SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “New Scientist”

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 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources

USGS2014

The rare-earth elements: Vital to modern technologies and lifestyles

Until recently, the rare-earth elements (REEs) were familiar to a relatively small number of people, such as chemists, geologists, specialized materials scientists, and engineers. In the 21st century, the REEs have gained visibility through many media outlets because of (1) the public has recognized the critical, specialized properties that REEs contribute to modern technology, as well as (2) China's dominance in production and supply of the REEs and (3) international dependence on China for the majority of the world's REE supply. Since the late 1990s, China has provided 85–95 percent of the world’s REEs. In 2010, China announced their intention to reduce REE exports. During this timeframe, REE use increased substantially. REEs are used as components in high technology devices, including smart phones, digital cameras, computer hard disks, fluorescent and light-emitting-diode (LED) lights, flat screen televisions, computer monitors, and electronic displays. Large quantities of some REEs are used in clean energy and defense technologies. Because of the many important uses of REEs, nations dependent on new technologies, such as Japan, the United States, and members of the European Union, reacted with great concern to China’s intent to reduce its REE exports. Consequently, exploration activities intent on discovering economic deposits of REEs and bringing them into production have increased.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

Science-based management of public lands in southern Nevada

Landmark legislation provides guiding principles for land management planning in southern Nevada and the rest of the United States. Such legislation includes, but is not limited to, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S>C. 473-478, 479-482 and 551), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (U.S.C. Title 16, Secs. 1-4). Wilderness Act 1964 (P.L.88-577), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 91-205), National Forest Management Act of of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). The acts establishing congressionally designated areas within southern Nevada, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Spring Mountains National Restoration Area, and Desert National Wildlife Refuge, also contain guidelines for the management of these lands. These documents variously require preservation of natural and cultural resource and wilderness character, protection of species, and prevention of undesirable environmental effects from land management actions. These requirements must be met while allowing for multiple "uses" of certain public lands (e.g. recreation, ranching, resources extraction, renewable energy development, etc.) to the degree that they do no threaten preservation, protection, and prevention goals,. many considerations some into play in the development and implementation for land management plans and actions. The planning process requires a balancing act that sometimes pit one need or priority against another. When priorities can trump other needs can prioritized and receive disproportionate consideration. Overall, the management of public lands is a very complicated and sometime contentious process. Science provides an objective way to help weigh quantifiable information and draw conclusions about the effects of past and potential future land management policies, decisions, and actions. When effectively integrated into adaptive management, science-based information can reduce uncertainties, increase knowledge, and improve decision making. However, the specific science information needed for effective management is often lacking or difficult to access or interpret. Science is typically reported in scientific journals as discrete units describing individual studies with other scientists as the primary audience. Translations of these studies an synthesis or multiple studies into formats that can be readily used in land management planning efforts are often lacking. Identifying and articulating the highest priority science and research needs is one of the primary purposes of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http://www.SNAP.gov) Science and Research Team (chapter 1; Turner and others 2009). The SNAP Science and Research Strategy (Strategy) calls for a synthesis report to be written every 5 years summarizing the state of knowledge, information gaps and management implications of scientific information as it relates to the SNAP Strategy goals (Turner and others 2009). This General Technical Report serves as the first SNAP Science and Research Synthesis Report (Synthesis Report) commissioned by the Science and Research Team. The Synthesis Report is mostly based on information form the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and is itself peer reviewed and constitutes a new contribution to the scientific literature. This final chapter addresses Sub-goal 2.3, which is to manage current and future authorized southern Nevada land uses in a manner that balances public need and ecosystem sustainability, and Sub-goal 2.5, which is to promote an effective conservation education and interpretation program to improve the quality of resources and enhance public use and enjoyment of southern Nevada public lands. It summarizes information form the previous chapters on what scientific information is known currently and what remains largely unknown, and it discusses how science can be used to make future management decisions that balances public needs and ecosystem sustainability.

