Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Science and Technology”

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

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

At least 955 records · Page 53Linked to original sources
USGS2009

Results of the Analyses for 1,4-Dioxane of Groundwater Samples Collected in the Tucson Airport Remediation Project Area, South-Central Arizona, 2006-2009

Extensive groundwater contamination resulting from industrial activities led to the listing of the Tucson International Airport Area (TIAA) as a Superfund Site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in 1983. Early investigations revealed elevated levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including the chlorinated solvents trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene, in wells in the area. Several responsible parties were identified, and cleanup activities were initiated in the late 1980s using technology designed for removal of VOCs. In 2002, the compound 1,4-dioxane was discovered in wells in the TIAA area. Since then, 1,4-dioxane has been detected throughout the TIAA area at levels exceeding the USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisory value of 3 micrograms per liter (ug/L; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006). Chemical properties of 1,4-dioxane make it relatively unaffected by the treatment technologies employed in the TIAA area. In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Arizona Water Science Center, in cooperation with the U.S. Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment, began an investigation into the extent of groundwater contamination by 1,4-dioxane in the area. Five rounds of groundwater sampling in the TIAA area have been completed by the USGS since that time, yielding a total of 210 samples. Results from these analyses indicate less than reportable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in 30 percent of the samples, with 46 percent of the samples having concentrations at or above the USEPA Drinking Water Health Advisory level.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1998

The US federal framework for research on endocrine disrupters and an analysis of research programs supported during fiscal year 1996

The potential health and ecological effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals has become a high visibility environmental issue. The 1990s have witnessed a growing concern, both on the part of the scientific community and the public, that environmental chemicals may be causing widespread effects in humans and in a variety of fish and wildlife species. This growing concern led the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council to identify the endocrine disruptor issue as a major research initiative in early 1995 and subsequently establish an ad hoc Working Group on Endocrine Disruptors. The objectives of the working group are to 1) develop a planning framework for federal research related to human and ecological health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals; 2) conduct an inventory of ongoing federal research programs; and 3) identify research gaps and develop a coordinated interagency plan to address priority research needs. This communication summarizes the activities of the federal government in defining a common framework for planning an endocrine disruptor research program and in assessing the status of the current effort. After developing the research framework and compiling an inventory of active research projects supported by the federal government in fiscal year 1996, the CENR working group evaluated the current federal effort by comparing the ongoing activities with the research needs identified in the framework. The analysis showed that the federal government supports considerable research on human health effects, ecological effects, and exposure assessment, with a predominance of activity occurring under human health effects. The analysis also indicates that studies on reproductive development and carcinogenesis are more prevalent than studies on neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity, that mammals (mostly laboratory animals) are the main species under study, and that chlorinated dibenzodioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls are the most commonly studied chemical classes. Comparison of the inventory with the research needs should allow identification of underrepresented research areas in need of attention.

Environmental Health Perspectives↗
USGS2020

Environmental DNA: An emerging tool for understanding aquatic biodiversity

Field surveys for aquatic organisms provide critical information that is important for robust resource management. However, such surveys are expensive and labor intensive, particularly in large, remote landscapes like those that characterize much of Alaska. Traditionally, characterizing aquatic biodiversity necessitated the physical capture and identification of individual organisms, which required that field crews have some level of expertise in identifying the species likely to be present. Many other limitations of surveys that rely on direct observation of aquatic organisms have been noted (Evans and Lamberti 2018). However, what if it were possible to identify all of the species present at a site without having to capture or even see them? While we are not there yet, the recent revolution in environmental DNA (eDNA) technology is bringing us closer to that goal (Thomsen and Willerslev 2014).

