SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Scientific and Technical Review”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2025

Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to advance Chesapeake Bay research and management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities

The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (hereafter “Chesapeake Bay region”) have been the focus of extensive restoration efforts for several decades. These restoration efforts are guided by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2014) which outlines 10 goals and 31 measurable outcomes. The Chesapeake Bay is globally recognized as a model for coastal restoration due to long-term investments in monitoring, modeling, implementation and research by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership. These monitoring network spans tidal and non-tidal regions and provides data across multiple scales. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine-learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing large, complex datasets. These techniques have gained widespread adoption across various disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, and environmental science. In the Bay context, AI/ML is increasingly being used to explore drivers of environmental change, analyze system dynamics, and predict conditions in areas with limited monitoring. The CBP partnership, particularly its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), has increasingly recognized the growing role of AI/ML in watershed and estuarine management. Recent Chesapeake Community Research Symposium sessions and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Global Collaboratory highlight increasing regional momentum to apply big data and AI/ML for environmental solutions. Together, these developments underscore the timely need to explore how AI/ML can help advance Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. This STAC workshop, titled “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to Advance Chesapeake Bay Research and Management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities,” was held from February 24-25, 2025, in Edgewater, Maryland to bring together over 50 federal, state, and academic scientists and partners to synthesize the current state of AI/ML applications and identify research gaps in Chesapeake Bay research and management. The workshop focused on three main objectives: 1. Summarize recent AI/ML applications and lessons learned in both tidal and nontidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay region. 2. Identify challenges and gaps in applying AI/ML approaches to Chesapeake Bay data. Such challenges and gaps may include data limitations, harmonization issues, ineffective communication of AI/ML insights, and a lack of coordination among research and management institutions. 3. Develop recommendations and identify opportunities for leveraging AI/ML to address issues across the Chesapeake Bay region. Key areas of focus may include generating new information to support watershed management, delivering AI/MLgenerated insights to managers in a clear and actionable way, and fostering greater collaboration among stakeholders within the CBP Partnership. Workshop participants engaged in science presentations and breakout sessions to develop recommendations for advancing the integration of AI/ML techniques into research and management across the Chesapeake Bay region. By synthesizing current applications, identifying challenges, and exploring new opportunities, the workshop has provided valuable insights and recommendations for better leveraging AI/ML approaches to support the success of Bay restoration efforts. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for enhancing data-driven, science-based decision making aligned with the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗

USGS2012

National climate assessment technical report on the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change

This technical report responds to the recognition by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the National Climate Assessment (NCA) of the importance of understanding how land use and land cover (LULC) affects weather and climate variability and change and how that variability and change affects LULC. Current published, peer-reviewed, scientific literature and supporting data from both existing and original sources forms the basis for this report's assessment of the current state of knowledge regarding land change and climate interactions. The synthesis presented herein documents how current and future land change may alter environment processes and in turn, how those conditions may affect both land cover and land use by specifically investigating, * The primary contemporary trends in land use and land cover, * The land-use and land-cover sectors and regions which are most affected by weather and climate variability,* How land-use practices are adapting to climate change, * How land-use and land-cover patterns and conditions are affecting weather and climate, and * The key elements of an ongoing Land Resources assessment. These findings present information that can be used to better assess land change and climate interactions in order to better assess land management and adaptation strategies for future environmental change and to assist in the development of a framework for an ongoing national assessment.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1966

