SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Working Group Report”

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 199 records · Page 11Linked to original sources

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↗

USGS2005

High priority needs for range-wide monitoring of North American landbirds

This document is an extension of work done for the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). The Continental Plan reviewed conservation status of the 448 native landbird species that regularly breed in the United States and Canada. Two groups of species were identified as having high conservation importance: the PIF Watch List, made up of species for which there is conservation concern, and Stewardship Spices that are particularly characteristic of regional avifaunas. In addition, continental scale monitoring needs were identified for all species. Here we extend the monitoring needs aspect of the Plan, providing additional detail and suggesting the best means of filling the gaps in broad-scale, long-term trend monitoring. This analysis and report was compiled by the Partners in Flight (PIF) Science Committee as a contribution to current work by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative to assess the status of bird population monitoring in North America and to make recommendations for improvements.

Partners in Flight Technical Series↗

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↗

USGS2000

Prolonged winter undernutrition and the interpretation of urinary allantoin:creatinine ratios in white-tailed deer

The urinary allantoin:creatinine (A:C) ratio (expressed in micromoles of allantoin to micromoles of creatinine) has shown potential as an index of recent winter energy intake in preliminary controlled studies of elk ( Cervus elaphus ) involving mild condition deterioration (up to 11% loss of body mass). To ensure reliable nutritional assessments of free-ranging cervids by measuring A:C ratios of urine in snow, it is essential to extend this work. We assessed the effect of moderate and severe winter nutritional restriction on urinary A:C ratios of captive white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) that lost up to 32% body mass and related these ratios to metabolizable energy intake (MEI), body-mass loss, and other reported nutritional indicators. Deer in the control group were fed a low-protein, low-energy diet ad libitum, whereas deer in the treatment group were fed restricted amounts of the same diet. MEI was below the winter maintenance requirement for all deer, but was lower ( P = 0.029) in treatment deer than in control deer. Percent body-mass loss differed between the two groups as the study progressed, and represented the full range of physiological tolerance (0-32% loss). Mean A:C ratios of control deer, which lost up to 17.4% body mass, showed a slight increasing ( P = 0.086) trend, whereas initially similar A:C ratios of severely restricted deer increased ( P = 0.0002) markedly by the eighth week (0.52 vs. 0.09 µmol:µmol). The urinary A:C ratio was not related ( P = 0.839) to recent (2 days prior to urine sampling) MEI, but there was a marginally significant relation ( r 2 = 0.42, P = 0.110) between the A:C ratio and cumulative percent mass loss. The urinary A:C ratio was directly related to urinary urea nitrogen:creatinine ( r 2 = 0.59, P < 0.0001) and 3-methylhistidine:creatinine ( r 2 = 0.43, P < 0.0001) ratios. This study confirms that elevated and increasing A:C ratios may be due either to increasing energy intake or to accelerated tissue catabolism and increased endogenous contributions to urinary allantoin excretion.

Canadian Journal of Zoology↗

USGS2009

Evaluation of hazardous faults in the intermountain west region: Summary and recommendations of a workshop

