Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Task Team 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 19 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2022

Biology: Integrating core to essential variables (Bio-ICE) task team report for hard corals

The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee (IOOC) is chartered by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST). The purpose of the IOOC is to advise, assist, and make recommendations to the SOST on matters related to ocean observations via task teams such as the Biology - Integrating Core to Essential Variables (Bio-ICE) task team. The goal of the Bio-ICE task team is to advance the integration of biological observations from local, regional, and federal sources using best practices to inform national needs and ultimately feed seamlessly into the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), as appropriate. To accomplish this goal, and for the first time at the U.S. federal government level, a subgroup of the Bio-ICE task team focused on tropical, shallow-water (0-30 m) hard corals to identify commonalities between the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) core biological variable1 of “coral species and abundance,” the GOOS Essential Ocean Variable2 (EOV) “hard coral cover and composition,” the Group on Earth Observations Biological Observation Network (GEO BON) Essential Biodiversity Variables3 (EBVs), and the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) Essential Climate Variables4 (ECVs) (Figure 1). The EOV data allows production of EBVs such as time series of maps of genetic composition, species populations, etc. Recognizing the complementarity of the different essential variable frameworks helps to promote best practices in observing and information management to facilitate data interoperability (Figure 1). The task team was charged with identifying where there are synergies in terms of spatial and temporal observing requirements and existing observation infrastructure and data delivery, including best practices and standard operating procedures. The task team also made suggestions to improve pathways for data flow for observations of these variables from Regional Associations of the U.S. IOOS, other nonfederal partners, and federal sources. The focus of the task team was on identifying and implementing best practices surrounding standardized data collection and data delivery to make continued progress toward adhering to the Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse (FAIR) and Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics (CARE) data principles.

Task Team Report↗
USGS2022

Biology: Integrating core to essential variables (Bio-ICE) task team report for marine mammals

Marine mammals are wide-ranging, relatively long-lived organisms that play a crucial role in maintaining healthy ocean ecosystems. Often referred to as ecosystem engineers and sentinel species in marine ecosystems, these charismatic megafauna feed at a variety of trophic levels, affecting food web dynamics and cycling of chemicals and nutrients in the water column as well as in benthic habitats, both nearshore and in the deep ocean. An understanding of their abundance and distribution is an essential starting point for evaluating their role in ocean ecosystems. Accordingly, marine mammals have been included among key variables to monitor in ocean observing systems, from core variables for the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to an Essential Ocean Variable (EOV) for the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). They also contribute to several Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) for the Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON). Further, evaluation of the health of marine mammal populations will help deliver societal benefits by contributing to the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development; informing reporting activities such as the World Ocean Assessment; and supporting achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 14, the post-2020 framework for the Convention for Biological Diversity, and a new treaty for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. In the U.S., the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are required to produce stock assessments for marine mammals under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA, 16 U.S.C. §1371 et seq.). Stock assessment analyses require accurate, up to-date information on abundance and distribution to inform appropriate management and/or conservation measures. Despite the availability of information on abundance and distribution within the stock assessment reports, availability and accessibility of the underlying data to the broader ocean observing community and contribution to EOVs remain inconsistent.

Report↗
USGS2016

Groundwater science relevant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: A status report

When the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed in 1972 by the Governments of Canada and the United States (the “Parties”) (Environment Canada, 2013a), groundwater was not recognized as important to the water quality of the Lakes. At that time, groundwater and surface water were still considered as two separate systems, with almost no appreciation for their interaction. When the GLWQA was revised in 1978 (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012), groundwater contamination, such as that reported at legacy industrial sites such as those at Love Canal near the Niagara River, was squarely in the news. Consequently, the potential impacts of contaminated groundwater from such sites on Great Lakes water quality became a concern (Beck, 1979), and Annex 16 was added to the agreement, to address “pollution from contaminated groundwater” (Francis, 1989). However, no formal process for reporting under this annex was provided. The GLWQA Protocol in 1987 modified Annex 16 and called for progress reports beginning in 1988 (USEPA, 1988). The Protocol in 2012 provided a new Annex 8 to address groundwater more holistically (Environment 2 Canada, 2013b). Annex 8 (Environment Canada, 2013b) commits the Parties to coordinate groundwater science and management actions; as a first step, to “publish a report on the relevant and available groundwater science” by February 2015 (this report); and to “identify priorities for science activities and actions for groundwater management, protection, and remediation…” The broader mandate of Annex 8 is to (1) “identify groundwater impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (2) “analyze contaminants, including nutrients in groundwater, derived from both point and non-point sources impacting the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (3) “assess information gaps and science needs related to groundwater to protect the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” and (4) “analyze other factors, such as climate change, that individually or cumulatively affect groundwater’s impact on the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” A binational Annex 8 Subcommittee was formed to lead efforts to fulfill the mandate of this annex (members listed on p. i of this report). In turn, this subcommittee has recruited a task team to prepare this report (listed as authors of each chapter). This report addresses all of the above four objectives, based on a compilation of the “relevant and available groundwater science.” Specifically, the second objective (to “analyze contaminants”) is addressed by incorporating information obtained in ongoing monitoring and research activities conducted by the Parties, and by various other members of the Great Lakes Executive Committee.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2014

