Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Research and Development 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 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Great expectations for earthquake early warnings on the United States West Coast

In October 2019, California became the first state in the United States to fully activate a public earthquake early warning system—ShakeAlert®—managed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The system was subsequently rolled out in March 2021 in Oregon and May 2021 in Washington. Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems can provide seconds of notice to people and technological systems that shaking is imminent, but their effectiveness depends on recipients’ expectations and actions as well as technical performance. To better understand these dependencies, we surveyed representative samples of adults in California (N = 1219), Oregon (N = 1020), and Washington (N = 1037) in February 2021. Most respondents had experienced earthquakes, but few had lived through violent shaking; most had not followed protective action guidance to Drop, Cover, and Hold On (DCHO) in earthquakes; and most reported no personal or social harm from prior earthquakes. Nevertheless, expectations and perceived usefulness of EEW were high, and higher still for those who expected alerts to be accurate and easy to use, expressed tolerance of missed and erroneous warnings, and expected to be affected by a damaging earthquake in their lifetime. Results suggest opportunities to better align public preferences and expectations with ShakeAlert operations. For example, some respondents preferred lower alerting thresholds than those proposed by government and scientists. Moreover, reported tolerance of warning errors was widespread, but respondents wanted explanations quickly, suggesting a need to further develop post-alert messaging. Findings from this study should be informative for future research on the co-evolution of experiences and expectations with EEW systems.

California, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2005

Host Fish Identification and Early Life Thermal Requirements for the Federal Endangered Winged Mapleleaf Mussel

The winged mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa, WML) is a Federal endangered species historically inhabiting at least 34 river systems in 12 Midwestern states. Only four populations are currently known to exist, including one confirmed reproducing population in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (NSR) bordering Minnesota and Wisconsin. Recovery efforts are limited by a lack of life history information, particularly which species of fish serve as host to the mussel's parasitic larvae (glochidia). Since 1997, biologists at the University of Minnesota have tried to identify host fish for the WML. Department of the Interior colleagues working in western Wisconsin at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's La Crosse Fishery Resources Office and Genoa National Fish Hatchery, the National Park Service's St. Croix NSR, and the U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) in La Crosse joined the team in 2001 to expand and accelerate the laboratory host fish identification program by making use of the well-equipped aquatic research facilities at UMESC. We report on several WML early life history investigations conducted at UMESC since autumn 2003 to identify suitable host fish species and evaluate thermal requisites for the development of glochidia into free-living juvenile mussels.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2010

Implementation of the Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground-motion prediction equations in Fortran and R

This report presents two methods for implementing the earthquake ground-motion prediction equations released in 2008 as part of the Next Generation Attenuation of Ground Motions (NGA-West, or NGA) project coordinated by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). These models were developed for predicting ground-motion parameters for shallow crustal earthquakes in active tectonic regions (such as California). Of the five ground-motion prediction equations (GMPEs) developed during the NGA project, four models are implemented: the GMPEs of Abrahamson and Silva (2008), Boore and Atkinson (2008), Campbell and Bozorgnia (2008), and Chiou and Youngs (2008a); these models are abbreviated as AS08, BA08, CB08, and CY08, respectively. Since site response is widely recognized as an important influence of ground motions, engineering applications typically require that such effects be modeled. The model of Idriss (2008) is not implemented in our programs because it does not explicitly include site response, whereas the other four models include site response and use the same variable to describe the site condition (VS30). We do not intend to discourage the use of the Idriss (2008) model, but we have chosen to implement the other four NGA models in our programs for those users who require ground-motion estimates for various site conditions. We have implemented the NGA models by using two separate programming languages: Fortran and R (R Development Core Team, 2010). Fortran, a compiled programming language, has been used in the scientific community for decades. R is an object-oriented language and environment for statistical computing that is gaining popularity in the statistical and scientific community. Derived from the S language and environment developed at Bell Laboratories, R is an open-source language that is freely available at http://www.r-project.org/ (last accessed 11 January 2011). In R, the functions for computing the NGA equations can be loaded as an add-on user-contributed code, which is referred to as a ?package? in R. The details of the nga package (Kaklamanos and Thompson, 2010) are presented in this report. In addition, differences between the R and Fortran implementations will be discussed later in this report. The NGA models have established a new baseline for seismic hazard assessments, and they have been incorporated into the most recent national seismic hazard maps published by the U.S. Geological Survey (Petersen and others, 2008). However, many of the new models are significantly more complicated than previous GMPEs and, therefore, require a substantial investment of time to implement and validate. We hope that the scientific and engineering communities find our implementations to be useful in research and practice. Our implementations may be considered as an alternate to the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet implementation available on the PEER NGA project Web site (http://peer.berkeley.edu/ngawest/, last accessed 11 January 2011). The implementations in Fortran and R are more appropriate for performing batch calculations than the implementation in Microsoft Excel. Spreadsheets and Fortran code for some of the individual models also are available on the PEER NGA project Web site; our programs implement the four GMPEs simultaneously. Our programs give the same results as the programs on the PEER NGA Web site, but we offer some additional flexibility of input, additional methods of estimating unknown input parameters, and additional options for output. Although these programs have been used by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Tufts University, and others, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made by Tufts or the USGS as to the accuracy or functioning of the programs and related material, nor shall the fact of distribution constitute any such warranty, and no responsibility is assumed by Tufts or the USGS in connection therewith.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