Alaska↗
USGS2022

Science mission requirements for a globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel for U.S. Scientific Ocean Drilling

Through the collection and analysis of shallow and deep subseafloor sediments, rocks, fluids, and life, scientific ocean drilling has enriched our understanding of the complex Earth system. Among other achievements, scientific ocean drilling has documented the history of Earth’s climate, the waxing and waning of polar ice sheets, the past changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, the existence and function of microbial life in the subseafloor, the compositional variations in Earth’s crust and underlying mantle, and the physical and chemical processes acting at subduction zones, including those associated with tsunamigenic earthquakes. Over the decades, more than 12,000 articles that depend on analyses of scientific ocean drilling samples and geophysical data have been published, many detailing breakthrough contributions to global knowledge about the Earth system. Approximately 45% of these publications were led by U.S.-affiliated authors (International Ocean Discovery Program Publication Services, 2021). Since the mid-1980s, the workhorse of this multidisciplinary, international research effort has been the riserless D/V JOIDES Resolution, operated by Texas A&M University with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). D/V JOIDES Resolution has conducted the vast majority of scientific ocean drilling expeditions and collected most of the scientific cores over that period, including 82% of the expeditions and 93% of the cores in the last decade alone, despite being one of three platforms that is operated within the International Ocean Discovery Program. However, D/V JOIDES Resolution is approaching the end of its useful life. With a strong commitment to continue scientific ocean drilling beyond the end of the current phase, the community developed a document outlining the research frontiers that should be pursued. Exploring Earth by Scientific Ocean Drilling: 2050 Science Framework (Koppers and Coggon, 2020) describes seven scientific strategic objectives that focus on understanding interconnections within the Earth system and five flagship initiatives that integrate these objectives into long-term research efforts that address issues facing society. Additional elements in the 2050 Science Framework, including STEM education, workforce development, technology development, and innovative applications of data analytics, will advance the goals of scientific ocean drilling. Addressing the 2050 Science Framework also requires building partnerships with allied U.S. and international science programs and strengthening existing ones. To implement a significant portion of the 2050 Science Framework, the U.S. scientific community seeks to lease or acquire a newly built, globally ranging, state-of-the art, riserless drilling vessel. The many and varied technical and human resources requirements for successful accomplishment of scientific and educational goals summarized in this document and described in detail in the 2050 Science Framework require broad community input and careful consideration. Following receipt of NSF’s formal Request for Assistance to the United States Science Support Program (USSSP), the U.S. scientific ocean drilling community conducted a one-year exercise to identify its national scientific needs and priorities in order to determine the Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) presented here. This community effort included: (1) a U.S. community-wide survey to identify the specific operational and technical capabilities critical to addressing science in the 2050 Science Framework; (2) a series of online workshops focusing on critical capabilities identified by the survey; and (3) a large in-person workshop to synthesize the results of the survey and the virtual workshops (Appendix 1). The approach was designed to reach as many participants as possible. Overall, 278 survey responses were received from U.S. community members, representing 104 unique institutions from 39 states and the District of Columbia, and 137 unique individuals participated in the workshops (Appendix 2). The results of this effort comprise two classes of SMRs: Foundational Science Mission Requirements and Primary Science Mission Requirements. Foundational SMRs define minimum criteria for a new riserless drilling vessel that can address significant portions of the 2050 Science Framework. Primary SMRs build upon the Foundational SMRs and will create more robust science opportunities and data collection capabilities, will increase progress in addressing the 2050 Science Framework objectives, and will provide more real-time ship-to-shore interaction to improve science productivity, engagement, and outreach. Modern safety and environmental standards, including meeting standards to access protected waters such as exclusive economic zones, extended continental shelves, or high latitudes, while being cognizant of the vessel’s environmental footprint. Safe and efficient operations in global locations and in water depths from 70 m to 6000+ m, with total drill string length of at least 7000 m. High-quality core and data collection from a range of key subseafloor environments. Advanced heave compensation, dynamic positioning, and drill pipe stability. Modern mud and cement/casing systems. Critical onboard measurements for safety, operational decision-making, documentation of ephemeral properties, mission-specific science, and long-term science goals that extend beyond a single expedition. Designated and appropriate space for sample and data preservation. Highly skilled onboard personnel, including technical staff for curation and core handling; support for safety, time-sensitive, and critical shipboard measurements; computer support; equipment and instrument repair; application support; and data assurance. Primary Science Mission Requirements include: Flexible shipboard space for laboratories and on deck to ensure safe, successful implementation of diverse science objectives and operations. Minimizing contamination of recovered samples. Over-the-side capabilities for science-supporting technology (e.g., remotely operated vehicles, water- column sampling, sediment-water interface sampling). Downhole logging and measurements. Expanded borehole observatory capabilities. Reliable and consistent ship-to-shore communications. NSF’s investment in a new globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will have a powerful economic multiplier effect, including the infusion of additional science support funds in the United States for training and research, the development of new technologies and tools, and the associated scientific and technical workforce development. The skills and knowledge gained through scientific ocean drilling are translatable to careers in fields such as sustainable energy development (e.g., geothermal and offshore wind), carbon sequestration, data management and cyberinfrastructure, biotechnology, communications, science education, policy, hazard mitigation, and environmental management. The United States is a leader in a well-established and internationally collaborative scientific ocean drilling community. A modern, globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will allow the United States to expand its leadership position, address broad scientific questions that current capabilities preclude, and cultivate equitable international, multidisciplinary collaborations that will ensure scientific ocean drilling’s future success.