Making One Health a reality: Crossing bureaucratic boundaries

A One Health approach that achieves optimal outcomes requires that nontraditional partners come to a common table to identify solutions that transcend organization-specific mandates. This collaboration requires individuals to go beyond their accustomed comfort zones and function on teams with partners who very likely come from unfamiliar organizational, disciplinary, and even national cultures. Each participant represents a separate mandate and an individual corporate culture and values, and each potentially communicates in agency-specific or industry-prescribed cultural terms that may be foreign to the rest of the team. A recent review paper reports that such interdisciplinary teams are most likely to succeed when they have a unified task and a shared goal and values, and when personal relationships are developed from a foundation of trust and respect (1).

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Description of Existing Data for Integrated Landscape Monitoring in the Puget Sound Basin, Washington

This report summarizes existing geospatial data and monitoring programs for the Puget Sound Basin in northwestern Washington. This information was assembled as a preliminary data-development task for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Puget Sound Integrated Landscape Monitoring (PSILM) pilot project. The PSILM project seeks to support natural resource decision-making by developing a 'whole system' approach that links ecological processes at the landscape level to the local level (Benjamin and others, 2008). Part of this effort will include building the capacity to provide cumulative information about impacts that cross jurisdictional and regulatory boundaries, such as cumulative effects of land-cover change and shoreline modification, or region-wide responses to climate change. The PSILM project study area is defined as the 23 HUC-8 (hydrologic unit code) catchments that comprise the watersheds that drain into Puget Sound and their near-shore environments. The study area includes 13 counties and more than four million people. One goal of the PSILM geospatial database is to integrate spatial data collected at multiple scales across the Puget Sound Basin marine and terrestrial landscape. The PSILM work plan specifies an iterative process that alternates between tasks associated with data development and tasks associated with research or strategy development. For example, an initial work-plan goal was to delineate the study area boundary. Geospatial data required to address this task included data from ecological regions, watersheds, jurisdictions, and other boundaries. This assemblage of data provided the basis for identifying larger research issues and delineating the study-area boundary based on these research needs. Once the study-area boundary was agreed upon, the next iteration between data development and research activities was guided by questions about data availability, data extent, data abundance, and data types. This report is not intended as an exhaustive compilation of all available geospatial data, rather, it is a collection of information about geospatial data that can be used to help answer the suite of questions posed after the study-area boundary was defined. This information will also be useful to the PSILM team for future project tasks, such as assessing monitoring gaps, exploring monitoring-design strategies, identifying and deriving landscape indicators and metrics, and visual geographic communication. The two main geospatial data types referenced in this report - base-reference layers and monitoring data - originated from numerous and varied sources. In addition to collecting information and metadata about the base-reference layers, the data also were collected for project needs, such as developing maps for visual communication among team members and with outside groups. In contrast, only information about the data was typically required for the monitoring data. The information on base-reference layers and monitoring data included in this report is only as detailed as what was readily available from the sources themselves. Although this report may appear to lack consistency between data records, the varying degree of details contained in this report are merely a reflection of varying source detail. This compilation is just a beginning. All data listed also are being catalogued in spreadsheets and knowledge-management systems. Our efforts are continual as we develop a geospatial catalog for the PSILM pilot project.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

An individual-based model for predicting dynamics of a newly established Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) population—Final report