An ecosystem report on the Panama Canal: Monitoring the status of the forest communities and the watershed

In 1996, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Republic of Panama's Environmental Authority, with support from the United States Agency for International Development, undertook a comprehensive program to monitor the ecosystem of the Panama Canal watershed. The goals were to establish baseline indicators for the integrity of forest communities and rivers. Based on satellite image classification and ground surveys, the 2790 km2 watershed had 1570 km2 of forest in 1997, 1080 km2 of which was in national parks and nature monuments. Most of the 490 km2 of forest not currently in protected areas lies along the west bank of the Canal, and its management status after the year 2000 turnover of the Canal from the U.S. to Panama remains uncertain. In forest plots designed to monitor forest diversity and change, a total of 963 woody plant species were identified and mapped. We estimate there are a total of 850-1000 woody species in forests of the Canal corridor. Forests of the wetter upper reaches of the watershed are distinct in species composition from the Canal corridor, and have considerably higher diversity and many unknown species. These remote areas are extensively forested, poorly explored, and harbor an estimated 1400-2200 woody species. Vertebrate monitoring programs were also initiated, focusing on species threatened by hunting and forest fragmentation. Large mammals are heavily hunted in most forests of Canal corridor, and there was clear evidence that mammal density is greatly reduced in hunted areas and that this affects seed predation and dispersal. The human population of the watershed was 113 000 in 1990, and grew by nearly 4% per year from 1980 to 1990. Much of this growth was in a small region of the watershed on the outskirts of Panama City, but even rural areas, including villages near and within national parks, grew by 2% per year. There is no sewage treatment in the watershed, and many towns have no trash collection, thus streams near large towns are heavily polluted. Analyses of sediment loads in rivers throughout the watershed did not indicate that erosion has been increasing as a result of deforestation, rather, erosion seems to be driven largely by total rainfall and heavy rainfall events that cause landslides. Still, models suggest that large-scale deforestation would increase landslide frequency, and failure to detect increases in erosion could be due to the gradual deforestation rate and the short time period over which data are available. A study of runoff showed deforestation increased the amount of water from rainfall that passed directly into streams. As a result, dry season flow was reduced in a deforested catchment relative to a forested one. Currently, the Panama Canal watershed has extensive forest areas and streams relatively unaffected by humans. But impacts of hunting and pollution near towns are clear, and the burgeoning population will exacerbate these impacts in the next few decades. Changes in policies regarding forest protection and pollution control are necessary.