Report↗
USGS2006

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

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

Circular↗
USGS2013

Integrated environmental modeling: a vision and roadmap for the future

Integrated environmental modeling (IEM) is inspired by modern environmental problems, decisions, and policies and enabled by transdisciplinary science and computer capabilities that allow the environment to be considered in a holistic way. The problems are characterized by the extent of the environmental system involved, dynamic and interdependent nature of stressors and their impacts, diversity of stakeholders, and integration of social, economic, and environmental considerations. IEM provides a science-based structure to develop and organize relevant knowledge and information and apply it to explain, explore, and predict the behavior of environmental systems in response to human and natural sources of stress. During the past several years a number of workshops were held that brought IEM practitioners together to share experiences and discuss future needs and directions. In this paper we organize and present the results of these discussions. IEM is presented as a landscape containing four interdependent elements: applications, science, technology, and community. The elements are described from the perspective of their role in the landscape, current practices, and challenges that must be addressed. Workshop participants envision a global scale IEM community that leverages modern technologies to streamline the movement of science-based knowledge from its sources in research, through its organization into databases and models, to its integration and application for problem solving purposes. Achieving this vision will require that the global community of IEM stakeholders transcend social, and organizational boundaries and pursue greater levels of collaboration. Among the highest priorities for community action are the development of standards for publishing IEM data and models in forms suitable for automated discovery, access, and integration; education of the next generation of environmental stakeholders, with a focus on transdisciplinary research, development, and decision making; and providing a web-based platform for community interactions (e.g., continuous virtual workshops).

Environmental Modelling and Software↗
USGS2000

Towards policy relevant environmental modeling: contextual validity and pragmatic models

"What makes for a good model?" In various forms, this question is a question that, undoubtedly, many people, businesses, and institutions ponder with regards to their particular domain of modeling. One particular domain that is wrestling with this question is the multidisciplinary field of environmental modeling. Examples of environmental models range from models of contaminated ground water flow to the economic impact of natural disasters, such as earthquakes. One of the distinguishing claims of the field is the relevancy of environmental modeling to policy and environment-related decision-making in general. A pervasive view by both scientists and decision-makers is that a "good" model is one that is an accurate predictor. Thus, determining whether a model is "accurate" or "correct" is done by comparing model output to empirical observations. The expected outcome of this process, usually referred to as "validation" or "ground truthing," is a stamp on the model in question of "valid" or "not valid" that serves to indicate whether or not the model will be reliable before it is put into service in a decision-making context. In this paper, I begin by elaborating on the prevailing view of model validation and why this view must change. Drawing from concepts coming out of the studies of science and technology, I go on to propose a contextual view of validity that can overcome the problems associated with "ground truthing" models as an indicator of model goodness. The problem of how we talk about and determine model validity has much to do about how we perceive the utility of environmental models. In the remainder of the paper, I argue that we should adopt ideas of pragmatism in judging what makes for a good model and, in turn, developing good models. From such a perspective of model goodness, good environmental models should facilitate communication, convey—not bury or "eliminate"—uncertainties, and, thus, afford the active building of consensus decisions, instead of promoting passive or self-righteous decisions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey global seabed mineral resources