Nevada↗

USGS2022

How shall we meet? Embracing the opportunities of virtual conferencing

The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic triggered dramatic shifts in the way that ecologists teach, research, and interact (e.g., Cooke et al. 2021 ). As the world now adjusts to a “new normal” era, there is notable and open discussion about the merits or desire to return to practices used prior to the pandemic (e.g., Roulson 2021 ). A dominant aspect of these discussions is when and how researchers can return to the practice of large, centralized, in-person conferences that have been the primary mode of professional interaction for decades. While questions of safety are naturally paramount and will guide decision making for some time, there remains the broader question of whether and how to implement virtual and hybrid formats in the future. Discussions about the return to in-person meetings and expressed resentment about the use of virtual formats (Stevens and Murphy 2021 ) that we routinely see circulated by professional organizations and on social media assume that the latter is a lesser-quality version of the former. However, we put forward that these sentiments neglect the diversity of opinions among scientists and evidence of prevalent, positive attitudes about the use of virtual (and possibly, as yet undeveloped) modes of conferences. For example, 74% of more than 900 researchers surveyed by the journal Nature during the initial phase of the pandemic expressed a desire for virtual conferences to remain in practice even when travel restrictions were eased (Remmel 2021 ). Other surveys have shown that scientists are highly interested in alternative conference formats due to concerns about climate change (Nursey-Bray et al. 2019 ; Haage 2020 ) and access (Niner and Wassermann 2021 ). These data indicate most researchers have personal circumstances or perspectives that recognize the value of a broader discussion about how conferences and interactions among researchers can be shaped.

Fisheries Magazine↗

USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey continuous monitoring workshop—Workshop summary report

Executive Summary The collection of high-frequency (in other words, “continuous”) water data has been made easier over the years because of advances in technologies to measure, transmit, store, and query large, temporally dense datasets. Commercially available, in-situ sensors and data-collection platforms—together with new techniques for data analysis—provide an opportunity to monitor water quantity and quality at time scales during which meaningful changes occur. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Continuous Monitoring Workshop was held to build stronger collaboration within the Water Mission Area on the collection, interpretation, and application of continuous monitoring data; share technical approaches for the collection and management of continuous data that improves consistency and efficiency across the USGS; and explore techniques and tools for the interpretation of continuous monitoring data, which increases the value to cooperators and the public. The workshop was organized into three major themes: Collecting Continuous Data, Understanding and Using Continuous Data, and Observing and Delivering Continuous Data in the Future. Presentations each day covered a variety of related topics, with a special session at the end of each day designed to bring discussion and problem solving to the forefront. The workshop brought together more than 70 USGS scientists and managers from across the Water Mission Area and Water Science Centers. Tools to manage, assure, control quality, and explore large streams of continuous water data are being developed by the USGS and other organizations and will be critical to making full use of these high-frequency data for research and monitoring. Disseminating continuous monitoring data and findings relevant to critical cooperator and societal issues is central to advancing the USGS networks and mission. Several important outcomes emerged from the presentations and breakout sessions.

Open-File Report↗

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↗

USGS1988

Water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas– Fiscal year 1987

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 earthscience 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."

Texas↗

USGS2023

Officially social: Developing a social media crisis communication strategy for USGS Volcanoes during the 2018 Kīlauea eruption

The USGS Volcano Science Center has a long history of science and crisis communication about volcanoes and their eruptions. Centered mainly on websites, email notifications, traditional media, and in-person interaction in the past, our toolkit has expanded in the last decade to include social media channels. This medium has allowed us to communicate with both long-standing and new audiences in new ways. In the process, social media communication has further developed trust in USGS researchers. In particular, the nearly 4-month-long 2018 eruption of Kīlauea volcano in the State of Hawaii necessitated the rapid development of a communication strategy that more deeply incorporated web and social media (Facebook and Twitter) channels to share critical eruption information. This was the first major volcanic eruption response where the USGS used official social media accounts as a significant form of public communication and outreach. These timely and conversive interactions furthered engagement with residents and reinforced the USGS as an authoritative and approachable voice on the eruption with U.S. and international audiences. In many cases, USGS Volcanoes' social media channels were also sampled directly by media outlets looking to provide current information, particularly by local reporters and citizen journalists. This helped disseminate scientific information directly to those who needed it and removed pressure from observatory scientists to respond to media requests. In short, the conversational tone and engaged and inquisitive online audience allowed the USGS Volcanoes' social media channels to act as a virtual community meeting, which nurtured a nearly continuous educational environment for both directly affected and distant members of the public. We present the history and details of this strategy here in hopes that it will benefit volcano observatories and other official agencies and crisis communicators.