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment↗
USGS2013

AMAP Assessment 2013: Arctic Ocean acidification

This assessment report presents the results of the 2013 AMAP Assessment of Arctic Ocean Acidification (AOA). This is the first such assessment dealing with AOA from an Arctic-wide perspective, and complements several assessments that AMAP has delivered over the past ten years concerning the effects of climate change on Arctic ecosystems and people. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) is a group working under the Arctic Council. The Arctic Council Ministers have requested AMAP to: - produce integrated assessment reports on the status and trends of the conditions of the Arctic ecosystems; - identify possible causes for the changing conditions; - detect emerging problems, their possible causes, and the potential risk to Arctic ecosystems including indigenous peoples and other Arctic residents; and to - recommend actions required to reduce risks to Arctic ecosystems. This report provides the accessible scientific basis and validation for the statements and recommendations made in the Arctic Ocean Acidification Assessment Summary for Policy-makers that was delivered to Arctic Council Ministers at their meeting in Kiruna, Sweden in May 2011 and the related AMAP State of the Arctic Environment report Arctic Ocean Acidification 2013: An Overview . It includes extensive background data and references to the scientific literature, and details the sources for figures reproduced in the overview report. Whereas the Summary for Policy-makers report contains recommendations that focus mainly on policy-relevant actions concerned with addressing the consequences of AOA, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report also cover issues of a more scientific nature, such as proposals for filling gaps in knowledge, and recommendations relevant to future monitoring and research work. The AOA assessment was conducted between 2010 and 2013 by an international group of over 60 experts. Lead authors were selected based on an open nomination process coordinated by AMAP. A similar process was used to select international experts who independently reviewed this report. Information contained in this report is fully references and based on first and foremost peer-reviewed and published results of research and monitoring undertaken since 2006. It also incorporates some new (unpublished) information from monitoring and research conducted according to well-established and documented national and international standards of quality assurance/quality control protocols. Care has been taken to ensure that no critical probability statements are based on non-peer-reviewed materials. Access to reliable and up-to-date information is essential for the development of science-based decision-making regarding ongoing changes in the Arctic and their global implications. The AOA assessment summary reports and films have therefore been developed specifically for policy-makers, summarizing the main findings of the AOA assessment. The AOA lead authors have confirmed that both this report and its derivative products accurately and fully reflect their scientific assessment. The AOA reports and the films are freely available from the AMAP Secretariat and on the AMAP website: www.amap.no, and their use for educational purposes is encouraged. AMAP would like to express its appreciation to all experts who have contributed their time, efforts and data, in particular the lead authors who coordinated the production of this report. Thanks are also due to the reviewers who contributed to the AOA peer-review process and provided valuable comments that helped to ensure the quality of the report. A list of the main contributors is included at the start of each chapter. The list is not comprehensive. Specifically, it does not include the many national institutes, laboratories and organizations, and their staff, which have been involved in various countries in AOA-related monitoring and research. Apologies, and no lesser thanks are given to any individuals unintentionally omitted from the list. The support from the Arctic countries and non-Arctic countries implementing research and monitoring in the Arctic is vital to the success of AMAP. The AMAP work is essentially based on ongoing activities within these countries, and the countries that provide the necessary support for most the experts involved in the preparation of the AMAP assessments. In particular, AMAP would like to acknowledge Norway for taking the lead-country role in this assessment and thank Canada, Norway, Sweden, USA and the Nordic Council of Ministers for their financial support to the AOA work. The AMAP Working Group is pleased to present its assessment to the Arctic Council and the international science community. Richard Bellerby (AOA assessment Chair) Russel Shearer (AMAP Chair) Lars-Otto Reiersen (AMAP Executive Secretary) Oslo, May 2013

Report↗
USGS2022

Living with wildfire in Log Hill Mesa, Ouray County, Colorado: 2017 data report and a comparison to 2011 and 2012 data

Over the last decade, a team of researchers and practitioners, referred to as the Wildfire Research Team (WiRē1 Team), has worked with wildfire practitioners seeking to create communities that are adapted to wildfire through an evidenced-based approach. The West Region Wildfire Council (WRWC) has been an integral partner amongst the WiRē Team throughout this time. Together, the WiRē Team has developed a systematic data collection and integration approach (the WiRē approach) that informs local wildfire risk education efforts and allows for monitoring of community adaptation over time. Through this approach, we collect and analyze locally relevant wildfire risk and social science data to enhance the effectiveness of local wildfire risk mitigation efforts. A unique aspect of this report is that the data collection effort was replicated. The results of the 2011/2012 data collection effort are summarized in Meldrum et. al. (2013). In this report, the results of the 2017 data collection effort are summarized first, followed by a brief comparison of the 2017 results to the 2011/2012 data. This comparison is offered to provide context to the 2017 data; in-depth investigation of change over time is beyond the scope of this report.

