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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

U.S. Geological Survey Subsidence Interest Group Conference; proceedings of the Technical Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada, February 14-16, 1995

Introduction to Papers: This report is a compilation of short papers that are based on oral presentations summarizing the results of recent research that were given at the third meeting of the Subsidence Interest Group held in Las Vegas, Nevada, February 14-16, 1995. The report includes case studies of land subsidence and aquifer-system deformation resulting from fluid withdrawal, geothermal development, and mine collapse. Methods for monitoring land subsidence using Global Positioning System technology for the rapid and accurate measurement of changes in land-surface altitude also are described. The current status of numerical simulation of land subsidence in the USGS is summarized, and several of the short papers deal with the development and application of new numerical techniques for simulation and quantification of aquifer system deformation. Not all oral presentations made at the meeting are documented in this report. Several of the presentations were of ongoing research and as such, the findings were provisional in nature and were offered at the meeting to stimulate scientific discussion and debate among colleagues. The information presented in this report, although only a subset of the proceedings of the meeting in Las Vegas, should help expand the scientific basis for management decisions to mitigate or control the effects of land subsidence. The short papers describing the results of these studies provide a cross section of ongoing research in aquifer mechanics and land subsidence and also form an assessment of the current technology and 'state of the science.' The analytical and interpretive methods described in this report will be useful to scientists involved in studies of ground-water hydraulics and aquifer-system deformation.

Open-File Report↗

Geologic Map and Map Database of the Oakland Metropolitan Area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties, California

Introduction This report contains a new geologic map at 1:50,000 scale, derived from a set of geologic map databases containing information at a resolution associated with 1:24,000 scale, and a new description of geologic map units and structural relationships in the mapped area. The map database represents the integration of previously published reports and new geologic mapping and field checking by the author (see Sources of Data index map on the map sheet or the Arc-Info coverage pi-so and the textfile pi-so.txt). The descriptive text (below) contains new ideas about the Hayward fault and other faults in the East Bay fault system, as well as new ideas about the geologic units and their relations. These new data are released in digital form in conjunction with the Federal Emergency Management Agency Project Impact in Oakland. The goal of Project Impact is to use geologic information in land-use and emergency services planning to reduce the losses occurring during earthquakes, landslides, and other hazardous geologic events. The USGS, California Division of Mines and Geology, FEMA, California Office of Emergency Services, and City of Oakland participated in the cooperative project. The geologic data in this report were provided in pre-release form to other Project Impact scientists, and served as one of the basic data layers for the analysis of hazard related to earthquake shaking, liquifaction, earthquake induced landsliding, and rainfall induced landsliding. The publication of these data provides an opportunity for regional planners, local, state, and federal agencies, teachers, consultants, and others outside Project Impact who are interested in geologic data to have the new data long before a traditional paper map could be published. Because the database contains information about both the bedrock and surficial deposits, it has practical applications in the study of groundwater and engineering of hillside materials, as well as the study of geologic hazards and the academic research on the geologic history and development of the region.

Miscellaneous Field Studies Map↗

A Framework for Long-term Ecological Monitoring in Olympic National Park: Prototype for the Coniferous Forest Biome

