Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Geology and Water Sciences”

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 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Lagrangian mass-flow investigations of inorganic contaminants in wastewater-impacted streams

Understanding the potential effects of increased reliance on wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents to meet municipal, agricultural, and environmental flow requires an understanding of the complex chemical loading characteristics of the WWTPs and the assimilative capacity of receiving waters. Stream ecosystem effects are linked to proportions of WWTP effluent under low-flow conditions as well as the nature of the effluent chemical mixtures. This study quantifies the loading of 58 inorganic constituents (nutrients to rare earth elements) from WWTP discharges relative to upstream landscape-based sources. Stream assimilation capacity was evaluated by Lagrangian sampling, using flow velocities determined from tracer experiments to track the same parcel of water as it moved downstream. Boulder Creek, Colorado and Fourmile Creek, Iowa, representing two different geologic and hydrologic landscapes, were sampled under low-flow conditions in the summer and spring. One-half of the constituents had greater loads from the WWTP effluents than the upstream drainages, and once introduced into the streams, dilution was the predominant assimilation mechanism. Only ammonium and bismuth had significant decreases in mass load downstream from the WWTPs during all samplings. The link between hydrology and water chemistry inherent in Lagrangian sampling allows quantitative assessment of chemical fate across different landscapes.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2014

Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social well-being of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use of science in public decision making to inform investment in green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas. The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks plan, establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The Green City, Clean Waters initiative, the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green infrastructure. The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership programs: America’s Great Outdoors, initiated to promote conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways. A second goal of the symposium was to advance a research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations. There is also need for additional focused research toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater understanding of how best to inform local decision making in this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Approaching these local and regional plans from a holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future research.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2014

Hydrogeology of the Old Faithful area, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, and its relevance to natural resources and infrastructure

A panel of leading experts (The Old Faithful Science Review Panel) was convened by Yellowstone National Park (YNP) to review and summarize the geological and hydrological understanding that can inform National Park Service management of the Upper Geyser Basin area. We give an overview of present geological and hydrological knowledge of the Old Faithful hydrothermal (hot water) system and related thermal areas in the Upper Geyser Basin. We prioritize avenues for improving our understanding of key knowledge gaps that limit informed decision-making regarding human use in this fragile natural landscape. Lastly, we offer guidelines to minimize impacts to the hydrothermal system that could be used to aid decisions by park management. Old Faithful sits within the Upper Geyser Basin, an area of abundant hydrothermal activity where boiling waters extend from the surface to significant depth within glacial sediments and underlying volcanic rocks. The geyser systems are directly fed by waters recharged decades to millennia ago, which are surrounded by colder, younger waters. Activity of the geysers is controlled by complex subsurface plumbing with fractures and conduits separated by regions of low permeability. Observations over the past century indicate that the thermal areas and their features are both fragile and highly dynamic. Although Old Faithful has erupted regularly for the past 150 years, it exhibits changes in eruptive behavior over time, and the average interval between eruptions has increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years. It is clear that human activity has modified the hydrothermal system in the past; conversely, natural features pose ongoing hazards to humans and human infrastructure. Current (2014) long-term programs to measure heat discharge by chloride-flux monitoring, and more recently by thermal-infrared imaging, are crucial for assessing the status of the hydrothermal system. Complementary studies could include airborne resistivity, environmental tracers, numerical modeling, and greater emphasis on measuring the discharge of water during geyser eruptions. Such data are needed to better understand the subsurface plumbing systems that feed the geysers. Further understanding can be gained through installation of shallow groundwater observation wells, surface geophysical studies, and direct measurement of temperature gradients near the surface. It also is critical to archive existing data from all studies in a manner that will be readily accessible to scientists and decision makers. Monitoring and data collection can be achieved through the YNP geology program, by direct funding to other groups, or by encouraging and facilitating externally funded research. There are many documented examples at YNP and elsewhere where human infrastructure and natural thermal features have negatively affected each other. Unless action is taken, human conflicts with the Old Faithful hydrothermal system are likely to increase over the coming years. This is partly because of the increase in park visitation over the past decades, but also because the interval between eruptions of Old Faithful has increased, lengthening the time spent (and services needed) for each visitor at Old Faithful. To avoid an increase in visitor impacts, the National Park Service should consider 2 alternate strategies to accommodate people, vehicles, and services in the Upper Geyser Basin, such as shuttle services from staging (parking and dining) areas with little or no recent hydrothermal activity. We further suggest that YNP consider a zone system to guide maintenance and development of infrastructure in the immediate Old Faithful area. A “red” zone includes hydrothermally active land where new development is discouraged and existing infrastructure is modified with great care. An outer “green” zone represents areas where cooler temperatures and less hydrothermal flow are thought to exist, and where development and maintenance could proceed as occurs elsewhere in the park. An intermediate “yellow” zone would require preliminary assessment of subsurface temperatures and gas concentrations to assess suitability for infrastructure development. The panel recommends that YNP management follow the lead of the National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee (2012) by applying the “precautionary principle” when making decisions regarding the interaction of hydrothermal phenomena and park infrastructure in the Old Faithful area and other thermal areas within YNP.