Hawaii↗

USGS2011

MTBE; to what extent will past releases contaminate community water supply wells?(Brief Article)

The increasing frequency of detection of the widely used gasoline additive methyl tertbutyl ether (MTBE) in both ground- and surface waters is receiving much attention from the media, environmental scientists, state environmental agencies, and federal agencies. At the national level, the September 15,1999, Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Oxygenates in Gasoline (i) )tates that between 5 and 10% of community drinking water supplies in high MTBE use areas show at least detectable concentrations of MTBE, and about 1% of those systems are characterized by levels of this compound that are above 20 pg/L. In Maine, a desire to determine the extent of MTBE contamination led to a 1998 study (2) that revealed that this compound is found at levels above 0.1 pg/L in 16% of 951 randomly selected household wells and in 16% of the 793 community water systems tested in that state (37 wells were not tested). The study also suggested that between 1400 and 5200 household wells may have levels above 35 pg/L, although no community water supplies were found to be above that concentration. For comparison, Maryland, New Hampshire, New York, and California have set MTBE remediation "action levels" at or below 20 pg/L, and EPA has set its advisory level for taste and odor at 20-40 pg/L (3).

Environmental Science & Technology↗

USGS2020

Lessons from a post-eruption landscape

From March to May 1980, magma rose high into Mount St. Helens (MSH), swelling and—as it turned out—destabilizing its north flank. Scientists knew the volcano had been highly active at times over the past 40,000 years, but the mountain, located amid the Cascade Range in southwestern Washington, had been mostly quiet since the mid-19th century. The collapse of the north flank on 18 May shattered that quiet, triggering a cascade of events that left resounding impressions not only on those who witnessed and studied them but also on the surrounding landscape [Lipman and Mullineaux, 1981; Waitt, 2015]. The eruption of MSH also provided unparalleled opportunities for advancing several disciplines [e.g., Shore et al., 1986; Newhall, 2000; Franklin and MacMahon, 2000]. Although not as conspicuously as in volcanology, the eruption and its aftermath led to an intensification of research investigating biophysical impacts of eruptions and subsequent responses [e.g., Dale et al., 2005; Pierson and Major, 2014; Crisafulli and Dale, 2018]. Long-term research on the biophysical responses at MSH has provided important new insights, challenged long-standing ideas, and provided many societal benefits. The fortieth anniversary of the eruption this year offers a timely opportunity to reflect on these insights and influences. This long-term vantage is important because sustained, place-based studies following landscape disturbances are rare; because the MSH eruption spurred the greatest depth and breadth of multidisciplinary studies of biophysical responses to landscape disturbance; and because these responses created some of the most significant societal challenges to emerge after the eruption. We summarize key biophysical disturbances and responses, highlight salient insights, and suggest actions that can extend the usefulness of these insights to volcanically vulnerable communities worldwide.

Washington↗

USGS2022

Development of a companion questionnaire for “Did You Feel It?”: Assessing response in earthquakes where an earthquake early warning may have been received

Earthquake early warning (EEW) systems are relatively new technologies having first emerged as regional systems in the 1990s. Japan was the first nation to develop and implement a nationwide system in October 2007, and in the United States, ShakeAlert ® became available on the entire length of the US West Coast in May 2021. Assessing how EEW is perceived and utilized by alert recipients is considered essential. Such assessments are necessary to evaluate whether alert recipients are taking advantage of alert messages to initiate protective actions upon receipt of an alert, how they regard the usefulness of alerts, desirable thresholds for issuing alerts, and other aspects of these systems. Having information from users will also facilitate assessments of the success of earthquake preparedness educational programs such as the ShakeOut and whether annual drills which include information on EEW systems are resulting in behavioral response consistent with the content of these programs. Finally, information on EEW utilization will provide data useful to social scientists who study hazards to advance our understanding of behavioral response to warnings. Survey research in the aftermath of a significant earthquake in which an EEW has been issued is one obvious method of achieving these objectives and there already exist a number of survey instruments for this purpose. A related strategy and the goal of the present research is to develop a brief questionnaire, consistent with those already developed, as a supplement to the United States Geological Survey’s “Did You Feel It?” questionnaire that has provided earthquake intensities and information on behavioral response in earthquakes, both domestic and international, since 2004. Having the intensity level at each respondent’s location is essential for relating their perspectives and actions to the shaking they experienced.