Project Summary The Mexican wolf recovery team proposed to establish other populations of Mexican wolves ( Canis lupus baileyi ) in the Southwest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982). We were tasked to conduct an extensive simulation modeling exercise to determine release strategies (in conjunction with management actions) that best predict establishment of a new Mexican wolf population. Our objectives were to determine optimal release and management strategies for population establishment and growth. This is a retrospective analysis utilizing data from 1998 to 2014, and during this period, we divided management strategies into two phases; (1) 1998–2008, where nuisance wolves (i.e., wolves that exhibit nuisance behavior or depredate livestock) were managed primarily through lethal removals and removals to captivity, and (2) 2009–2014, when lethal removals ceased and diversionary feeding was provided to denning packs to dissuade wolves from conflict with humans. Management strategies from the second phase are being used for management of the current Mexican wolf population, and demographic rates derived from alternate population modeling in Vortex incorporating post-2008 wolf data are being used to guide future recovery efforts. Therefore, demographic rates estimated from our retrospective analysis will differ (i.e., due to our unique approach to the analyses and the demographic rates being derived from a different dataset), and are intended solely to address the objectives of this report, and are not intended as basis for the development of management recommendations for the current Mexican wolf population. Using individual-based models, we tested dozens of scenarios and derived an optimal release strategy that had the highest probability of establishing a new population and which maximized subsequent post-release growth, and in this report, we present these model results. Findings from this research will improve our understanding of release strategies that yield growing populations, advance our understanding of the demands of reintroducing large carnivores, and provide insight into beneficial strategies that could aid other species reintroduction programs.

Arizona, New Mexico↗
USGS2023

Geospatial standard operating procedures of the Chesapeake Bay Program

Introduction The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) has operated a geographic information system (GIS) program since the early 1990s to address the established and growing need for and use of geospatial data, maps, and analysis within the CBP Partnership. This report is intended to detail the standard operating procedures of the CBP GIS program and address the quality assurance, quality control, and other technical activities that CBP will implement to ensure the commitment of the CBP GIS Team to performance standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003). The report is intended as an update to the 2011 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). For specialized tasks or analytical projects beyond the scope of this QAPP, a separate specialized QAPP with details on quality control, assurance procedures, and the geospatial methods associated with all aspects of the project may be required.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1970

Television experiment for Mariner Mars 1971

The Television Experiment objectives are to provide imaging data which will complement previously gathered data and extend our knowledge of Mars. The two types of investigations will be fixed-feature (for mapping) and variable-feature (for surface and atmospheric changes). Two cameras with a factor-of-ten difference in resolution will be used on each spacecraft for medium- and high-resolution imagery. Mapping of 70% of the planet's surface will be provided by medium-resolution imagery. Spot coverage of about 5% of the surface will be possible with the high-resolution imagery. The experiment's 5 Principal Investigators and 21 Co-Investigators are organized into a team. Scientific disciplines and technical task groups have been formed to provide the formulation of experiment requirements for mission planning and instrument development. It is expected that the team concept will continue through the operational and reporting phases of the Mariner Mars 1971 Project.

Icarus↗
USGS2020

Report on the workshop ‘Next Steps in Developing Nature Futures’