The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP) has the responsibility to provide nationwide information and knowledge about earthquakes and earthquake hazards as a step to mitigating earthquake-related losses. As part of this mission, USGS geologists and geophysicists continue to study faults and structures that have the potential to generate large and damaging earthquakes. In addition, the EHP, through its External Grants Program (hereinafter called Program), supports similar studies by scientists employed by state agencies, academic institutions, and independent employers. For the purposes of earthquake hazard investigations, the Nation is geographically subdivided into tectonic regions. One such region is the Intermountain West (IMW), which here is broadly defined as starting at the eastern margin of the Rocky Mountains in New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana and extending westward to the east side of the Sierra Nevada mountains in eastern California and into the Basin and Range-High Plateaus of eastern Oregon and Washington. The IMW contains thousands of faults that have moved in Cenozoic time, hundreds of which have evidence of Quaternary movement, and thus are considered to be potential seismic sources. Ideally, each Quaternary fault should be studied in detail to evaluate its rate of activity in order to model the hazard it poses. The study of a single fault requires a major commitment of time and resources, and given the large number of IMW faults that ideally should be studied, it is impractical to expect that all IMW Quaternary faults can be fully evaluated in detail. A more realistic approach is to prioritize a list of IMW structures that potentially pose a significant hazard and to focus future studies on those structures. Accordingly, in June 2008, a two-day workshop was convened at the USGS offices in Golden, Colorado, to seek information from representatives of selected State Geological Surveys in the IMW and with knowledgeable regional experts to identify the important structures for future studies. Such a priority list allows Program managers to guide the limited resources toward studies of features that are deemed to potentially pose the most serious hazards in the IMW. It also provides the scientific community with a list of structures to investigate because they are deemed to pose a substantial hazard to population centers or critical structures. The IMW encompasses all or large parts of 12 states, including Arizona, New Mexico, extreme west Texas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, eastern California, eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, western Wyoming, and western Montana. In Utah, and more recently in Nevada, geoscientists have taken steps to evaluate geologic data related to well-studied faults and to develop a statewide priority list of hazardous structures. In contrast to Utah and Nevada, the other IMW states contain substantially fewer Quaternary faults, so there have not been any previous efforts to develop similar priority lists. This workshop was organized to address this matter and create a more balanced perspective of priorities throughout the entire IMW region. Because working groups and workshops had already been convened to specifically deal with Quaternary fault priorities in Utah and Nevada, this workshop specifically emphasized structures outside of these two states.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗

USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal Year 2005

Introduction This report describes the activities that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year (FY) 2005. Most of these USGS activities were collaborations with Tribes, Tribal organizations, or professional societies. Others were conducted cooperatively with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or other Federal entities. The USGS is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). The USGS does not have regulatory or land management responsibilities. As described in this report, there are many USGS activities that are directly relevant to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and to Native lands. A USGS website, dedicated to making USGS more accessible to American Indians, Alaska Natives, their governments, and institutions, is available at www.usgs.gov/indian. This website includes information on how to contact USGS American Indian/Alaska Native Liaisons, training opportunities, and links to other information resources. This report and previous editions are also available through the website. The USGS realizes that Native knowledge and cultural traditions of living in harmony with nature result in unique Native perspectives that enrich USGS studies. USGS seeks to increase the sensitivity and openness of its scientists to the breadth of Native knowledge, expanding the information on which their research is based. USGS scientific studies include data collection, mapping, natural resource modeling, and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although some are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded cooperatively, with USGS funds matched or supplemented by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. These projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Some USGS activities described in this report are conducted as collateral tasks that result from USGS employees identifying and responding to perceived needs. These endeavors are usually prompted by employee interests and frequently involve educational activities. The education is often a reciprocal learning and teaching experience for USGS employees and for Native participants. Through these activities, USGS employees help to fulfill a mission of the USGS - to demonstrate scientific relevance - while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees also take initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives by participating in several organizations that promote awareness of science career opportunities among Native peoples and help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. The studies briefly described in this report span subsistence issues, wildlife health, water quality, mineral resources, monitoring and modeling to gather information and predict what may happen in the future. Although each project description relates to Native Americans in some way, the projects vary widely, including who conducted the work, the goals and products, the duration of the study, and whether it was local or covered a broad area. Each major organizational unit of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central,

Circular↗

USGS1995

Continental drilling for paleoclimatic records: Recommendations from an international workshop

The Workshop, entitled "Continental Drilling for Paleoclimate Records", was sponsored by the Past Global Changes (PAGES) Project, a core project of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and by the GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam, Germany, in conjunction with the International Continental Drilling Programme (ICDP). The impetus for the meeting was the need for long continental paleoclimate records that will fill gaps left by the marine and ice-core records and provide information on time and spatial scales that are relevant to human activities. Further impetus came from a perceived need to balance the forecasts and reconstructions of climate models with information on actual behavior of the climate system on the continents. The meeting was organized by Steven M. Colman, Suzanne A.G. Leroy, and Jörg F.W. Negendank and was held at the GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam, Germany, June 30-July 2, 1995. Because the Workshop was primarily a working meeting, a relatively small number of participants were invited (Appendix 3). Leaders of the PAGES Pole-Equator-Pole (PEP) transects and existing large-lake drilling programs, along with a mixture of technical experts, were the primary group of attendees.