Wyoming↗
USGS2007

Water Budgets: Foundations for Effective Water-Resources and Environmental Management

INTRODUCTION Water budgets provide a means for evaluating availability and sustainability of a water supply. A water budget simply states that the rate of change in water stored in an area, such as a watershed, is balanced by the rate at which water flows into and out of the area. An understanding of water budgets and underlying hydrologic processes provides a foundation for effective water-resource and environmental planning and management. Observed changes in water budgets of an area over time can be used to assess the effects of climate variability and human activities on water resources. Comparison of water budgets from different areas allows the effects of factors such as geology, soils, vegetation, and land use on the hydrologic cycle to be quantified. Human activities affect the natural hydrologic cycle in many ways. Modifications of the land to accommodate agriculture, such as installation of drainage and irrigation systems, alter infiltration, runoff, evaporation, and plant transpiration rates. Buildings, roads, and parking lots in urban areas tend to increase runoff and decrease infiltration. Dams reduce flooding in many areas. Water budgets provide a basis for assessing how a natural or human-induced change in one part of the hydrologic cycle may affect other aspects of the cycle. This report provides an overview and qualitative description of water budgets as foundations for effective water-resources and environmental management of freshwater hydrologic systems. Perhaps of most interest to the hydrologic community, the concepts presented are also relevant to the fields of agriculture, atmospheric studies, meteorology, climatology, ecology, limnology, mining, water supply, flood control, reservoir management, wetland studies, pollution control, and other areas of science, society, and industry. The first part of the report describes water storage and movement in the atmosphere, on land surface, and in the subsurface, as well as water exchange among these compartments. Our ability to measure these phenomena and inherent uncertainties in measurement techniques also are discussed. The latter part of the report presents a number of case studies that illustrate how water-budget studies are conducted, documents how human activities affect water budgets, and describes how water budgets are used to address water and environmental issues.

Circular↗
USGS2007

Assessment of Data for Use in the Development of Nutrient Criteria for Massachusetts Rivers and Streams