Geological Survey Research 1966, Chapter A

'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh annual review of the econamic and scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey. As in previous years the purpose of the volume is to make available promptly to the public the highlights of Survey investigations. This year the volume consists of 4 chapters (A through D) of Professional Paper 550. Chapter A contains a summary of significant results, and the remaining chapters are made up of collections of short technical papers. Many of the results summarized in chapter A are discussed in greater detail in the short papers or in reports listed in 'Publications in Fiscal Year 1966,' beginning on page A265. The tables of contents for chapters B through D are listed on pages A259-A264. Numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies listed on pages A211-A215 cooperated financially with the Geological Survey during fiscal 1966 and have contributed significantly to the results reported here. They are identified where appropriate in the short technical papers that have appeared in Geological Survey Research and in papers published cooperatively, but generally are not identified in the brief statements in chapter A. Many individuals on the staff of the Geological Survey have contributed to 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' Reference is made to only a few. Frank W. Trainer, Water Resources Division, was responsible for organizing and assembling chapter A and for critical review of papers in chapters B-D, assisted by Louis Pavlides, Geologic Division. Marston S. Chase, Publications Division, was in charge of production aspects of the series, assisted by Jesse R. Upperco in technical editing, and William H. Elliott and James R. Hamilton in planning and preparing illustrations. The volume for next year, 'Geological Survey Research 1967,' will be published as chapters af Professional Paper 5715. Previous volumes are listed below, with their series designations. Gealagical Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Gealagical Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Gealagical Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Gealagical Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Gealagical Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Gealagical Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗

USGS2000

Environmental Contaminants and Terrestrial Vertebrates: Effects on Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems

The desire of resource managers, risk assessors, and the general public to better understand the consequences of environmental contamination has produced a strong and growing need for information on the effects of contaminants on populations and groups of species, and over moderate to large areas of land or water. However, the problems associated with research involving populations and groups of species or large and complex geographic areas, especially in terrestrial environments, are well known within the scientific community. With the previous thoughts in mind, an interactive symposium was held at the University of Maryland in October 1998. The purpose of the symposium was to review and critically evaluate our understanding of the effects of contaminants on terrestrial vertebrates at levels of organization above that of the individual. Invited background and technical presentations provided a common baseline of information for symposium participants. Discussion groups were then asked to critically evaluate the topics of two technical sessions. Several presentations of recent or ongoing research provided participants with examples of current approaches to assessments of the effects of contaminants on terrestrial vertebrates at the population or higher level of organization. The book consists of 10 chapters written by presenters at the symposium and three chapters conveying the reports of discussion group.

SETAC Special Publications Series.↗

USGS2017

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Summary of the analyses for recovery factors

Introduction In order to determine the hydrocarbon potential of oil reservoirs within the U.S. sedimentary basins for which the carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery (CO 2- EOR) process has been considered suitable, the CO 2 Prophet model was chosen by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to be the primary source for estimating recovery-factor values for individual reservoirs. The choice was made because of the model’s reliability and the ease with which it can be used to assess a large number of reservoirs. The other two approaches—the empirical decline curve analysis (DCA) method and a review of published literature on CO 2 -EOR projects—were deployed to verify the results of the CO 2 Prophet model. This chapter discusses the results from CO 2 Prophet (chapter B, by Emil D. Attanasi, this report) and compares them with results from decline curve analysis (chapter C, by Hossein Jahediesfanjani) and those reported in the literature for selected reservoirs with adequate data for analyses (chapter D, by Ricardo A. Olea). To estimate the technically recoverable hydrocarbon potential for oil reservoirs where CO 2 -EOR has been applied, two of the three approaches—CO 2 Prophet modeling and DCA—do not include analysis of economic factors, while the third approach—review of published literature—implicitly includes economics. For selected reservoirs, DCA has provided estimates of the technically recoverable hydrocarbon volumes, which, in combination with calculated amounts of original oil in place (OOIP), helped establish incremental CO 2 -EOR recovery factors for individual reservoirs. The review of published technical papers and reports has provided substantial information on recovery factors for 70 CO 2 -EOR projects that are either commercially profitable or classified as pilot tests. When comparing the results, it is important to bear in mind the differences and limitations of these three approaches.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2014

