Search USGS⌕ Search

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.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS1983

Summaries of technical reports, volume XVII

The research results described in the following summaries were submitted by the investigators on October 20, 1983 and cover the 6-month period from April 1, 1983 through September 30, 1983. These reports include both work performed under contracts administered by the Geological Survey and work by members of the Geological Survey. The report summaries are grouped into the four major elements of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

USGS River Ecosystem Modeling: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Where Are We Going?

This report developed as an outcome of the USGS River Ecosystem Modeling Work Group, convened on February 11, 2008 as a preconference session to the second USGS Modeling Conference in Orange Beach, Ala. Work Group participants gained an understanding of the types of models currently being applied to river ecosystem studies within the USGS, learned how model outputs are being used by a Federal land management agency, and developed recommendations for advancing the state of the art in river ecosystem modeling within the USGS. During a break-out session, participants restated many of the recommendations developed at the first USGS Modeling Conference in 2006 and in previous USGS needs assessments. All Work Group recommendations require organization and coordination across USGS disciplines and regions, and include (1) enhancing communications, (2) increasing efficiency through better use of current human and technologic resources, and (3) providing a national infrastructure for river ecosystem modeling resources, making it easier to integrate modeling efforts. By implementing these recommendations, the USGS will benefit from enhanced multi-disciplinary, integrated models for river ecosystems that provide valuable risk assessment and decision support tools for adaptive management of natural and managed riverine ecosystems. These tools generate key information that resource managers need and can use in making decisions about river ecosystem resources.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2008

Earthquake Rate Model 2 of the 2007 working group for California earthquake probabilities, magnitude-area relationships

The Working Group for California Earthquake Probabilities must transform fault lengths and their slip rates into earthquake moment-magnitudes. First, the down-dip coseismic fault dimension, W, must be inferred. We have chosen the Nazareth and Hauksson (2004) method, which uses the depth above which 99% of the background seismicity occurs to assign W. The product of the observed or inferred fault length, L, with the down-dip dimension, W, gives the fault area, A. We must then use a scaling relation to relate A to moment-magnitude, Mw. We assigned equal weight to the Ellsworth B (Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2003) and Hanks and Bakun (2007) equations. The former uses a single logarithmic relation fitted to the M=6.5 portion of data of Wells and Coppersmith (1994); the latter uses a bilinear relation with a slope change at M=6.65 (A=537 km2) and also was tested against a greatly expanded dataset for large continental transform earthquakes. We also present an alternative power law relation, which fits the newly expanded Hanks and Bakun (2007) data best, and captures the change in slope that Hanks and Bakun attribute to a transition from area- to length-scaling of earthquake slip. We have not opted to use the alternative relation for the current model. The selections and weights were developed by unanimous consensus of the Executive Committee of the Working Group, following an open meeting of scientists, a solicitation of outside opinions from additional scientists, and presentation of our approach to the Scientific Review Panel. The magnitude-area relations and their assigned weights are unchanged from that used in Working Group (2003).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Community for Data Integration 2017 annual report

The Community for Data Integration (CDI) is a group that helps members grow their expertise on all aspects of working with scientific data. The CDI’s activities advance data and information integration capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey and in the wider Earth and biological sciences. This annual report describes the presentations, activities, collaboration areas, workshop, and other CDI-sponsored events in fiscal year 2017. The report also describes the objectives of the 11 CDI-funded projects in fiscal year 2017. The report shows how the CDI activities fulfill the strategic objective of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Core Science Systems Mission Area to develop a workplace model for interdisciplinary science.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1958

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

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

Report↗
USGS2013

Wildfire and invasive species in the west: challenges that hinder current and future management and protection of the sagebrush-steppe ecosystem: a Gap Report

