SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Management Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,387 records · Page 77Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Supporting natural resource management—The role of economics at the Department of the Interior—A workshop report

The first U.S. Department of the Interior Economics Workshop was held April 5–7, 2017 in Washington, D.C., to identify, highlight, and better understand needs and opportunities for economic analysis to support the Department of the Interior’s mission. The Economics Workshop, jointly convened by the Department of the Interior Office of Policy Analysis and the U.S. Geological Survey Science and Decisions Center, provided an opportunity for Department of the Interior’s economists to share expertise and experiences and to build collaboration and communication channels across the Department of the Interior. Natural and cultural resource managers face complex questions and often have to balance competing stakeholder interests. Per the mission statement, the Department of the Interior “protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities.” Economic analysis is relevant to issues integral to nearly all the land and water management decisions made by the Department of the Interior. More than 80 Department of the Interior economists gathered at the Economics Workshop to share their work, discuss common challenges, and identify approaches to advance the use and contribution of economics at the Department of the Interior.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior, Region 11, Alaska—2023–24 biennial science report

Introduction U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission—The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five interconnected focus areas: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in 3 Alaska-based science centers. USGS science activities are also initiated by the Cooperative Research Unit and USGS centers outside Alaska. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 900 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.usgs.gov/.

Alaska↗

USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska —2020 annual science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,100 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗

USGS2017

Applying citizen-science data and mark-recapture models to estimate numbers of migrant golden eagles in an important bird area in eastern North America

Estimates of population abundance are important to wildlife management and conservation. However, it can be difficult to characterize the numbers of broadly distributed, low-density, and elusive bird species. Although Golden Eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are rare, difficult to detect, and broadly distributed, they are concentrated during their autumn migration at monitoring sites in eastern North America. We used hawk-count data collected by citizen scientists in a virtual mark–recapture modeling analysis to estimate the numbers of Golden Eagles that migrate in autumn along Kittatinny Ridge, an Important Bird Area in Pennsylvania, USA. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of our abundance estimates to variation in eagle capture histories, we applied candidate models to 8 different sets of capture histories, constructed with or without age-class information and using known mean flight speeds 6 1, 2, 4, or 6 SE for eagles to travel between hawk-count sites. Although some abundance estimates were produced by models that poorly fitted the data ( ĉ > 3.0), 2 sets of population estimates were produced by acceptably performing models (cˆ less than or equal to 3.0). Application of these models to count data from November, 2002–2011, suggested a mean population abundance of 1,354 6 117 SE (range: 873–1,938). We found that Golden Eagles left the ridgeline at different rates and in different places along the route, and that typically ,50% of individuals were detected at the hawk-count sites. Our study demonstrates a useful technique for estimating population abundance that may be applicable to other migrant species that are repeatedly detected at multiple monitoring sites along a topographic diversion or leading line.

Pennslyvania↗

USGS2025

Science support for recovery of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) on conserved lands in San Diego County

This document was developed based on the results of scientific research to support management and recovery of the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ) and its habitat in San Diego County, California. A migratory species restricted to riparian habitat for breeding, the flycatcher is present in southern California from May to August. The flycatcher has declined over the last several decades primarily in response to habitat loss, and possibly Brown-headed Cowbird ( Molothrus ater ) parasitism. This document compiles and analyzes data collected by USGS scientists on population size, distribution, demography, and breeding habitat condition and uses this information to evaluate potential management options and locations relative to several variables including spatial proximity to currently occupied locations, historical occupation, and potential for restoration that would benefit the flycatcher and expand populations. Location-specific management options and habitat restoration opportunities are ranked based on the contribution of each location to promoting regional flycatcher persistence. The results of these analyses can be used by land and resource managers to develop their habitat management projects and priorities and promote flycatcher recovery.

California↗

USGS2014

Beach science in the Great Lakes

Monitoring beach waters for human health has led to an increase and evolution of science in the Great Lakes, which includes microbiology, limnology, hydrology, meteorology, epidemiology, and metagenomics, among others. In recent years, concerns over the accuracy of water quality standards at protecting human health have led to a significant interest in understanding the risk associated with water contact in both freshwater and marine environments. Historically, surface waters have been monitored for fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli , enterococci), but shortcomings of the analytical test (lengthy assay) have resulted in a re-focusing of scientific efforts to improve public health protection. Research has led to the discovery of widespread populations of fecal indicator bacteria present in natural habitats such as soils, beach sand, and stranded algae. Microbial source tracking has been used to identify the source of these bacteria and subsequently assess their impact on human health. As a result of many findings, attempts have been made to improve monitoring efficiency and efficacy with the use of empirical predictive models and molecular rapid tests. All along, beach managers have actively incorporated new findings into their monitoring programs. With the abundance of research conducted and information gained over the last 25 years, “Beach Science” has emerged, and the Great Lakes have been a focal point for much of the ground-breaking work. Here, we review the accumulated research on microbiological water quality of Great Lakes beaches and provide a historic context to the collaborative efforts that have advanced this emerging science.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2022