Guidelines for use of fishes in research: Revised and expanded

The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research (2014; 2014 Guidelines ), now available through the American fisheries Society (AFS) website and in print from the AFS bookstore, is a resource to aid researchers and regulatory authorities regarding responsible, scientifically valid research on fish and aquatic wildlife. The Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Field Research (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists [ASIH] et al. 1987, 1988) emphasized field research and was followed by the 2004 Guidelines including laboratory research topics. Each version of the Guidelines has been jointly endorsed and/or published by the ASIH, the American Institute of Fishery Research Biologists (AIFRB), and AFS--each focusing on the scientific understanding, global conservation, and sustainability of aquatic animals, fisheries, and ecosystems. Changes with time necessitate revisions to make the Guidelines consistent with contemporary practices and scientific literature so to remain relevant as a technical resource. This document provides not only general principles relevant for field and laboratory research endeavors but includes specific requirements for researchers working within the United States and outside of the country. Within the scope of their expertise, the 2014 Uses of Fishers in Research (UFR) Committee members updated and revised sections, resulting in a 90-page 2014 Guidelines having undergone through peer review. As before, topical areas were addressed (see Table of Contents on page 416). Expanded coverage was provided on U.S. and international agencies and programs relevant to research with fishes. The Surgical Procedures and the Marking and Tagging section received special focus by a UFR Subcommittee. Feeds and Feeding and the Administration of Drugs, Biologics and Other Chemicals are just some of the newly added topics. The 2014 Guidelines is user-friendly by way of hyperlinks to external Internet sites, intradocument sections, and tables of acronyms with corresponding terms, low regulatory priority drugs, and Office of International des Epizooties notifiable disease agents. Again, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) role is explained, expectations for research are provided, and a brief checklist for IACUC readiness is included. Overall, the ,i>2014 Guidelines is the taxon-specific resource for our professional societies and is a principal document for standards on the care and use of fish and aquatic vertebrates in research.

Fisheries↗

USGS2011

Proceedings of the Klamath Basin Science Conference, Medford, Oregon, February 1-5, 2010

This report presents the proceedings of the Klamath Basin Science Conference (February 2010). A primary purpose of the meeting was to inform and update Klamath Basin stakeholders about areas of scientific progress and accomplishment during the last 5 years. Secondary conference objectives focused on the identification of outstanding information needs and science priorities as they relate to whole watershed management, restoration ecology, and possible reintroduction of Pacific salmon associated with the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA). Information presented in plenary, technical, breakout, and poster sessions has been assembled into chapters that reflect the organization, major themes, and content of the conference. Chapter 1 reviews the major environmental issues and resource management and other stakeholder needs of the basin. Importantly, this assessment of information needs included the possibility of large-scale restoration projects in the future and lessons learned from a case study in South Florida. Other chapters (2-6) summarize information about key components of the Klamath Basin, support conceptual modeling of the aquatic ecosystem (Chapter 7), and synthesize our impressions of the most pressing science priorities for management and restoration. A wealth of information was presented at the conference and this has been captured in chapters addressing environmental setting and human development of the basin, hydrology, watershed processes, fishery resources, and potential effects from climate change. The final chapter (8) culminates in a discussion of many specific research priorities that relate to and bookend the broader management needs and restoration goals identified in Chapter 1. In many instances, the conferees emphasized long-term and process-oriented approaches to watershed science in the basin as planning moves forward.

California, Oregon↗

USGS1978

United States Geological Survey Yearbook, fiscal year 1977

Fiscal 1977 marked the 98th year the U.S. Geological Survey has endeavored in the unceasing task of providing information about the Earth and its physical resources, and regulating the activities of lessees engaged in extracting petroleum and other minerals from the public domain. The past year also marked the beginning of a third and challenging mission, drawing upon the Survey's scientific talents, to explore and assess the petroleum potential of a vast 37,000 square miles expanse of Alaska's North Slope known as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The first two missions require detailed and continuing investigations of the location, character, and extent of the Nation's land, water, mineral, and energy resources; a continuing National Topographic Mapping Program; the classification of Federal lands for mineral and waterpower potential; and a continuing program of technical review, safety inspection and royalty auditing of the operations of private parties engaged in mineral development on Federal lands to assure standards of safety, environmental protection, resource conservation, and a fair market return to the public for the development of their resources.

