Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Report to Congress”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2001

Abstracts from "Coastal Marsh Dieback in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Extent, Causes, Consequences, and Remedies

In the spring of 2000, scientists discovered a new and unprecedented loss of salt marsh vegetation in coastal Louisiana and other areas along the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico. This dieback of salt marsh vegetation, sometimes called the brown marsh phenomenon', primarily involved the rapid browning and dieback of smooth cordgrass (Spanina alterniflora). Coastal Louisiana has already undergone huge, historical losses of coastal marsh due to both human-induced and natural factors, and the current overall rate of wetland loss (25-35 sq mi 65-91 SQ KM each year) stands to threaten Louisiana's coastal ecosystem, infrastructure, and economy. On January 11-12, 2001, individuals from Federal and State agencies, universities, and the private sector met at the conference 'Coastal Marsh Dieback in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: Extent, Causes, Consequences, and Remedies' to discuss and share information shout the marsh dieback. Presentations discussed trends in the progress of dieback during the summer of 2000 and in environmental conditions occurring at field study sites, possible causes including drought and Mississippi low flow' conditions, changes in soil conditions (salinity, the bioavailability of metals, pathogens, etc.), the potential for wetland loss that could occur if above and below normality occurs and is sustained over an extended period, advanced techniques for tracking the dieback via aerial photography and remote sensing, linkages of marsh hydrology to the dieback, and mechanisms of modeling dieback and recovery. In addition, presentations were made regarding development of a web site to facilitate information sharing and progress in preparation for requests for proposals based on an emergency appropriation by the U.S. Congress. All findings tended to support the idea that the dieback constituted a continuing environmental emergency and research and natural resource management efforts should be expended accordingly.

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2005

Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides information to the public and to policy-makers concerning the current use and flow of minerals and materials in the United States economy. The USGS collects, analyzes, and disseminates minerals information on most nonfuel mineral commodities. This USGS digital database is an online compilation of historical U.S. statistics on mineral and material commodities. The database contains information on approximately 90 mineral commodities, including production, imports, exports, and stocks; reported and apparent consumption; and unit value (the real and nominal price in U.S. dollars of a metric ton of apparent consumption). For many of the commodities, data are reported as far back as 1900. Each commodity file includes a document that describes the units of measure, defines terms, and lists USGS contacts for additional information. End-use tables complement these statistics by supplying, for most of these commodities, information about the distribution of apparent consumption. This publication draws on more than 125 years of minerals information experience. At the request of the 47th Congress of the United States (1882; 22 Stat. 329), the U.S. Government began the collection and public distribution of these types of data. The Federal agencies responsible for the collection of the data have changed through time. For the years 1882-1924, the USGS collected and published these data; the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) performed these tasks from 1925-95; and in 1996, the responsibilities once again passed to the USGS (following the closure of the USBM) (Mlynarski, 1998). The USGS collects data on a monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis from more than 18,000 minerals-related producer and consumer establishments that cooperate with the USGS. These companies voluntarily complete about 40,000 canvass forms that survey production, consumption, recycling, stocks, shipments, and other essential information. Data are also gathered from site visits, memberships on domestic and international minerals-related committees, and coordination with other government organizations and trade associations. The USGS makes this information available through published products, including monthly, quarterly, and annual Mineral Industry Surveys, the annual Minerals Yearbook (MYB), the annual Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS), and special mineral commodity studies, including the history of metal prices and materials flow studies.

Data Series↗
USGS2001

USGS Mineral Resources Program; national maps and datasets for research and land planning

The U.S. Geological Survey, the Nation’s leader in producing and maintaining earth science data, serves as an advisor to Congress, the Department of the Interior, and many other Federal and State agencies. Nationwide datasets that are easily available and of high quality are critical for addressing a wide range of land-planning, resource, and environmental issues. Four types of digital databases (geological, geophysical, geochemical, and mineral occurrence) are being compiled and upgraded by the Mineral Resources Program on regional and national scales to meet these needs. Where existing data are incomplete, new data are being collected to ensure national coverage. Maps and analyses produced from these databases provide basic information essential for mineral resource assessments and environmental studies, as well as fundamental information for regional and national land-use studies. Maps and analyses produced from the databases are instrumental to ongoing basic research, such as the identification of mineral deposit origins, determination of regional background values of chemical elements with known environmental impact, and study of the relationships between toxic elements or mining practices to human health. As datasets are completed or revised, the information is made available through a variety of media, including the Internet. Much of the available information is the result of cooperative activities with State and other Federal agencies. The upgraded Mineral Resources Program datasets make geologic, geophysical, geochemical, and mineral occurrence information at the state, regional, and national scales available to members of Congress, State and Federal government agencies, researchers in academia, and the general public. The status of the Mineral Resources Program datasets is outlined below.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1994