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) to satisfy the 45-day report requirement identified in Cooperative Agreement (F13AC00353) between WAFWA and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) submit this “Gap Report”. This report summarizes the policy, fiscal and science challenges that land managers encounter related to the control and reduction of the invasive plant/fire complex, especially as it relates to the threaten or endangered species listing status of the Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). While this Gap Report identifies 22 technical, policy, planning and funding gaps, it should be considered a “work in-progress”. To address this effort a Wildfire/Invasive Initiative Work Group (WG) was formed. The WG consist of nationally recognized experts in fire ecology, Sage-grouse ecology and management, range management and plant ecology. The WG developed this Gap Report and will be developing the final report for this Cooperative Agreement. Thus, as the WG evaluates the wildfire/invasive issue and makes recommendation to address scientific and management shortcomings, additional gaps will be identified and included in the final report. Within this report, the WG has suggested the top 5 gaps. However, the actual priority of what should be addressed first will depend on the significance and sequence of the limiting factor, available funding, current work, roles and responsibilities of the specific agencies, etc. The WG will continue to meet on a regular basis to further develop and expand this list of gaps. Additionally, the WG will offer specific options to address the identified gaps. However, the WG recommends that the FWS, possibly through the State/Federal (Western Governors Association) Sage Grouse Task Force or the National Sage-grouse Executive Oversight Committee, establish a Subcommittee to specifically review this Gap Report and develop a multi-agency approach on how to address each gap. The WG will continue to endeavor to establish a priority list and identify the “low hanging fruit” that can be addressed in the short-term to affect the listing decision. Additionally, the WG will propose a longer-term strategy. However, to successfully establish such a strategy it will take buy-in and commitment at the highest levels in federal and state governments. In an effort to provide managers an opportunity to address the most important issues this coming fiscal year, we offer the following top 5 gaps. Beyond these top 5, the WG has identified 17 additional gaps that should be evaluated by both federal and state agencies as a means to help better manage the wildfire/invasive threat in the west.

Report↗
USGS2012

Man-made earthquakes and earthquake prediction

Convincing evidence that man can trigger earthquakes has been developed since the 1963–1967 report. The fact that man can start earthquakes has increased our understanding of earthquake mechanisms and reinforced our judgment that we are approaching the possibility of earthquake prediction. Traditionally, seismologists have avoided the subject of earthquake prediction because of its distasteful association with people who claim to be able to predict earthquakes by mystical nonscientific methods. Research on prediction has been intensified since the reports of the Panel on Earthquake Prediction [ Press , 1965] and the Interagency Working Group for Earthquake Research [ Pecora , 1968],. however, and it is appropriate to assess our progress toward that goal. Pakiser et al . [1969] and Oliver [1970] have also summarized recent U.S. progress toward earthquake prediction.

Eos Science News↗
USGS2008

Instrumentation Guidelines for the Advanced National Seismic System

This document provides guidelines for the seismic-monitoring instrumentation used by long-term earthquake-monitoring stations that will sense ground motion, digitize and store the resulting signals in a local data acquisition unit, and optionally transmit these digital data. These guidelines are derived from specifications and requirements for data needed to address the nation's emergency response, engineering, and scientific needs as identified in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1188 (1999). Data needs are discussed in terms of national, regional, and urban scales of monitoring in section 3. Functional performance specifications for instrumentation are introduced in section 4.3 and discussed in detail in section 6 in terms of instrument classes and definitions described in section 5. System aspects and testing recommendations are discussed in sections 7 and 8, respectively. Although U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1188 (1999) recommends that the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) include portable instrumentation, performance specifications for this element are not specifically addressed in this document. Nevertheless, these guidelines are largely applicable to portable instrumentation. Volcano monitoring instrumentation is also beyond the scope of this document. Guidance for ANSS structural-response monitoring is discussed briefly herein but details are deferred to the ANSS document by the ANSS Structural Response Monitoring Committee (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). Aspects of station planning, siting, and installation other than instrumentation are beyond the scope of this document.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Preliminary status of Lake Ontario Alewife based on the 2019 spring trawl survey

