Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Research 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 487 records · Page 27Linked to original sources
USGS1996

Meeting summary - Coastal meteorology and oceanography: Report of the third prospectus development team of the U.S. Weather Research Program to NOAA and NSF

U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) prospectus development teams (PDTs) are small groups of scientists that are convened by the USWRP lead scientist on a one-time basis to discuss critical issues and to provide advice related to future directions of the program. PDTs are a principal source of information for the Science Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee charged with the duty of making recommendations to the Program Office based upon overall program objectives. PDT-1 focused on theoretical issues, and PDT-2 on observational issues; PDT-3 is the first of several to focus on more specialized topics. PDT-3 was convened to identify forecasting problems related to U.S. coastal weather and oceanic conditions, and to suggest likely solution strategies. There were several overriding themes that emerged from the discussion. First, the lack of data in and over critical regions of the ocean, particularly in the atmospheric boundary layer, and the upper-ocean mixed layer were identified as major impediments to coastal weather prediction. Strategies for data collection and dissemination, as well as new instrument implementation, were discussed. Second, fundamental knowledge of air-sea fluxes and boundary layer structure in situations where there is significant mesoscale variability in the atmosphere and ocean is needed. Companion field studies and numerical prediction experiments were discussed. Third, research prognostic models suggest that future operational forecast models pertaining to coastal weather will be high resolution and site specific, and will properly treat effects of local coastal geography, orography, and ocean state. The view was expressed that the exploration of coupled air-sea models of the coastal zone would be a particularly fruitful area of research. PDT-3 felt that forecasts of land-impacting tropical cyclones, Great Lakes-affected weather, and coastal cyclogenesis, in particular, would benefit from such coordinated modeling and field efforts. Fourth, forecasting for Arctic coastal zones is limited by our understanding of how sea ice forms. The importance of understanding air-sea fluxes and boundary layers in the presence of ice formation was discussed. Finally, coastal flash flood forecasting via hydrologic models is limited by the present accuracy of measured and predicted precipitation and storm surge events. Strategies for better ways to improve the latter were discussed.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2018

Yellowstone grizzly bear investigations — Annual report of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2017

This Annual Report summarizes results of grizzly bear ( Ursus arctos ) monitoring and research conducted in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) during 2017. This report also contains a summary of grizzly bear management actions to address conflict situations. Annual reports of the IGBST summarize annual data collection. Because additional information may be obtained after publication, data summaries are subject to change. Data, analyses, and summaries presented in this report supersede previously published data and analyses and interpretations may be subject to change contingent on future manuscript publication and the peer review process. The research described in this report complied with current laws of the United States of America, was conducted in accordance with animal care and use guidelines, and was approved by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees of the respective member agencies.

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming↗
USGS2018

Using the value of information to improve conservation decision making

Conservation decisions are challenging, not only because they often involve difficult conflicts among outcomes that people value, but because our understanding of the natural world and our effects on it is fraught with uncertainty. Value of Information (VoI) methods provide an approach for understanding and managing uncertainty from the standpoint of the decision maker. These methods are commonly used in other fields (e.g., economics, public health) and are increasingly used in biodiversity conservation. This decision analytical approach can identify the best management alternative to select where the effectiveness of interventions is uncertain, and can help to decide when to act and when to delay action until after further research. We review the use of VoI in the environmental domain, reflect on the need for greater uptake of VoI, particularly for strategic conservation planning, and suggest promising areas for new research. We also suggest common reporting standards as a means of increasing the leverage of this powerful tool. The environmental science, ecology and biodiversity categories of the Web of Knowledge were searched using the terms ‘Value of Information,’ ‘Expected Value of Perfect Information,’ and the abbreviation ‘EVPI.’ Google Scholar was searched with the same terms, and additionally the terms decision and biology, biodiversity conservation, fish, or ecology. We identified 1225 papers from these searches. Included studies were limited to those that show an application of VoI in biodiversity conservation rather than simply describing the method. All examples of use of VOI were summarised regarding the application of VoI, the management objectives, the uncertainties, models used, how the objectives were measured, and the type of VoI. While the use of VoI appears to be on the increase in biodiversity conservation, the reporting of results is highly variable, which can make it difficult to understand the decision context and which uncertainties were considered. Moreover, it was unclear if, and how, the papers informed management and policy interventions, which is why we suggest a range of reporting standards that would aid the use of VoI. The use of VoI in conservation settings is at an early stage. There are opportunities for broader applications, not only for species-focussed management problems, but also for setting local or global research priorities for biodiversity conservation, making funding decisions, or designing or improving protected area networks and management. The long-term benefits of applying VoI methods to biodiversity conservation include a more structured and decision-focused allocation of resources to research.