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2021–22 biennial science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict the current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions, and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,050 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗

USGS2024

Challenges creating monarch butterfly management strategies for electric power companies in the United States

Returning monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus ) to sustainable levels of abundance will require an array of contributors to protect and restore habitat over broad areas. Due to the diversity and scale of land managed by electric power companies across the monarch range, plus an additional 32 million hectares needed for new solar arrays by 2050 to meet renewable energy goals, the industry may have potential to contribute to monarch conservation. However, it is challenging to clearly understand an individual company’s potential for monarch conservation because of the scale and distribution of their specific land assets (ranging from 4,800 to 240,000 hectares in this study alone), the complexity of monarch science, and the lack of a science-based approach for evaluating large land assets for monarch habitat. With monarchs potentially being protected under the United States Endangered Species Act in the future and thereby limiting land management approaches, there is interest from electric power companies to understand how their lands relate to monarchs. In collaboration with companies, we developed a GIS-based model to identify company landholdings that contain high-quality monarch habitat and applied the model to specific landholdings of eight power companies in the United States. We then facilitated discussions with company teams to balance conservation goals, corporate risk, and social opinion. This paper describes non-confidential results for developing a national GIS-based monarch habitat model and applying it to electric power companies who are considering monarch conservation while simultaneously transitioning to a new clean energy future. The model and applied experience may be useful for other organizations working across large landscapes to manage monarchs.

conterminous United States↗

USGS2014

A protocol for coordinating post-tsunami field reconnaissance efforts in the USA

In the aftermath of a catastrophic tsunami, much is to be learned about tsunami generation and propagation, landscape and ecological changes, and the response and recovery of those affected by the disaster. Knowledge of the impacted area directly helps response and relief personnel in their efforts to reach and care for survivors and for re-establishing community services. First-hand accounts of tsunami-related impacts and consequences also help researchers, practitioners, and policy makers in other parts of the world that lack recent events to better understand and manage their own societal risks posed by tsunami threats. Conducting post-tsunami surveys and disseminating useful results to decision makers in an effective, efficient, and timely manner is difficult given the logistical issues and competing demands in a post-disaster environment. To facilitate better coordination of field-data collection and dissemination of results, a protocol for coordinating post-tsunami science surveys was developed by a multi-disciplinary group of representatives from state and federal agencies in the USA. This protocol is being incorporated into local, state, and federal post-tsunami response planning through the efforts of the Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana, the U.S. National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program, and the U.S. National Plan for Disaster Impact Assessments. Although the protocol was designed to support a coordinated US post-tsunami response, we believe it could help inform post-disaster science surveys conducted elsewhere and further the discussion on how hazard researchers can most effectively operate in disaster environments.

Natural Hazards↗

USGS2003

Announcing a Hydrogeology Journal theme issue on "The future of hydrogeology"

What is the future of hydrogeology? Are most of the fundamental scientific problems in hydrogeology already solved? Is there really any need for more fundamental research, field measurements, or method development? Have recent scientific advances really added capabilities and tools for our practical needs? Are there any unsolved hydrogeologic questions still remaining that are vital to our optimal use and management of subsurface resources or does the remaining work only fill in some details to a story essentially already told? Will the science of hydrogeology soon become primarily an applied field, where the main task is to use known methods to solve practical problems of water supply and water quality? For other questions involving subsurface fluids, for example, waste isolation, understanding of geological processes and climate changes, are current hydrogeologic capabilities sufficient and is there any possibility for improvement? These are the types of questions that will be dealt with by an upcoming theme issue of Hydrogeology Journal (HJ) to appear in early 2005 [HJ 13(1)]. This issue will contain 10–20 peer-reviewed invited articles on both general topics and specific subject areas of hydrogeology.

Hydrogeology Journal↗

USGS2024

Browsing the literature

For this edition of Browsing the Literature, we have two new papers from Rangeland Ecology & Management, a series of basic ecology papers with an international scope from journals such as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), Science, and Nature, and several papers advancing our understanding of drought and carbon at global scales. Additionally, several papers on sagebrush-steppe rangelands are covered with transferable insights to other rangeland types.