-The 2019 spring prey fish trawl survey was the most extensive fish survey ever conducted on Lake Ontario with 252 bottom trawls collecting 214,569 fish from 39 species, in main-lake and embayment habitats, at depths ranging from 5 to 225 meters (16.5 – 742.5 feet). -Alewife distribution was similar in U.S. (southern) and Canadian (northern) portions of the lake, which differs from the previous three years of whole-lake surveys when Alewife in April were more abundant in either U.S. (2017) or Canadian (2016, 2018) waters. -The 2019 lake-wide average biomass index for adult Alewife (Age2+) declined 29% relative to 2018. -The lake-wide biomass index for Age-1 Alewife in 2019 (2.2 kg/ha) declined relative to 2018 (2.6 kg/ha) and was the lowest Age-1 biomass observed since whole-lake sampling began in 2016. -The current biomass, size structure, and age structure of the adult Alewife population reflect the lower than-average Alewife reproductive success observed in the 2013- and 2014-year classes. -Reproductive success was also lower than average in 2017 and 2018, suggesting the adult Alewife biomass may continue to decline.

Lake Ontario↗
USGS1944

Graphite deposits on the north side of the Kigluaik Mountains, Seward Peninsula, Alaska

The graphite deposits on the north side of the Kigluaik Mountains have been known for many years, and have yielded a small quantity of flake graphite, but they have been only slightly developed. The author spent 4 days of June 1943 in company with Mr. H. E. Heide, mining engineer of the Bureau of Mines, and Mr. Norman Tweet, part owner of one of the properties. Acknowledgment is due Mr. John Read and the Lomen Commercial Company for many favors rendered in connection with the investigation. The chemical analyses in this report were made by F. S. Grimaldi, of the Geological Survey. The deposits were examined many years ago by Harrington 1/ who discussed the general geology and described the developments up to the date of'his examination. Much of the history of the district given below is taken from his report. According to Harrington, the first claims were staked in 1900. Two principal groups of claims were worked, those of the Uncle Sam Alaska Mining Syndicate and those of the Alaska Graphite Mining Company. Harrington records that the claims of the Alaska Graphite Mining Company were staked in part in 1905 and in part in 1915 or 1916. A production of 35 tons picked from talus was reported for 1907. According to Mertie, 2/ the production in 1916 was about 100 tons, which according to Harrington, was shipped in 1917, together with several tons mined from an open cut in that year. In 1912, according to Mertie, shipments totalling 130 tons of graphite were made by the Uncle Sam. Alaska Mining Syndicate, and 300 tons were ready for shipment in 1916. Harrington, who visited the area in 1917, reported that no shipments were made in that year by that company. No records of subsequent production have been found. The properties apparently lay dormant until the summer of 1943, when renewed interest was expressed in the restaking of claims. Graphite deposits are widespread in the Kigluaik Mountains. 3/ The deposits described in the report have received the most attention because of their relative accessibility. These deposits are about 36 miles northwest of Nome and about 26 miles east of Teller (see fig. 1). The principal deposits are 2 to 3 miles from an arm of the Imuruk Basin, and about 27 miles by salt water from Teller. Most of the Imuruk Basin is shallow and does not exceed a fathom in depth at distances as much as a mile from shore. Arrangements may be made at Teller to charter small boats for the trip to the graphite-bearing area. The portion of the area between the Kigluaik Mountains and the Imuruk Basin (see fig. 2) is chiefly a gently-sloping alluvial fan, in which the larger creeks are intrenched from 10 to 30 feet near the mountain front. The creek herein called Graphite Creek, the northeasternmost creek shown on figure 2, is about 2 miles southwest of the Cobblestone River. Ruby, Ptarmigan and Trail Creeks transect the mountain front in the order named, proceeding southwestward from Glacier Creep. Farther to the southwest, some of the smaller creeks are unnamed. The creek about 1.4 miles southwest of Trail Creek is herein called Christophosen Creek in order to have a convenient means of reference.