The U.S. Geological Survey synthesized, reviewed, and assessed Massachusetts water-quality data for use in the development of either numerical nutrient criteria for rivers and streams or a science-based framework for interpreting narrative criterial for nutrients. Water-quality data collected from 65 Massachusetts locations were selected to represent a wide range, but not a statistical selection, of drainage basins and high-, intermediate-, and low-nutrient ecoregions. Additional sites were selected at some locations to provide data to compare open- and closed-canopy effects on periphyton chlorophyll a concentrations. Nutrient and chlorophyll a concentrations are the primary focus of this study. Data for turbidity, color, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, pH, and measures of aquatic-plant density also were examined. Water-quality data were analyzed by categories of year, ecoregion, drainage-basin size, Massachusetts nutrient ecoregion, presence of upstream wastewater dischargers, and canopy openness. Graphs and statistical analyses were used to evaluate data. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends the 25th-percentile value of a water-quality constituent as the numerical nutrient criterion when using all available data for the constituent. In this study of Massachusetts waters, the 25th percentiles of median values at all sampling stations were: total phosphorus, 0.019 milligram per liter (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.44 (mg/L); and turbidity, 1.2 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). When the data are sorted by the two USEPA nutrient ecoregions in Massachusetts (VIII and XIV), the new values are: for Ecoregion VIII, total phosphorus, 0.009 (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.289 (mg/L); and turbidity, 1.7 NTU; for Ecoregion XIV, total phosphorus, 0.028 (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.583 (mg/L); and turbidity, 3.1 NTU. For the three Massachusetts lake-based nutrient ecoregions, the values are: high-nutrient ecoregion, total phosphorus, 0.030 (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.642 (mg/L); and turbidity, 1.5 NTU; intermediate-nutrient ecoregion, total phosphorus, 0.016 (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.419 (mg/L); and turbidity, 1.1 NTU; and low-nutrient ecoregion, total phosphorus, 0.011 (mg/L); total nitrogen, 0.289 (mg/L); and turbidity, 0.7 NTU. In general, median nutrient concentrations were found to be higher in the three following categories of analysis than in their complementary groups: sites in USEPA nutrient Ecoregion XIV, sites downstream from major National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-permitted wastewater dischargers, and sites in the Massachusetts high-nutrient ecoregion. The largest drainage-basin size class had higher median nitrogen (total and dissolved) concentrations than the smallest, but total median phosphorus concentrations were not significantly different. Median chlorophyll a concentrations did not vary significantly among the categories analyzed. The effects of open and closed canopies on median chlorophyll a concentrations were greater within groups defined by the categories used in this study than between the groups; open-canopy sites generally had higher median chlorophyll a concentrations than closed-canopy sites. More than 40 percent of the sampling stations were located downstream from major wastewater dischargers, and these dischargers were disproportionately located in USEPA Ecoregion XIV and the Massachusetts high-nutrient ecoregion and thus may constitute the same effect on water quality. A number of expected relations among parameters analyzed did not materialize. chlorophyll a did not correlate well with any other parameters. No strong relations among the categories and nutrient concentrations or canopy openness were apparent. The occurrence of antecedent flows exceeding mean annual discharges by 300 percent within 28 days of sample collection did not correlate with decreases in chlorophyll a concentrations that might have resulted from scouring associated with increasing velocities. No rel

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2011

Environmental policy analysis, peer reviewed: Reservoir sediment cores show US lead declines

As a result of the Clean Air Act, lead (Pb) emissions to the atmosphere have been greatly reduced since the mid-1970s. As part of its National Water Quality Assessment, the U.S. Geological Survey has been using paleolimnological techniques to assess past trends in hydrophobic contaminants. In urban-suburban environments, reservoir sediment cores show prominent peaks in Pb distributions that correlate well with the rise and fall of leaded gasoline. However, Pb concentrations in sediments are approximately double those of baseline values prior to the 1950s and 1960s. It is apparent that significant concentrations of anthropogenic Pb still exist in soils and aquatic sediments and that it will take many years to reduce these concentrations to prepollution values, even if there are no new sources of Pb pollution.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Considerations for incorporating quality control into water quality sampling strategies for the U.S. Geological Survey

This report describes considerations for incorporating routine quality-assessment and quality-control evaluations into U.S. Geological Survey discrete water-sampling programs and projects. U.S. Geological Survey water-data science in 2020 is characterized by robustness, external reproducibility, collaborative large-volume data analysis, and efficient delivery of water-quality data. Confidence in data, or robustness, can be increased by supplementing traditional field-based quality-control data with laboratory quality control (QC) data, such as third-party blind spikes and blind blanks, laboratory blanks, and laboratory-reagent spikes. Laboratory quality-control data can provide additional information about bias and variability, method performance, and false-positive and false-negative rates that are not available from field QC data alone. Reproducibility is supported by means of standardizing metadata and documentation. Collaborative analysis brings together disparate elements of various types of quality-control review and communicates persistent data quality issues for compounds to data users internal and external to the U.S. Geological Survey. Efficient delivery of water-quality data is achieved when quality-control review is accomplished in the same expedited (near real-time) time frame as distribution of environmental results to the public and might be improved with consideration given to data versioning or to a system of alerting data users to data interpretation that might differ from originally published data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2000

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is an impartial scientific organization that strives to produce scientific results that are relevant to the people of the United States and their land and resource managers. USGS does not improve the quality of its customers' lives; it provides the informational tools for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other customers to understand and improve their own lives. In cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, the USGS conducts research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flows, biota, and other data sets are available to American Indian and Alaska Native institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2000. Some of these USGS activities were conducted in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In the year 2000, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Native Alaskans to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. More Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations are using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking such data from the USGS with greater frequency. The increasing use of such technologies allows Tribal governments additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of these governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involve collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects have a duration of two or three years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some are funded through cooperative agreements or reimbursable accounts, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the Bureau of Indian Affairs are cooperating to use USGS knowledge for the benefit of American Indian and Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from an individual or group of USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help us fulfill a mission of the USGS, to make science relevant, while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative to assist American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster knowledge of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, paying the costs themselves, yet bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. As USGS moves to a more regional organizational structure, it will establish contacts in the Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. Within the USGS, this report will help in developing outreach, educational, and program documents for use in future years. It is hoped that USGS employees, American Indians, and Alaska Natives will adapt these activities in new areas and will use the USGS contacts to expand the relevance of the USGS to more Americans.

Report↗
USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change. The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI resources. Secretarial Order 3289 "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources," established the foundation of two partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2015

Predicting redox conditions in groundwater at a regional scale

Defining the oxic-suboxic interface is often critical for determining pathways for nitrate transport in groundwater and to streams at the local scale. Defining this interface on a regional scale is complicated by the spatial variability of reaction rates. The probability of oxic groundwater in the Chesapeake Bay watershed was predicted by relating dissolved O 2 concentrations in groundwater samples to indicators of residence time and/or electron donor availability using logistic regression. Variables that describe surficial geology, position in the flow system, and soil drainage were important predictors of oxic water. The probability of encountering oxic groundwater at a 30 m depth and the depth to the bottom of the oxic layer were predicted for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The influence of depth to the bottom of the oxic layer on stream nitrate concentrations and time lags (i.e., time period between land application of nitrogen and its effect on streams) are illustrated using model simulations for hypothetical basins. Regional maps of the probability of oxic groundwater should prove useful as indicators of groundwater susceptibility and stream susceptibility to contaminant sources derived from groundwater.

Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia↗
USGS2013

Serious games experiment toward agent-based simulation

We evaluate the potential for serious games to be used as a scientifically based decision-support product that supports the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) mission--to provide integrated, unbiased scientific information that can make a substantial contribution to societal well-being for a wide variety of complex environmental challenges. Serious or pedagogical games are an engaging way to educate decisionmakers and stakeholders about environmental challenges that are usefully informed by natural and social scientific information and knowledge and can be designed to promote interactive learning and exploration in the face of large uncertainties, divergent values, and complex situations. We developed two serious games that use challenging environmental-planning issues to demonstrate and investigate the potential contributions of serious games to inform regional-planning decisions. Delta Skelta is a game emulating long-term integrated environmental planning in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, that incorporates natural hazards (flooding and earthquakes) and consequences for California water supplies amidst conflicting water interests. Age of Ecology is a game that simulates interactions between economic and ecologic processes, as well as natural hazards while implementing agent-based modeling. The content of these games spans the USGS science mission areas related to water, ecosystems, natural hazards, land use, and climate change. We describe the games, reflect on design and informational aspects, and comment on their potential usefulness. During the process of developing these games, we identified various design trade-offs involving factual information, strategic thinking, game-winning criteria, elements of fun, number and type of players, time horizon, and uncertainty. We evaluate the two games in terms of accomplishments and limitations. Overall, we demonstrated the potential for these games to usefully represent scientific information within challenging environmental and ecosystem-management contexts and to provide an interactive way of learning about the complexity of interactions between people and natural systems. Further progress on the use of pedagogical games to fulfill the USGS mission will require collaboration among scientists, game developers, educators, and stakeholders. We conclude that as the USGS positions itself to communicate and convey the results of multiple science strategies, including natural-resource security and sustainability, pedagogical game development and agent-based modeling offer a means to (1) establish interdisciplinary and collaborative teams with a focused integrated outcome; (2) contribute to the modeling of interaction, feedback, and adaptation of ecosystems; and (3) enable social learning through a broadly appealing and increasingly sophisticated medium.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2002

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2002

Information is a resource for Native American governments, communities, organizations, and people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. Native self-sufficiency, economic development, and conservation are cultivated through Native decisions informed with USGS data and analyses. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, streamflow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal Fiscal Year 2002. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes, Tribal organizations, professional societies, and the USGS. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS also recognizes that Tribal institutions have varying needs, interests, and capacities. The USGS strives to be sensitive to the unique circumstances of each of these institutions while supporting their self-driven evolution. The USGS is responding to these needs by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct scientific studies and improve scientific data management. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and, therefore, more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, as described in this report, there are several types of USGS activities that involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. One type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments, or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS--to prove scientific relevance--while helping their fellow citizens. Increasingly, some of the educational activities are becoming parts of formal USGS projects. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. The USGS has a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2012

A synthesis of aquatic science for management of Lakes Mead and Mohave

Lakes Mead and Mohave, which are the centerpieces of Lake Mead National Recreation Area, provide many significant benefits that have made the modern development of the Southwestern United States possible. Lake Mead is the largest reservoir by volume in the nation and it supplies critical storage of water supplies for more than 25 million people in three Western States (California, Arizona, and Nevada). Storage within Lake Mead supplies drinking water and the hydropower to provide electricity for major cities including Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Diego, and irrigation of more than 2.5 million acres of croplands. Lake Mead is arguably the most important reservoir in the nation because of its size and the services it delivers to the Western United States. This Circular includes seven chapters. Chapter 1 provides a short summary of the overall findings and management implications for Lakes Mead and Mohave that can be used to guide the reader through the rest of the Circular. Chapter 2 introduces the environmental setting and characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave and provides a brief management context of the lakes within the Colorado River system as well as overviews of the geological bedrock and sediment accumulations of the lakes. Chapter 3 contains summaries of the operational and hydrologic characteristics of Lakes Mead and Mohave. Chapter 4 provides information on water quality, including discussion on the monitoring of contaminants and sediments within the reservoirs. Chapter 5 describes aquatic biota and wildlife, including food-web dynamics, plankton, invertebrates, fish, aquatic birds, and aquatic vegetation. Chapter 6 outlines threats and stressors to the health of Lake Mead aquatic ecosystems that include a range of environmental contaminants, invasive species, and climate change. Chapter 7 provides a more detailed summary of overall findings that are presented in Chapter 1; and it contains a more detailed discussion on associated management implications, additional research, and monitoring needs.

Arizona, Nevada↗
USGS2012

Wet deposition of fission-product isotopes to North America from the Fukushima Dai-ichi incident, March 2011

Using the infrastructure of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP), numerous measurements of radionuclide wet deposition over North America were made for 167 NADP sites before and after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station incident of March 12, 2011. For the period from March 8 through April 5, 2011, wet-only precipitation samples were collected by NADP and analyzed for fission-product isotopes within whole-water and filterable solid samples by the United States Geological Survey using gamma spectrometry. Variable amounts of 131 I, 134 Cs, or 137 Cs were measured at approximately 21% of sampled NADP sites distributed widely across the contiguous United States and Alaska. Calculated 1- to 2-week individual radionuclide deposition fluxes ranged from 0.47 to 5100 Becquerels per square meter during the sampling period. Wet deposition activity was small compared to measured activity already present in U.S. soil. NADP networks responded to this complex disaster, and provided scientifically valid measurements that are comparable and complementary to other networks in North America and Europe.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2010

EAARL coastal topography-western Florida, post-Hurricane Charley, 2004: seamless (bare earth and submerged.

Project Description These remotely sensed, geographically referenced elevation measurements of lidar-derived seamless (bare-earth and submerged) topography were produced as a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Coastal and Marine Geology Program (CMGP), St. Petersburg, FL, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Wallops Flight Facility, VA. This project provides highly detailed and accurate datasets of a portion of the western Florida coastline beachface, acquired post-Hurricane Charley on August 17 and 18, 2004. The datasets are made available for use as a management tool to research scientists and natural-resource managers. An innovative airborne lidar instrument originally developed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, and known as the Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL), was used during data acquisition. The EAARL system is a raster-scanning, waveform-resolving, green-wavelength (532-nanometer) lidar designed to map near-shore bathymetry, topography, and vegetation structure simultaneously. The EAARL sensor suite includes the raster-scanning, water-penetrating full-waveform adaptive lidar, a down-looking red-green-blue (RGB) digital camera, a high-resolution multispectral color infrared (CIR) camera, two precision dual-frequency kinematic carrier-phase GPS receivers, and an integrated miniature digital inertial measurement unit, which provide for sub-meter georeferencing of each laser sample. The nominal EAARL platform is a twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft, but the instrument may be deployed on a range of light aircraft. A single pilot, a lidar operator, and a data analyst constitute the crew for most survey operations. This sensor has the potential to make significant contributions in measuring sub-aerial and submarine coastal topography within cross-environmental surveys. Elevation measurements were collected over the survey area using the EAARL system, and the resulting data were then processed using the Airborne Lidar Processing System (ALPS), a custom-built processing system developed in a NASA-USGS collaboration. ALPS supports the exploration and processing of lidar data in an interactive or batch mode. Modules for presurvey flight-line definition, flight-path plotting, lidar raster and waveform investigation, and digital camera image playback have been developed. Processing algorithms have been developed to extract the range to the first and last significant return within each waveform. ALPS is used routinely to create maps that represent submerged or sub-aerial topography. Specialized filtering algorithms have been implemented to determine the 'bare earth' under vegetation. For more information about similar projects, please visit the Decision Support for Coastal Science and Management website. Selected References Brock, J.C., Wright, C.W., Sallenger, A.H., Krabill, W.B., and Swift, R.N., 2002, Basis and methods of NASA airborne topographic mapper Lidar surveys for coastal studies: Journal of Coastal Research, v. 18, no. 1, p. 1-13. Crane, Michael, Clayton, Tonya, Raabe, Ellen, Stoker, Jason, Handley, Larry, Bawden, Gerald, Morgan, Karen, and Queija, Vivian, 2004, Report of the U.S. Geological Survey Lidar workshop sponsored by the Land Remote Sensing Program and held in St. Petersburg, FL, November 2002: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2004-1456, 72 p. Nayegandhi, Amar, Brock, J.C., and Wright, C.W., 2009, Small-footprint, waveform-resolving Lidar estimation of submerged and sub-canopy topography in coastal environments: International Journal of Remote Sensing, v. 30, no. 4, p. 861-878. Sallenger, A.H., Wright, C.W., and Lillycrop, Jeff, 2005, Coastal impacts of the 2004 hurricanes measured with airborne Lidar; initial results: Shore and Beach, v. 73, nos. 2-3, p. 10-14. Resources Included Readme.txt File

Data Series↗