Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Review 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 649 records · Page 36Linked to original sources
USGS2013

Methods to assess geological CO 2 storage capacity: Status and best practice

To understand the emission reduction potential of carbon capture and storage (CCS), decision makers need to understand the amount of CO 2 that can be safely stored in the subsurface and the geographical distribution of storage resources. Estimates of storage resources need to be made using reliable and consistent methods. Previous estimates of CO 2 storage potential for a range of countries and regions have been based on a variety of methodologies resulting in a correspondingly wide range of estimates. Consequently, there has been uncertainty about which of the methodologies were most appropriate in given settings, and whether the estimates produced by these methods were useful to policy makers trying to determine the appropriate role of CCS. In 2011, the IEA convened two workshops which brought together experts for six national surveys organisations to review CO 2 storage assessment methodologies and make recommendations on how to harmonise CO 2 storage estimates worldwide. This report presents the findings of these workshops and an internationally shared guideline for quantifying CO 2 storage resources.

Report↗
USGS2018

Review: Past and future fault rupture lengths in seismic source characterization—The long and short of it

The potential rupture length of an active fault is primary input, and an uncertainty, in source characterization for seismic hazard analysis. The past several decades have seen source models in which faults are divided into potential rupture segments based on fault‐specific behavioral and geometric observations. These models (prescribed segmentation) produced single and multisegment ruptures for use in earthquake probability and regional ground‐motion estimates. The 2013 Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 3 (UCERF3), relaxed segmentation through modeling of fault‐to‐fault jumps that result in ruptures along the San Andreas fault system as long as 1200 km. Principle controls of UCERF3 rupture length are the stepover distance between different faults or fault sections, and their orientation relative to modeled coulomb stress changes. Observations of surface faulting worldwide since the mid‐1800s in shallow continental crust show that only 30 of the reported ruptures, about 12% of the reported examples, have been longer than 100 km; only 6 have been longer than 300 km and none has exceeded 500 km. A review of characteristics of long ruptures shows that, in general, they occur along essentially continuous traces with limited stepping or branching from one fault to another as opposed to rupture propagation on linkages of different faults with highly variable physical characteristics. These commonly occupy from 10% to 70% of the total host fault length. Neither segmented nor relaxed models of rupture length have been tested by the occurrence of actual ruptures. There is no reason why segmentation models incorporating timing, dynamic, and rheological factors cannot provide reasonable approximations of future rupture length. For many faults of concern worldwide, this may be the most effective approach.

California↗
USGS1951

Summary of the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the period April 1, 1948-December 31, 1950

This report summarizes the research work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, from the organization of the Section in April 1948 to December 31, 1950. The research undertaken thus far consists of laboratory and related field studies in the following fields: 1. Mineralogic and petrologic investigations of radioactive rocks, minerals, and ores. 2. Investigations of chemical methods of analysis for uranium, thorium, and other elements and compounds in radioactive materials, and related chemical problems. 3. Investigations of spectrographic methods of analysis for a wide variety of elements in radioactive materials. 4. Investigations of radiometric methods of analysis as applied to radioactive materials. It should be emphasized that the work undertaken thus far, described under the headings "Future work", is almost entirely in the nature of investigations supporting the field appraisal of known important uraniferous deposits. A comprehensive program of more fundamental research was submitted in April 1949 in a report entitled "Proposed program of desirable research in the geochemistry of uranium," but funds for this work have not been authorized. It is hoped, however, that funds to support basic research of the type indicated in that report may be available in the future. This report does not cover the analytical work of the Section nor the public-sample program. The analytical work has been summarized for the fiscal year 1950 in the report, "Numerical summary of the analytical work of the Trace Elements Section, Geochemistry and Petrology Branch, for the fiscal year 1950," by John C. Rabbit, U.S. Geol. Survey Trace Elements Memorandum Rept. 174, October 1950. A report on the public-sample program is in preparation. Much of the material in this report has been paraphrased from reports prepared by members of the Section. My special thanks are due them; to Earl Ingerson, chief of the Geochemistry and Petrology Branch of the Survey, for his critical review; to my secretary, Marie Woolihan, for her aid in collecting material; and to Virginia Layne of the editorial staff of the Section for typing the manuscript and the multilith mats.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS2014