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides science and data on seabed mineral resources and ecosystems, as well as on the potential hazards associated with extraction. The Nation relies on minerals for infrastructure, technology, manufacturing, and energy production. Critical minerals are essential to the economic and national security of the United States and have a supply chain vulnerable to disruption. For decades, USGS scientific innovation has contributed to the delineation of seabed mineral resources, the mechanisms of seabed mineral formation, and the environmental impacts of resource extraction. Since 1962, the USGS has also led scientific inquiries into the potential for deep sea mining. By providing impartial science on seabed minerals and their environmental setting in the deep oceans, the USGS enables decision-makers to evaluate the best practices for mineral resource development.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

Nanotechnology - An emerging technology

The science of nanotechnology is still in its infancy. However, progress is being made in research and development of potential beneficial properties of nanomaterials that could play an integral part in the development of new and changing uses for mineral commodities. Nanotechnology is a kind of toolbox that allows industry to make nanomaterials and nanostructures with special properties. New nanotechnology applications of mineral commodities in their nanoscale form are being discovered, researched and developed. At the same time, there is continued research into environmental, human health and safety concerns that inherently arise from the development of a new technology. Except for a few nanomaterials (CNTs, copper, silver and zinc oxide), widespread applications are hampered by processing and suitable commercial-scale production techniques, high manufacturing costs, product price, and environmental, and human health and safety concerns. Whether nanotechnology causes a tidal wave of change or is a long-term evolutionary process of technology, new applications of familiar mineral commodities will be created. As research and development continues, the ability to manipulate matter at the nanoscale into increasingly sophisticated nanomaterials will improve and open up new possibilities for industry that will change the flow and use of mineral commodities and the materials and products that are used.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2024

Observing systems, modeling, and forecasting

Predicting harmful algal blooms (HABs) requires integrating physical, chemical, and biological data collected from observing networks and then assimilating these data into models, which are used to generate forecasts. In 2005, the Harmful Algal Research and Response: A National Environmental Science Strategy 2005-2015 (HARRNESS, 2005) made recommendations on how to improve HAB modeling and forecasting over the next decade. Key HARRNESS recommendations related to sensing, networking, and modeling HABs included: ● Support the development and validation of new and improved technologies for remote cell and toxin detection, and for modeling and forecasting, ● Improve coordination of monitoring/ and modeling efforts, both at national and regional levels, ● Improve the use of networking technologies for monitoring and modeling efforts, ● Conduct sustained time series measurements of the biotic, chemical, and physical environments impacted by HABs, ● Develop food web models on the ecosystem fate and effects of toxins, ● Develop and improve species-specific models that link to physical-biological models. Here we review HAB observing, modeling, and forecasting advances and technologies and recommend research and management priorities for the next decade and beyond. Our report encompasses sensing technologies, sensor networking and data management, models and forecasts, and the paths to operationalize forecasts. Continued improvements of deployable sensors are foundational to improving early warning indicators, models, and forecasts, which are only as good as the underlying data. Sensing technology has advanced considerably in the last decade; for example, more capable fluorometric pigment sensors can track changes in bloom biomass in real-time. Additionally, automated imaging/classifying systems to identify and quantify key harmful algal (HA) taxa are being routinely deployed. However, deployable toxin sensors are available for only some HAB toxins and continue to be identified as a critical need by researchers and managers. As more and improved sensors and technologies become available, the data quality associated with each sensor needs to be assessed. Data quality encompasses the reliability, accuracy, and uncertainty associated with sensor-generated data. These data need to be of known quality so that researchers, managers, and end-users can reliably determine if the information is appropriate for their intended applications. Many of the data quality recommendations from HARRNESS (2005) are still relevant and have been reiterated within the management community. Understanding and documenting data quality, and when applicable, standardizing best practices for sensor use, continue to be recommended.