Yearbook↗

USGS2015

Biological and geochemical data along Indian Point, Vermilion Bay, Louisiana

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center collected shallow sediment cores and surface samples from a coastal salt marsh environment next to Vermilion Bay in southwest Louisiana in January 2013. The sampling was part of a larger USGS study to gather data for assessing environmental changes over the past 150 years. The objective of the study was to expand upon the historical context of sea level and storms affecting coastal systems and how these systems might change under persistent or varying conditions. The data from this report add to a regional environmental change database that aids with the continuing effort to understand the evolution of coastal systems. This report serves as an archive for sedimentological, radiochemical, and microbiological data derived from the sediment cores. Data are available for January 2013. Downloadable data are available as Excel spreadsheets and as JPEG files. Additional files include ArcGIS shapefiles of the sampling sites, detailed results of sediment analyses, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee metadata. Acknowledgments The authors thank Nancy DeWitt, B.J. Reynolds, Christopher Reich (USGS, St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center), for help with sample collection and processing; Michael Ball, Sarai Piazza, and Gregory Steyer (USGS, Coastal Restoration Assessment Branch) for assistance accessing CRMS Site 541; and Darrell Anders and Phillip Turnipseed (USGS National Wetlands Research Center) for technical support while in the field. We would also like to thank Caitlyn Reynolds and Nicholas Zaremba for their pre-release commentary and peer review. Information Statement This publication was prepared by an agency of the United States Government. Although these data were processed successfully on a computer system at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data on any other system, or for general or scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution imply any such warranty. The U.S. Geological Survey shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use of the data described and (or) contained herein. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency

Louisiana↗

USGS2017

Carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery performance according to the literature

Introduction The need to increase the efficiency of oil recovery and environmental concerns are bringing to prominence the use of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as a tertiary recovery agent. Assessment of the impact of flooding with CO 2 all eligible reservoirs in the United States not yet undergoing enhanced oil recovery (EOR) requires making the best possible use of the experience gained in 40 years of applications. Review of the publicly available literature has located relevant CO 2 -EOR information for 53 units (fields, reservoirs, pilot areas) in the United States and 17 abroad. As the world simultaneously faces an increasing concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere and a higher demand for fossil fuels, the CO 2 -EOR process continues to gain popularity for its efficiency as a tertiary recovery agent and for the potential for having some CO 2 trapped in the subsurface as an unintended consequence of the enhanced production (Advanced Resources International and Melzer Consulting, 2009). More extensive application of CO 2 -EOR worldwide, however, is not making it significantly easier to predict the exact outcome of the CO 2 flooding in new reservoirs. The standard approach to examine and manage risks is to analyze the intended target by conducting laboratory work, running simulation models, and, finally, gaining field experience with a pilot test. This approach, though, is not always possible. For example, assessment of the potential of CO 2 -EOR at the national level in a vast country such as the United States requires making forecasts based on information already available. Although many studies are proprietary, the published literature has provided reviews of CO 2 -EOR projects. Yet, there is always interest in updating reports and analyzing the information under new perspectives. Brock and Bryan (1989) described results obtained during the earlier days of CO 2 -EOR from 1972 to 1987. Most of the recovery predictions, however, were based on intended injections of 30 percent the size of the reservoir’s hydrocarbon pore volume (HCPV), and the predictions in most cases badly missed the actual recoveries because of the embryonic state of tertiary recovery in general and CO 2 flooding in particular at the time. Brock and Bryan (1989), for example, reported for the Weber Sandstone in the Rangely oil field in Colorado, an expected recovery of 7.5 percent of the original oil in place (OOIP) after injecting a volume of CO 2 equivalent to 30 percent of the HCPV, but Clark (2012) reported that after injecting a volume of CO 2 equivalent to 46 percent of the HCPV, the actual recovery was 4.8 percent of the OOIP. Decades later, the numbers by Brock and Bryan (1989) continue to be cited as part of expanded reviews, such as the one by Kuuskraa and Koperna (2006). Other comprehensive reviews including recovery factors are those of Christensen and others (2001) and Lake and Walsh (2008). The Oil and Gas Journal (O&GJ) periodically reports on active CO 2 -EOR operations worldwide, but those releases do not include recovery factors. The monograph by Jarrell and others (2002) remains the most technically comprehensive publication on CO 2 flooding, but it does not cover recovery factors either. This chapter is a review of the literature found in a search for information about CO 2 -EOR. It has been prepared as part of a project by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to assess the incremental oil production that would be technically feasible by CO 2 flooding of all suitable oil reservoirs in the country not yet undergoing tertiary recovery.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2021