Earthquake Spectra↗

USGS2006

Stability of leaning column at Devils Tower National Monument, Wyoming

In response to reports from climbers that an 8-meter section (referred to as the leaning column) of the most popular climbing route on Devils Tower in northeastern Wyoming is now moving when being climbed, scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey inspected the site to determine the stability of the column and the underlying column that serves as a support pedestal. Evidence of a recent tensile spalling failure was observed on the pedestal surface immediately beneath the contact with the overlying leaning column. The spalling of a flake-shaped piece of the pedestal, probably due to the high stress concentration exerted by the weight of the leaning column along a linear contact with the pedestal, is likely causing the present movement of the leaning column. Although it is unlikely that climbers will dislodge the leaning column by their weight alone, the possibility exists that additional spalling failures may occur from the pedestal surface and further reduce the stability of the leaning column and result in its toppling. To facilitate detection of further spalling failures from the pedestal, its surface has been coated with a layer of paint. Any new failures from the pedestal could result in the leaning column toppling onto the climbing route or onto the section of the Tower trail below.

Open-File Report↗

USGS1983

Recommended procedures and methodology of coal description

This document is the result of a workshop on coal description held for the Branch of Coal Resources of the U.S. Geological Survey in March 1982. It has been prepared to aid and encourage the field-oriented coal scientist to participate directly in petrographic coal-description activities. The objectives and past and current practices of coal description vary widely. These are briefly reviewed and illustrated with examples. Sampling approaches and techniques for collecting columnar samples of fresh coal are also discussed. The recommended procedures and methodology emphasize the fact that obtaining a good megascopic description of a coal bed is much better done in the laboratory with a binocular microscope and under good lighting conditions after the samples have been cut and quickly prepared. For better observation and cross-checking using a petrographic microscope for identification purposes, an in-place polishing procedure (requiring less than 2 min) is routinely used. Methods for using both the petrographic microscope and an automated image analysis system are also included for geologists who have access to such instruments. To describe the material characteristics of a coal bed in terms of microlithotypes or lithotypes, a new nomenclature of (V), (E), (1), (M). (S). (X 1 ). (X 2 ) and so on is used. The microscopic description of the modal composition of a megascopically observed lithologic type is expressed in terms of (VEIM); subscripts are used to denote the volume percentage of each constituent present. To describe a coal-bed profile, semiquantitative data (without microscopic study) and quantitative data (with microscopic study) are presented in ready-to-understand form. The average total composition of any thickness interval or of the entire coal bed can be plotted on a triangular diagram having V, E, and I+ M +S as the apices. The modal composition of any mixed lithologies such as (X 1 ), (X 2 ), and so on can also be plotted on such a triangular ternary diagram. Such diagrams can be used either for tracing compositional variations throughout a single coal-bed profile or for comparing variations between different coal beds.

Circular↗

USGS2022

The Volcano Hazards Program — Strategic science plan for 2022–2026

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) Strategic Science Plan, developed through discussion with scientists-in-charge of the USGS volcano observatories and the director of the USGS Volcano Science Center, specifies six major strategic goals to be pursued over the next 5 years. The purpose of these goals is to help fulfill the USGS VHP mission to enhance public safety and to minimize social and economic disruption caused by volcanic eruptions in the United States and its territories, through delivery of effective forecasts, warnings, and information on volcano hazards based on scientific understanding of volcanic processes. These six major strategic goals are to (1) continue—and when possible, accelerate—implementation of the National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS); (2) improve community preparedness for volcanic hazards by updating and standardizing essential components of volcano hazard assessments and providing training to land managers, emergency responders, and State and local communities; (3) develop the next generation of volcano hazard assessments using geographic information systems and other digital tools; (4) make observations with new instrumentation and take advantage of advances in real-time gas sensors; (5) rebuild the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and its monitoring capabilities; and (6) form new partnerships and strengthen existing partnerships with other government agencies and with academia and industry, to advance volcano monitoring, increase understanding of volcanic processes, and disseminate USGS information. In its effort to advance volcano science and monitoring techniques, the VHP has identified six scientific targets to pursue over the next 5 years, including: (1) increased understanding of volcano seismicity; (2) improved probabilistic forecasting; (3) deepened grasp of volcano eruption histories and geochronology; (4) newly developed and refined physical models of magmatic systems, leading to better situational awareness and accuracy of eruption forecasts; (5) improved warnings and forecasts of volcanic ash and gas clouds and characterization of volcanic smog sources; and (6) refined lava-flow modeling and forecasting of lava-flow paths.

