory practices.

Colorado, Ohio↗

Conservation action plan for diamond-backed terrapins in the Gulf of Mexico

Diamondback terrapins are small estuarine turtles that are vital to the health of salt marsh and mangrove habitats. Their populations have declined for over a century due to many factors including coastal development, nest predation, pet trade and drowning in crab traps. Without action, terrapin populations will continue to decline. This document summarizes the Nature Conservancy's efforts in collaboration with the Diamondback Terrapin Working Group and the Gulf of Mexico Alliance to create a comprehensive regional plan to identify and advance terrapin-related research, management and conservation goals.

Gulf of Mexico↗

Preliminary design study for a National Digital Seismograph Network

Recently, the National Research Council published a report by the Panel on National, Regional, and Local Seismograph Networks of the Committee on Seismology in which the principal recommendation was for the establishment of a national digital seismograph network (NDSN). The Panel Report (Bolt, 1980) addresses both the need and the scientific requirements for the new national network. The purpose of this study has been to translate the scientific requirements into an instrumentation concept for the NSDS. There are literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of seismographs in operation within the United States. Each serves an important purpose, but most have limited objectives in time, in region, or in the types of data that are being recorded. The concept of a national network, funded and operated by the Federal Government, is based on broader objectives that include continuity of time, uniform coverage, standardization of data format and instruments, and widespread use of the data for a variety of research purposes. A national digital seismograph network will be an important data resource for many years to come; hence, its design is likely to be of interest to most seismologists. Seismologists have traditionally been involved in the development and field operation of seismic systems and thus have been familiar with both the potential value and the limitations of the data. However, in recent years of increasing technological sophistication, the development of data sstems has fallen more to system engineers, and this trend is likely to continue. One danger in this is that the engineers may misinterpret scientific objectives or subordinate them to purely technological considerations. Another risk is that the data users may misuse or misinterpret the data because they are not aware of the limitations of the data system. Perhaps the most important purpose of a design study such as this is to stimulate a dialogue between system engineers and potential data users. The NDSN system concept presented in this report is intended to serve as a point of discussion -- a strawman, if you will. It is a feasible solution to what we perceive to be the objectives of the NDSN, but it is not a unique solution. Current technology offers a variety of choices in meeting design objectives. We have examined some but not all of these choices. Although our fundamental concept of the NDSN is based on current technology, we have anticipated developments in several fields where state-of-the-art is evolving rapidly, notably satellite communications and database management. If the installation of the NDSN is delayed 5 - 10 years, we anticipate that the methods proposed to record, communicate, and manage the data may change, but it is likely that the fundamental data requirements will be the same. Therefore, in this study we have concentrated more on the types of data that will be generated at the NDSN stations and less on specific hardware that might be used in the data system. When the NDSN is budgeted, a second, more hardware-oriented design study may be needed.

Open-File Report↗

Modeling potential impacts of the Garrison Diversion Unit project on Sand Lake and Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuges: a feasibility analysis

The Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program was authorized in 1965, with the purpose of diverting Missouri River water to the James River for irrigation, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and flood control. The project was reauthorized in 1986, with the specification that comprehensive studies be conducted to address a variety of issues. One of these ongoing studies addresses potential impacts of GDU construction and operation on lands of the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system, including Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges (the Refuges) on the James River. A number of concerns at these Refuges have been identified; the primary concerns addressed in this report include increased winter return flows, which would limit control of rough fish; increased turbidity during project construction, which would decrease production of sago pondweed; and increased water level fluctuations in the late spring and early summer, which would destroy the nests of some over-water nesting birds. The facilitated workshop described in this report was conducted February 18-20, 1987, under the joint sponsorship of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. The primary objectives of the workshop were to evaluate the feasibility of using simulation modeling techniques to estimate GDU impacts on Arrowwood and Sand Lake Refuges and to suggest enhancements to the James River Refuge monitoring program. The workshop was structured around the formulation of four submodels: a Hydrology and Water Quality submodel to simulate changes in Refuge pool elevations, turnover rates, and water quality parameters (e.g., total dissolved solids, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, water temperature, pesticides) due to GDU construction and operation; a Vegetation submodel to simulate concomitant changes in wetland communities (e.g., sago pondweed, wet meadows, deep and shallow marsh); a Fish submodel to estimate changes in abundance or biomass of rough fish (carp, buffalo) and sportfish (northern pike); and a Wildlife submodel to calculate indices of waterfowl abundance or habitat suitability (e.g., for mallards, western grebes, migrating diving ducks, white-faced ibis, egrets, over-water nesters). Submodels considered weekly to monthly changes in pools within a Refuge over a time horizon of 30-50 years. Based on workshop discussions and past experience with impact analysis modeling, a phased modeling approach was recommended for the James River Refuges analysis. The first phase would involve two modeling efforts. The existing Sand Lake hydrology model, and a similar one developed for Arrowwood NWR, would be validated and used to predict changes on pool elevations and winter inflows to each pool for a variety of GDU alternatives. Outputs from simulations would then be evaluated in terms of potential fish and wildlife impacts. For example, the models could generate indices comparing the magnitude and timing of winter inflows for pre- and postproject conditions; fisheries biologists could then use these indices to better quantify their concerns relative to potential changes in the frequency of rough-fish control. The other modeling effort in the first phase would involve developing a sago pondweed growth model to integrate Refuge monitoring data and existing literature and perhaps to address some questions concerning turbidity impacts. A second phase of simulation modeling would be undertaken only if the initial analyses of hydrologic outputs indicated significant potential problems and if monitoring and research projects had clarified some of the biological and physical processes that cannot be modeled reliably at the present time (e.g., resuspension of sediments by carp, immigration and winter mortality of fish, loss of waterfowl nests due to wave action). The second phase would attempt to develop an integrated impact assessment model. In order to address some of the biological and physical processes that presently are not well understood, a number of studies and enhancements to the Refuge monitoring program were suggested. The Hydrology and Water Quality workgroup recommended increasing turbidity and dissolved oxygen sampling, dropping expensive analysis of some trace elements, adding more pesticide analysis (including some biological monitoring), and developing better area-capacity data for the Sand Lake hydrology model. The Vegetation workgroup suggested expanding the number of monitoring stations, monitoring photosynthetically active radiation by depth, and modifying the biomass sampling procedure and schedule. Also suggested were additional analyses of existing Refuge monitoring data and additional field studies concerning sago growth under a variety of environmental conditions and effects of rough fish density on sago. A careful examination of Refuge narrative reports was recommended by the Fish workgroup to characterize conditions that led to various rates of winter-kill. Monitoring enhancement related to a better understanding of fish population dynamics included increasing dissolved oxygen monitoring, continuing present monitoring of fish movement upstream from Jamestown Reservoir into Arrowwood NWR, initiating similar efforts for upstream movement into Sand Lake NWR and downstream movements into both Refuges, and augmenting the present gillnetting program (or replacing it) with sampling for population and age/size structure estimates. The Wildlife workgroup suggested estimating the relative density of mallard nests in over-water and wet meadow nesting areas, estimating the number of western grebe nests lost due to wave action, delineating wet meadows on the Refuge vegetation maps, estimating annual tuber consumption by birds, and monitoring insect/macroinvertebrate abundance. The workgroup also suggested research studies to better understand the relationships between food supplies and the growth and survival of ducklings and young grebes. the workshop discussions also helped identify some suggestions for modifying project features that, if feasible from an engineering and operational standpoint, would reduce impacts on Refuge lands. These suggestions included: designing drains with control structures or small "reregulation" reservoirs to hold winter return flows that might adversely affect rough fish control, spreading construction activities over a number of years to reduce potential impacts of turbidity on sago pondweed in any single year, scheduling construction to occur after the spring sprouting and elongation growth stages to reduce impacts on sago pondweed, and installing "quick acting" control structures at Arrowwood NWR to reduce pool level fluctuations that might destroy nests of some over-water nesting waterfowl.