Report↗
USGS2007

Invasive species management and research using GIS

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are powerful tools in the field of invasive species management. GIS can be used to create potential distribution maps for all manner of taxa, including plants, animals, and diseases. GIS also performs well in the early detection and rapid assessment of invasive species. Here, we used GIS applications to investigate species richness and invasion patterns in fish in the United States (US) at the 6-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) level. We also created maps of potential spread of the cane toad (Bufo marinus) in the southeastern US at the 8-digit HUC level using regression and environmental envelope techniques. Equipped with this potential map, resource managers can target their field surveys to areas most vulnerable to invasion. Advances in GIS technology, maps, data, and many of these techniques can be found on websites such as the National Institute of Invasive Species Science (www.NIISS.org). Such websites provide a forum for data sharing and analysis that is an invaluable service to the invasive species community.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2016

Nutrients in the nexus

Synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer has enabled modern agriculture to greatly improve human nutrition during the twentieth century, but it has also created unintended human health and environmental pollution challenges for the twenty-first century. Averaged globally, about half of the fertilizer-N applied to farms is removed with the crops, while the other half remains in the soil or is lost from farmers’ fields, resulting in water and air pollution. As human population continues to grow and food security improves in the developing world, the dual development goals of producing more nutritious food with low pollution will require both technological and socio-economic innovations in agriculture. Two case studies presented here, one in sub-Saharan Africa and the other in Midwestern United States, demonstrate how management of nutrients, water, and energy is inextricably linked in both small-scale and large-scale food production, and that science-based solutions to improve the efficiency of nutrient use can optimize food production while minimizing pollution. To achieve the needed large increases in nutrient use efficiency, however, technological developments must be accompanied by policies that recognize the complex economic and social factors affecting farmer decision-making and national policy priorities. Farmers need access to affordable nutrient supplies and support information, and the costs of improving efficiencies and avoiding pollution may need to be shared by society through innovative policies. Success will require interdisciplinary partnerships across public and private sectors, including farmers, private sector crop advisors, commodity supply chains, government agencies, university research and extension, and consumers.

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences↗
USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Nanomaterials in the environment: Behavior, fate, bioavailability, and effects—An updated review

The present review covers developments in studies of nanomaterials (NMs) in the environment since our much cited review in 2008. We discuss novel insights into fate and behavior, metrology, transformations, bioavailability, toxicity mechanisms, and environmental impacts, with a focus on terrestrial and aquatic systems. Overall, the findings were that: 1) despite substantial developments, critical gaps remain, in large part due to the lack of analytical, modeling, and field capabilities, and also due to the breadth and complexity of the area; 2) a key knowledge gap is the lack of data on environmental concentrations and dosimetry generally; 3) substantial evidence shows that there are nanospecific effects (different from the effects of both ions and larger particles) on the environment in terms of fate, bioavailability, and toxicity, but this is not consistent for all NMs, species, and relevant processes; 4) a paradigm is emerging that NMs are less toxic than equivalent dissolved materials but more toxic than the corresponding bulk materials; and 5) translation of incompletely understood science into regulation and policy continues to be challenging. There is a developing consensus that NMs may pose a relatively low environmental risk, but because of uncertainty and lack of data in many areas, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. In addition, this emerging consensus will likely change rapidly with qualitative changes in the technology and increased future discharges.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗
USGS2015

