SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Management Science”

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 1,045 records · Page 58Linked to original sources

USGS2002

What are parasitologists doing in the United States Geological Survey?

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) was formed in 1879 as the nation's primary natural science and information agency. The mission of the agency is to provide scientific information to a??describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.a?? Prior to 1996, the USGS comprised 3 divisions or disciplines: geology, mapping, and water. Historically, the agency was most noted for cartographic products that were used widely by both government and private sector. With the inclusion of the National Biological Service into the USGS in 1996 as the Biological Resource Discipline (BRD), a living resources dimension was added to the earth sciences character of the USGS. With the addition of BRD, the bureau is able now to contribute both the physical and biological sciences to address the nation's resource management problems.

Comparative Parasitology↗

USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 2002-03 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 53rd U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956–57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science, and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent [13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )], it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 2002–03 field season (Mullins, 2002).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica: 1995-96 field season

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) mapping program in Antarctica is one of the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). This is the 46th U.S. expedition to Antarctica in which USGS scientists have participated. The financial support from the National Science Foundation, which extends back to the time of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1956-57, can be attributed to the need for accurate maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was being driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support. The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, had, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958 and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica. The USGS mapping and science programs still play a significant role in the advancement of science in Antarctica today. Antarctica is the planet's 5th largest continent (13.2 million km 2 (5.1 million mi 2 )), it contains the world's largest (of two) remaining ice sheet, and it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report provides documentation of USGS scientific activities in the exploration of Antarctica during the 1995-96 field season (Mullins and Meunier, 1995).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2016

Missouri River Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) effects analysis—Integrative report 2016

The Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis was designed to carry out three components of an assessment of how Missouri River management has affected, and will affect, population dynamics of endangered Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon): (1) collection of reliable scientific information, (2) critical assessment and synthesis of available data and analyses, and (3) analysis of the effects of actions on listed species and their habitats. This report is a synthesis of the three components emphasizing development of lines of evidence relating potential future management actions to pallid sturgeon population dynamics. We address 21 working management hypotheses that emerged from an expert opinion-based filtering process. The ability to quantify linkages from abiotic changes to pallid sturgeon population dynamics is compromised by fundamental information gaps. Although a substantial foundation of pallid sturgeon science has been developed during the past 20 years, our efforts attempt to push beyond that understanding to provide predictions of how future management actions may affect pallid sturgeon responses. For some of the 21 hypotheses, lines of evidence are limited to theoretical deduction, inference from sparse empirical datasets, or expert opinion. Useful simulation models have been developed to predict the effects of management actions on survival of drifting pallid sturgeon free embryos in the Yellowstone and Upper Missouri River complex (hereafter referred to as the “upper river”), and to assess the effects of flow and channel reconfigurations on habitat availability in the Lower Missouri River, tributaries, and Mississippi River downstream of Gavins Point Dam (hereafter referred to as the “lower river”). A population model also has been developed that can be used to assess sensitivity of the population to survival of specific life stages, assess some hypotheses related to stocking decisions, and explore a limited number of management scenarios. Consideration of lines of evidence for each of the 21 hypotheses includes a discussion of how the degree of uncertainty and risk associated with each hypothesis may guide science and implementation strategies. Implementation strategies include full implementation in the field, limited implementations as field-scale experiments, or (in the case of greatest uncertainty) implementation as learning actions, including research and opportunistic experiments or field-based gradient studies. Given the substantive uncertainties associated with pallid sturgeon population dynamics and the need to continually assimilate and assess new information, we proposed that an Effects Analysis-like process should be considered an integral part of ongoing Missouri River adaptive management.

Missouri↗

USGS2026

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice↗

USGS2006

EMMMA: A web-based system for environmental mercury mapping, modeling, and analysis