Overview of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program

The Nation's water resources are the basis for life and our economic vitality. These resources support a complex web of human activities and fishery and wildlife needs that depend upon clean water. Demands for good-quality water for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry are rising, and as a result, the American public is concerned about the condition and sustainability of our water resources. The American public is asking: Is it safe to swim in and drink water from our rivers or lakes? Can we eat the fish that come from them? Is our ground water polluted? Is water quality degrading with time, and if so, why? Has all the money we've spent to clean up our waters, done any good? The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program was designed to provide information that will help answer these questions. NAWQA is designed to assess historical, current, and future water-quality conditions in representative river basins and aquifers nationwide. One of the primary objectives of the program is to describe relations between natural factors, human activities, and water-quality conditions and to define those factors that most affect water quality in different parts of the Nation. The linkage of water quality to environmental processes is of fundamental importance to water-resource managers, planners, and policy makers. It provides a strong and unbiased basis for better decisionmaking by those responsible for making decisions that affect our water resources, including the United States Congress, Federal, State, and local agencies, environmental groups, and industry. Information from the NAWQA Program also will be useful for guiding research, monitoring, and regulatory activities in cost effective ways.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2012

Biotic, water-quality, and hydrologic metrics calculated for the analysis of temporal trends in National Water Quality Assessment Program Data in the Western United States

The U.S. Geological Survey's National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program was established by Congress in 1991 to collect long-term, nationally consistent information on the quality of the Nation's streams and groundwater. The NAWQA Program utilizes interdisciplinary and dynamic studies that link the chemical and physical conditions of streams (such as flow and habitat) with ecosystem health and the biologic condition of algae, aquatic invertebrates, and fish communities. This report presents metrics derived from NAWQA data and the U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging network for sampling sites in the Western United States, as well as associated chemical, habitat, and streamflow properties. The metrics characterize the conditions of algae, aquatic invertebrates, and fish. In addition, we have compiled climate records and basin characteristics related to the NAWQA sampling sites. The calculated metrics and compiled data can be used to analyze ecohydrologic trends over time.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1974

Environmental impact analysis; the example of the proposed Trans-Alaska Pipeline

The environmental impact analysis made as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline included consideration of the (1) technologically complex and geographically extensive proposed project, (2) extremely different physical environments across Alaska along the proposed route and elsewhere in Alaska and in Canada along alternative routes, (3) socioeconomic environment of the State of Alaska, and (4) a wide variety of alternatives. The analysis was designed specifically to fit the project and environment that would be affected. The environment was divided into two general parts--natural physical systems and superposed socioeconomic systems--and those parts were further divided into discipline-oriented systems or components that were studied and analyzed by scientists of the appropriate discipline. Particular attention was given to potential feedback loops in the impact network and to linkages between the project's impacting effects and the environment. The results of the analysis as reported in the final environmental impact statement were that both unavoidable and threatened environmental impacts would result from construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed pipeline system and the developments related to it. The principal unavoidable effects would be (1) disturbances of terrain, fish and wildlife habitat, and human environs, (2) the results of the discharge of effluent from the tanker-ballast-treatment facility into Port Valdez and of some indeterminate amount of oil released into the ocean from tank-cleaning operations at sea, and (3) the results associated with increased human pressures of all kinds on the environment. Other unavoidable effects would be those related to increase of State and Native Corporation revenues, accelerated cultural change of the Native population, and extraction of the oil and gas resource. The main threatened environmental effects would all be related to unintentional oil loss from the pipeline, from tankers, or in the oil field. Oil losses from the pipeline could be caused by direct or indirect effects of earthquakes, destructive sea waves, slope failure caused by natural or artificial processes, thaw-plug instability (in permafrost), differential settlement of permafrost terrain, and bed scour and bank erosion at stream crossings. Oil loss from tankers could be caused by accidents during transfer operations at Valdez and at destination ports and by casualties involving tankers and other ships. Comparison of alternative routes and transportation systems and of their environmental impacts provided information which indicates to the author that one corridor containing both oil and gas pipelines would have less environmental impact than would separate corridors. Considering also the threat to the marine environment that any tanker system would impose and the threat that zones of high earthquake frequency and magnitude would impose on pipelines, it is apparent to the author that environmental impact and cost would be least for a single-corridor on-land route that avoided earthquake zones. The alternative trans-Alaska-Canada routes would meet these criteria. The decisions of the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Congress, and the President of the United States in favor of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline system indicate the relative weight given by the decision makers in balancing the importance of potential environmental consequences against the advantages to be derived from rapid resource development.