Alaska↗
USGS2009

Ecology of Greater Sage-Grouse in the Bi-State Planning Area Final Report, September 2007

Conservation efforts for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), hereafter sage-grouse, are underway across the range of this species. Over 70 local working groups have been established and are implementing on-the-ground sage-grouse oriented conservation projects. Early on in this process, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) recognized the need to join in these efforts and received funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Candidate Species Conservation Program to help develop a species conservation plan for sage-grouse in the Mono County area. This conservation plan covers portions of Alpine, Mono, and Inyo counties in California and Douglas, Esmeralda, Lyon, and Mineral counties in Nevada. A concurrent effort underway through the Nevada Governor's Sage-grouse Conservation Team established Local Area Working Groups across Nevada and eastern California. The Mono County populations of sage-grouse were encompassed by the Bi-State Local Planning Area, which was comprised of six population management units (PMUs). The state agencies from California (CDFG) and Nevada (Nevada Department of Wildlife; NDOW) responsible for the management of sage-grouse agreed to utilize the process that had begun with the Nevada Governor's Team in order to develop local plans for conservation planning and implementation. Resources from the USFWS were applied to several objectives in support of the development of the Bi-State Local Area Sage-grouse Conservation Plan through a grant to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Objectives included: (1) participate in the development of the Bi-State Conservation Plan, (2) compile and synthesize existing sage-grouse data, (3) document seasonal movements of sage-grouse, (4) identify habitats critical to sage-grouse, (5) determine survival rates and identify causal factors of mortality, (6) determine nest success and brood success of sage-grouse, and (7) identify sage-grouse lek sites. Progress reports completed in 2004 and 2005 addressed each of the specific objectives and this final report focuses on the biological information gathered in support of local conservation efforts. Participation in the development of the Bi-State Local Area Conservation Plan was accomplished on multiple scales. Beginning in the fall of 2002, USGS personnel began participating in meetings of local stakeholders involved in the development of a sage-grouse conservation plan for the Bi-State planning area. This included attendance at numerous local PMU group meetings and field trips as well as participating on the technical advisory committee (TAC) for the Bi-State group. Whenever appropriate, ongoing results and findings regarding sage-grouse ecology in the local area were incorporated into these working group meetings. In addition, the USGS partnered with CDFG to help reorganize one of the local PMU groups (South Mono) and edited that portion of the Bi-State plan. The USGS also worked closely with CDFG to draft a description of the state of knowledge for sage-grouse genetic information for inclusion in the Bi-State Conservation Plan. The first edition of the Bi-State Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse was completed in June 2004 (Bi-State Sage-grouse Conservation Team 2004). This report is organized primarily by PMU to facilitate the incorporation of these research findings into the individual PMU plans that compose the Bi-State plan. Information presented in this report was derived from over 7,000 radio-telemetry locations obtained on 145 individual sage-grouse during a three year period (2003-2005). In addition, we collected detailed vegetation measurements at over 590 habitat sampling plots within the study area including canopy cover, shrubs, forbs, and grasses diversity. Vegetation data collection focused on sage-grouse nests, and brood-use areas. Additionally we collected data at random sites to examine sage-grouse habitat relationships within the study area. The majori

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Forecasting California's earthquakes— What can we expect in the next 30 years?

In a new comprehensive study, scientists have determined that the chance of having one or more magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquakes in the California area over the next 30 years is greater than 99%. Such quakes can be deadly, as shown by the 1989 magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta and the 1994 magnitude 6.7 Northridge earthquakes. The likelihood of at least one even more powerful quake of magnitude 7.5 or greater in the next 30 years is 46%?such a quake is most likely to occur in the southern half of the State. Building codes, earthquake insurance, and emergency planning will be affected by these new results, which highlight the urgency to prepare now for the powerful quakes that are inevitable in California?s future.

California↗
USGS2015

UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California's complex fault system

With innovations, fresh data, and lessons learned from recent earthquakes, scientists have developed a new earthquake forecast model for California, a region under constant threat from potentially damaging events. The new model, referred to as the third Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, or "UCERF" ( http://www.WGCEP.org/UCERF3 ), provides authoritative estimates of the magnitude, location, and likelihood of earthquake fault rupture throughout the state. Overall the results confirm previous findings, but with some significant changes because of model improvements. For example, compared to the previous forecast (Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast 2), the likelihood of moderate-sized earthquakes (magnitude 6.5 to 7.5) is lower, whereas that of larger events is higher. This is because of the inclusion of multifault ruptures, where earthquakes are no longer confined to separate, individual faults, but can occasionally rupture multiple faults simultaneously. The public-safety implications of this and other model improvements depend on several factors, including site location and type of structure (for example, family dwelling compared to a long-span bridge). Building codes, earthquake insurance products, emergency plans, and other risk-mitigation efforts will be updated accordingly. This model also serves as a reminder that damaging earthquakes are inevitable for California. Fortunately, there are many simple steps residents can take to protect lives and property.