This report is the result of a five-year collaboration between scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, Olympic Field Station, and the natural resources staff of Olympic National Park to develop a comprehensive strategy for monitoring natural resources of Olympic National Park. Olympic National Park is the National Park Serviceʼs prototype monitoring park, representing parks in the coniferous forest biome. Under the umbrella of the National Park Serviceʼs prototype parks program, U.S. Geological Survey and Olympic National Park staffs are obligated to: develop strategies and designs for monitoring the long-term health and integrity of national park ecosystems with a significant coniferous forest component. design exportable monitoring protocols that can be used by other parks within the coniferous forest biome (i.e., parks having similar environments), and create a demonstration area and ʻcenter of excellenceʼ for assisting other parks in developing ecological monitoring programs. Olympic National Park is part of the North Coast and Cascades Network, a network of seven Pacific Northwestern park units created recently by the National Park Serviceʼs Inventory and Monitoring Program to extend the monitoring of ʻvital signsʼ of park health to all National Park Service units. It is our intent and hope that the monitoring strategies and conceptual models described here will meet the overall purpose of the prototype parks monitoring program in proving useful not only to Olympic National Park, but also to parks within the North Coast and Cascades Network and elsewhere. Part I contains the conceptual design and sampling framework for the prototype long-term monitoring program in Olympic National Park. In this section, we explore key elements of monitoring design that help to ensure the spatial, ecological, and temporal integration of monitoring program elements and discuss approaches used to design an ecosystem-based monitoring program. Basic monitoring components include ecosystem drivers, (e.g., climate, atmospheric inputs, human pressures), indicators of ecosystem integrity (e.g., biogeochemical indicators), known threats (e.g., impacts of introduced mountain goats), and focal or ʻkeyʼ species (e.g., rare or listed species, Roosevelt elk). Monitoring system drivers and key indicators of ecosystem integrity provide the long-term baseline needed to judge what constitutes ʻunnaturalʼ variation in park resources and provide the earliest possible warning of unacceptable change. Monitoring effects of known threats and the status of focal species will provide information useful to park managers for dealing with current park issues. In Part I we describe the process of identifying potential indicators of ecological condition and present conceptual models of park ecosystems. In addition we report results from several workshops held in conjunction with Olympic National Park aimed at identifying potential indicators of change in the parkʼs ecosystem. First, we describe the responses of Olympic National Park staff to the generic question, “What is the most important resource to monitor in Olympic National Park and why?” followed by the responses from resource and land managers from areas adjoining the park. We also catalogue the responses of various expert groups that we asked to help identify the most appropriate system drivers and indicators of change in the Olympic National Park ecosystems. Results of the workshops provided the justification for selecting basic indicators of ecosystem integrity, effects of current threats to park resources, and focal resources of parks to detect both the currently evident and unforeseeable changes in park resources. We conclude Part I by exploring several generic statistical issues relevant to monitoring natural resources in Olympic National Park. Specifically we discuss trade-offs associated with sampling extensively versus sampling intensively in smaller geographic regions and describe a conceptual framework to guide development of a generic sampling frame for monitoring. We recommend partitioning Olympic National Park into three zones of decreasing accessibility to maximize monitoring efficiency. We present examples of how the generic sampling frame could be used to help ensure spatial integration of individual monitoring projects. Part II of the report is a record of the potential monitoring questions and indicators identified to date in our workshops. The presentation is organized according to the major system drivers, components, and processes identified in the intermediate-level working model of the Olympic National Park ecosystem. For each component of the park system, we develop the need and justification for monitoring, articulate park management issues, and describe key resources and ecosystem functions. We also present a pictorial conceptual model of each ecological subsystem, identify monitoring questions, and list potential indicators for each monitoring question. We conclude each section by identifying linkages of indicators to other ecological subsystems in our general ecosystem model, spatial and temporal contexts for monitoring (where and how often to monitor), and research and development needs. Part II represents the most current detailed listing of potential indicators—the material for subsequent discussions of monitoring priorities and selection of indicators for protocol development. Collectively, the sections of this report contain a comprehensive list of the important monitoring questions and potential indicators as well as recommendations for designing an integrated monitoring program. In Part I, Chapter 6 we provide recommendations on how to proceed with the important next steps in the design process: establishing priorities among the many possible monitoring questions and indicators, and beginning to research and design effective long-term monitoring protocols.

Information and Technology Report↗

Processes influencing the transport and fate of contaminated sediments in the coastal ocean– Boston Harbor and Massachusetts Bay