Report↗

Geographic names information system

This Data Users Guide is the result of the efforts of a number of people who have contributed to the research, development, and implementation of the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS). Roger L. Payne prepared and wrote this Data Users Guide, which is designed to provide a description of the data in each of the data elements of the four data bases of GNIS. The GNIS program, which includes the automated names system and the National Gazetteer program, is a coordinated effort under the direction of Donald J. Orth, Chief of the Branch of Geographic Names. The automated system was initially developed by Sam Stulberg and Roger L. Payne. System enhancement and software development is coordinated by Judy J. Stella, head programmer for GNIS, and special projects coordinator is Louis A. Yost IV. Coordination of the research and compilation of certain gazetteers is directed by Robin D. Worcester with research assistance and support from Jon Campbell, Linda S. Davis, and Nancy Engel.

Data Users Guide↗

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from 2015 to 2019

The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter GRSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” was in part due to a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. The first GRSG literature summary was published early in 2018. Here we provide an update to that document by adding summaries of articles published between January 6, 2018 and October 2, 2019. To identify articles and reports published about GRSG, we first conducted a structured search of three reference databases (Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar) using the search term “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by (1) removing duplicates, (2) excluding products that were not published as research or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) retaining only those products for which GRSG or their habitat was a research focus. We summarized the contents of each product by using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assessed the content of each product relevant to a list of 31 management topics. These topics include GRSG biology and habitat characteristics along with potential management actions, land uses, and environmental factors related to GRSG management and conservation. We also noted which articles/reports created new geospatial data. Our original search, conducted on January 7, 2018, and the application of our criteria, resulted in the inclusion of 169 published products (2 of these products were published corrections to journal articles). This update adds summaries of 69 products published between then and October 2, 2019. The management topics most commonly addressed were GRSG behavior or demographics and GRSG habitat selection or habitat characteristics at broad or site scales. Few products addressed captive breeding, recreation, wild horses and burros, and range management structures (including fences). The management topics with the largest increase in representation between the 2018 GRSG literature summary and this update were GRSG survival and GRSG population estimates or targets, which were each addressed in 16 percent of products in the original literature summary document, but were addressed in 30 and 33 percent, respectively, of newly summarized products. Topics with the largest declines in representation were conifer expansion, - 17 to 10 percent, and new geospatial data, -31 to 21 percent. We include in this annotated bibliography the full citation, Digital Object Identifier (DOI), product summary, and management topics addressed by each product. The online version of this bibliography (https://apps.usgs.gov/gsgbib/index.php) is searchable by topic and location and includes links to journal landing pages for each original publication. A substantial body of literature has been compiled on research explicitly related to the conservation, management, monitoring, and assessment of GRSG. These studies may inform planning and management actions that seek to balance conservation, economic, and social objectives and manage diverse resource uses and values across the western United States. The review process for this product included requesting input on each summary from one or more authors of the original peer-reviewed article or report and a formal review of the entire document by three independent reviewers for the original document and by two independent reviewers for the updated document and, subsequently, the USGS Bureau Approving Official. This process is consistent with USGS Fundamental Science Practices.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mont↗

Deepwater Program: Studies of Gulf of Mexico lower continental slope communities related to chemosynthetic and hard substrate habitats

This report summarizes research funded by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in collaboration with the University of North Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) on the ecology of deep chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico. The research was conducted at the request of the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE; formerly Minerals Management Service) to complement a BOEMRE-funded project titled "Deepwater Program: Investigations of Chemosynthetic Communities on the Lower Continental Slope of the Gulf of Mexico." The overall research partnership, known as "Chemo III," was initiated to increase understanding of the distribution, structure, function, and vulnerabilities of these poorly known associations of animals and microbes for water depths greater than 1,000 meters (m) in the Gulf of Mexico. Chemosynthetic communities rely on carbon sources that are largely independent of sunlight and photosynthetic food webs. Despite recent research directed toward chemosynthetic and deep coral (for example, Lophelia pertusa) based ecosystems, these habitats are still poorly studied, especially at depths greater than 1,000 m. With the progression into deeper waters by fishing and energy industries, developing sufficient knowledge to manage these deep ecosystems is essential. Increased understanding of deep-sea communities will enable sound evaluations of potential impacts and appropriate mitigations.