Nonlesions, misdiagnoses, missed diagnoses, and other interpretive challenges in fish histopathology studies: a guide for investigators, authors, reviewers, and readers

Differentiating salient histopathologic changes from normal anatomic features or tissue artifacts can be decidedly challenging, especially for the novice fish pathologist. As a consequence, findings of questionable accuracy may be reported inadvertently, and the potential negative impacts of publishing inaccurate histopathologic interpretations are not always fully appreciated. The objectives of this article are to illustrate a number of specific morphologic findings in commonly examined fish tissues (e.g., gills, liver, kidney, and gonads) that are frequently either misdiagnosed or underdiagnosed, and to address related issues involving the interpretation of histopathologic data. To enhance the utility of this article as a guide, photomicrographs of normal and abnormal specimens are presented. General recommendations for generating and publishing results from histopathology studies are additionally provided. It is hoped that the furnished information will be a useful resource for manuscript generation, by helping authors, reviewers, and readers to critically assess fish histopathologic data.

Toxicologic Pathology↗
USGS2014

Methow and Columbia Rivers studies: summary of data collection, comparison of database structure and habitat protocols, and impact of additional PIT tag interrogation systems to survival estimates, 2008-2012

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) received funding from the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to provide monitoring and evaluation on the effectiveness of stream restoration efforts by Reclamation in the Methow River watershed. This monitoring and evaluation program is designed to partially fulfill Reclamation’s part of the 2008 Biological Opinion for the Federal Columbia River Power System that includes a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) to protect listed salmon and steelhead across their life cycle. The target species in the Methow River for the restoration effort include Upper Columbia River (UCR) spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), UCR steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), which are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Since 2004, the USGS has completed two projects of monitoring and evaluation in the Methow River watershed. The first project focused on the evaluation of barrier removal and steelhead recolonization in Beaver Creek with Libby and Gold Creeks acting as controls. The majority of this work was completed by 2008, although some monitoring continued through 2012. The second project (2008–2012) evaluated the use and productivity of the middle Methow River reach (rkm 65–80) before the onset of multiple off-channel restoration projects planned by the Reclamation and Yakama Nation. The upper Methow River (upstream of rkm 80) and Chewuch River serve as reference reaches and the Methow River downstream of the Twisp River (downstream of rkm 65) serves as a control reach. Restoration of the M2 reach was initiated in 2012 and will be followed by a multi-year, intensive post-evaluation period. This report is comprised of three chapters covering different aspects of the work completed by the USGS. The first chapter is a review of data collection that documents the methods used and summarizes the work done by the USGS from 2008 through 2012. This data summary was designed to show some initial analysis and to disseminate summary information that could potentially be used in ongoing modeling efforts by USGS, Reclamation, and University of Idaho. The second chapter documents the database of fish and habitat data collected by USGS from 2004 through 2012 and compares USGS habitat protocols to the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) protocol. The third chapter is a survival analysis of fish moving through Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tag interrogation systems in the Methow and Columbia Rivers. It examines the effects of adding PIT tags and/or PIT tag interrogation systems on survival estimates of juvenile steelhead and Chinook salmon.

Washington↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Somerset County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Somerset County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Somerset County, Maine is 18.1 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Somerset County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Somerset County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and ho

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Climate adaptation Science Centers—Annual report for 2018