Most of the major urban centers of the United States including Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, New Orleans, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle—are on a coast (fig. 1.1). All of these cities discharge treated sewage effluent into adjacent waters. In 2000, 74 percent of the U.S. population lived within 200 kilometers (km) of the coast. Between 1980 and 2002, the population density in coastal communities increased approximately 4.5 times faster than in noncoastal areas of the U.S. (Perkins, 2004). More people generate larger volumes of wastes, increase the demands on wastewater treatment, expand the area of impervious land surfaces, and use more vehicles that contribute contaminants to street runoff. According to the National Coastal Condition Report II (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005a), on the basis of coastal habitat, water and sediment quality, benthic index, and fish tissue, the overall national coastal condition is only poor to fair and the overall coastal condition in the highly populated Northeast is poor. Scientific information helps managers to prioritize and regulate coastal-ocean uses that include recreation, commercial fishing, transportation, waste disposal, and critical habitat for marine organisms. These uses are often in conflict with each other and with environmental concerns. Developing a strategy for managing competing uses while maintaining sustainability of coastal resources requires scientific understanding of how the coastal ocean system behaves and how it responds to anthropogenic influences. This report provides a summary of a multidisciplinary research program designed to improve our understanding of the transport and fate of contaminants in Massachusetts coastal waters. Massachusetts Bay and Boston Harbor have been a focus of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research because they provide a diverse geographic setting for developing a scientific understanding of the geology, geochemistry, and oceanography of coastal systems in general. Scientific data from this region can also be used to inform decisions about important economic, environmental, and political issues. From the economic viewpoint, the annual value of tourism and shipping in Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays is about $1.5 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively. Commercial and recreational fishing generates about $240 million per year in the same region (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2005b). The environmental issue is the 300-year history of waste discharge from the Boston metropolitan area into the harbor. This history is punctuated by cycles of environmental degradation, public outcry, and improvements in the sewage treatment system. With each improvement, however, the continuous growth of population in greater Boston (fig. 1.2) and the resulting increase in the volume of waste exceeded the capacity of the treatment system, thereby setting the stage for a new contamination crisis. By the 1980s, the levels of contaminants in sediments of Boston Harbor were among the highest in the nation (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1987). Fish were diseased, shellfish beds were closed, and swimming beaches were unsafe after heavy rains; in general, water quality and aesthetics were below acceptable standards. Legal and political issues have always been part of Boston Harbor’s history. The environmental conditions in the 1980s were highlighted in a 1983 legal suit brought by the city of Quincy against the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC, the state agency responsible for sewage treatment) and heads of three state agencies for discharging untreated or poorly treated sewage into the harbor (Dolin, 2004). The suit never went to trial, but through the actions of a Massachusetts Superior Court, the issue of Boston Harbor contamination remained on the political and public agenda. The judge called the harbor “unsafe, unsanitary, indecent, in violation of the law (Clean Water Act), and a danger to the health and welfare of the people” (Forman, 1984). To force the state legislature to implement a plan to improve harbor conditions, the judge threatened to place the MDC in receivership and curtail new sewage hookups for industry. Under intense lobbying by business, the legislature created the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) in December 1984. The independent MWRA was established to manage Boston’s waste treatment system and was given the authority to float bonds to pay for major improvements in the treatment system. In 1985, a Federal court began hearings on a suit brought by the Conservation Law Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and towns of Quincy and Winthrop against the MDC and MWRA (as heir to responsibilities of the MDC) for years of violation of the Clean Water Act. The judge ruled against the defendants and required all the parties to submit a construction plan and schedule for a new sewage treatment system. From these submissions, he developed a schedule for treatment system upgrades that would give the “citizens of this commonwealth a public assurance that Boston Harbor will be cleaned up within a defined period of time” (Dolin, 2004). The MWRA’s Boston Harbor cleanup program (Levy and Connor, 1992) has transformed the Boston sewage system. Key improvements were to (1) reduce contaminants at the industrial source; (2) remediate leaks in the sewage-collection system; (3) eliminate sewage sludge discharge to the harbor; (4) upgrade sewage treatment from primary to secondary; (5) construct a new ocean outfall 15.2 km offshore in Massachusetts Bay for discharge of treated effluent (fig. 1.3); and (6) implement improvements in the combined-sewer-overflow system. As part of the harbor cleanup program, the MWRA developed a comprehensive monitoring program (summarized in MWRA, 2004) to assess changes in the harbor and bays that specifically related to the new sewage system. Additional information about conditions and processes in the coastal system on a regional scale and over a long time period was and continues to be important in predicting and interpreting local change. Implementation of the MWRA’s program and the mission of the USGS to understand the geology of the nation’s offshore waters provided an opportunity to conduct a cooperative multidisciplinary research program. This USGS program addresses basic scientific questions as well as concerns raised by management regarding the design, implementation, and assessment of the new sewage treatment system. Already active in Boston Harbor during the late 1970s, the USGS expanded research into Massachusetts Bay with a multidisciplinary program in 1989.