Report↗

USGS1905

Underground waters of eastern United States

The present paper is a brief summary of the underground water conditions in eastern United States, prepared to meet the demands of drillers and others for information relating to the general water resources of the various States or of specified regions. The detail with which the several regions or subjects are discussed depends mainly on their relative importance, although because of the greater amount of work done in certain localities, or on certain problems, it is possible to make more complete and definite statements in regard to the underground water supplies in some regions than in others. The included reports have been prepared by a number of geologists, each, in general, having charge of the investigations in a particular State or group of States. Because of the number of contributors there is necessarily considerable variation in the manner of treatment of the subject, but in most cases the same general plan has been followed. In preparing the paper simplicity of treatment has been kept in mind, and elaborate geologic discussions have been omitted. Wherever possible maps have been given in preference to long and possibly obscure discussions. In some instances, however, it has been necessary to describe the various water-bearing formations under their geologic names. Where this has been necessary the aim has been to employ those terms which are oldest and best known to the people of the States to which the discussion relates. For the purpose of presenting in a simple manner a few of the more important features relating to the nature and occurrence of subterranean waters and of making more intelligible the descriptions of the conditions in the various States, there is given a short paper on the general occurrence of underground waters.

eastern United States↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2014 annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researches Earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of Earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups; however, by 2009 it became evident that many members of the Council for Data Integration had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal, grassroots manner, which transformed the Council into a Community for Data Integration (CDI). As of 2014, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across the USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to do the following: • advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques, • provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas and learn new skills and techniques, and • grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical challenges including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. As of 2014, the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that creates data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Status of the 3D Elevation Program, 2015

The 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) is a cooperative activity to collect light detection and ranging (lidar) data for the conterminous United States, Hawaii, and U.S. territories; and interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IfSAR) elevation data for Alaska during an 8-year period. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and partner organizations acquire high-quality three-dimensional elevation data for the United States and its territories that support requirements beyond what could be realized if agencies independently pursued lidar and IfSAR data collection activities. Data collection rates have been increasing as a growing number of State and Federal agencies participate in cooperative data acquisition projects. USGS and partner agencies expanded data collection, completed the initial product delivery systems and implemented changes to the program governance to include a restructuring of the 3DEP working group and formalizing the relationship to the Federal Geographic Data Committee during the final year (2015) of program preparation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Supporting the development and use of native plant materials for restoration on the Colorado Plateau (Fiscal Year 18 Report)

Introduction A primary focus of the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program (CPNPP) is to identify and develop appropriate native plant materials (NPMs) for current and future restoration projects. Multiple efforts have characterized the myriad challenges inherent in providing appropriate seed resources to enable effective, widespread restoration and identified a broad suite of research activities to provide the information necessary to overcome those challenges (e.g., Plant Conservation Alliance 2015; Breed et al. 2018). Many of the most complex information needs relate to identifying the appropriate plant species and populations that can successfully establish in dryland environments, like the Colorado Plateau, where low and highly variable precipitation is standard. Providing this information requires synergistic research efforts in which results from earlier investigations inform the design of subsequent investigations. Southwest Biological Science Center’s (SBSC’s) research activities in FY18 followed the FY18 Statement of Work (“Research supporting native plant materials development for the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program, FY18”) to support a research framework that is continually adapting based on the needs of the restoration community and results from previous investigations; the long-term research framework is now outlined in the 2019-2023 5-Year Research Strategy (discussed below; hereafter referred to as the 5-Year Research Strategy). This research framework provides support for the National Seed Strategy for Rehabilitation and Restoration (Plant Conservation Alliance, 2015), Department of Interior Secretarial Order #3347 (Conservation Stewardship and Outdoor Recreation), and Bureau of Land Management Leadership Priority #1 (Create a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt). The overall focus of activities in FY18 centered on landscape genetics and planning for common garden and other research projects. These activities were supported by two biological technicians that were hired and trained by Dr. Rob Massatti and Dr. Daniel Winkler. Many of the field-related activities, including plant trait measurement and seed/tissue collecting, were assigned to these technicians, which freed Dr. Massatti to work on other research objectives, including the time-consuming activities of processing and analyzing genetic data. A major challenge to field work in FY18 was the drought conditions that pervaded the Plateau during the spring field season. Due to low winter and spring precipitation, many plant communities did not green up in the spring, which prevented the biological technicians from collecting plant trait data, tissues samples, and seeds in many areas. To cope with the dry conditions, the technicians searched sites across a wider range of environmental space and considered a broader suite of species from which to collect data (i.e., species that may be included in research projects in future years). Monsoonal precipitation starting in July supported a late summer/fall field season and allowed the technicians to follow a more normal work plan. While Dr. Massatti was the only scientist supported by the SBSC-CPNPP agreement in FY18, other scientists, including Drs. John Bradford, Seth Munson, Mike Duniway, Sasha Reed, Daniel Winkler, and Jayne Belnap, spent a considerable amount of time discussing individual projects and the newly developed 5-Year Research Strategy. Some of these discussions resulted in a publication by Dr. Winkler, in addition to a large group of researchers, practitioners, and others who work on the Colorado Plateau, concerning the restoration challenges facing the Plateau into the future and the types of efforts that may support successful restoration (Winkler et al., 2018).