Agencies collaborate, develop a cyanobacteria assessment network

Cyanobacteria are a genetically diverse group of photosynthetic microorganisms that occupy a broad range of habitats on land and water all over the world. They release toxins that can cause lung and skin irritation, alter the taste and odor of potable water, and cause human and animal illness. Cyanobacteria blooms occur worldwide, and climate change may increase the frequency, duration, and extent of these bloom events. Rapid detection of potentially harmful blooms is essential to protect humans and animals from exposure. Information about potential for exposure, such as bloom duration, frequency, and extent, is especially critical for developing environmental management decisions during periods of limited resources and funding. The National Research Council (NRC) report Exposure Science in the 21st Century suggested that effectively assessing and mitigating exposures requires techniques for rapid measurement of a stressor, such as an algal bloom, across diverse geographic, temporal, and biologic scales (e.g., various bloom concentrations) and an enhanced infrastructure to address threats [ NRC , 2012]. The report specifically calls for approaches that use diverse information, such as satellite remote sensing, to identify and understand exposures that may pose a threat to ecosystems or human health. A collaborative effort integrates the work of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide an approach for using satellite ocean color capabilities in U.S. fresh and brackish water quality management decisions. The overarching goal of this collaborative project is to detect and quantify cyanobacteria blooms using satellite data records in order to support the environmental management and public use of U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Satellite remote sensing tools may enable policy makers and environmental managers to assess the sustainability of watershed ecosystems and the services they provide, now and in the future. Satellite technology allows us to develop early-warning indicators of cyanobacteria blooms at the local scale while maintaining continuous national coverage.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2026

Colocating artificial intelligence data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands—A science synthesis and spatial analysis to inform decision making

Executive Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and economies, creating an urgent need to strategically plan for the energy and infrastructure required to support increasing AI use. U.S. Federal agencies and bureaus have been directed to explore ways to accelerate permitting, development, and deployment of energy resources and AI technologies, including encouraging the colocation of energy infrastructure and data centers. To inform these initiatives, this report synthesizes relevant scientific information and presents a spatial analysis of existing energy infrastructure and data centers on or near U.S. Federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of this science synthesis and spatial analysis is to provide the BLM with foundational information for considering potential colocation of data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands to support evidence-based decisions. Additionally, this report provides insight into current (2025) and potential future energy demands by providing projections of a range of potential future environmental conditions relevant to maintaining industry-recommended cooling temperature standards necessary for efficient data center operations. As a part of this effort, a rapid response literature review was conducted of the best available science on the topic of data center development and energy infrastructure in July–August 2025, supplemented by additional resources recommended by U.S. Federal agency and bureau subject matter experts (hereafter experts; including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory of the Rockies) and peer reviewers. To better understand current conditions relevant to AI data center development, a spatial analysis was conducted across Alaska and 11 States in the Western United States, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, all of which contain extensive BLM-managed surface lands (hereafter referred to as “BLM lands”) that could be considered for the colocation of energy infrastructure and AI data centers. This effort identified BLM lands within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, consistent with methods used in previous BLM programmatic environmental impact statements. This report describes the types of data centers operating within the United States, which vary in ownership, size, technology, and proximity to end users. This report then outlines the primary considerations of data center development, including reliable energy supply, natural resources (such as water availability to support cooling requirements), and relevant policy and regulatory considerations. Energy supply considerations are pivotal for data center operation. Between 2014 and 2018, data centers in the United States accounted for nearly 2 percent of the Nation’s total electricity consumption, and data center energy consumption is projected to increase from 2 to 6.7–12 percent of total U.S. electricity use by 2028. These energy requirements necessitate careful consideration of energy supply when considering potentially suitable locations for data center development. Experts anticipate that an increase in renewable energy generation will likely support most potential future power demand needs, including for data centers, followed by increases in natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy production. Additional capacity in the form of battery storage will likely not generate electricity, but may improve the reliability and flexibility of supply, helping to ensure that growing data center loads can be met. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States will need, on average, 57 percent more energy transmission infrastructure by 2035 to account for the growing power demand introduced by development such as data centers. Cooling server equipment in data centers requires large amounts of electricity and water, and this demand can be exacerbated by hot and humid conditions. Energy efficient water-based cooling technologies may reduce electricity consumption onsite but require more water consumption. This additional water demand has the potential to increase water stress and competition with other users. As such, developing data centers will likely need a thorough assessment of current and potential future water availability, as well as consideration of how water demand may change across other sectors. Data center development involves policy and regulatory considerations, as projects must undergo environmental review and authorization processes that can take 18–24 months. Coordinating these environmental reviews and authorizations with other energy development projects, such as building new transmission lines, may cause additional delays. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior aim to expedite environmental reviews and authorizations and improve coordination across agencies. The spatial analysis identified 771 existing AI data centers and more than 3,300 power plants. The spatial analysis found that 6 percent of AI data centers and 22 percent of power plants in the Western United States were on or within 1 mile of BLM lands, and California had the largest number of facilities. Most existing AI data centers were near high-voltage transmission lines and close to power plants, supporting efficient energy delivery. More than 90,000,000 acres of BLM lands were within 10 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines, representing 38 percent of BLM lands in the study area. Available transmission infrastructure and the overlap with BLM lands varied by State, and Alaska had limited overlap compared to the rest of the Western United States. To operate most efficiently, data center temperatures must be at or below 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis of future temperature and precipitation projections indicated increasing cooling demands for data centers, particularly in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where rising temperatures are expected to increase energy and operational costs while potentially stressing current regional electrical grid infrastructure. This report highlights relevant energy supply, natural resources, and regulatory considerations for data center development on BLM lands. This report does not provide a comprehensive ecological, regulatory, land suitability, or permitting analysis. The factors described here are contextual considerations only and are not intended to identify, rank, quantify, or recommend optimal areas for data center colocation. This spatial analysis focused solely on energy considerations relevant to data centers and did not consider water availability, critical habitats, BLM National Conservation Lands, areas of cultural or historical significance, and other sensitive resources. These topics are recognized as critical but were not within the scope of this science synthesis and spatial analysis.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS1979