Gulf Of Mexico↗

Wigeongrass ( Ruppia maritima ): a literature review

Wigeongrass (Ruppia maritima L.) is a submersed macrophyte of nearly cosmopolitan distribution and worldwide importance as a waterfowl food. Unfortunately, the plant no longer inhabits vast areas disturbed by human activities. Taxonomic status of the plant is uncertain, especially in North America. In mild climates, in habitats subject to environmental extremes, the plant behaves as an annual (vegetation perishes), or as a perennial in deeper, more stable habitats (some vegetative parts grow year round). Drupelets (seeds) provide a mechanism for wigeongrass to survive periods of drought and excessive water salinity. These sexual propagules can be washed ashore or carried by birds or fish for long distances.Wigeongrass mostly occurs in temporarily to permanently flooded mesohaline-hyperhaline estuarine wetlands, but it also occurs inland in fresh to hypersaline palustrine and lacustrine wetlands. Most populations inhabit warm, relatively unpolluted, and well lit waters <2.0 m deep where fetches and wave action are not great. The species is probably best adapted to stable water levels but can tolerate significant water level fluctuations, including periodic exposure in tidal areas. Robust growth occurs in areas of slow current. Wigeongrass is alone among the submersed North American angiosperms in tolerance to high salinity, but it is likely at a competitive disadvantage among specialist taxa in soft or acidic waters. The species grows in nearly all common bottom substrates, but growth is favored by aerobic and low H 2 S conditions. Turbidity frequently limits wigeongrass growth in waters overlying easily suspendible bottom substrates.Wigeongrass often occurs in monotypic stands, yet grows with many other submersed and emergent macrophytes. Dominance in certain wetlands sometimes alternates with dominance by other submersed macrophytes as salinities, seasonal temperature cycles, or other environmental factors change. The shading effect of metaphytic, planktonic, or epiphytic algae often reduces production.Wigeongrass and its detritus provide food and cover for a large invertebrate biota, although direct consumption of the living plants is minimal. Wigeongrass beds in coastal wetlands are heavily used by fish. The plant is recognized worldwide as an important food of migrant and wintering waterfowl, wading birds, and shorebirds. In subtropical climates, wintering waterfowl can quickly consume entire stands.Propagation and management of wigeongrass has occurred for nearly 60 years in the southern and eastern United States. During the seventies and eighties, sophisticated water level and salinity management techniques have been developed to encourage growth of the plant.Future research should concentrate on determining the means to reduce light-limiting turbidity in many wetland types; understanding the ways in which human activities on and near wetlands affect wigeongrass production; and developing reliable and predictable techniques to stimulate wigeongrass production by water level manipulations and other means in different environmental settings. Trophic interactions and the effects of biomanipulation of fish populations in managed wigeongrass habitat--now little understood--also require more study.

Fish and Wildlife Research↗

Assessment of capacity-building activities for forest measurement, reporting, and verification, 2011–15