The workshop ‘New Narratives for Nature: operationalizing the IPBES Nature Futures Scenarios’ was organised by the IPBES task force on scenarios and models and hosted by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), with support from the research team on “Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services through an Integrated Social-Ecological Systems Approach (PANCES)” based at the University of Tokyo, the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), and the United Nations University, with generous financial support from the Ministry of the Environment of Japan. Due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak, most task force members participated through virtual means, with a subset of task force members meeting in person in Japan. The aim of the workshop was to build on the Nature Futures Framework (NFF) and on the ‘nature futures’ participatory scenario-development work initiated by the IPBES expert group on scenarios and models in the first IPBES work programme. This workshop aims to further elaborate the pre-workshop scenario narratives and to enrich discussions on the NFF. The workshop also served to start working on a more detailed task force work plan. These aims were achieved through: • Task force sessions on the further formulation of the Nature Futures narratives. • Task force sessions on the cross-comparison of draft narratives and the further elaboration of the historical-present narrative. • Organisational sessions to begin the drafting of sub-deliverable-specific work plans. • In parallel to the task force workshop, collaborative sessions between the task force and Japanese researchers took place to discuss the application of the Nature Futures Framework at the national scale, using existing national level scenarios from Japan. • A public seminar, in Japan, for a wider audience introducing the scenarios and models task force’s work, the concept of the Nature Futures Framework, and fostered discussions on the concept of transformative change. Summary of outputs of the workshop in Japan • 6 NEW scenario narratives drafts – an evolution of the pre-workshop work using the narrative templates, into a more coherent set of narratives fitting their locations in the Nature Futures Framework, including some illustrative visualisations. • A cross-comparison table – to identify the core similarities and differences across the 6 new narratives (including single narrative-between-narrative comparisons). • A discussion on how to continue further development, requiring identifying pathways to complete the 6 new narratives. • 1 historical-to-present narrative draft – also an evolution of work done prior to the workshop. The task force has yet to synthesize and shorten this draft, ensuring linkages with topics detailed in the 6 new narratives into a more digestible level. • Elaboration of a follow-up plan for further development of the narratives, post-workshop, through a “buddy” system of in-depth online discussions per and between narratives. • 1 Japan case study – on fitting national level scenarios into the Nature Futures Framework. A summary will be shared by the team who worked closely on this with the PANCES partners, which we expect will give interesting insights to the cross-scale application of the Nature Futures Framework. • Detailed work plan implementation drafts (ongoing post workshop in sub-groups).

Report↗
USGS2013

Operational Group Sandy technical progress report

Hurricane Sandy made US landfall near Atlantic City, NJ on 29 October 2012, causing 72 direct deaths, displacing thousands of individuals from damaged or destroyed dwellings, and leaving over 8.5 million homes without power across the northeast and mid-Atlantic. To coordinate federal rebuilding activities in the affected region, the President established the cabinet-level Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force was charged with identifying opportunities for achieving rebuilding success while supporting economic vitality, improving public health and safety, protecting and enhancing natural and manmade infrastructure, bolstering resilience, and ensuring appropriate accountability. The Department of the Interior (DOI) Strategic Sciences Group (SSG) was established in 2012 to provide interdisciplinary science-based scenarios for environmental crises affecting Departmental resources. In January 2013, the Secretary of the Interior directed the SSG to support the Department’s participation in the Task Force. The SSG assembled a team of experts from government, academia, and non-governmental organizations – Operational Group Sandy (OGS) – to develop scenarios for the impacts of Hurricane Sandy and future major storms on coastal communities and urban systems in the New York/New Jersey region. This report documents results from the March 2013 deployment of the OGS. It includes background information on Hurricane Sandy and the federal response; the OGS methodology; scenarios for Hurricane Sandy’s impact on coastal communities and urban ecosystems; potential interventions to improve regional resilience to future major storms; a discussion of scenario results; and lessons learned about the OGS process.

Report↗
USGS2023

Blue snowflakes in a warming world: Karner blue butterfly climate change vulnerability synthesis and best practices for adaptation

This report—developed at the request of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service-led Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Team by Recovery Team members and partners—provides a Karner blue butterfly climate change vulnerability synthesis, explores a range of potential responses, and presents best practices for climate change-informed conservation of the species. The three decades since the Karner blue butterfly’s (Lycaeides [Plebejus] melissa samuelis Nabokov) listing as federally endangered in the United States have seen a diverse and dedicated research and management community coalesce around the species’ recovery. This geographically expansive conservation collaboration has broken new ground for threatened and endangered species recovery. Many Karner blue recovery areas are making steady progress towards recovery goals, but some are not. An extremely hot and dry 2012, perhaps aided by adverse longer-term climate trends such as declining snow cover, extirpated the Karner blue from Indiana Dunes National Park and the surrounding Indiana Dunes Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Unit—the southernmost recovery unit and once host to one of the species’ largest populations—as well as from northwest Ohio. Because of the fundamental challenge that climate change represents to Karner blue butterfly recovery and of the general need for endangered species conservation plans to better address climate change, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service-led Karner Blue Butterfly Recovery Team tasked a subset of the team to: Explore the species’ climate change sensitivity and adaptive capacity, review ongoing and projected climate change across the Karner blue range and associated uncertainties, and develop and suggest best practices concerning long-term adaptation strategies. Consistent with that mandate, this report synthesizes what is known about Karner blue climate change vulnerability and applies current thinking in climate change adaptation to help foster strategic, long-term, climate change-informed Karner blue recovery and conservation. It develops and explores a range of potential climate change-informed butterfly- and habitat-stewardship responses, using the resist-accept-direct (RAD) framework to foster a broad range of approaches, and provides guidance regarding how they may be pursued. The report also provides suggestions for improving the climate change-exposure component of Karner blue vulnerability assessment.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS1958