Circular↗

USGS1996

Meeting summary - Coastal meteorology and oceanography: Report of the third prospectus development team of the U.S. Weather Research Program to NOAA and NSF

U.S. Weather Research Program (USWRP) prospectus development teams (PDTs) are small groups of scientists that are convened by the USWRP lead scientist on a one-time basis to discuss critical issues and to provide advice related to future directions of the program. PDTs are a principal source of information for the Science Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee charged with the duty of making recommendations to the Program Office based upon overall program objectives. PDT-1 focused on theoretical issues, and PDT-2 on observational issues; PDT-3 is the first of several to focus on more specialized topics. PDT-3 was convened to identify forecasting problems related to U.S. coastal weather and oceanic conditions, and to suggest likely solution strategies. There were several overriding themes that emerged from the discussion. First, the lack of data in and over critical regions of the ocean, particularly in the atmospheric boundary layer, and the upper-ocean mixed layer were identified as major impediments to coastal weather prediction. Strategies for data collection and dissemination, as well as new instrument implementation, were discussed. Second, fundamental knowledge of air-sea fluxes and boundary layer structure in situations where there is significant mesoscale variability in the atmosphere and ocean is needed. Companion field studies and numerical prediction experiments were discussed. Third, research prognostic models suggest that future operational forecast models pertaining to coastal weather will be high resolution and site specific, and will properly treat effects of local coastal geography, orography, and ocean state. The view was expressed that the exploration of coupled air-sea models of the coastal zone would be a particularly fruitful area of research. PDT-3 felt that forecasts of land-impacting tropical cyclones, Great Lakes-affected weather, and coastal cyclogenesis, in particular, would benefit from such coordinated modeling and field efforts. Fourth, forecasting for Arctic coastal zones is limited by our understanding of how sea ice forms. The importance of understanding air-sea fluxes and boundary layers in the presence of ice formation was discussed. Finally, coastal flash flood forecasting via hydrologic models is limited by the present accuracy of measured and predicted precipitation and storm surge events. Strategies for better ways to improve the latter were discussed.

Conference Paper↗

USGS2002

Rationale and operational plan for a U.S. high-altitude magnetic survey

On August 8, 2002, twenty-one scientists from the federal, private and academic sectors met at a workshop in Denver, Co., to discuss the feasibility of collecting magnetic anomaly data on a Canberra aircraft (Figure 1). The need for this 1-day workshop arose because of an exciting and cost-effective opportunity to collect invaluable magnetic anomaly data during a Canberra mission over the U.S. in 2003 and 2004. High Altitude Mapping Missions (HAMM) is currently planning a mission to collect Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR) imagery at an altitude of about 15 km and with a flight-line spacing of about 18 km over the conterminous U.S. and Alaska. The additional collection of total and vector magnetic field data would represent a secondary mission objective (i.e., a "piggy-back" magnetometer system). Because HAMM would fund the main flight costs of the mission, the geomagnetic community would obtain invaluable magnetic data at a nominal cost. These unique data would provide new insights on fundamental tectonic and thermal processes and give a new view of the structural and lithologic framework of the crust and possibly the upper mantle. This document highlights: (1) the reasons to conduct this national survey and (2) a preliminary operational plan to collect high-altitude magnetic data of a desired quality and for the expected resources. Although some operational plan issues remain to be resolved, the important conclusions of the workshop are that the Canberra is a very suitable platform to measure the magnetic field and that the planned mission will result in quality high-altitude magnetic data to greatly expand the utility of our national magnetic database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Abstracts of the Annual Meeting of Planetary Geologic Mappers, Tucson, AZ 2007