This report was written as a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey, SilvaCarbon, and Wageningen University with funding provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development and the European Space Agency, respectively, to address a pressing need for enhanced result-based monitoring and evaluation of delivered capacity-building activities. For this report, the capacity-building activities delivered by capacity-building providers (referred to as “providers” hereafter) during 2011–15 (the study period) to support countries in building measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) were assessed and evaluated. Summarizing capacity-building activities and outcomes across multiple providers was challenging. Many of the providers did not have information readily available, which precluded them from participating in this study despite the usefulness of their information. This issue led to a key proposed future action: Capacity-building providers could establish a central repository within the Global Forestry Observation Initiative (GFOI; http://www.gfoi.org/ ) where data from past, current, and future activities of all capacity-building providers could be stored. The repository could be maintained in a manner to continually learn from previous lessons. Although various providers monitored and evaluated the success of their capacity-building activities, such evaluations only assessed the success of immediate outcomes and not the overarching outcomes and impacts of activities implemented by multiple providers. Good monitoring and evaluation should continuously monitor and periodically evaluate all factors affecting the outcomes of a provided capacity-building activity. The absence of a methodology to produce quantitative evidence of a causal link between multiple capacity-building activities delivered and successful outcomes left only a plausible association. A previous publication argued that plausible association, although not a precise measurement of cause and effect, was a realistic tool. Our review of the available literature on this subject did not find another similar assessment to assess capacity-building activities for supporting the countries in building MRV system for REDD+. Four countries from the main forested regions of Africa, the Americas, and Asia were chosen as subjects for this report based on the length of time SilvaCarbon and other providers have provided capacity-building activities toward MRV system for REDD+: Colombia (the Americas), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC; Africa), Peru (the Americas), and the Republic of the Philippines (referred to as “the Philippines” hereafter; Asia). Several providers were contacted for information to include in this report, but, because of various constraints, only SilvaCarbon, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) participated in this study. These three providers supported various targeted capacity-building activities through-out Africa, the Americas, and Asia, including the following: technical workshops at national and regional levels (referred to as “workshops” hereafter), hands on training, study tours, technical details by experts, technical consultation between providers and recipients, sponsorship for travel, organizing network meetings, developing sampling protocols, assessing deforestation and degradation drivers, estimating carbon stock and flow, designing monitoring systems for multiple uses, promoting public-private partnerships to scale up investments on MRV system for REDD+, and assisting with the design of national forest monitoring systems. Their activities were planned in coordination with key partners in each country and region and with the support and assistance of other providers. Note that several other organizations and institutions assisted the providers to deliver capacity-building activities, including Boston University, Conservation International, Stanford University, University of Maryland, and Wageningen University & Research.

Open-File Report↗

User's Manual for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program Invertebrate Data Analysis System (IDAS) Software: Version 3

The Invertebrate Data Analysis System (IDAS) software provides an accurate, consistent, and efficient mechanism for analyzing invertebrate data collected as part of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program and stored in the Biological Transactional Database (Bio-TDB). The IDAS software is a stand-alone program for personal computers that run Microsoft (MS) Windows?. It allows users to read data downloaded from Bio-TDB and stored either as MS Excel? or MS Access? files. The program consists of five modules. The Edit Data module allows the user to subset, combine, delete, and summarize community data. The Data Preparation module allows the user to select the type(s) of sample(s) to process, calculate densities, delete taxa based on laboratory processing notes, combine lifestages or keep them separate, select a lowest taxonomic level for analysis, delete rare taxa, and resolve taxonomic ambiguities. The Calculate Community Metrics module allows the user to calculate over 130 community metrics, including metrics based on organism tolerances and functional feeding groups. The Calculate Diversities and Similarities module allows the user to calculate nine diversity and eight similarity indices. The Data export module allows the user to export data to other software packages and produce tables of community data that can be imported into spreadsheet and word-processing programs. Though the IDAS program was developed to process invertebrate data downloaded from USGS databases, it will work with other data sets that are converted to the USGS (Bio-TDB) format. Consequently, the data manipulation, analysis, and export procedures provided by the IDAS program can be used by anyone involved in using benthic macroinvertebrates in applied or basic research.

Open-File Report↗

Documenting the multiple facets of a subsiding landscape from coastal cities and wetlands to the continental shelf