Suggestions to authors of the reports of the United States Geological Survey

Knowledge acquired by the Geological Survey through programs of research and investigations has no value to the public if it remains in office files or in the minds of the scientists and engineers who did the work. The full discharge of the Survey's responsibilities is attained only by making its acquired knowledge available promptly and effectively to all people who will find it of interest and use. And, to insure effectiveness, reports must be not only accurate but so clearly and simply written that they are easy to read and understand. Efforts by the Geological Survey to attain high quality in reports are necessarily group efforts. The largest contribution is made by the author, who has assembled facts, has worked out ideas to explain them, and has a direct personal interest in making the facts and ideas clearly and effectively known. The Geological Survey encourages that interest, recognizing that it is an essential ingredient of the high morale of the members of the Survey. Authors should keep in mind, however, that the Survey has a proprietary interest in all their manuscript reports and as proprietor may dispose of the reports, or require that they be changed before publication, as it sees fit. The Survey generally exercises its proprietary interest only to the extent of seeing that a report is scientifically and technically sound, will reach the proper audience, and will reflect credit on both the Survey and the author. To these ends, each report is reviewed by the author's fellow workers, supervisors, and staff officials, who bring to bear upon it their specialized knowledge, skill, judgement to assure a sound product. In its final form each Survey report is that product of team effort in which many persons do their share -- even though most of them remain anonymous. There is no easy way to prepare reports of high quality, any more than there is an easy means of carrying out research to sure and outstanding conclusions. Each task calls for intensive thinking and for preserving work. The author bears the primary responsibility and correspondingly faces the most difficult task. To aid him is the chief purpose of this volume. The subject matter of this volume is arranged under several principal headings. First, a summary is given of the Survey's publications: the historical basis for them, statistics as to what has been issued in the periods 1879-1957, and a list and description of the several series of reports and maps in which material is being published. Next are outlined successive steps that the author will normally take from the start of a project to his final proofreading of the text and illustrations. Under the third broad heading is brought together much detailed information about the form and content of reports. The fourth part of this volume is devoted to advice on expression -- what to seek and what to avoid. A fifth major part of this volume bears on the most common questions of typographic style that affect Survey publications. The final sections of the volume give instructions for typing manuscript copy and correcting the galley and page proofs; also they include a few useful tables and a discussion of the purpose and content of press releases.

Report↗
USGS2022

Global and regional sea level rise scenarios for the United States

This report and accompanying datasets from the U.S. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Flood Hazard Scenarios and Tools Interagency Task Force provide 1) sea level rise scenarios to 2150 by decade that include estimates of vertical land motion and 2) a set of extreme water level probabilities for various heights along the U.S. coastline. These data are available at 1-degree grids along the U.S. coastline and downscaled specifically at NOAA tide-gauge locations. Estimates of flood exposure are assessed using contemporary U.S. coastal flood-severity thresholds for current conditions (e.g., sea levels and infrastructure footprint) and for the next 30 years (out to year 2050), assuming no additional risk reduction measures are enacted. This effort builds upon the 2017 Task Force report (Sweet et al., 2017). In particular, the set of global mean sea level rise scenarios from that report are updated and downscaled with output directly from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6; IPCC, 2021a), through the efforts of the NASA Sea Level Change Team; updates include adjustments to the temporal trajectories and exceedance probabilities of these scenarios based upon end-of-century global temperatures. As with the 2017 report, these global mean sea level rise scenarios are regionalized for the U.S. coastline. In addition, methodology supporting the U.S. Department of Defense Regional Sea Level (DRSL) database (Hall et al., 2016) is adapted for the extreme water level dataset newly developed for this report. This report will be a key technical input for the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5). These data and information are being incorporated into current and planned agency tools and services, such as NOAA’s Sea Level Rise Viewer and Inundation Dashboard, NASA’s Sea Level Change Portal, and others. Although the intent of this report is not to provide authoritative guidance or design specifications for a specific project, it is intended to help inform Federal agencies, state and local governments, and stakeholders in coastal communities about current and future sea level rise to help contextualize its effects for decision-making purposes.