Leveraging existing technology: Developing a trusted digital repository for the U.S. Geological Survey

As Federal Government agencies in the United States pivot to increase access to scientific data (Sheehan, 2016), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has made substantial progress (Kriesberg et al., 2017). USGS authors are required to make federally funded data publicly available in an approved data repository (USGS, 2016b). This type of public data product, known as a USGS data release, serves as a method for publishing reviewed and approved data. In this paper, we present major milestones in the approach the USGS took to transition an existing technology platform to a Trusted Digital Repository. We describe both the technical and the non-technical actions that contributed to a successful outcome.We highlight how initial workflows revealed patterns that were later automated, and the ways in which assessments and user feedback influenced design and implementation. The paper concludes with lessons learned, such as the importance of a community of practice, application programming interface (API)-driven technologies, iterative development, and user-centered design. This paper is intended to offer a potential roadmap for organizations pursuing similar goals.

International Journal of Digital Curation↗

USGS2019

Planetary geologic mapping—Program status and future needs

The United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Planetary Geologic Map Coordination Group (Flagstaff, Ariz.) surveyed planetary geoscience map makers and users to determine the importance, relevance, and usability of such products to their planetary science research and to current and future needs of the planetary science community. This survey was prepared because the planetary science community lacks a modern assessment of the value invested in geoscience map products and processes (including the diverse scientific and technical personnel who add to and maintain this infrastructure) and a strategy that ensures these efforts appropriately prioritize mapping efforts across all solid surface bodies in the Solar System. A 30-question survey was conducted through an online questionnaire and was designed to (1) take <10 minutes, (2) instill a sense that responses would be acted upon, and (3) encourage community participation through a user-friendly interface. The survey made a distinction between “standardized” geoscience maps (those published by the USGS that require adherence to specific cartographic standards, conventions, and principles) and “non-standardized” geoscience maps (those published by other venues such as peer-reviewed journals that are not required to, but might, adhere to some cartographic standards, conventions, and principles). The survey was opened on Sunday, March 18, 2017 (to coincide with the annual Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in The Woodlands, Tex.) and was closed on Thursday, May 25, 2017. There was a total of 265 unique responses that were formulated into 17 unique findings that were matched with one or more recommendations to be addressed by the planetary science community.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Science support for evaluating natural recovery of polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations in fish from Crab Orchard Lake, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois

Introduction Crab Orchard Lake in southern Illinois is one of the largest and most popular recreational lakes in the state. Construction of the nearly 7,000-acre reservoir in the late 1930s created employment opportunities through the Works Progress Administration, and the lake itself was intended to supply water, control flooding, and provide recreational opportunities for local communities (Stall, 1954). In 1942, the Department of War appropriated or purchased more than 20,000 acres of land around Crab Orchard Lake and constructed the Illinois Ordnance Plant, which manufactured bombs and anti-tank mines during World War II. After the war, an Act of Congress transferred the property to the U.S. Department of the Interior. Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge was established on August 5, 1947, for the joint purposes of wildlife conservation, agriculture, recreation, and industry. Production of explosives continued, but new industries also moved onsite. More than 200 tenants have held leases with Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge and have operated a variety of manufacturing plants (electrical components, plated metal parts, ink, machined parts, painted products, and boats) on-site. Soils, water, and sediments in several areas of the refuge were contaminated with hazardous substances from handling and disposal methods that are no longer acceptable environmental practice (for example, direct discharge to surface water, use of unlined landfills). Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination at the refuge was identified in the 1970s, and a PCB-based fish-consumption advisory has been in effect since 1988 for Crab Orchard Lake. The present advisory covers common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ) and channel catfish ( Ictalurus punctatus ); see Illinois Department of Public Health (2017). Some of the most contaminated areas of the refuge were actively remediated, and natural ecosystem recovery processes are expected to further reduce residual PCB concentrations in the lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sought technical support to understand environmental drivers of current (2017) PCB residues in fish tissue and patterns in PCB residues through time to inform the fish-consumption advisory for Crab Orchard Lake. This project is planned in two phases (Tasks 1 and 2); the first phase is included in this report. Task 1, reported here, includes a review of existing literature and a brief overview focused on environmental and biochemical/physiological processes that drive PCB residues in fish tissue. This review specifically targets processes that are relevant for freshwater lacustrine environments such as those at Crab Orchard Lake. In addition to discussions of environmental fate, metabolism, and accumulation of PCBs, this review includes a brief scientifically based explanation of approaches used to establish fish-consumption advisories. A planned second task (Task 2) will include a compilation and summary of existing data on PCB residues in fish tissue samples from Crab Orchard Lake. This summary will also place Crab Orchard Lake data in a broader geographic context through a comparison with fish data from other Midwestern lakes. When Task 1 and Task 2 are complete, resource managers will have (a) a synthesis of existing literature that characterizes the processes influencing the fate of residual PCBs remaining in systems such as Crab Orchard Lake, (b) a summary of natural PCB attenuation processes for use in risk communication with the public, and (c) a summary of existing data on PCBs in fish tissues from Crab Orchard Lake, including exploratory plots of tissue residues through time. Overall, this project will provide data to help resource managers better understand the ecological and public health consequences of residual PCBs in Crab Orchard Lake.