Rangelands↗

USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal years 2009 and 2010

The U.S. Geological Survey is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior. The U.S. Geological Survey provides impartial information on the health of our ecosystems and environment, the natural hazards that threaten us, the natural resources we rely on, the negative effects of climate and land-use change, and the core science systems that help us provide timely, relevant, and usable information. The U.S. Geological Survey is not responsible for regulations or land management. In the late 1800s, John Wesley Powell the second director of the U.S. Geological Survey, followed his interest in the Tribes of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau and studied their cultures, languages, and surroundings. From that early time, the U.S. Geological Survey has recognized the importance of Native knowledge as a complement to the U.S. Geological Survey mission to better understand the Earth and its systems. Collaboration allows the U.S. Geological Survey and Native American governments, organizations, and peoples to increase their mutual understanding of the increasing challenges facing our natural world. Although this report uses the term “resources,” the U.S. Geological Survey, through its interdisciplinary research, acknowledges the interconnectedness of the Earth and all the life forms that live upon it.

Circular↗

USGS2004

Science for the changing Great Basin

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), with its multidisciplinary structure and role as a federal science organization, is well suited to provide integrated science in the Great Basin of the western United States. A research strategy developed by the USGS and collaborating partners addresses critical management issues in the basin, including invasive species, status and trends of wildlife populations and communities, wildfire, global climate change, and riparian and wetland habitats. Information obtained through implementation of this strategy will be important for decision-making by natural-resource managers.

The Great Basin↗

USGS2013

Natural Hazards Science at the U.S. Geological Survey

The mission of the USGS in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. The USGS conducts hazard research and works closely with stakeholders and cooperators to inform a broad range of planning and response activities at individual, local, State, national, and international levels. It has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms. USGS science can help to understand and reduce risks from natural hazards by providing the information that decisionmakers need to determine which risk management activities are worthwhile.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2019

Ecosystems Mission Area bookmark

Scientists with the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area can be found at Science Centers and Cooperative Research Units across the Nation. We provide scientific research for the Department of the Interior that supports the management and conservation of our Nation’s biological resources.

General Information Product↗

USGS2000

Assessment of regional earthquake hazards and risk along the Wasatch Front, Utah

This report--the second of two volumes--represents an ongoing effort by the U.S. Geological Survey to transfer accurate Earth science information about earthquake hazards along Utah's Wasatch Front to researchers, public officials, design professionals, land-use planners, and emergency managers in an effort to mitigate the effects of these hazards. This volume contains eight chapters on ground-shaking hazards and aspects of loss estimation.

Utah↗

USGS2020

Local sea level rise information sheets for Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida

Two Pagers for Federally Managed Lands The Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative partnered with individuals at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Wetland and Aquatic Research Center and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to produce customized two-pager information sheets for federal coastal refuges, parks, and reserves across the northern Gulf of Mexico (i.e., sea-level rise sensitive federally-managed lands within Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida). The project was funded by the Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center, and the project team included Bogdan Chivoiu (Cherokee Nation Technologies at USGS), Michael Osland (USGS), Renee Collini (Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative), Sara Martin (Northern Gulf of Mexico Sentinel Site Cooperative), Benjamin Wilson (NAS Science Policy Fellow at USFWS) and John Tirpak (USFWS). The project team is grateful to the many individuals that provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of these two pagers.

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida↗

USGS2002

Operating the EOSDIS at the land processes DAAC managing expectations, requirements, and performance across agencies, missions, instruments, systems, and user communities

NASA developed the Earth Observing System (EOS) during the 1990'S. At the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC), located at the USGS EROS Data Center, the EOS Data and Information System (EOSDIS) is required to support heritage missions as well as Landsat 7, Terra, and Aqua. The original system concept of the early 1990'S changed as each community had its say - first the managers, then engineers, scientists, developers, operators, and then finally the general public. The systems at the LP DAAC - particularly the largest single system, the EOSDIS Core System (ECS) - are changing as experience accumulates, technology changes, and each user group gains influence. The LP DAAC has adapted as contingencies were planned for, requirements and therefore plans were modified, and expectations changed faster than requirements could hope to be satisfied. Although not responsible for Quality Assurance of the science data, the LP DAAC works to ensure the data are accessible and useable by influencing systems, capabilities, and data formats where possible, and providing tools and user support as necessary. While supporting multiple missions and instruments, the LP DAAC also works with and learns from multiple management and oversight groups as they review mission requirements, system capabilities, and the overall operation of the LP DAAC. Stakeholders, including the Land Science community, are consulted regularly to ensure that the LP DAAC remains cognizant and responsive to the evolving needs of the user community. Today, the systems do not look or function as originally planned, but they do work, and they allow customers to search and order of an impressive amount of diverse data.

Conference Paper↗