2018 marked the 10-year anniversary of the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center! With the passage of the fiscal year 2018 budget on March 23, 2018, our program name was changed from the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center to the National Climate Adaptation Science Center (NCASC). The eight regional Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers were renamed Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs). The name changes more clearly align the national and regional centers and emphasize their focus on meeting natural resource adaptation needs. Although the program has a new name, our mission has not changed. We are still hard at work delivering science to help fish, wildlife, water, land, and people adapt to a changing climate. During the past 10 years, the NCASC and the eight regional CASCs funded over 425 science projects and built a network of research partners, resource management stakeholders, interdisciplinary staff, fellows, and early career researchers. In celebration of our work and accomplishments over the last 10 years, the NCASC began a monthly web post series on “10 Things You May Not Know” about topics our science has focused on, including drought, glaciers, and wildfire. Additionally, CASCs that had completed their initial hosting agreement with the USGS underwent a formal review and recompetition process. New hosting agreements were awarded to the Southwest and North Central CASCs in 2018. Read the 2018 annual report to learn more about the CASCs' great science, partnerships, capacity building, and more from 2018.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Lake Tahoe clarity and associated conditions, 2022

Lake Tahoe’s clarity remains a key indicator of overall ecosystem status, and scientific understanding about factors affecting lake clarity continues to evolve. The purpose of this briefing memorandum is to summarize the status of clarity metrics and drivers of change discussed in the 2022 TSAC Data Synthesis and Analysis report. Consistent with the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load analyses, the concentrations of fine particles remain important to lake clarity. These include fine sediment particles from the watershed as well as small phytoplankton cells produced within the lake. This year, in addition to the analysis of Secchi depth clarity response to fine particle and small phytoplankton concentrations, we reviewed available data on fine sediment particles from streams and urban runoff. Information summarized here is discussed further in the Tahoe Science Advisory Council (TSAC) Data Synthesis and Analysis reports (2022, 2021), the TSAC Lake Tahoe Seasonal and Long-Term Clarity Trend Analysis report (2020), and in annual State of the Lake reports produced by UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center.

California, Nevada↗
USGS2012

USGS Hydro-Climatic Data Network 2009 (HCDN-2009)

The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN) is a subset of all USGS streamgages for which the streamflow primarily reflects prevailing meteorological conditions for specified years. These stations were screened to exclude sites where human activities, such as artificial diversions, storage, and other activities in the drainage basin or the stream channel, affect the natural flow of the watercourse. In addition, sites were included in the network because their record length was sufficiently long for analysis of patterns in streamflow over time. The purpose of the network is to provide a streamflow dataset suitable for analyzing hydrologic variations and trends in a climatic context. When originally published, the network was composed of 1,659 stations (Slack and Landwehr, 1992) for which the years of primarily "natural" flow were identified. Since then data from the HCDN have been widely used and cited in climate-related hydrologic investigations of the United States. The network has also served as a model for establishing climate-sensitive streamgage networks in other countries around the world. After nearly two decades of use without undergoing a systematic revalidation, questions have arisen as to whether many of the original stations still maintain their climate-sensitive status or even remain operational, as some are known to have closed. Some watersheds had been altered to the point that stations no longer meet the minimal disturbance criteria set forth in the original HCDN report. In addition, some sites that did not qualify as HCDN sites in 1988 (the last year of data evaluation) because their records were too short now have sufficiently long streamflow records for climate-sensitivity studies. Accordingly, a review of the existing network was initiated in 2009 in order to drop old stations and add new ones as appropriate.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2010

Report of the COSPAR mars special regions colloquium

In this paper we present the findings of a COSPAR Mars Special Regions Colloquium held in Rome in 2007. We review and discuss the definition of Mars Special Regions, the physical parameters used to define Mars Special Regions, and physical features on Mars that can be interpreted as Mars Special Regions. We conclude that any region experiencing temperatures > -25 ??C for a few hours a year and a water activity > 0.5 can potentially allow the replication of terrestrial microorganisms. Physical features on Mars that can be interpreted as meeting these conditions constitute a Mars Special Region. Based on current knowledge of the martian environment and the conservative nature of planetary protection, the following features constitute Mars Special regions: Gullies and bright streaks associated with them, pasted-on terrain, deep subsurface, dark streaks only on a case-by-case basis, others to be determined. The parameter definition and the associated list of physical features should be re-evaluated on a regular basis. ?? 2010 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Advances in Space Research↗