Massachusetts↗

The water-energy nexus: An earth science perspective

Water availability and use are closely connected with energy development and use. Water cannot be delivered to homes, businesses, and industries without energy, and most forms of energy development require large amounts of water. The United States faces two significant and sometimes competing challenges: to provide sustainable supplies of freshwater for humans and ecosystems and to ensure adequate sources of energy for future generations. This report reviews the complex ways in which water and energy are interconnected and describes the earth science data collection and research that can help the Nation address these important challenges. The earth sciences have been a cornerstone in developing our current understanding of the water-energy nexus. A full understanding of the nexus, however, is limited by uncertainty in our knowledge of fundamental issues, such as the quantity of freshwater that is available, the amount of water that is used in energy development, the effects that emerging energy development technologies have on water quality and quantity, and the amount of energy required to treat and deliver freshwater. Enhanced data collection and research can improve our understanding of these important issues and thereby lay the groundwork for informed resource management. Relevant earth science issues analyzed and discussed herein include freshwater availability; water use; ecosystems health; assessment of saline water resources; assessment of fossil-fuel, uranium, and geothermal resources; subsurface injection of wastewater and carbon dioxide and related induced seismicity; climate change and its effect on water availability and energy production; byproducts and waste streams of energy development; emerging energy-development technologies; and energy for water treatment and delivery.

Circular↗

2018 report on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle, Washington

On March 22, 2018, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) convened a workshop of engineers and seismologists to provide guidance on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle. This workshop provided recommendations that build on those from a March 2013 workshop (Chang and others, 2014), primarily based on new results from 3-D simulations of magnitude (M) 9 Cascadia earthquakes (The M9 Project). Susan Chang, a geotechnical engineer with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, organized and led the workshop; Art Frankel (USGS) assisted in constructing the agenda. The workshop agenda and attendees are provided in the appendix. The attendees represented a wide range of expertise, including seismologists with expertise in ground motions and basin response, geotechnical engineers, and structural engineers. Their professional experience included working on local projects related to the design of long-period structures; peer reviewing ground motions for performance-based design of high-rises in Seattle; researching basin response in academic, government and industry settings; developing ground motion models; and representing local and national structural engineering organizations. In this report, we summarize the technical presentations, key discussion points, and recommendations from the workshop.

Washington↗

U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy— Promoting the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation

Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Circular↗

Natural hazards science strategy

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Open-File Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2017 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal year 2017 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2018 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal year 2018 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗

Computer programs for modeling flow and water quality of surface water systems

A selection of available computer programs for modeling flow and water quality in surface water systems is described. The models include programs developed as part of the U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division hydrologic research activities and others developed by other agencies, universities, and consulting firms. Each model description includes a statement of program use; data requirements; computer costs; availability of documentation and reference material; and a contact person for additional information. The report is intended to assist the researcher by presenting a very brief description of the surface-water models which are readily available for project use. (USGS)

Open-File Report↗

Program and plans of the U.S. Geological Survey for producing information needed in National Seismic hazards and risk assessment, fiscal years 1980-84

In accordance with the provisions of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-124), the U.S. Geological Survey has developed comprehensive plans for producing information needed to assess seismic hazards and risk on a national scale in fiscal years 1980-84. These plans are based on a review of the needs of Federal Government agencies, State and local government agencies, engineers and scientists engaged in consulting and research, professional organizations and societies, model code groups, and others. The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act provided an unprecedented opportunity for participation in a national program by representatives of State and local governments, business and industry, the design professions, and the research community. The USGS and the NSF (National Science Foundation) have major roles in the national program. The ultimate goal of the program is to reduce losses from earthquakes. Implementation of USGS research in the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program requires the close coordination of responsibility between Federal, State and local governments. The projected research plan in national seismic hazards and risk for fiscal years 1980-84 will be accomplished by USGS and non-USGS scientists and engineers. The latter group will participate through grants and contracts. The research plan calls for (1) national maps based on existing methods, (2) improved definition of earthquake source zones nationwide, (3) development of improved methodology, (4) regional maps based on the improved methodology, and (5) post-earthquake investigations. Maps and reports designed to meet the needs, priorities, concerns, and recommendations of various user groups will be the products of this research and provide the technical basis for improved implementation.