Technical Report↗
USGS2012

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force---Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science Assessment and Needs

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long-term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (Mabus Report). The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The GCERTF was charged to develop a holistic, long-term, science-based Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy for the Gulf of Mexico. Federal and State agencies staffed the GCERTF with experts in fields such as policy, budgeting, and science to help develop the Strategy. The Strategy was built on existing authorities and resources and represents enhanced collaboration and a recognition of the shared responsibility among Federal and State governments to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem. In this time of severe fiscal constraints, Task Force member agencies and States are committed to establishing shared priorities and working together to achieve them. As part of this effort, three staffers, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist and two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, created and led a Science Coordination Team (SCT) to guide scientific input into the development of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The SCT leads from the GCERTF coordinated more than 70 scientists from the Federal and State Task Force member agencies to participate in development of a restoration-oriented science document focused on the entire Gulf of Mexico, from inland watersheds to the deep blue waters. The SCT leads and scientists were organized into six different working groups based on expanded goals from the Mabus Report: Coastal habitats are healthy and resilient. Living coastal and marine resources are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. Coastal communities are adaptive and resilient. Storm buffers are sustainable. Inland habitats and watersheds are managed to help support healthy and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. Offshore environments are healthy and well managed Each working group was charged with defining their specific goal, describing the current conditions related to that goal (for example, the status of coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico), providing highlevel activities needed to further define and achieve the goal, with associated outcome-based performance indicators, and identifying the scientific gaps in understanding to accomplish the goal and implement the recommended activities. The overall scientific assessment reveals that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem continues to suffer from extensive degradation, and action is necessary to develop a healthy, resilient, and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The six groups also were tasked with outlining the necessary monitoring, modeling, and research needs to aid in achieving the goals. Recognizing that (1) the scientific needs (monitoring, modeling, and research) overlap among many of the goals, and (2) an overarching scientific framework could be developed to implement the necessary science in support of the Strategy, a seventh group was created with several members from each of the original six working groups. This seventh group compiled all of the cross-cutting monitoring, modeling, and research needs previously identified by the individual groups. These scientific requirements are found in Chapter 5 of this document. The seventh group also has developed a Science Plan, outlined in Chapter 6. The Science Plan provides the basic science infrastructure to support the overall Gulf restoration program and Strategy. The Science Plan allows for the development of an iterative and flexible approach to adaptive management and decision-making related to restoration projects based on sound science that includes monitoring, modeling, and research. Taken in its entirety, this document helps to articulate the current state of the system and the critical science needs to support effective restoration of the Gulf of Mexico resources that have been trending towards decline for decades.

Report↗
USGS2024

The U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Science Center’s response plan for significant volcanic events

This publication describes the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Science Center (VSC) Response Plan for Significant Volcanic Events (hereinafter referred to as “the plan”) that has been developed for U.S volcano observatories over the past several years in consultation with the lead scientist, or Scientist-in-Charge (SIC), of each of the five U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) volcano observatories. The goal of the plan is to define a standardized management system that ensures the VSC can achieve the following during a volcanic crisis: maintain situational awareness and issue timely warnings and hazard assessments, fulfill internal and external agency requests for information as well as requests from the public, sustain financial and technical support, and gather critical scientific data. The plan addresses situations in which the scale of a response at least temporarily eclipses the response capabilities of a single observatory. The plan features two integrated response structures for managing and carrying out operations within the VSC during a crisis: the Observatory Volcanic Event Response Team (OVERT) and the Center Volcanic Event Response Team (CVERT). The design of these structures reflects lessons learned from past volcanic responses and is influenced by the Incident Command System used by the U.S. Federal Government for managing emergency responses. The plan clarifies expectations regarding the flow of information during a response, summarizes required tasks of the responding observatory and VSC to ensure a successful response, defines response-team roles and responsibilities, and describes the internal communication practices critical for an effective and coordinated response.