Mercury in our environment - in our air, water, soil, and especially our food - poses significant hazards to human health, particularly for developing fetuses and young children. Because of the importance of this issue and the length of time it has been studied, large and complex data sets of mercury concentrations in various media and associated ancillary data have been generated by many Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies. To facilitate efficient and effective use of these data in managing and mitigating human and wildlife exposure to mercury, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have developed a website for visualizing and studying the distribution of mercury in our environment. The Environmental Mercury Mapping, Modeling, and Analysis (EMMMA) website (http://emmma.usgs.gov) provides health and environmental researchers, managers, and other decision-makers the ability to: 1) Interactively view and access a nationwide collection of environmental mercury data (fish tissue, atmospheric emissions and deposition, stream sediments, soils, and coal) and mercuryrelated data (mine locations); 2) Interactively view and access predictions of the National Descriptive Model of Mercury in Fish (NDMMF) at 4,976 sites and 6,829 sampling events (events are unique combinations of site and sampling date) across the United States; and 3) Use interactive mapping and graphing capabilities to visualize spatial and temporal trends and study relationships between mercury and other variables.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

Pesticide contamination detected across five wildlife refuges in the Sacramento Valley of California

An important goal for the applied ecological sciences is to understand the extent to which the biodiversity on conserved or managed lands is exposed to anthropogenic stressors. Among the various categories of conserved lands in the United States, the National Wildlife Refuge System is focused on the protection and management of native wildlife and plant populations. Refuge lands can be associated with wetlands and, especially in California, tend to be near areas of intense human use, including agriculture. The proximity of refuges to cultivated lands results in potential exposure to pesticide drift, which increases the possibility of non-target effects on plants and wildlife. We used a passive sampler approach to quantify aerial pesticide deposition during 28 days in spring of 2023, across five refuges in the Sacramento Valley of California. Pesticides were detected across all refuges and plots within the study area, with 36 individual compounds identified, including insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides, from 176 silicone bands from 49 plots. Distance to agriculture was not an important predictor in our models for most indices of contamination. However, our models revealed that the nearest crop type was an important mediator of the importance of distance to agriculture, as fungicide contamination decreased with distance to agriculture only when orchards were the nearest crop type. The overall lack of distance effects suggests that the interior of refuges in the study area do not necessarily provide more protection from pesticides than refuge edges, although larger refuges could offer more protection. We currently lack information on how the level of contamination found herein is biologically relevant to wildlife, and ongoing monitoring efforts have found productive communities of insects in the study area. The results of this study provide a foundation for future investigations on refuges to analyze impacts of specific pesticide compounds on plants and wildlife.

California↗

USGS2015

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

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

Circular↗

USGS2023

Long-term trends of local bird populations based on monitoring schemes: Are they suitable for justifying management measures?

Local biodiversity monitoring is important to assess the effects of global change, but also to evaluate the performance of landscape and wildlife protection, since large-scale assessments may buffer local fluctuations, rare species tend to be underrepresented, and management actions are usually implemented on local scales. We estimated population trends of 58 bird species using open-population N-mixture models based on count data in two localities in southeastern Spain, which have been collected according to a citizen science monitoring program (SACRE, Monitoring Common Breeding Birds in Spain) over 21 and 15 years, respectively. We performed different abundance models for each species and study area, accounting for imperfect detection of individuals in replicated counts. After selecting the best models for each species and study area, empirical Bayes methods were used for estimating abundances, which allowed us to calculate population growth rates ( λ ) and finally population trends. We also compared the two local population trends and related them with national and European trends, and species functional traits (phenological status, dietary, and habitat specialization characteristics). Our results showed increasing trends for most species, but a weak correlation between populations of the same species from both study areas. In general, local population trends were consistent with the trends observed at national and continental scales, although contrasting patterns exist for several species, mainly with increasing local trends and decreasing Spanish and European trends. Moreover, we found no evidence of a relationship between population trends and species traits. We conclude that using open-population N-mixture models is an appropriate method to estimate population trends, and that citizen science-based monitoring schemes can be a source of data for such analyses. This modeling approach can help managers to assess the effectiveness of their actions at the local level in the context of global change.