Circular↗

A geologic and mineral exploration spatial database for the Stillwater Complex, Montana

The Stillwater Complex is a Neoarchean, ultramafic to mafic layered intrusion exposed in the Beartooth Mountains in south-central Montana. This igneous intrusion contains magmatic mineralization that is variably enriched in strategic and critical commodities such as chromium, nickel, and the platinum-group elements. One deposit, the J-M Reef, is the sole source of primary production and reserves for platinum-group elements in the United States. A large amount of information has been collected on the Stillwater Complex. In the 1930s, academics, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the [U.S.] Bureau of Mines initiated geologic investigations on the Stillwater Complex. Since that time, more than 600 publications on the Stillwater Complex have appeared in the scientific literature. Exploration and mining companies have collected even more information since the 1920s. This report provides essential spatially referenced datasets based on geologic mapping and mineral exploration activities conducted from the 1920s to the 1990s. This information will facilitate research on the complex and provide background material needed to explore for mineral resources and to develop sound land-management policy.

Montana↗

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2019–20 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2019–20 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

North Dakota↗

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2021–23 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2021–23 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗

The challenges of implementing pathogen control strategies for fishes used in biomedical research

Over the past several decades, a number of fish species, including the zebrafish, medaka, and platyfish/swordtail, have become important models for human health and disease. Despite the increasing prevalence of these and other fish species in research, methods for health maintenance and the management of diseases in laboratory populations of these animals are underdeveloped. There is a growing realization that this trend must change, especially as the use of these species expands beyond developmental biology and more towards experimental applications where the presence of underlying disease may affect the physiology animals used in experiments and potentially compromise research results. Therefore, there is a critical need to develop, improve, and implement strategies for managing health and disease in aquatic research facilities. The purpose of this review is to report the proceedings of a workshop entitled “Animal Health and Disease Management in Research Animals” that was recently held at the 5th Aquatic Animal Models for Human Disease in September 2010 at Corvallis, Oregon to discuss the challenges involved with moving the field forward on this front.

Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part C: T↗

Science to support aquatic animal health

Healthy aquatic ecosystems are home to a diversity of plants, invertebrates, fish and wildlife. Aquatic animal populations face unprecedented threats to their health and survival from climate change, water shortages, habitat alteration, invasive species and environmental contaminants. These environmental stressors can directly impact the prevalence and severity of disease in aquatic populations. For example, periodic fish kills in the upper Chesapeake Bay Watershed are associated with many different opportunistic pathogens that proliferate in stressed fish populations. An estimated 80 percent of endangered juvenile Puget Sound steelhead trout die within two weeks of entering the marine environment, and a role for disease in these losses is being investigated. The introduction of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) into the Great Lakes—a fishery worth an estimated 7 billion dollars annually—resulted in widespread fish die-offs and virus detections in 28 different fish species. Millions of dying sea stars along the west coast of North America have led to investigations into sea star wasting disease. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists are assisting managers with these issues through ecological investigations of aquatic animal diseases, field surveillance, and research to promote the development of mitigation strategies.

Fact Sheet↗

Velocity and Density Models Incorporating the Cascadia Subduction Zone for 3D Earthquake Ground Motion Simulations

In support of earthquake hazards and ground motion studies in the Pacific Northwest, three-dimensional P- and S-wave velocity (3D Vp and Vs) and density (3D rho) models incorporating the Cascadia subduction zone have been developed for the region encompassed from about 40.2°N to 50°N latitude, and from about -122°W to -129°W longitude. The model volume includes elevations from 0 km to 60 km (elevation is opposite of depth in model coordinates). Stephenson and Frankel (2003) presented preliminary ground motion simulations valid up to 0.1 Hz using an earlier version of these models. The version of the model volume described here includes more structural and geophysical detail, particularly in the Puget Lowland as required for scenario earthquake simulations in the development of the Seattle Urban Hazards Maps (Frankel and others, 2007). Olsen and others (in press) used the model volume discussed here to perform a Cascadia simulation up to 0.5 Hz using a Sumatra-Andaman Islands rupture history. As research from the EarthScope Program (http://www.earthscope.org ) is published, a wealth of important detail can be added to these model volumes, particularly to depths of the upper-mantle. However, at the time of development for this model version, no EarthScope-specific results were incorporated. This report is intended to be a reference for colleagues and associates who have used or are planning to use this preliminary model in their research. To this end, it is intended that these models will be considered a beginning template for a community velocity model of the Cascadia region as more data and results become available.

Open-File Report↗