Introduction Report of the Annual Mappers Meeting Planetary Science Institute Tucson, Arizona June 28 and 29, 2007 Approximately 22 people attended this year's mappers meeting, and many more submitted abstracts and maps in absentia. The 2007 meeting was convened by Tracy Gregg, Les Bleamaster, Steve Saunders, and Ken Tanaka and was hosted by David Crown and Les Bleamaster of the Planetary Science Institute (PSI) in Tucson, Arizona. Oral presentations and poster discussions took place on Thursday, June 28 and Friday, June 29. This year's meeting also included a unique opportunity to visit the operations centers of two active Mars missions; field trips to the University of Arizona took place on Thursday and Friday afternoons. Outgoing Geologic Mapping Subcommittee (GEMS) chairperson, Tracy Gregg, commenced the meeting with an introduction and David Crown followed with a discussion of logistics and the PSI facility; Steve Saunders (Planetary Geology and Geophysics Discipline Scientist) then provided a brief program update. Science presentations kicked off with Venus mapper Vicki Hansen and graduate students Eric Tharalson and Bhairavi Shankar of the University of Minnesota, Duluth, showing a 3-D animation of the global distribution of tesserae and discussing the implications, a progress report for V-45 quadrangle mapping, and a brief discussion of circular lows. Les Bleamaster (PSI) followed with a progress report on mapping of the V-50 quadrangle and the 1:10M Helen Planitia quadrangle. David Crown (PSI) concluded the Venus presentations with a discussion of progress made on the V-30 quadrangle. The remainder of Thursday's presentations jumped around the Solar System including Mars, Io, and Earth. Ken Tanaka of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began the afternoon with a general discussion of the status of the planetary mapping program at USGS. Buck Janes (University of Arizona) provided background information about the Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer (GRS) and presented some new element maps, which may be useful for geologic mapping. Dave Williams of Arizona State University reported on the progress of his global Io map and James Dohm (University of Arizona) discussed results of terrestrial remote mapping studies. Thursday afternoon, the mappers were given a tour of the High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) operations facility and were given some basic information about how the images are obtained, processed, and publicly released. With official GEMS transition completed at lunch on Thursday, incoming GEMS chair Leslie Bleamaster took the reigns of Friday's meeting. Science presentations began with Ken Tanaka discussing 1:20M-scale global and 1:2M-scale polar mapping of Mars. Jim Zimbelman (Smithsonian Institution) described his 1:1M Medusae Fossae map (MC-8 SE), which is nearing completion, and new mapping (MC-16 NW and MC-23 NW) to further evaluate the Medusae Fossae. Brent Garry, also of the Smithsonian Institution, presented work on Ascraeus Mons. Peter Mouginis-Mark (University of Hawai`i) reported progress on his 1:200K and larger maps of Tooting crater and of the Olympus Mons summit caldera. Laszlo Keszthelyi (USGS) presented mapping of Athabasca Valles, with much of the credit going to Windy Jaeger. Jim Skinner (USGS) introduced a new mapping project including nine MTM quadrangles in the Utopia Planitia region. Tracy Gregg finished off the day's science presentations with discussion of Hesperia Planum. After discussion was complete, the group once again traveled to the University of Arizona - this time for a tour of the Mars Phoenix operations center. Principal Investigator Peter Smith beamed as he led mappers through the multi-million dollar facility. A main topic of discussion throughout the entire meeting was that of nomenclature, specifically how to classify the individual depressions at the tops of volcanoes. Paterae, as has been used for Mars, Venus, and Io, was suggested, but i

Open-File Report↗

USGS2022

Environmental DNA methods for ecological monitoring and biodiversity assessment in estuaries

Environmental DNA (eDNA) detection methods can complement traditional biomonitoring to yield new ecological insights in aquatic systems. However, the conceptual and methodological frameworks for aquatic eDNA detection and interpretation were developed primarily in freshwater environments and have not been well established for estuaries and marine environments that are by nature dynamic, turbid, and hydrologically complex. Environmental context and species life history are critical for successful application of eDNA methods, and the challenges associated with eDNA detection in estuaries were the subject of a symposium held at the University of California Davis on January 29, 2020 ( https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/engagement/past-events/edna ). Here, we elaborate upon topics addressed in the symposium to evaluate eDNA methods in the context of monitoring and biodiversity studies in estuaries. We first provide a concise overview of eDNA science and methods, and then examine the San Francisco Estuary (SFE) as a case study to illustrate how eDNA detection can complement traditional monitoring programs and provide regional guidance on future potential eDNA applications. Additionally, we offer recommendations for enhancing communication between eDNA scientists and natural resource managers, which is essential for integrating eDNA methods into existing monitoring programs. Our intent is to create a resource that is accessible to those outside the field of eDNA, especially managers, without oversimplifying the challenges or advantages of these methods.