Journal of Ornithology↗

USGS1999

Of elephants and blind men: Deer management in the U.S. National Parks

Overabundant populations of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) are becoming common in the eastern United States. Faced with burgeoning deer populations in eastern parks, the National Park Service (NPS) formulated policy based on its long experience with ungulate management in western parks. That the NPS failed to find a management solution acceptable to its many constituencies was inevitable. Like blind men touching different parts of an elephant and disagreeing about its form, those engaged in the debate about deer management in parks are viewing different parts of the ecological system. None has seen the entire system, and consequently, there is neither common agreement on the nature of the problem nor on the solutions. We explore the quandary of deer management in eastern parks by addressing three questions: (1) Can the National Park Service reconcile its management goals with those of its neighbors? (2) Can thresholds be identified for determining when to intervene in natural processes? (3) Is there a scientific foundation for proceeding with effective management of deer? We argue that reconciling the NPS management with that of state conservation agencies is not possible because management policy guides these agencies in opposite directions: the NPS is charged with limiting human impact on ecological processes, and state agencies are charged with exerting human control over population abundance. Questions about thresholds and a scientific basis for management arise from concern that irrupting deer populations are a manifestation of disrupted natural processes. Several population growth paradigms are at the heart of this ecological question. The science provides no consensus about which of these paradigms are appropriate to deer in eastern ecosystems. Thus, it is premature to expect science to identify if or when natural processes have been disrupted. While the NPS cannot effectively achieve its goals without better science, neither can it wait for science to fully understand the dynamics of plant–herbivore interactions. The best hope for resolving both the biological and political dilemmas surrounding deer management is through an adaptive management approach.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2018

Assessing and communicating the impacts of climate change on the Southern California coast

Over the course of this and the next century, the combination of rising sea levels, severe storms, and coastal erosion will threaten the sustainability of coastal communities, development, and ecosystems as we currently know them. To clearly identify coastal vulnerabilities and develop appropriate adaptation strategies for projected increased levels of coastal flooding and erosion, coastal managers need user-friendly planning tools based on the best available climate and coastal science. In anticipation of these climate change impacts, many communities are in the early stages of climate change adaptation planning but lack the scientific information and tools to adequately address the potential impacts. In collaboration with leading scientists worldwide, the USGS designed the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) to assess the coastal impacts of climate change for the California coast, including the combination of sea level rise, storms, and coastal change. In this project, we directly address the needs of coastal resource managers in Southern California by integrating a vast range of global climate change projections and translate that information using sophisticated physical process models into planning-scale physical, ecological, and economic exposure, shoreline change, and impact assessments, all delivered in two simple, user-friendly, online tools. Our results show that by the end of the 21st century, over 250,000 residents and nearly $40 billion in building value across Southern California could be exposed to coastal flooding from storms, sea level rise, and coastal change. Results for the other major population center in California (the greater San Francisco Bay Area) are also available but not explicitly discussed in this report. Together, CoSMoS has now assessed the exposure of 95% of the 26 million coastal residents of the State (17 million in Southern California).

California↗

USGS2011

Delivering climate science for the nation's fish, wildlife, and ecosystems: The U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center

Changes to the Earth's climate-temperature, precipitation, and other important aspects of climate-pose significant challenges to our Nation's natural resources now and will continue to do so. Managers of land, water, and living resources need to understand the impacts of climate change-which will exacerbate ongoing stresses such as habitat fragmentation and invasive species-so they can design effective response strategies. In 2008 Congress created the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); this center was formed to address challenges resulting from climate change and to empower natural resource managers with rigorous scientific information and effective tools for decision-making. Located at the USGS National Headquarters in Reston, Virginia, the NCCWSC has invested over $20M in cutting-edge climate change research and is now leading the effort to establish eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs).

Fact Sheet↗

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↗

USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey migratory bird science, 2020–21

Bird conservation as an endeavor engages a broad range of partners and a coordinated effort across State and Federal agencies, nongovernment organizations, universities and, at times, international partnerships. To understand information needs and respond to the many challenges in bird conservation, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists participate in Flyway committees, on Joint Venture boards and working groups, in professional organizations, and in other conservation partnerships. These activities connect USGS scientists to conservation partners with whom they work to address substantial challenges. More than one hundred USGS scientists are dedicated to the scientific study of migratory birds. This report presents the current (2021) representative breadth of activities of USGS scientists supporting the conservation and management of migratory birds. Ninety USGS scientists contributed to the project descriptions and other information detailing the work of the USGS. The science herein is organized and presented thematically by research strengths and by management topics. The report emphasizes the geographic framework of the North American Flyway councils through which USGS engages regularly with Federal and State government agencies and others who are responsible for managing migratory bird populations.