Illinois↗

USGS2024

Annotated bibliography of scientific research relevant to oil and gas reclamation best management practices in the western United States, published from 1969 through 2020

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey has created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for lands in the western United States (U.S.). Oil and gas development on public lands is a long-standing and substantial component of local and regional economies and has expanded in recent decades, particularly on public lands in the western U.S. This development is associated with extensive networks of pipelines, roads, and processing facilities, across which reclamation is Federally mandated following initial well pad development (“interim” reclamation) and once resource extraction is complete (“final” reclamation). Reclamation is critical for recovering ecological services to energy-affected lands, including vegetation productivity, wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and soil stability (for example, resistance to wind and water erosion). However, reclamation of oil and gas affected lands in the western U.S. has proved challenging due to an array of regulatory and environmental factors, such as minimally developed soils, short growing seasons, herbivory, high winds, invasive species, rugged terrain, and in particular, arid climates associated with low total precipitation, high evapotranspiration rates, and highly variable precipitation patterns. We compiled and summarized journal articles, government reports, technical reports, proceedings, and theses and dissertations relevant to oil and gas reclamation. We constrained our search to products published on or before December 31, 2020 but did not limit our search by a starting date; the earliest product resulting from this effort was published in March 1969. Second, we manually scanned the last 15 years (2005-2020) of tables of contents in journals, bibliographies, and proceedings of which we were aware would contain articles highly relevant to this bibliography. We carried out the search for these products through multiple means: (1) performing a structured search of two reference databases, (2) examining articles published since 2005 in highly relevant scientific journals and conference proceedings, and (3) reviewing additional material suggested by authors of products identified in steps 1 and 2. Our search was intentionally broad in order to identify as much relevant work as possible, much of which is professionally applied and tested within the industry of oil and gas reclamation, but which remains unpublished in scientific journals. We refined the initial list of products by removing: (1) duplicates, (2) products not written in English, (3) products that were not relevant to the arid ecosystems of western North America, (4) products that were not released as research, data products, or review articles in journals or as formal scientific reports, and (5) products with data which were not relevant to reclamation of oil and gas-affected lands, or for which the study did not present new data, findings, or syntheses relevant to reclamation of oil and gas-affected lands. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and assigned standardized management topics to each. Management topics are intended to aid online searching within the bibliography and are described in more detail in the Methods Section of this report; they include what type of disturbance the product addresses (well pads, mining, pipelines), what aspect of oil and gas reclamation they pertain to (practices, standards, monitoring), what type of data are present in the product (for instance soil or vegetation recovery data), and an indication if the product were from a source other than a published, peer-reviewed outlet (such as dissertations or unpublished professional reports – these are identified as grey literature). The review process for this annotated bibliography included an initial internal colleague review of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original product, and a formal peer-review. Our initial searches resulted in 3,197 total products, of which 290 met our criteria for inclusion. “Reclamation Practices” is by far the management topic most addressed, followed by “Reclamation Monitoring,” for example, products assessing what and how monitoring methods are used to track and measure reclamation outcome. This document may be accessed at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20231068 or from the U.S. Geological Survey Publication Warehouse ( https://pubs.usgs.gov/ ). The 1-page product summaries herein will also be used to create a bibliography at https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers that includes links to each original product, where available, and in which subject matter will be searchable by topic, location, and year. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to reclaim landscapes across the western U.S. which have been affected by oil and gas development.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