Estuaries and Coasts↗

USGS2004

Geology of the National Capital Region: Field trip guidebook

The 2004 Joint Northeast-Southeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America is the fourth such meeting and the third to be held in or near Washington, D.C. This guidebook and the field trips presented herein are intended to provide meeting participants, as well as other interested readers, a means to understand and enjoy the rich geological and historical legacy of the National Capital Region. The field trips cover all of the major physiographic and geologic provinces of the central Appalachians in the Mid-Atlantic region. Trip 1 outlines the tectonic history of northern Virginia along an east-to-west transect from the Coastal Plain province to the Blue Ridge province, whereas the other field trips each focus on a specific province. From west to east, these excursions investigate the paleoclimate controls on the stratigraphy of the Paleozoic rocks of the Allegheny Plateau and Valley and Ridge province in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland (Trip 3); Eocene volcanic rocks that intrude Paleozoic rocks in the westernmost Valley and Ridge province in Virginia and West Virginia (Trip 4); age, petrology, and structure of Mesoproterozoic gneisses and granitoids located in the Blue Ridge province within and near Shenandoah National Park, Virginia (Trip 2); the use of argon data to unravel the complex structural and thermal history of the metamorphic rocks of the eastern Piedmont province in Maryland and Virginia (Trip 5); the use of cosmogenic isotopes to understand the timing of bedrock incision and formation of terraces along the Potomac River in the eastern Piedmont province near Great Falls, Virginia and Maryland (Trip 6); the nature of the boundary between rocks of the Goochland and Chopawamsic terranes in the eastern Piedmont of Virginia (Trip 7); the role of bluffs and fluvial terraces of the Coastal Plain in the Civil War Battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia (Trip 8); and the Tertiary lithology and paleontology of Coastal Plain strata around the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia and Maryland (Trip 9). Some of the field trips present new geochronological research that uses isotopic techniques to unravel Earth history and processes, including U-Pb dating to determine the timing of metamorphism and igneous activity associated with the Mesoproterozoic Grenville orogeny (Trip 2); argon (4DAr/39Ar) analysis to understand the complex Paleozoic history of deformation and metamorphism in the Piedmont (Trip 5); and cosmogenic beryllium-10 data to derive exposure ages of landforms and deposits of the Potomac River valley (Trip 6). Several trips shed insight on significant or enigmatic geologic features of the region. Trip 3 presents evidence for global paleoclimate controls on the Paleozoic stratigraphy of the Appalachian basin, including evidence for Late Devonian glacial deposits. Trip 4 investigates unusual Eocene igneous rocks in the Eastern United States, and Trip 2 visits several local ductile high-strain zones, offering geologists opportunities to consider the importance of such structures relative to the poorly understood Rockfish Valley fault zone in the Blue Ridge province. In the Piedmont province, Trip 7 focuses on a controversial terrane boundary, whereas Trip 5 crosses several lithologic belts with distinct thermotectonic histories that suggest terrane boundaries. Trip 6 sheds new light on the erosional history of a major river gorge cut into crystalline rocks in the Fall Zone. Four trips are recommended for Earth science teachers and are cosponsored by the National Association of Geologic Teachers (NAGT). These trips focus on the tectonic history of northern Virginia (Trip 1), terraces of the Potomac River at Great Falls and cosmogenic isotope analysis to date the terraces and the incision history (Trip 6), and Tertiary lithology and paleontology of the Chesapeake Bay region (Trip 9). Trip 8 takes advantage of the rich Civil War history of this region to look at the role that geology played in the strategies and outcome of the Battle of Fredericksburg. This guidebook is the result of much hard work by many individuals. The editors wish to thank the field trip leaders and authors, the technical reviewers, and Nancy Stamm of ths USGS Geologic Names Committee. We also owe a very special thanks to Linda Gundersen, Chief Scientist, Geologic Discipline, USGS, who provided funding for the guidebook.

Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC↗