Biological Reviews↗
USGS2026

Summaries of goals, actions, and information needs by management entity

The grasslands in the North Central region are managed by a diverse group of Federal, State, and Tribal agencies; nongovernmental organizations; partnerships; and private landowners. This chapter highlights these various grassland management entities, provides background information on their mission and organizational structure, and describes some of their key grassland management activities, including the way in which each entity engages private landowners in grassland management. Each section also describes emerging challenges and opportunities and high-level information needs. The review and synthesis of grassland management-related documents identified specific information needs, which are listed in an appendix to provide additional detail for anyone looking to collaborate with grassland management entities on shared interests in grassland management or research.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1997

Coseismic deformation of the Wrights tunnel during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake: A key to understanding 1906 fault slip and 1989 surface ruptures in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains, California

The Wrights tunnel is an abandoned railroad tunnel that crosses the San Andreas fault in the southern Santa Cruz Mountains in the vicinity of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The tunnel was damaged and deformed during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and a plot showing postearthquake measurements made in the tunnel is given by Lawson [1908]. The amount of offset shown on this plot (1.5 m) has been used in several studies as being representative of the amount of fault offset along this segment of the San Andreas fault in 1906. Our historical research shows that different observers reported different amounts of fault offset in the tunnel and that the 1.5 m given on the plot is not a surveyed measurement. In addition, the plot of the tunnel has been interpreted in several previous studies as evidence of a broad (1.5 km) zone of faulting beneath Summit Ridge. Our analysis shows that this plot need not indicate a broad zone of deformation. Our historical research and modeling of the tunnel measurements indicate that faulting was confined to a zone less than 400 m wide and that 60–85% of the coseismic slip occurred across a single fault plane. There is no evidence for offset across a second shear zone beneath Summit Ridge in 1906. This implies that surface fractures reported on Summit Ridge in 1906 were not associated with significant deformation of the tunnel, implying that they were shallow, surficial features. By analogy, the very similar fractures that occurred on Summit Ridge in 1989 were also probably the result of shallow gravitational, rather than deep-seated tectonic, processes. Our modeling also indicates that total coseismic, near-surface slip across the San Andreas fault zone in the Wrights tunnel in 1906 was at least 1.7–1.8 m.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗
USGS1981

Research and development program; Conservation Division Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas operations; Technical report 1981

As a result of recommendations several years ago from the National Academy of Sciences, the University of Oklahoma, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Geological Survey has embarked upon a program of research and development to provide the technological insights needed for its regulatory operations offshore—operations which provide assurances to the public for safety and for the prevention of pollution in oil and gas drilling and production. These clear objectives are, therefore, those of the research program, not the economics of operations, which are of concern to industry. The Program is a contract research program and is an integral part of the Conservation Division. It is a focal point for deriving possible solutions from the university community, private industry, and the Federal laboratory system for identified offshore operational problems. This vast interdisciplinary body of science and technology provides the kind of research needed by the Division in its Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) operations which involve such problematic areas as structural dynamics, fluid flow, and geotechnology. The Program encourages innovation and creativity which can be accomplished only by talented scientists and engineers who are dedicated to man's endeavor to make breakthroughs in science and technology. Because the Division's mission is operational, in a sense like the U.S. Navy, the R&D Program must progress in a timely manner even though technological advances cannot really be scheduled. As the Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR) has so successfully coped with the seeming dichotomy of anticipating the occurrence of innovations, so must the Conservation Division. Thus, USGS, like ONR, makes use of the unsolicited proposal and the best effort contract to accomplish its objectives. Good science and technology can only be accomplished when several variables converge: a talented investigator doing his own research, which happens to coincide with our needs, availability of resources, time scales, etc. Our task is to "beat the bushes" so that these people come to us with their innovative ideas and concepts. They have done so by learning of our interests through announcements of the Program in the Federal Register, reading reports which emanate from the Program, and by attending our seminars.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Fort Collins Science Center - Fiscal Year 2008 Science Accomplishments