Circular↗
USGS2013

Volcano crisis response at Yellowstone volcanic complex - after-action report for exercise held at Salt Lake City, Utah, November 15, 2011

A functional tabletop exercise was run on November 14-15, 2011 in Salt Lake City, Utah, to test crisis response capabilities, communication protocols, and decision-making by the staff of the multi-agency Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO) as they reacted to a hypothetical exercise scenario of accelerating volcanic unrest at the Yellowstone caldera. The exercise simulated a rapid build-up of seismic activity, ground deformation, and hot-spring water-chemistry and temperature anomalies that culminated in a small- to moderate-size phreatomagmatic eruption within Yellowstone National Park. The YVO scientific team's responses to the unfolding events in the scenario and to simulated requests for information by stakeholders and the media were assessed by (a) the exercise organizers; (b) several non-YVO scientists, who observed and queried participants, and took notes throughout the exercise; and (c) the participants themselves, who kept logs of their actions during the exercise and later participated in a group debriefing session and filled out detailed questionnaires. These evaluations were tabulated, interpreted, and summarized for this report, and on the basis of this information, recommendations have been made. Overall, the YVO teams performed their jobs very well. The exercise revealed that YVO scientists were able to successfully provide critical hazards information, issue information statements, and appropriately raise alert levels during a fast-moving crisis. Based on the exercise, it is recommended that several measures be taken to increase YVO effectiveness during a crisis: 1. Improve role clarification within and between YVO science teams. 2. Improve communications tools and protocols for data-sharing and consensus-building among YVO scientists, who are geographically and administratively dispersed among various institutions across the United States. 3. Familiarize YVO staff with Incident Command System (ICS) procedures and protocols, and provide more in-depth training to appropriate staff members, as needed. 4. Train all science team members in the use of all analytical and computational tools available to them, in order to maximize effectiveness of teams in tracking and interpreting possible accelerating unrest at Yellowstone. Desirable pre-crisis preparations include: (a) updating a catalog of existing map and information products (and identifying additional products) that would be helpful during a crisis; (b) creating "to do" lists of early-crisis tasks for each scientific team; (c) coordinating radio frequencies among partner agencies; and (d) brief training on and promotion of the internal YVO Web log as a repository for scientific observations, data, photographs, and other material to be shared among YVO scientific teams during a crisis. This exercise was designed as an opportunity to practice response to a fast-developing volcano crisis and to test for organizational and procedural weaknesses that could emerge during a real crisis. This report is based upon the observations of the exercise organizers during the one-day exercise and upon written evaluations by the participants. It does not attempt to evaluate any other aspect of YVO or the scientific expertise of any of the highly competent YVO staff. Participants unanimously found the exercise to be helpful for improving their response capabilities, and it is our hope that the report will be a starting point for internal discussions that will make YVO even better-prepared for some future volcano crisis.

Utah↗
USGS2003

U.S. Geological Survey Greater Everglades Science Program: 2002 Biennial Report

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts scientific investigations in south Florida to improve society’s understanding of the environment and assist in the sustainable use, protection, and restoration of the Everglades and other ecosystems within the region. The investigations summarized in this document have been carried out under the Greater Everglades Science Program (previously known as the South Florida Ecosystem Program), which is part of the USGS Place-Based Studies initiative. The USGS Placed-Based Studies initiative is a nationwide program that concentrates on areas with severe environmental problems. Through interdisciplinary investigations the Program provides sound scientific information on which to base informed resource management decisions. Individuals from all the USGS programs (hydrology, geology, biology, mapping) work together with other scientists to cover the diverse scientific disciplines involved in this complex and challenging task. The Greater Everglades Science Program began in 1995 as one of the initial Place-Based Studies programs and serves as a model for similar future collaborative studies. Placed-Based Studies are also being conducted in the San Francisco Bay area, Chesapeake Bay, the Platte River, Greater Yellowstone, Salton Sea, and the Mojave Desert. The South Florida Ecosystem Program is part of a coordinated federal effort, under the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force. The Task Force was started in 1993, through interagency agreement, to coordinate the efforts of the agencies within six federal departments. In 1996, statutory authority formalized the Task Force and expanded it to include tribal, state, and local governments. The Task Force conducts its activities through the South Florida Ecosystem Working Group and teams, such as the Science Coordination Team. A Science Plan and Integrated Financial Plans are established to focus efforts and prevent duplicative efforts by the agencies.

Open-File Report↗