EMD Gas Hydrates Committee annual report

Global research on the potential commercial viability of gas extraction from gas hydrates is continuing, predominantly in Asia and in the United States, where recent efforts have focused on the exploration and characterization of gas hydrate petroleum systems and conducting controlled production tests of gas hydrate deposits hosted in mostly sand-rich reservoir systems. In 2017, gas hydrate production testing was conducted in marine settings in the offshore of Japan and China. An additional test was conducted in the Shenhu region of the South China Sea in 2020 to further evaluate the effectiveness of various well completion technologies to produce gas from gas hydrates. Late in 2018, a research partnership led by the U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory and the Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation established a new Alaska North Slope test site for an extended gas hydrate production pilot with the completion of a stratigraphic test well. With the successful completion of the Prudhoe Bay Unit Hydrate-01 stratigraphic test well, planning is now underway for drilling of three additional wells at the Alaska test site, which will include a geoscience data well and two production test wells. In 2019, the Government of India released the results of one of the most comprehensive gas hydrate scientific drilling investigations ever undertaken, the leadership of the Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 02 reported on the discovery of several significant gas hydrate accumulations that were considered suitable for future gas hydrate production testing. In September of 2019, the U.S. Geological Survey released a new assessment of the technically recoverable gas hydrate resources on the Alaska North Slope. In 2018, the University of Texas at Austin released a comprehensive report describing the operational and initial technical results of the UT-GOM2-1 Hydrate Pressure Coring Expedition, which drilled and partially cored two wells in Green Canyon Block 955 in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The results of these recently complete gas hydrate geologic and production studies have been further reviewed in this AAPG-EMD Gas Hydrate Committee report.

Alaska↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

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) 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, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks 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 has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. 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 as 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 can impact the ecosystem and water quality of 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 Ground-Water 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 other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six 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 features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 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 September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and 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 with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and 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 of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. 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 our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS1992

Map showing sediment isopachs in the deep-sea basins of the Pacific continental margin, Point Conception to Point Loma