Colorado↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2013 Annual Report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups. However by 2009, it became apparent that many members of the council had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal grassroots perspective, thus transforming the “Council” into a “Community” for Data Integration (CDI). Today, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas as well as learn new skills and techniques, and grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the Community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical 2 challenges, including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. Today the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that create data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2000

Digital mapping techniques '00, workshop proceedings - May 17-20, 2000, Lexington, Kentucky

Introduction: The Digital Mapping Techniques '00 (DMT'00) workshop was attended by 99 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 28 state geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop was similar in nature to the first three meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a), and in May, 1999, in Madison, Wisconsin (Soller, 1999). This year's meeting was hosted by the Kentucky Geological Survey, from May 17 to 20, 2000, on the University of Kentucky campus in Lexington. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model; 4) field data-collection systems; and 5) map citation and authorship guidelines. Four representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The four annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Earthquake Rate Model 2.2 of the 2007 Working Group for California Earthquake Probabilities, Appendix D: Magnitude-Area Relationships

Summary To estimate the down-dip coseismic fault dimension, W, the Executive Committee has chosen the Nazareth and Hauksson (2004) method, which uses the 99% depth of background seismicity to assign W. For the predicted earthquake magnitude-fault area scaling used to estimate the maximum magnitude of an earthquake rupture from a fault's length, L, and W, the Committee has assigned equal weight to the Ellsworth B (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003) and Hanks and Bakun (2002) (as updated in 2007) equations. The former uses a single relation; the latter uses a bilinear relation which changes slope at M=6.65 (A=537 km2).

Open-File Report↗

USGS1999

Digital mapping techniques '99 -- workshop proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '99 (DMT'99) workshop was attended by 91 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 30 state geological surveys (see Appendix A ). This workshop was similar in nature to the first two meetings, held in June, 1997, in Lawrence, Kansas (Soller, 1997), and in May, 1998, in Champaign, Illinois (Soller, 1998a). This year's meeting was hosted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, from May 19 to 22, 1999, on the University of Wisconsin campus in Madison. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. When, based on discussions at the workshop, an attendee adopts or modifies a newly learned technique, the workshop clearly has met that objective. Evidence of learning and cooperation among participating agencies continued to be a highlight of the DMT workshops (see example in Soller, 1998b, and various papers in this volume). The meeting's general goal was to help move the state geological surveys and the USGS toward development of more cost-effective, flexible, and useful systems for digital mapping and geographic information systems (GIS) analysis. Through oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions, emphasis was given to: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, ìpublishingî includes Web-based release); 2) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database; and 3) progress toward building a standard geologic map data model. Especially to support the interest in map preparation and publication, five representatives of the GIS hardware and software vendor community were invited to participate. The three annual DMT workshops were coordinated by the AASG/USGS Data Capture Working Group, which was formed in August, 1996, to support the Association of American State Geologists and the USGS in their effort to build a National Geologic Map Database (see Soller and Berg, this volume, and http://ncgmp.usgs.gov/ngmdbproject/standards/datacapt/datacaptureWG.html ). The Working Group was formed because increased production efficiencies, standardization, and quality of digital map products were needed to help the Database, and the State and Federal geological surveys, provide more high-quality digital maps to the public.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2014