Circular↗
USGS2004

A preliminary assessment of geologic framework and sediment thickness studies relevant to prospective US submission on extended continental shelf

Under the provisions of Articles 76 and 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), coastal States have sovereign rights over the continental shelf territory beyond 200-nautical mile (nm) from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured if certain conditions are met regarding the geologic and physiographic character of the legal continental shelf as defined in those articles. These claims to an extended continental shelf must be supported by relevant bathymetric, geophysical and geological data according to guidelines established by the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS, 1999). In anticipation of the United States becoming party to UNCLOS, Congress in 2001 directed the Joint Hydrographic Center/Center for Coastal and Ocean Mapping at the University of New Hampshire to conduct a study to evaluate data relevant to establishing the outer limit of the juridical continental shelf beyond 200 nm and to recommend what additional data might be needed to substantiate such an outer limit (Mayer and others, 2002). The resulting report produced an impressive and sophisticated GIS database of data sources. Because of the short time allowed to complete the report, all seismic reflection data were classified together; the authors therefore recommended that USGS perform additional analysis on seismic and related data holdings. The results of this additional analysis are the substance of this report, including the status of geologic framework, sediment isopach research, and resource potential in the eight regions1 identified by Mayer and others (2002) where analysis of seismic data might be crucial for establishing an outer limit . Seismic reflection and refraction data are essential in determining sediment thickness, one of the criteria used in establishing the outer limits of the juridical continental shelf. Accordingly, the initial task has been to inventory public-domain seismic data sources, primarily those regionally extensive data held within the Department of the Interior (DOI). The numerous seismic reflection and refraction surveys collected prior to 1970 by academic and governmental institutions are generally not included in this compilation, except where they provide unique data in a region. These data sources were omitted from this report because they were deemed to be of insufficient quality (poorly navigated or low resolution) to meet the CLCS standards for a submission, or they were redundant with higher-quality, more modern data. Hence, this report attempts to identify those data sets of highest utility for establishing the outer limits of the juridical continental shelf. If there was any ambiguity or uncertainty about the relevance of a data set to a continental shelf submission, either by its quality, location, or other parameter, it was included in this compilation. This report does not summarize other geophysical data (such as marine magnetics or gravity) that might be relevant to understanding crustal provenance and geological continuity. Detailed metadata tables and maps are included to facilitate the location and utilization of these sources when a comprehensive assessment (?desktop study?) is undertaken.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1984

Geohydrologic conditions in the Vekol Valley, Pinal and Maricopa Counties, Arizona-1983

Vekol Valley is a north-trending valley in south-central Arizona. The valley includes 270 mi 2 and is bounded by the Table Top and Vekol Mountains on the east, the Sand Tank and Maricopa Mountains and the White Hills on the west, and the Both and Haley Hills on the north. The climate is semiarid and precipitation occurs as local summer thunderstorms and regional winter storms. The average annual precipitation is 7 to 8 in., and the potential evaporation rate is about 10 times that of the average annual rainfall (Sells and Hill, 1974, p. 7, 44). Storm runoff occurs mainly as sheetflow and floods of short duration. Although some runoff is diverted into catchment tanks for use by livestock, runoff is not used for irrigation or public supply. Vekol Valley is underlain by a thick sequence of basin sediments, sedimentary rocks, and volcanic rocks. The surrounding mountains are composed of crystalline and volcanic rocks, which also underlie the basin sediments to form the sides and bottom of the basin. The valley is divided into a northern part and a southern part by a bedrock outcrop of crystalline rocks between the White Hills on the west and the Table Top Mountains on the east (R. P. Wilson, 1979, p. 8). The northern part is about 90 mi 2 (J. R. Marie and K. J. Hollett, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1984) and the southern part is about 180 mi 2 . The hydrologic data on which this map is based are available, for the most part, in computer-printout form and may be consulted at the Arizona Department of Water Resources, 99 East Virginia, