Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Natural Hazards and Earth System 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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2016

The value of earth observations: methods and findings on the value of Landsat imagery

Data from Earth observation systems are used extensively in managing and monitoring natural resources, natural hazards, and the impacts of climate change, but the value of such data can be difficult to estimate, particularly when it is available at no cost. Assessing the socioeconomic and scientific value of these data provides a better understanding of the existing and emerging research, science, and applications related to this information and contributes to the decision making process regarding current and future Earth observation systems. Recent USGS research on Landsat data has advanced the literature in this area by using a variety of methods to estimate value. The results of a 2012 survey of Landsat users, a 2013 requirements assessment, and 2013 case studies of applications of Landsat imagery are discussed.

Book chapter↗
USGS2021

Capacity assessment for Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) and future integrated monitoring and predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Managers of our Nation’s resources face unprecedented challenges driven by the convergence of increasing, competing societal demands and a changing climate that affects the stability, vulnerability, and predictability of those resources. To help meet these challenges, the scientific community must take advantage of all available technologies, data, and integrative Earth systems modeling capacity to better inform resource and risk management decisions. This is the overarching goal of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision: “By 2030, the USGS will deliver well integrated observations and predictions of the future state of natural systems—water, ecosystems, energy, minerals, hazards—at regional and national scales, working primarily with federal, state, and academic partners to develop and operate the capability” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). Providing more integrated Earth systems science and actionable information to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public requires a better understanding of the depth and distribution of existing capacity (capabilities, tools, and techniques) across the Bureau. Identifying existing capacity is also a critical first step toward gap analysis and targeted investments to increase capacity over time. The USGS formed a Capacity Assessment Team (CAT) and charged it with (1) conducting a Request for Information (RFI) to identify existing USGS expertise and activities supportive of integrated and predictive science to inform decision making, (2) developing a strategy and proof-of-concept for a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, and (3) identifying lessons learned to inform development of best practices for future capacity assessment efforts. The RFI took the form of a survey, with content guided by the science and technology needs identified in a USGS report titled “Grand Challenges for Integrated U.S. Geological Survey Science—A Workshop Report” (Jenni and others, 2017). The 44-question survey provided respondents the ability to rate their level of experience with a suite of priority disciplines, analysis and modeling approaches, technologies, and stakeholder engagement strategies and to enter optional narrative text for supporting context. An introductory portion focused on general science capacity assessment, followed by three sections targeting capabilities related to the foundational components of EarthMAP: (1) data and information integration, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information. The survey results provided a high-level snapshot of USGS capacity in the targeted areas. Respondents (1,035 individuals) represented approximately 13 percent of the USGS across all mission areas and regions. Seventy-four percent of the respondents held a science-focused position title and the remainder had position titles in information technology, computer science, management, administrative, or other (contractors, volunteers, emeritus, and unknown). To provide greater insight into respondent capabilities and activities, information from the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS enterprise information systems were used to further characterize topical expertise and organizational associations of survey respondents. To address the ongoing need to assess the Bureau’s capacity to address integrated predictive science priorities, the CAT developed a software-based proof-of-concept called the Integrated Science Assessment Information Database (iSAID) for assembling various information sources together toward making the full extent of USGS capabilities and scientific assets available for routine capacity assessment. This proof-of-concept is intended to serve as a catalyst for further development. The process of implementing the EarthMAP capacity assessment survey, analyzing survey responses, and developing the proof-of-concept resulted in lessons learned, findings, and recommendations. Example scenarios throughout the report demonstrate how capacity assessment data can inform science planning. Three overarching findings and recommendations are: (1) Finding: Capacity is limited in some critical disciplines, skills, and technology applications, but “sufficient” depends on the question and the need relative to availability at a given point in time. Recommendation: Develop an on-demand capacity assessment framework that enables rapid identification and evaluation of existing and available expertise to support decision needs as they arise. (2) Finding: Institutional barriers and lack of awareness constrain the ability of USGS staff to adopt new technologies, collaborate across administrative boundaries, and deliver actionable information to stakeholders in a timely manner. However, these barriers are not universally experienced. Recommendation: Pursue more targeted inquiries to clarify which institutional barriers are obstructing the adoption of new technologies and approaches or the sharing of expertise and equipment across organizational and regional boundaries. These inquiries should inform USGS leadership, mission areas, and regions whether policies can be revised or whether a lack of understanding is creating perceived obstacles. Highlight cases when staff have successfully adopted new technologies and approaches to advance EarthMAP priorities and provide actionable information in a timely manner to spread awareness of how perceived obstacles can be navigated and overcome when appropriate. (3) Finding: Examples of people and projects integrating across disciplines and scales and applying advanced approaches to meet complex stakeholder needs exist. Such examples provide transfer value across the spectrum from approach to decision making. Many projects, already underway, appear to meet elements of the EarthMAP vision, and the USGS has people who can provide leadership in multiple types of specific integrated science efforts. Recommendation: Use these findings as a starting point for near-term strategic planning for integrated science. Highlight, incentivize, and build on existing interdisciplinary predictive science and information delivery activities across the USGS to advance toward further realization of an EarthMAP capacity. The CAT efforts to develop and assess existing USGS capacity to advance the EarthMAP vision revealed a fundamental challenge for not only this effort but any effort to assess existing capacity: A considerable amount of thought, time, and effort is required to survey and assess capabilities and tools available to support a given need, yet best results are still likely to provide an incomplete assessment. To better meet the frequent need to assess capabilities, tools, products, and projects that address an expressed strategic priority, the CAT proposes the concept of an on-demand capacity assessment framework supported by a software package that dynamically pulls and integrates information from existing USGS information systems and public domain registries. Although existing USGS enterprise information systems currently lack the structure, cross-system consistency, interoperability, and stability to support a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, we identify reasonable near-term steps to improve the utility of information gathered on expertise and project capacity and to improve the consistency and completeness of information and the ability of USGS systems to share that information. The ability to search and characterize this information will make future assessments of capacity faster, more complete, more efficient, and more targeted. This approach would grow the Bureau’s capacity knowledge over time, iteratively improving the ability to access, leverage, and synthesize existing capabilities and assets as well as identify and fill critical gaps. The greatest promise for developing integrated science could lie in linking across existing projects and expertise to create a multi-project capacity for addressing large, complex environmental issues.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

USGS Science: Addressing Our Nation's Challenges

With 6.6 billion people already living on Earth, and that number increasing every day, human influence on our planet is ever more apparent. Changes to the natural world combined with increasing human demands threaten our health and safety, our national security, our economy, and our quality of life. As a planet and a Nation, we face unprecedented challenges: loss of critical and unique ecosystems, the effects of climate change, increasing demand for limited energy and mineral resources, increasing vulnerability to natural hazards, the effects of emerging diseases on wildlife and human health, and growing needs for clean water. The time to respond to these challenges is now, but policymakers and decisionmakers face difficult choices. With competing priorities to balance, and potentially serious - perhaps irreversible - consequences at stake, our leaders need reliable scientific information to guide their decisions. As the Nation's earth and natural science agency, the USGS monitors and conducts scientific research on natural hazards and resources and how these elements and human activities influence our environment. Because the challenges we face are complex, the science needed to better understand and deal with these challenges must reflect the complex interplay among natural and human systems. With world-class expertise in biology, geology, geography, hydrology, geospatial information, and remote sensing, the USGS is uniquely capable of conducting the comprehensive scientific research needed to better understand the interdependent interactions of Earth's systems. Every day, the USGS helps decisionmakers to minimize loss of life and property, manage our natural resources, and protect and enhance our quality of life. This brochure provides examples of the challenges we face and how USGS science helps decisionmakers to address these challenges.

General Information Product↗
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↗
USGS2006

USGS science in Menlo Park -- a science strategy for the U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Science Center, 2005-2015

In the spring of 2004, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Menlo Park Center Council commissioned an interdisciplinary working group to develop a forward-looking science strategy for the USGS Menlo Park Science Center in California (hereafter also referred to as "the Center"). The Center has been the flagship research center for the USGS in the western United States for more than 50 years, and the Council recognizes that science priorities must be the primary consideration guiding critical decisions made about the future evolution of the Center. In developing this strategy, the working group consulted widely within the USGS and with external clients and collaborators, so that most stakeholders had an opportunity to influence the science goals and operational objectives. The Science Goals are to: Natural Hazards: Conduct natural-hazard research and assessments critical to effective mitigation planning, short-term forecasting, and event response. Ecosystem Change: Develop a predictive understanding of ecosystem change that advances ecosystem restoration and adaptive management. Natural Resources: Advance the understanding of natural resources in a geologic, hydrologic, economic, environmental, and global context. Modeling Earth System Processes: Increase and improve capabilities for quantitative simulation, prediction, and assessment of Earth system processes. The strategy presents seven key Operational Objectives with specific actions to achieve the scientific goals. These Operational Objectives are to: Provide a hub for technology, laboratories, and library services to support science in the Western Region. Increase advanced computing capabilities and promote sharing of these resources. Enhance the intellectual diversity, vibrancy, and capacity of the work force through improved recruitment and retention. Strengthen client and collaborative relationships in the community at an institutional level. Expand monitoring capability by increasing density, sensitivity, and efficiency and reducing costs of instruments and networks. Encourage a breadth of scientific capabilities in Menlo Park to foster interdisciplinary science. Communicate USGS science to a diverse audience.

Circular↗
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↗
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↗
USGS2023

John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis Newsletter, volume 7, issue 1

The John Wesley Powell Center for Synthesis & Analysis is a USGS initiative that aims to foster innovative thinking in Earth system science through collaborative analysis and synthesis of existing data and information. The Powell Center supports working groups that address some of the most pressing and complex questions facing society, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, natural hazards, and human-environment interactions. In this newsletter, we highlight some of the recent activities of the Powell Center and its working groups.

John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthes↗
USGS2012

Methods of practice and guidelines for using survey-grade global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to establish vertical datum in the United States Geological Survey

Geodetic surveys have evolved through the years to the use of survey-grade (centimeter level) global positioning to perpetuate and post-process vertical datum. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) technology to monitor natural hazards, ensure geospatial control for climate and land use change, and gather data necessary for investigative studies related to water, the environment, energy, and ecosystems. Vertical datum is fundamental to a variety of these integrated earth sciences. Essentially GNSS surveys provide a three-dimensional position x, y, and z as a function of the North American Datum of 1983 ellipsoid and the most current hybrid geoid model. A GNSS survey may be approached with post-processed positioning for static observations related to a single point or network, or involve real-time corrections to provide positioning "on-the-fly." Field equipment required to facilitate GNSS surveys range from a single receiver, with a power source for static positioning, to an additional receiver or network communicated by radio or cellular for real-time positioning. A real-time approach in its most common form may be described as a roving receiver augmented by a single-base station receiver, known as a single-base real-time (RT) survey. More efficient real-time methods involving a Real-Time Network (RTN) permit the use of only one roving receiver that is augmented to a network of fixed receivers commonly known as Continually Operating Reference Stations (CORS). A post-processed approach in its most common form involves static data collection at a single point. Data are most commonly post-processed through a universally accepted utility maintained by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), known as the Online Position User Service (OPUS). More complex post-processed methods involve static observations among a network of additional receivers collecting static data at known benchmarks. Both classifications provide users flexibility regarding efficiency and quality of data collection. Quality assurance of survey-grade global positioning is often overlooked or not understood and perceived uncertainties can be misleading. GNSS users can benefit from a blueprint of data collection standards used to ensure consistency among USGS mission areas. A classification of GNSS survey qualities provide the user with the ability to choose from the highest quality survey used to establish objective points with low uncertainties, identified as a Level I, to a GNSS survey for general topographic control without quality assurance, identified as a Level IV. A Level I survey is strictly limited to post-processed methods, whereas Level II, Level III, and Level IV surveys integrate variations of a RT approach. Among these classifications, techniques involving blunder checks and redundancy are important, and planning that involves the assessment of the overall satellite configuration, as well as terrestrial and space weather, are necessary to ensure an efficient and quality campaign. Although quality indicators and uncertainties are identified in post-processed methods using CORS, the accuracy of a GNSS survey is most effectively expressed as a comparison to a local benchmark that has a high degree of confidence. Real-time and post-processed methods should incorporate these "trusted" benchmarks as a check during any campaign. Global positioning surveys are expected to change rapidly in the future. The expansion of continuously operating reference stations, combined with newly available satellite signals, and enhancements to the conterminous geoid, are all sufficient indicators for substantial growth in real-time positioning and quality thereof.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2010

Land-Use Portfolio Modeler, Version 1.0

Natural hazards pose significant threats to the public safety and economic health of many communities throughout the world. Community leaders and decision-makers continually face the challenges of planning and allocating limited resources to invest in protecting their communities against catastrophic losses from natural-hazard events. Public efforts to assess community vulnerability and encourage loss-reduction measures through mitigation often focused on either aggregating site-specific estimates or adopting standards based upon broad assumptions about regional risks. The site-specific method usually provided the most accurate estimates, but was prohibitively expensive, whereas regional risk assessments were often too general to be of practical use. Policy makers lacked a systematic and quantitative method for conducting a regional-scale risk assessment of natural hazards. In response, Bernknopf and others developed the portfolio model, an intermediate-scale approach to assessing natural-hazard risks and mitigation policy alternatives. The basis for the portfolio-model approach was inspired by financial portfolio theory, which prescribes a method of optimizing return on investment while reducing risk by diversifying investments in different security types. In this context, a security type represents a unique combination of features and hazard-risk level, while financial return is defined as the reduction in losses resulting from an investment in mitigation of chosen securities. Features are selected for mitigation and are modeled like investment portfolios. Earth-science and economic data for the features are combined and processed in order to analyze each of the portfolios, which are then used to evaluate the benefits of mitigating the risk in selected locations. Ultimately, the decision maker seeks to choose a portfolio representing a mitigation policy that maximizes the expected return-on-investment, while minimizing the uncertainty associated with that return-on-investment. The portfolio model, now known as the Land-Use Portfolio Model (LUPM), provided the framework for the development of the Land-Use Portfolio Modeler, Version 1.0 software (LUPM v1.0). The software provides a geographic information system (GIS)-based modeling tool for evaluating alternative risk-reduction mitigation strategies for specific natural-hazard events. The modeler uses information about a specific natural-hazard event and the features exposed to that event within the targeted study region to derive a measure of a given mitigation strategy`s effectiveness. Harnessing the spatial capabilities of a GIS enables the tool to provide a rich, interactive mapping environment in which users can create, analyze, visualize, and compare different

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2005

ASTER and USGS EROS disaster response: emergency imaging after Hurricane Katrina

The value of remotely sensed imagery during times of crisis is well established, and the increasing spatial and spectral resolution in newer systems provides ever greater utility and ability to discriminate features of interest (International Charter, Space and Major Disasters, 2005). The existing suite of sensors provides an abundance of data, and enables warning alerts to be broadcast for many situations in advance. In addition, imagery acquired soon after an event occurs can be used to assist response and remediation teams in identifying the extent of the affected area and the degree of damage. The data characteristics of the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Refl ection Radiometer (ASTER) are well-suited for monitoring natural hazards and providing local and regional views after disaster strikes. For this reason, and because of the system fl exibility in scheduling high-priority observations, ASTER is often tasked to support emergency situations. The Emergency Response coordinators at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) work closely with staff at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (LP DAAC) at EROS and the ASTER Science Team as they fulfi ll their mission to acquire and distribute data during critical situations. This article summarizes the role of the USGS/EROS Emergency Response coordinators, and provides further discussion of ASTER data and the images portrayed on the cover of this issue

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗
USGS2017

From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives.

Earth's Future↗
USGS2010

Gas transport in unsaturated porous media: The adequacy of Fick's law

The increasing use of natural unsaturated zones as repositories for landfills and disposal sites for hazardous wastes (chemical and radioactive) requires a greater understanding of transport processes in the unsaturated zone. For volatile constituents an important potential transport mechanism is gaseous diffusion. Diffusion, however, cannot be treated as an independent isolated transport mechanism. A complete understanding of multicomponent gas transport in porous media (unsaturated zones) requires a knowledge of Knudsen transport, the molecular and nonequimolar components of diffusive flux, and viscous (pressure driven) flux. The constitutive equations relating these flux components are available from the “dusty gas” model of Mason et al. (1967). This review presents a brief discussion of the underlying principles and interrelationships among each of the above flux mechanisms. Some aspects of these transport mechanisms are, to our knowledge, generally unrecognized in the Earth science literature. The principles underlying the transport mechanisms are illustrated with binary systems; the constitutive equations are then cast in forms thought to be most useful for the study of natural unsaturated zones. The viscous and diffusive fluxes are coupled in the constitutive equations through the Knudsen diffusivities; a knowledge of Knudsen diffusivities is necessary to calculate the viscous component of flux and pressure gradients. The Knudsen diffusivities can be calculated from measurements of the Klinkenberg effect. Two examples are presented showing that in natural systems, very small pressure gradients (1 Pa/m or less) can produce viscous fluxes greater than or equal to diffusive fluxes and that, conversely, pressure gradients of this magnitude can be generated by diffusive processes. The example calculations show that major concentration gradients can be developed for stagnant (zero flux, nonreactive) gases. A method is presented for approximating the viscous and diffusive flux components of gases in a multicomponent system from a knowledge of the concentration profiles of stagnant gases. In subsoil environments, argon and nitrogen are considered to be stagnant gases. Fick's laws are essentially, by definition, inadequate to deal with stagnant gases. In the examples presented, the error associated with estimating the total fluxes of nonstagnant gases by Fick's law, relative to stationary coordinates, ranges from a few percent to orders of magnitude.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS1993

Summary of water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas– Fiscal years 1989-92

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct the systematic and scientific classification of the public lands and to examine the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of national domain. An integral part of that original mission includes publishing and disseminating the earth science information needed to understand, to plan the use of, and to manage the Nation's energy, land, mineral, and water resources. Since 1879, the research and fact-finding role of the USGS has grown and been modified to meet the changing needs of the Nation it serves. As part of that evolution, the USGS has become the Federal Government's largest earth-science research agency, the Nation's largest civilian mapmaking agency, the primary source of data on the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources, and the employer of the largest number of professional earth scientists. Today's (1992) programs serve a diversity of needs and users. Conducting detailed assessments of the energy and mineral potential of the Nation's land and offshore areas. Investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards. Conducting research on the geologic structure of the Nation. Studying the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of the other planets of our solar system. Conducting topographic surveys of the Nation and preparing topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic products. Developing and producing digital cartographic data bases and products. Collecting data on a routine basis to determine the quantity, quality, and use of surface and ground water. Conducting water-resources appraisals in order to describe the consequences of alternative plans for developing land and water resources. Conducting research in hydraulics and hydrology and coordinating all Federal water-data acquisition. Using remotely sensed data to develop new cartographic, geologic, and hydrologic research techniques for natural resources planning and management. Providing earth-science information through an extensive publications program and a network of public access points. Along with its continuing commitment to meet the growing and changing earth-science information needs of the Nation, the USGS remains dedicated to its original mission to collect, analyze, interpret, publish, and disseminate information about the natural resources of the Nation-providing "earth science in the public service."

Texas↗
USGS1985

Water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas; fiscal years 1982-84

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct the systematic and scientific classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of national domain. An integral part of that original mission includes publishing and disseminating the earth-science information needed to understand, to plan the use of, and to manage the Nation's energy, land, mineral, and water resources. Since 1879, the research and fact-finding role of the USGS has grown and been modified to meet the changing needs of the Nation it serves. As part of that evolution, the USGS has become the Federal Government's largest earth-science research agency, the Nation's largest civilian mapmaking agency, the primary source of data on the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources, and the employer of the largest number of professional earth scientists. Today's programs serve a diversity of needs and users. Programs include: Conducting detailed assessments of the energy and mineral potential of the Nation's land and offshore areas. Investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards. Conducting research on the geologic structure of the Nation. Studying the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of the other planets of our solar system. Conducting topographic surveys of the Nation and preparing topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic products. Developing and producing digital cartographic data bases and products. Collecting data on a routine basis to determine the quantity, quality, and use of surface and ground water. Conducting water-resources appraisals in order to describe the consequences of alternative plans for developing land and water resources. Conducting research in hydraulics and hydrology and coordinating all Federal water-data acquisition. Using remotely sensed data to develop new cartographic, geologic, and hydrologic research techniques for natural resources planning and management. Providing earth-science information through an extensive publications program and a network of public access points. Along with its continuing commitment to meet the growing and changing earthscience information needs of the Nation, the USGS remains dedicated to its original mission to collect, analyze, interpret, publish, and disseminate information about the natural resources of the Nation providing "earth science in the public service."

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

A portfolio approach to evaluating natural hazard mitigation policies: An application to lateral-spread ground failure in coastal California

In the past, efforts to prevent catastrophic losses from natural hazards have largely been undertaken by individual property owners based on site—specific evaluations of risks to particular buildings. Public efforts to assess community vulnerability and encourage mitigation have focused on either aggregating site—specific estimates or adopting standards based upon broad assumptions about regional risks. This paper develops an alternative, intermediate—scale approach to regional risk assessment and the evaluation of community mitigation policies. Properties are grouped into types with similar land uses and levels of hazard, and hypothetical community mitigation strategies for protecting these properties are modeled like investment portfolios. The portfolios consist of investments in mitigation against the risk to a community posed by a specific natural hazard. and are defined by a community's mitigation budget and the proportion of the budget invested in locations of each type. The usefulness of this approach is demonstrated through an integrated assessment of earthquake—induced lateral—spread ground failure risk in the Watsonville, California area. Data from the magnitude 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 are used to model lateral—spread ground failure susceptibility. Earth science and economic data are combined and analyzed in a Geographic Information System (CIS). The portfolio model is then used to evaluate the benefits of mitigating the risk in different locations. Two mitigation policies, one that prioritizes mitigation by land use type and the other by hazard zone, are compared with a status quo policy of doing no further mitigation beyond that which already exists. The portfolio representing the hazard zone rule yields a higher expected return than the land use portfolio does; however, the hazard zone portfolio experiences a higher standard deviation. Therefore, neither portfolio is clearly preferred. The two mitigation policies both reduce expected losses and increase overall expected community wealth compared to the status quo policy.