Circular↗

USGS2016

The Aleutian-Bering Climate Vulnerability Assessment

Recent efforts to develop downscaled climate projections for the Bering Sea and Aleutians created an opportunity to better assess regional vulnerability to climate change. The Aleutian Bering Climate Vulnerability Assessment (ABCVA) was launched in 2014 to bring together regional science expertise and stakeholder interests in a rapid evaluation of the implications of future climate projections. This effort followed an internationally accepted but flexible pathway to develop practical, priority research topics that address ecosystem and community vulnerabilities. The ABCVA was completed as a partnership between the Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands Landscape Conservation Cooperative (ABSI LCC), the Alaska Climate Science Center and the Alaska Ocean Observing System (AOOS), and ultimately brought together three linked objectives: 1. identify and assess selected climate vulnerabilities of key resources and ecosystem services in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea region 2. broadly engage managers and stakeholders about the implications of climate vulnerabilities in the region 3. help ABSI LCC and the Alaska Climate Science Center and AOOS prioritize future research investments and focus The ABCVA convened a group of 30 researchers with expertise ranging from anthropology to zooplankton to review climate projections and their implications for the Aleutians and Bering Sea. These experts worked in five topic-based teams to assess vulnerabilities of species and ecosystem services relative. Each team identified initial vulnerabilities and made recommendations for further research that would help managers and communities better understand the implications of the changing climate in this region.

Aleutian and Bering Sea Islands↗

USGS2012

Selection of the Mars Science Laboratory landing site

The selection of Gale crater as the Mars Science Laboratory landing site took over five years, involved broad participation of the science community via five open workshops, and narrowed an initial >50 sites (25 by 20 km) to four finalists (Eberswalde, Gale, Holden and Mawrth) based on science and safety. Engineering constraints important to the selection included: (1) latitude (±30°) for thermal management of the rover and instruments, (2) elevation (<-1 km) for sufficient atmosphere to slow the spacecraft, (3) relief of <100-130 m at baselines of 1-1000 m for control authority and sufficient fuel during powered descent, (4) slopes of <30° at baselines of 2-5 m for rover stability at touchdown, (5) moderate rock abundance to avoid impacting the belly pan during touchdown, and (6) a radar-reflective, load-bearing, and trafficable surface that is safe for landing and roving and not dominated by fine-grained dust. Science criteria important for the selection include the ability to assess past habitable environments, which include diversity, context, and biosignature (including organics) preservation. Sites were evaluated in detail using targeted data from instruments on all active orbiters, and especially Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. All of the final four sites have layered sedimentary rocks with spectral evidence for phyllosilicates that clearly address the science objectives of the mission. Sophisticated entry, descent and landing simulations that include detailed information on all of the engineering constraints indicate all of the final four sites are safe for landing. Evaluation of the traversabilty of the landing sites and target “go to” areas outside of the ellipse using slope and material properties information indicates that all are trafficable and “go to” sites can be accessed within the lifetime of the mission. In the final selection, Gale crater was favored over Eberswalde based on its greater diversity and potential habitability.

Space Science Reviews↗

USGS2025

Microbiome data management in action workshop: Atlanta, GA, USA, June 12–13, 2024

Microbiome research is revolutionizing human and environmental health, but the value and reuse of microbiome data are significantly hampered by the limited development and adoption of data standards. While several ongoing efforts are aimed at improving microbiome data management, significant gaps still remain in terms of defining and promoting adoption of consensus standards for these datasets. The Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies (STORMS) guidelines for human microbiome research have been endorsed and successfully utilized by many research organizations, publishers, and funding agencies, and have been recognized as a consensus community standard. No equivalent effort has occurred for environmental, synthetic, and non-human host-associated microbiomes. To address this growing need within the microbiome research community, we convened the Microbiome Data Management in Action Workshop (June 12–13, 2024, in Atlanta, GA, USA), to bring together key decision makers in microbiome science including researchers, publishers, funders, and data repositories. The 50 attendees, representing the diverse and interdisciplinary nature of microbiome research, discussed recent progress and challenges, and brainstormed actionable recommendations and paths forward for coordinated environmental microbiome data management and the modifications necessary for the STORMS guidelines to be applied to environmental, non-human host, and synthetic microbiomes. The outcomes of this workshop will form the basis of a formalized data management roadmap to be implemented across the field. These best practices will drive scientific innovation now and in years to come as these data continue to be used not only in targeted reanalyses but in large-scale models and machine learning efforts.