Scenario earthquake hazards for the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, east-central California (ver. 2.0, January 2018)

As part of the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) multi-hazards project in the Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area, the California Geological Survey (CGS) developed several earthquake scenarios and evaluated potential seismic hazards, including ground shaking, surface fault rupture, liquefaction, and landslide hazards associated with these earthquake scenarios. The results of these analyses can be useful in estimating the extent of potential damage and economic losses because of potential earthquakes and also for preparing emergency response plans. The Long Valley Caldera-Mono Lake area has numerous active faults. Five of these faults or fault zones are considered capable of producing magnitude ≥6.7 earthquakes according to the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2) developed by the 2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) and the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program. These five faults are the Fish Slough, Hartley Springs, Hilton Creek, Mono Lake, and Round Valley Faults. CGS developed earthquake scenarios for these five faults in the study area and for the White Mountains Fault Zone to the east of the study area. In this report, an earthquake scenario is intended to depict the potential consequences of significant earthquakes. A scenario earthquake is not necessarily the largest or most damaging earthquake possible on a recognized fault. Rather it is both large enough and likely enough that emergency planners should consider it in regional emergency response plans. In particular, the ground motion predicted for a given scenario earthquake does not represent a full probabilistic hazard assessment, and thus it does not provide the basis for hazard zoning and earthquake-resistant building design. Earthquake scenarios presented here are based on fault geometry and activity data developed by the WGCEP, and are consistent with the 2008 Update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM). Alternatives to the NSHM scenario were developed for the Hilton Creek and Hartley Springs Faults to account for different opinions in how far these two faults extend into Long Valley Caldera. For each scenario, ground motions were calculated using the current standard practice: the deterministic seismic hazard analysis program developed by Art Frankel of USGS and three Next Generation Ground Motion Attenuation (NGA) models. Ground motion calculations incorporated the potential amplification of seismic shaking by near-surface soils defined by a map of the average shear wave velocity in the uppermost 30 m ( V S30 ) developed by CGS. In addition to ground shaking and shaking-related ground failure such as liquefaction and earthquake induced landslides, earthquakes cause surface rupture displacement, which can lead to severe damage of buildings and lifelines. For each earthquake scenario, potential surface fault displacements are estimated using deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Liquefaction occurs when saturated sediments lose their strength because of ground shaking. Zones of potential liquefaction are mapped by incorporating areas where loose sandy sediments, shallow groundwater, and strong earthquake shaking coincide in the earthquake scenario. The process for defining zones of potential landslide and rockfall incorporates rock strength, surface slope, and existing landslides, with ground motions caused by the scenario earthquake. Each scenario is illustrated with maps of seismic shaking potential and fault displacement, liquefaction, and landslide potential. Seismic shaking is depicted by the distribution of shaking intensity, peak ground acceleration, and 1.0-second spectral acceleration. One-second spectral acceleration correlates well with structural damage to surface facilities. Acceleration greater than 0.2 g is often associated with strong ground shaking and may cause moderate to heavy damage. The extent of strong shaking is influenced by subsurface fault dip and near surface materials. Strong shaking is more widespread in the hanging wall regions of a normal fault. Larger ground motions also occur where young alluvial sediments amplify the shaking. Both of these effects can lead to strong shaking that extends farther from the fault on the valley side than on the hill side. The effect of fault rupture displacements may be localized along the surface trace of the mapped earthquake fault if fault geometry is simple and the fault traces are accurately located. However, surface displacement hazards can spread over a few hundred meters to a few kilometers if the earthquake fault has numerous splays or branches, such as the Hilton Creek Fault. Faulting displacements are estimated to be about 1 meter along normal faults in the study area and close to 2 meters along the White Mountains Fault Zone. All scenarios show the possibility of widespread ground failure. Liquefaction damage would likely occur in the areas of higher ground shaking near the faults where there are sandy/silty sediments and the depth to groundwater is 6.1 meters (20 feet) or less. Generally, this means damage is most common near lakes and streams in the areas of strongest shaking. Landslide potential exists throughout the study region. All steep slopes (>30 degrees) present a potential hazard at any level of shaking. Lesser slopes may have landslides within the areas of the higher ground shaking. The landslide hazard zones also are likely sources for snow avalanches during winter months and for large boulders that can be shaken loose and roll hundreds of feet down hill, which happened during the 1980 Mammoth Lakes earthquakes. Whereas methodologies used in estimating ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides are well developed and have been applied in published hazard maps; methodologies used in estimating surface fault displacement are still being developed. Therefore, this report provides a more in-depth and detailed discussion of methodologies used for deterministic and probabilistic fault displacement hazard analyses for this project.