Public land and natural resource managers in the United States are confronted with increasingly complex decisions that have important ramifications for both ecological and human systems. The scientists and technical professionals at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) contribute a unique blend of ecological, socioeconomic, and technological expertise to investigating complicated ecological problems that address critical management questions. In Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08), FORT's scientific and technical professionals continued research vital to the science and management needs of U.S. Department of the Interior agencies and other entities. This annual report describes select FY08 accomplishments in research and technical assistance involving biological information management and delivery; aquatic, riparian, and managed-river ecosystems; invasive species; status and trends of biological resources (including human dimensions and social science); terrestrial ecosystems; and fish and wildlife resources.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1891

Report of work done in the division of chemistry and physics, mainly during the fiscal year 1889-90

This bulletin, like the bulletins issued in previous years and numbered 9, 27, 42, 55, 60, and 64, contains a partial record of work completed in the chemical and physical laboratories of the Survey Turing one tiscAl year. It represents, however, only a portion of the whole work done, for various investigations, begun during the year 1859—'90, are still unfinished; many analyses are reserved for publication in other reports; and certain of the larger researches, notably the physical studies of Dr. Barns, will appear in independent form as separate bulletins. In the annual reports of the Director of the Survey a tolerably complete summary of the work done in the Division of Chemistry and Physics is always given, and such summaries, taken in connection with these bulletins, convey.a fair idea of the amount of ground actually covered.

Bulletin↗
USGS2026

Southeastern Utah Federal lands science needs survey

Evidence-based scientific information can help support defensible decision making in the management of public lands. This report sought to identify current (2024–25) Federal agency research needs in southeastern Utah and to synthesize common management challenges and questions across jurisdictional boundaries. We implemented a science needs assessment focused on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), and National Park Service (NPS) in southeastern Utah—the area delineated by BLM’s Canyon Country District Office, portions of the FS Manti-La Sal National Forest, and Southeast Utah Group NPS units. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers met with and surveyed BLM, NPS, and FS staff in 2024 and 2025 to understand their science needs and preferred modes of information delivery. The USGS’s approach may be unrepresentative in terms of which topic areas were addressed, but the responses nevertheless highlight challenges and high-priority research areas that could contribute positively to agency decision making. Common management challenges and areas where additional research could be beneficial to land managers include the effects of climate change, recreation effects and visitor behavior, hydrology and hydrologic changes due to anthropogenic pressures, and the capacity for inventory and monitoring across essentially all resource types. Research on site-specific restoration techniques and their outcomes was also a common theme. In this report we discuss ways in which researchers can increase the extent to which their work could be actionable for resource managers and provide suggestions for potential priority research areas for the study region.

Utah↗
USGS2012

Aquatic organism passage at road-stream crossings—synthesis and guidelines for effectiveness monitoring

Restoration and maintenance of passage for aquatic organisms at road-stream crossings represents a major management priority, involving an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars (for example, U.S. Government Accounting Office, 2001). In recent years, passage at hundreds of crossings has been restored, primarily by replacing barrier road culverts with bridges or stream simulation culverts designed to pass all species and all life stages of aquatic life and simulate natural hydro-geomorphic processes (U.S. Forest Service, 2008). The current situation has motivated two general questions: 1. Are current design standards for stream simulation culverts adequately re-establishing passage for aquatic biota? and 2. How do we monitor and evaluate effectiveness of passage restoration? To address the latter question, a national workshop was held in March 2010, in Portland, Oregon. The workshop included experts on aquatic organism passage from across the nation (see table of participants, APPENDIX) who addressed four classes of methods for monitoring effectiveness of aquatic organism passage—individual movement, occupancy, demography, and genetics. This report has been written, in part, for field biologists who will be undertaking and evaluating the effectiveness of aquatic organism passage restoration projects at road-stream crossings. The report outlines basic methods for evaluating road-stream crossing passage impairment and restoration and discusses under what circumstances and conditions each method will be useful; what questions each method can potentially answer; how to design and implement an evaluation study; and points out the fundamental reality that most evaluation projects will require special funding and partnerships among researchers and resource managers. The report is organized into the following sections, which can be read independently: 1. Historical context: In this section, we provide a brief history of events leading up to the present situation involving aquatic organism passage as a useful context for the issues covered herein. 2. Importance of connectivity for aquatic organisms: In this section, we provide background information regarding the movement characteristics of aquatic organisms and their vulnerability to passage impairment, and the importance of connectivity for a broad diversity of aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates. This section should be useful for practitioners in selecting what species to monitor in relation to aquatic organism passage. 3. Methods for evaluating aquatic organism passage: In this section, we present a range of perspectives on alternatives for assessing and monitoring aquatic organism passage impairment and the effectiveness of passage restoration actions, including the following methods: Individual Movement, Occupancy Models, Abundance (Demography), and Molecular Genetic Markers. 4. Relevance, strengths, and limitations of the four methods: In this section, we discuss the utility of each of the methods as a tool for assessing and quantifying passage impairment and restoration effectiveness. 5. Guidelines for selecting a method: In this section, we review some fundamental criteria and guidelines to consider when selecting a method for monitoring in the context of answering three important questions that should be addressed when developing a plan for evaluating aquatic organism passage. 6. Study and monitoring design considerations: In this section, we discuss four key design elements that need to be considered when developing a monitoring design for assessing passage impairment and restoration. The basic objectives of the report are to: 1. Review the movement characteristics of five groups of aquatic organisms that inhabit streams and to assess their general vulnerability to passage impairment at road-stream crossings; 2. Review four methods for monitoring aquatic organism passage impairment and the effectiveness of actions to restore passage at road-stream crossing structures; 3. Assess the relevance, strengths, and limitations of each method as a monitoring tool; 4. Identify and discuss guidelines that will be useful for selecting a monitoring method; and 5. Discuss what we have identified as the four key elements that need to be considered when developing a monitoring design for assessing passage impairment and restoration at road-stream crossings.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1884

Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories Volume III: The vertebrata of the tertiary formations of the West Book I

I send herewith a report on the Tertiary Faunae of the United States as represented by collections made in various Territories and States west of the Mississippi River, embraced within the boundaries of your survey. The explorations from which the collections have been derived cover portions of the States and Territories included between British America on the north, the western boundaries of Minnesota and Missouri on the east; the northern borders of the Indian Territory and Arizona, and the middle of New Mexico on the south; and the Sierra Nevada on the west. The amount of material which I have procured through these explorations is large, and is but partially represented in the following pages. I trust that you will find the results a useful contribution to the records of your Geological Survey and to the science to which you have devoted your life ; and that you may find in this report some compensation for the arduous official duties which have recently withdrawn you to some degree from your chosen field of research.

Report↗
USGS1973

United States Geological Survey Alaska program, 1973

This report on the Alaskan activities of the U.S. Geological Survey contains up-to-date accounts of recent results and summaries of plans for the summer of 1973. It is organized in six parts: (1) responsibilities and services of the Geological Survey; (2) organization of the U.S. Geological Survey; (3) Alaskan field activities for 1973; (4) cooperative programs with the State of Alaska; (5) summary of important results of geological and geophysical research in 1972, and (6) reports published by Survey authors in 1972.

Circular↗
USGS1974

United States Geological Survey Alaska program, 1974

This report on the Alaskan activities of the U.S. Geological Survey contains up-to-date accounts of recent results and summaries of plans for the summer of 1974. It is organized in six parts: (1) responsibilities and services of the Geological Survey; (2) organization of the U.S. Geological Survey; (3} Alaskan field activities for 1974; (4) cooperative programs with state and federal agencies; (5) summary of important results of geological and geophysical research in 1973, and (6) reports published by Survey authors in 1973.

Circular↗
USGS2010

Deterring off-trail hiking in protected natural areas: Evaluating options with surveys and unobtrusive observation: Final report

This report presents the results of research conducted on the 96-acre Bear Island along the Billy Goat Trail, Section A (BGT) that evaluated visitor motivations for off-trail hiking and the efficacy of four treatments designed to reduce this activity. This research was prompted by concerns about the impact of an extensive informal (visitor-created) trail network on Bear Island, because it provides habitat for more than 50 species of rare, threatened or endangered plant and animal species.

Final Management Report↗
USGS1975

United States Geological Survey Alaska Program, 1975

This report on the Alaskan activities of the U.S. Geological Survey contains up-to-date accounts of recent results and summaries of plans for the summer of 1975. It is organized in six parts: (1} responsibilities and services of the Geological Survey; (2} organization of the U.S. Geological Survey; (3) U.S. Geological Survey Alaskan field activities for 1975; (4) cooperative projects with State and Federal agencies; (5) summary of important results of geological, hydrological, and geophysical research in 1974; and (6) reports published by Survey authors in 1974.

Alaska↗