Environmental Microbiome↗

USGS2025

Insights and strategic opportunities from the USGS 2024 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Interagency Workshop

Introduction In 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published Circular 1490 titled, “Integrated Science for the Study of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in the Environment: A Strategic Science Vision for the U.S. Geological Survey” (Tokranov and others, 2021). Circular 1490 was created to be a resource for USGS scientists prioritizing and planning research related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and to be a guide for developing partnerships with other scientists, State and Federal agencies, and stakeholders engaged in PFAS research and management and mitigation of the environmental and human-health effects of PFAS. This USGS PFAS Strategic Science Vision document was intended to be the foundation for a “living strategic vision,” periodically providing updates on the state of USGS PFAS research, emerging PFAS data gaps and needs, and progress on interagency and stakeholder PFAS partnerships and priorities. To meet this objective, the USGS planned to host an Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop every 2–3 years. During September 10–12, 2024, the USGS hosted the first Interagency and Stakeholder PFAS Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The Workshop brought together experts from other Federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Defense [Air Force, Army]), State agencies (Washington Fish and Wildlife, Virginia Department of Transportation), and academia (Harvard University, University of Maryland) to address key challenges relating to the measurement and modeling of PFAS and the implications for environmental health. Participants engaged in in-depth discussions centered around six pivotal topics related to PFAS: (1) sampling protocols, methods and interpretation; (2) environmental sources, source apportionment, and occurrence; (3) environmental fate and transport; (4) human and wildlife exposure routes and risk; (5) bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biomagnification; and (6) ecotoxicology and effects. Each topic had three breakout sessions. A recurrent theme of workshop discussions was how data on a nationwide scale for PFAS occurrence in various environmental matrices, including air, water, food crops, biota, soil, and streambed sediment could help to advance scientific understanding. Participants noted significant geospatial data gaps, particularly in the midwestern and southern United States and the Pacific Northwest. PFAS data collection tends to be more robust along the eastern seaboard and in California. Participants stressed how enhancing the integration of large and small datasets across various agencies could help to support national scale understanding of PFAS. To address these gaps, attendees suggested leveraging datasets from Federal entities like the USGS and the U.S. Department of Defense, State agencies, and municipal utility services to develop predictive contaminant detection and transport models. Improved coordination between water quality programs and USGS research could help to facilitate access to valuable data, leading to comprehensive databases that inform PFAS point (wastewater treatment plants and landfills) and nonpoint (runoff from land, atmospheric deposition, food packaging) sources, environmental transport mechanisms, environmental detection and concentrations, potential exposure routes, and health effects on different biota, including humans. A specific request was made to develop a map demarking the depth of modern (1953 or later) groundwater, which is susceptible to surface-derived anthropogenic (that is, human-made) contamination, based on tritium-age dating. Emphasis was placed on incorporation of hydrology, groundwater flow paths, groundwater–surface water interactions, and landscape factors in predictive statistical models as a step to improve contaminant source identification and tracking. Molecular fingerprinting approaches garnered attention as techniques to link specific PFAS mixtures detected in a sample to environmental sources and levels in biota (Dávila-Santiago and others, 2022). Integrating data from abiotic (that is, water, soil, and air) and biotic (that is, living organisms) systems identified as a research opportunity. For example, understanding the composition of soils and sediments, which include a mixture of mineral, plant, and animal components, could advance understanding of exposure pathways. The discussions highlighted opportunities to explore and understand the potential redistribution and biotic exposures of PFAS from biosolid and wastewater treatment plant effluent land application practices, in addition to atmospheric releases and discharges from landfill and wastewater treatment plants. Participants identified research gaps surrounding how these sources may contribute to contamination and may affect surrounding ecosystems, including a better definition of anthropogenic background concentrations. Moving forward, the collection of co-occurrence data was noted as a means to improve understanding of complex mixtures and to leverage companion modeling efforts focused on areas with high and low contamination levels to identify areas of concern and unaffected resources. Participants emphasized how centralized USGS databases and the establishment of sample-metadata archives can help to ensure that samples are preserved and accessible for future research. In conclusion, the workshop participants identified opportunities to bridge data gaps and improve measurement techniques, modeling frameworks, databases, and communication, to enhance the understanding of PFAS and their effects on environmental and human health. Upon completion of the workshop, participants indicated an interest in developing strategic data collection, modeling, and analytical approaches to address these challenges.

Open-File Report↗