Geochemical surveys in the United States in relation to health.

Geochemical surveys in relation to health may be classified as having one, two or three dimensions. One-dimensional surveys examine relations between concentrations of elements such as Pb in soils and other media and burdens of the same elements in humans, at a given time. The spatial distributions of element concentrations are not investigated. The primary objective of two-dimensional surveys is to map the distributions of element concentrations, commonly according to stratified random sampling designs based on either conceptual landscape units or artificial sampling strata, but systematic sampling intervals have also been used. Political units have defined sample areas that coincide with the units used to accumulate epidemiological data. Element concentrations affected by point sources have also been mapped. Background values, location of natural or technological anomalies and the geographic scale of variation for several elements often are determined. Three-dimensional surveys result when two-dimensional surveys are repeated to detect environmental changes. -Author

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:↗
USGS2025

Too much and not enough data: Challenges and solutions for generating information in freshwater research and monitoring

Evaluating progress toward achieving freshwater conservation and sustainability goals requires transforming diverse types of data into useful information for scientists, managers, and other interest groups. Despite substantial increases in the volume of freshwater data collected worldwide, many regions and ecosystems still lack sufficient data collection and/or data access. We illustrate how these data challenges result from a diverse set of underlying mechanisms and propose solutions that can be applied by individuals or organizations. We discuss creative approaches to address data scarcity, including the use of community science, remote-sensing, environmental sensors, and legacy datasets. We highlight the importance of coordinated data collection efforts among groups and training programs to improve data access. At the institutional level, we emphasize the power of prioritizing data curation, incentivizing data publication, and promoting research that enhances data coverage and representativeness. Some of these strategies involve technological and analytical approaches, but many necessitate shifting the priorities and incentives of organizations such as academic and government research institutions, monitoring groups, journals, and funding agencies. Our overarching goal is to stimulate discussion to narrow the data disparities hindering the understanding of freshwater processes and their change across spatial scales.

Nahuel Huapi Lake, Lake Tahoe↗