California↗
USGS2021

Implementation plan for the southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces

Introduction The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) is publishing a strategic plan titled Renewing the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program as the Nation’s Authoritative Source for Modern Geologic Knowledge (Brock and others, in press). The plan provides a vision, mission, and goals for the program during the years 2020–2030, which are: Vision .—Create an integrated, three-dimensional, digital geologic map of the United States. Mission .—Characterize, interpret, and disseminate a national geologic framework model of the Earth through geologic mapping. Goal .—Focus on geologic mapping as a core function of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the long-term vision of adequately mapping the Nation’s geologic framework in three dimensions. In order to achieve the goals outlined in the strategic plan, the NCGMP has developed an implementation plan. This plan will guide the annual review of projects carried out by USGS staff (FEDMAP) described in the plan and the development of the annual FEDMAP prospectus that will ensure the effective application of the NCGMP strategy. This publication describes the implementation plan of the NCGMP strategy for the southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces, as defined by Fenneman (1917, 1928, and 1946). This implementation plan focuses on the geology of California and a sliver of Nevada surrounding Lake Tahoe. The southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces encompass the varied landscapes of the high Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley, and Coast Ranges in northern and central California and the Peninsular Ranges, Continental Borderland, Los Angeles Basin-San Gabriel-San Bernardino valleys, western and central Transverse Ranges, and northernmost Salton Trough in southern California. Societal demands create a need for earth-science data in each of these landscapes. The broader San Francisco Bay area, Central Valley, Los Angeles-San Gabriel-San Bernardino lowlands, and the coastal lowlands that border the Peninsular Ranges are densely populated (about 30 million people) areas at high risk of natural hazards. The mountains of the Sierra Nevada, Peninsular Ranges, and Transverse Ranges, and the coast all provide numerous recreational opportunities that attract visitors from around the world, whereas previously these ranges attracted people to mine their resources. The agricultural capacity of the Central Valley is a critical resource for the Nation that is increasingly water limited. The southern. Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces, at the edge of the North American continent, were profoundly influenced by subduction zone tectonics during the Mesozoic and early Cenozoic (ongoing in northernmost California) and subsequently by the inception, development, and present activity of the San Andreas transform margin system. Although the geology of this region is the poster child of fundamental conceptual models of subduction zone complexes, forearc basins, ophiolite obductions, magmatic arcs, and suspect terranes, as well as hosting one of Earth’s most notorious continental transform faults—the San Andreas Fault—important questions that have important societal consequences remain to be answered. Most of California’s population reside in these provinces and live within 30 miles of an active fault (according to www.earthquakeauthority.com ) yet new faults continue to be discovered, highlighting the importance of deformation off the main San Andreas Fault. Bedrock, surficial, and three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps depicting stratigraphic structure and depth to crystalline basement rocks provide critical context and information for understanding fault rupture, distributed deformation, fault connectivity, and history in addition to providing crucial data that enable forecasting of shaking amplitude and length from hypothetical earthquake scenarios. The tectonic evolution of California produced not only stunning mountains, with associated hazards from landslides and active volcanoes, but also fertile valleys that make California the top agricultural producer in the country in terms of cash receipts (according to www.ers.usda.gov/faqs ). These valleys lie atop large basins that not only store groundwater but, in many cases, host oil and gas fields, contributing to the fourth highest hydrocarbon production by State in the country in 2016 (according to https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/animated-chart-of-us-oil-production-by-state-1981-2017 ). Water is a key resource increasingly stressed by growing agricultural, industrial, and residential needs. Warmer and drier conditions have led to an increased reliance on extracting groundwater resources, whose availability and quality are dictated at the first order by the 3D spatial distribution of bedrock and Quaternary surficial deposits. Thus, assessment of this critical resource is inextricably tied to knowledge of the surficial and subsurface geologic structure and material types.

California, Nevada↗