Land subsidence is a settling, sinking, or collapse of the land surface. In the southeastern United States, subsidence is frequently observed as sinkhole collapse in karst environments, wetland degradation and loss in coastal and other low-lying areas, and inundation of coastal urban communities. Human activities such as fluid extraction, mining, and overburden alteration can cause or exacerbate subsidence, which can result in damage to infrastructure and resources. Subsidence is a hazard that takes place throughout the United States; however, a systematic approach to recognize and develop informed responses to the drivers of subsidence has not yet been fully established. To address this problem, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Southeast Region (SER) funded the gathering of a team of interdisciplinary USGS scientists to promote scientific collaboration. Southeast Region scientists welcomed scientists from other regions (see table 1.1 in Appendix 1) in September 2018 at the St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) in Florida for the first workshop of the Subsidence Flex Team (SFT) (see Appendix 2 for agenda). The SFT set out to review subsidence-related research and technology and develop a unifying framework for describing the processes and hazards associated with land subsidence. A more comprehensive understanding of subsidence hazards could help to inform regional vulnerability assessments that would prove invaluable to the public, community developers, policy makers, and resource managers in both inland and coastal states. The SFT analyzed USGS strengths and weaknesses to identify existing infrastructure and capabilities that could be leveraged to create a comprehensive and far-reaching subsidence-monitoring and mitigation program. Over the course of the 2-day workshop, interdisciplinary understandings of the processes and hazards related to subsidence were explored through individual presentations and group discussion. With all perspectives considered, the SFT recommended that subsidence-related research develop scientific approaches and metrics by which the subsidence component can be isolated and quantified in order to protect both the environment and human infrastructure from harm.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi↗

Technology transfer opportunities: partnership opportunities for states: U.S. Geological Survey assistance to state business economy

As a research and information laboratory of the Federal government, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to making its developments readily available to customers within the private sector. The USGS is the Nation's premier earth science agency, providing unique scientific data and technology in the areas of natural hazards, environment, resources, and information. Often USGS research and information activities lead to developments that have significant commercial applications and that can help increase the global competitiveness of our domestic economy. The agency uses a proactive technology transfer program to encourage the adoption and use of these developments. In addition, the agency welcomes collaborative opportunities with private industry.

Fact Sheet↗

Weight of Production of Emeralds, Rubies, Sapphires, and Tanzanite from 1995 Through 2005

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) historically has not attempted to report comprehensive world production of gemstones on a country basis. This was because estimation of gemstone production is inherently difficult due to the fragmentary nature of the industry, the lack of governmental oversight or reporting in many countries where colored gemstones are mined, and the wide variation in quality between individual gemstones. Unlike diamonds, which, with the exception of the alluvial stones of West Africa, are mainly produced by large international mining companies and evaluated, cut, and marketed through a highly developed pricing structure and complex commercial arrangements, colored gemstones are mainly mined by individuals or small companies and have less developed evaluation and marketing arrangements. The trading centers for colored gems are smaller and less well known than the diamond centers. Colored gemstones, like alluvial diamonds, have the potential to be used to fund civil conflicts and other illegal activities, and because trade in colored gemstones is less organized than that of diamonds, they offer less opportunity for effective regulation of their trade. And, like diamond, until the recent advent of the Kimberley Process no generally accepted estimates of colored gemstone production globally or by producing country have existed. The present paper is a first attempt to develop production statistics for the three precious gems - emeralds , rubies , and sapphires - and tanzanite tanzanite, a semi-precious gem. The data consist of the weight of production of each of the gemstones from 1995 through 2005. Preliminary data on the weights of gemstone production were presented as a poster session at the Gemological Institute of America's Gemological Research Conference in San Diego, CA, in 2006, and as a published abstract (Yager, 2006) in an attempt to gather response to the estimates. The USGS continues to welcome information and suggestions that would improve the data presented here. Information used to make the production estimates presented in this paper include annual USGS Mineral Questionnaires completed by producing countries, data on exports from producing countries, reports from the literature, and company reports. Comparisons of the weight and the value of production of a type of gemstone between countries may differ considerably. Whereas east African countries dominate the weight production of rubies, Burma (Myanmar) is widely thought to have the highest value of ruby production. Data on the value of gemstone production are even more difficult to estimate than is the weight of production. Value of production is dependent upon both the quality and the sizes of the stones produced. Such data are not readily available and are difficult to estimate; therefore this report does not present tables of values of production. Instead, the report briefly discusses the forms in which gemstones are sold, the systems used to value the gemstones, and selected data that illustrate the variability of value of gemstones of a particular type.