California↗

USGS2023

Geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas

During 2020–22, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority, revised a previous publication that described the geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties, Texas. This report presents the refined maps and descriptions of geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within northern Bexar and Comal Counties that resulted from additional field data. Two informal geologic units and their corresponding informal hydrostratigraphic unit (HSU) names are introduced in this report; these informal units were identified during geologic mapping work done in counties adjoining the study area. Hydrostratigraphically, the rocks exposed in the study area represent a section of the upper confining unit to the Edwards aquifer, the Edwards aquifer, the upper zone of the Trinity aquifer, the middle zone of the Trinity aquifer, and the lower confining unit to the middle zone of the Trinity aquifer. The Washita, Eagle Ford, Austin, and Taylor Groups are generally considered to be the upper confining unit to the Edwards aquifer. The Edwards aquifer was subdivided into nine informally named HSUs (from top to bottom) as follows: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, Seco Pass, and VIII. The upper zone of the Trinity aquifer was subdivided into five informal HSUs and two subunits (from top to bottom) as follows: cavernous, Camp Bullis, upper evaporite, fossiliferous (subunits: upper and lower), and lower evaporite. The middle zone of the Trinity aquifer was subdivided into nine named HSUs (from top to bottom) as follows: Bulverde, Little Blanco, Twin Sisters, Doeppenschmidt, Herff Falls (where present), Rust, Honey Creek, Hensell, and Cow Creek. The middle zone of the Trinity aquifer is underlain by the confining Hammett HSU. Groundwater recharge and flow paths in the study area are influenced not only by the hydrostratigraphic characteristics of the individual HSUs but also by faults and fractures.

Texas↗

USGS1982

South Atlantic summary report 2: A revision of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in the South Atlantic (U.S.) and their onshore impacts, a summary report, July 1980

The search for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the South Atlantic Region began in 1960, when geophysical surveys of the area were initiated. In 1977, a Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Test (COST) well was drilled in the Southeast Georgia Embayment. In March 1978, the first lease sale, Sale 43, was held, resulting in the leasing of 43 tracts. Approximately a year later, in May 1979, the first exploratory drilling began, and by February 1980, six exploratory wells had been drilled by four companies. Hydrocarbons were not found in any of these wells. Lease Sale 56, the second lease sale in the South Atlantic Region, was held in August 1981. The sale resulted in the leasing of 47 tracts. Most of the leased tracts are in deep water along the Continental Slope off North Carolina. To date, no drilling has occurred on these tracts, but it is likely that two wells will be drilled or will be in the process of being drilled by the end of 1982. Reoffering Sale RS-2 is scheduled for July 1982, and it will include tracts offered in Lease Sale 56 that were not awarded leases. Lease Sale 78 is scheduled to be held in July 1983. The most recent (March 1982) estimates of risked resources for leased lands in the South Atlantic OCS are 27 million barrels of oil and 120 billion cubic feet of gas. To date, onshore impacts resulting from OCS exploration have been minimal, and they were associated with Lease Sale 43 exploratory activities. Tenneco, using existing facilities, established a support base in Savannah, Georgia; Getty, Transco, and Exxon used a support base established for them by the city of Brunswick, Georgia. The port at Morehead City, North Carolina, is expected to provide the onshore facilities for exploration in the near future on Lease Sale 56 tracts. Arrangements for the use of these facilities are currently being negotiated. In June 1981, the South Atlantic Regional Technical Working Group prepared a Regional Transportation Management Plan for the South Atlantic OCS. The plan is principally an integration of regulatory frameworks, policies, and plans that are applicable to pipeline siting from each of the South Atlantic coastal States and Federal agencies with jurisdiction in the area.

Outer Continental Shelf, South Atlantic↗