The U.S. Geological Survey conducted a series of cruises, EEZSCAN 84 (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986), to collect reconnaissance data on the newly proclaimed Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the area out to 200 nautical miles from the coastline of the United States. The cruises systematically surveyed the entire conterminous United States west coast EEZ using the Geological Long-Range Inclined Asdic (GLORIA) side-scan sonar, a 160-in 3 airgun seismic-reflection profiler, a 3.5-kHz high-resolution seismic-reflection profiler, a 10-kHz echo sounder, and a proton-precession magnetometer. The nominal trackline spacing throughout the survey was 30 km. Derivative maps of sediment thickness (I-2089-A, I-2090-A, I-2091-A) and depth to basement (I-2089-B, I-2090-B, I-2091-B) in the basins of the west coast EEZ were compiled from both the sonar-image dala and the deep-penetration seismic data obtained on these cruises. Only EEZ-SCAN 84 data were used for the map compilations because available data from other cruises in this region are sparsely located, have poor navigational control, or were obtained with seismic systems that were not powerful enough to resolve oceanic basement. For this map series, sediment thickness and depth to basement were determined only in the deep-ocean basin regions because the seismic system used on the EEZ-SCAN 84 cruises could not resolve oceanic basement beneath the thick sediments of the continental slope. All the data used to compile the maps are presented in the "Atlas of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Western Conterminous United States" (EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986). Basement Outcrops GLORIA imagery was used to locate areas of basement outcrop throughout the region. Where possible, sediment thickness on and immediately adjacent to basement outcrops was measured from seismic data. Where there was no bathymetric or seismic control, a seamount peak was assumed to have no sediment cover. A pattern is used on the map to indicate all basement outcrops. Data Reduction Acoustic basement in the basins, invariably oceanic Layer 2, was observed on all of the seismic records. One-way traveltime was measured from the sea floor to acoustic basement. Because the trackline spacing of about 30 km is relatively large compared to the data density along track, we chose to measure the sediment thickness every 0.5 hour or at an interval of approximately 7.5 km. Water depth was measured with a 10-kHz profiler. Depth to basement was calculated using the sea surface as the zero datum and adding the corrected water depth (Carter, 1980) to the sediment thickness. Acoustic travel times were converted to depths by first calculating a regression equation from the interval velocity versus depth data of Connard and others (1984). Their data base comprises a compilation of all available Deep Sea Drilling Project data plus wide-angle refraction data, which were collected in Cascadia Basin west of Oregon and represents the best data set available for the United States west coast EEZ. The regression equation was integrated to determine sediment thickness as a function of one-way traveltime . The resulting equation is z = 1400t + 0 .5t 2 where z is sediment thickness in meters, and t is one-way traveltime in seconds. Sediment thicknesses calculated using this equation were compared to values calculated from the general equation of Carlson and others (1986). Values for sediment thickness calculated by the two equations differed by no greater than 10 percent throughout the range of travel times. Bathymetry The bathymetry is from Chase and others (1981). The bathymetric data were compiled from a variety of sources, and data quality is inconsistent. Because of differences in navigational precision and density of coverage, the bathymetric contours of a feature may be at a different location than the corresponding isopleths derived from the EEZ-SCAN 84 data, or a feature may not be indicated on the bathymetry at all. These situations occur because either the feature is poorly located in the bathymetric data set or, especially in the outer EEZ, the bathymetric data are too sparse to have defined the existence of a feature. Acknowledgments Topographic digital data bases were corrected and verified by Christina Lief. Gerald Evenden developed the computer software system MAPGEN, used to compose this map. Reviews, suggestions, and technical contributions from Edward C. Escowitz and Florence Wong and advice about cartographic design from Will Stettner substantially improved the quality of this map. References Cited Carlson, R.L., Gangi, A.F., and Snow, K.R., 1986, Empirical reflection-traveltime/ depth and velocity/depth functions for the deep-sea sediment column: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 91, no. B8, p. 8249-8266. Carter, D.J.T., 1980, Echo-sounding correction tables: Taunton, United Kingdom, Hydrographic Department, Ministry of Defence, 150 p. Chase, T.E., Wilde, Pat, Normark, W.R, Miller, C.P., Seekins, B.A., and Young, J.D., 1981, Offshore topography of the Western United States between 32° and 49° North latitudes: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-443, scale 1:864,518 at 38° latitude, 2 sheets. Connard, G., Couch, R., Keeling , K., Roy, J., and Troseth, S., 1984, Abyssal plain and continental net-objective sedimentary thicknesses, in Kulm, L.D., and others, eds., Western North America continental margin and adjacent ocean floor off Oregon and Washington, Atlas 1 of Regional Atlas Series, Ocean Margin Drilling Program: Woods Hole, Mass., Marine Science International, sheet 7. EEZ-SCAN 84 Scientific Staff, 1986, Atlas of the Exclusive Economic Zone, Western Conterminous United States: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series I-1792, scale 1:500,000, 152 p. index map for I-2089-A See Also "U.S. Pacific West Coast Field Activities" (Paskevich and others, 2011; http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1332/htmldocs/pc/pc_overview.html). Paskevich, V.F., Wong, F.L., O?Malley, J.J., Stevenson, A.J., and Gutmacher, C.E., 2011, GLORIA sidescan-sonar imagery for parts of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and adjacent areas: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010?1332, available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1332/.

IMAP↗