California↗
USGS2009

Water Quality in the High Plains Aquifer, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming, 1999-2004

This report contains the major findings of a 1999-2004 assessment of water quality in the High Plains aquifer. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings for principal and other aquifers and major river basins across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is discussed in terms of local, regional, State, and national issues. Conditions in the aquifer system are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies, universities, public interest groups, or the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as drinking-water quality, the effects of agricultural practices on water quality, source-water protection, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of ground water in areas near where they live and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the region and the Nation. The water-quality conditions in the High Plains aquifer summarized in this report are discussed in greater detail in other reports that can be accessed in Appendix 1 of http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1749/. Detailed technical information, data and analyses, collection and analytical methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report in addition to reports in this series from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa). This report accompanies the detailed and technical report of water-quality conditions in the High Plains aquifer 'Water-quality assessment of the High Plains aquifer, 1999-2004' (http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1749/)

Circular↗
USGS1999

Earthquake probabilities in the San Francisco Bay region: 2000 to 2030 - A summary of findings

The San Francisco Bay region sits astride a dangerous “earthquake machine,” the tectonic boundary between the Pacific and North American Plates. The region has experienced major and destructive earthquakes in 1838, 1868, 1906, and 1989, and future large earthquakes are a certainty. The ability to prepare for large earthquakes is critical to saving lives and reducing damage to property and infrastructure. An increased understanding of the timing, size, location, and effects of these likely earthquakes is a necessary component in any effective program of preparedness. This study reports on the probabilities of occurrence of major earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay region (SFBR) for the three decades 2000 to 2030. The SFBR extends from Healdsberg on the northwest to Salinas on the southeast and encloses the entire metropolitan area, including its most rapidly expanding urban and suburban areas. In this study a “major” earthquake is defined as one with M≥6.7 (where M is moment magnitude). As experience from the Northridge, California (M6.7, 1994) and Kobe, Japan (M6.9, 1995) earthquakes has shown us, earthquakes of this size can have a disastrous impact on the social and economic fabric of densely urbanized areas. To reevaluate the probability of large earthquakes striking the SFBR, the U.S. Geological Survey solicited data, interpretations, and analyses from dozens of scientists representing a wide crosssection of the Earth-science community (Appendix A). The primary approach of this new Working Group (WG99) was to develop a comprehensive, regional model for the long-term occurrence of earthquakes, founded on geologic and geophysical observations and constrained by plate tectonics. The model considers a broad range of observations and their possible interpretations. Using this model, we estimate the rates of occurrence of earthquakes and 30-year earthquake probabilities. Our study considers a range of magnitudes for earthquakes on the major faults in the region—an innovation over previous studies of the SFBR that considered only a small number of potential earthquakes of fixed magnitude.

California↗
USGS1996

Database of potential sources for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6 in Northern California

The Northern California Earthquake Potential (NCEP) working group, composed of many contributors and reviewers in industry, academia and government, has pooled its collective expertise and knowledge of regional tectonics to identify potential sources of large earthquakes in northern California. We have created a map and database of active faults, both surficial and buried, that forms the basis for the northern California portion of the national map of probabilistic seismic hazard. The database contains 62 potential sources, including fault segments and areally distributed zones. The working group has integrated constraints from broadly based plate tectonic and VLBI models with local geologic slip rates, geodetic strain rate, and microseismicity. Our earthquake source database derives from a scientific consensus that accounts for conflict in the diverse data. Our preliminary product, as described in this report brings to light many gaps in the data, including a need for better information on the proportion of deformation in fault systems that is aseismic.

California↗