Colorado↗
USGS2011

An evaluation of the science needs to inform decisions on Outer Continental Shelf energy development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska

The U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) was asked to conduct an initial, independent evaluation of the science needs that would inform the Administration's consideration of the right places and the right ways in which to develop oil and gas resources in the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), particularly focused on the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Oil and gas potential is significant in Arctic Alaska. Beyond petroleum potential, this region supports unique fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems, and indigenous people who rely on these resources for subsistence. This report summarizes key existing scientific information and provides initial guidance of what new and (or) continued research could inform decision making. This report is presented in a series of topical chapters and various appendixes each written by a subset of the USGS OCS Team based on their areas of expertise. Three chapters (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) provide foundational information on geology; ecology and subsistence; and climate settings important to understanding the conditions pertinent to development in the Arctic OCS. These chapters are followed by three chapters that examine the scientific understanding, science gaps, and science sufficiency questions regarding oil-spill risk, response, and impact (Chapter 5), marine mammals and anthropogenic noise (Chapter 6), and cumulative impacts (Chapter 7). Lessons learned from the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill are included to identify valuable "pre-positioned" science and scientific approaches to improved response and reduced uncertainty in damage assessment and restoration efforts (appendix D). An appendix on Structured Decision Making (appendix C) is included to illustrate the value of such tools that go beyond, but incorporate, science in looking at what can/should be done about policy and implementation of Arctic development. The report provides a series of findings and recommendations for consideration developed during the independent examination of science gaps and sufficiency. These recommendations are important for understanding what the USGS discovered in the course of this study and to help inform and improve decision making.

Circular↗
USGS2017

P- and S-wave velocity models incorporating the Cascadia subduction zone for 3D earthquake ground motion simulations, Version 1.6—Update for Open-File Report 2007–1348

In support of earthquake hazard studies and ground motion simulations in the Pacific Northwest, three-dimensional P- and S-wave velocity ( V P and V S , respectively) models incorporating the Cascadia subduction zone were previously developed for the region encompassed from about 40.2°N. to 50°N. latitude, and from about 122°W. to 129°W. longitude. This report describes updates to the Cascadia velocity property volumes of model version 1.3 (V1.3), herein called model version 1.6 (V1.6). As in model V1.3, the updated V1.6 model volume includes depths from 0 kilometers (mean sea level) to 60 kilometers, and it is intended to be a reference for researchers who have used, or are planning to use, this model in their Earth science investigations. To this end, it is intended that the V P and V S property volumes of model V1.6 will be considered a template for a community velocity model of the Cascadia region as additional results become available. With the recent and ongoing development of the National Crustal Model, we envision any future versions of this model will be directly integrated with that effort.

Oregon, Vancouver, Washington↗
USGS1978

On the development of strong-motion instrument networks in the United States

This report outlines a plan for the distribution of strong-motion instrumentation throughout the United States. The present "national" network of strong-motion instrumentation has evolved through the merger of several programs initiated by different agencies and organizations with objectives ranging from research to regulation. It is the result of the coordination of instrument maintenance and record archival currently provided by the Seismic Engineering Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly the Seismological Field Survey of the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, or the National Ocean Survey, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The USGS operates the program under funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies. NSF supports a data management function and the operation of a network of about 200 accelerographs and 300 seismoscopes utilized for studies of ground motion and building response. The State of California is developing its own strong-motion instrumentation program (CSMIP), which includes measurements of ground motion as well as the response of representative types of structures. The CSMIP network is the largest network operated by a single agency anywhere in the world. Eventually it will contain a total of about 1000 accelerographs. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is developing a program for monitoring the response of earth dams, which eventually will include as many as 400 instruments on over 100 dams. Other agencies and organizations are developing networks appropriate to their missions or objectives. At present the number of instruments owned by these other agencies is less than 100 in each case, although several agencies are still expanding their networks. The present distribution of accelerographs in the United States is indicated in Figure 1 (see: USGS, 1977, also). In 1964 the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California passed ordinances which required 3 accelerographs to be installed in all high-rise buildings. Initially, these instruments were installed and maintained as a part of the strong-motion program of the Seismological Field Survey (SFS). As the number of installations required by such codes increased, it became apparent that the maintenance of these instruments placed an inordinate burden on and created an imbalance in the SFS operated program (in 1972, 50 percent of the "national" program was concentrated in Los Angeles). With the transfer of the SFS program responsibility to the NSF and with the development of the CSMIP, the responsibility for maintenance of code required instruments has reverted to the city building officials and the building owners. As the coordinated network of strong-motion instruments has grown, the maintenance of the instruments has required a larger staff than the USGS could provide under existing personnel ceilings. This situation has been resolved by the agencies with the larger networks performing their own installation and maintenance. The USGS maintains an archive of first class copies of all records, whereas other agencies maintain archives of their own records, only. In addition, the USGS coordinates the routine processing of all of the significant records, although other agencies will process their own data if they consider it to have a higher priority than does the USGS. In response to a recent change in their legislated charter, the CSMIP is beginning to develop a capability to process the data collected under that program.

Open-File Report↗