Open-File Report↗

Delineation of Magnesium-rich Ultramafic Rocks Available for Mineral Carbon Sequestration in the United States

The 2005 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage suggested that a major gap in mineral carbon sequestration is locating the magnesium-silicate bedrock available to sequester CO2. It is generally known that silicate minerals with high concentrations of magnesium are suitable for mineral carbonation. However, no assessment has been made covering the entire United States detailing their geographical distribution and extent, or evaluating their potential for use in mineral carbonation. Researchers at Columbia University and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed a digital geologic database of ultramafic rocks in the continental United States. Data were compiled from varied-scale geologic maps of magnesium-silicate ultramafic rocks. These rock types are potentially suitable as source material for mineral carbon-dioxide sequestration. The focus of the national-scale map is entirely on suitable ultramafic rock types, which typically consist primarily of olivine and serpentine minerals. By combining the map with digital datasets that show non-mineable lands (such as urban areas and National Parks), estimates on potential depth of a surface mine, and the predicted reactivities of the mineral deposits, one can begin to estimate the capacity for CO2 mineral sequestration within the United States. ?? 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Conference Paper↗

A call to action: Standardizing white-tailed deer harvest data in the Midwestern United States and implications for quantitative analysis and disease management

Recreational hunting has been the dominant game management and conservation mechanism in the United States for the past century. However, there are numerous modern-day issues that reduce the viability and efficacy of hunting-based management, such as fewer hunters, overabundant wildlife populations, limited access, and emerging infectious diseases in wildlife. Quantifying the drivers of recreational harvest by hunters could inform potential management actions to address these issues, but this is seldom comprehensively accomplished because data collection practices limit some analytical applications (e.g., differing spatial scales of harvest regulations and harvest data). Additionally, managing large-scale issues, such as infectious diseases, requires collaborations across management agencies, which is challenging or impossible if data are not standardized. Here we discuss modern issues with the prevailing wildlife management framework in the United States from an analytical point of view with a case study of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) in the Midwest. We have four aims: (1) describe the interrelated processes that comprise hunting and suggest improvements to current data collections systems, (2) summarize data collection systems employed by state wildlife management agencies in the Midwestern United States and discuss potential for large-scale data standardization, (3) assess how aims 1 and 2 influence managing infectious diseases in hunted wildlife, and (4) suggest actionable steps to help guide data collection standards and management practices. To achieve these goals, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources disseminated a questionnaire to state wildlife agencies (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin), and we report and compare their harvest management structures, data collection practices, and responses to chronic wasting disease. We hope our “call to action” encourages re-evaluation, coordination, and improvement of harvest and management data collection practices with the goal of improving the analytical potential of these data. A deeper understanding of the strengths and deficiencies of our current management systems in relation to harvest and management data collection methods could benefit the future development of comprehensive and collaborative management and research initiatives (e.g., adaptive management) for wildlife and their diseases.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minne↗

Management opportunities and research priorities for Great Plains grasslands

The Great Plains Grassland Summit: Challenges and Opportunities from North to South was held April 10-11, 2018 in Denver, Colorado. The geographical focus for the summit was the entire Great Plains. The summit was designed to provide syntheses of information about key grassland topics of interest in the Great Plains; networking and learning channels for managers, researchers and stakeholders; and working sessions for sharing input and ideas about challenges and future research and management opportunities. The summit was convened to better understand Great Plains stressors and resource demands and how to manage them, and to discuss methods for improved collaboration among natural resource managers, scientists, and stakeholders. Over 200 stakeholders, who collectively were affiliated with all of the Great Plains states, attended the summit. Attendees included university researchers, government scientists, and individuals affiliated with federal and state agencies, tribes, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Plenary speakers provided syntheses of current knowledge on key topics to help stage working sessions on working lands, native plants and pollinators, native wildlife and biological diversity, invasive species, wildland and prescribed fire, energy development, and weather, water, and climate. The summit steering committee designed one suite of questions that were asked of participants in each working session. This report is a digest of the input from those who attended the seven working sessions and responded to the structured questions.

Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Misso↗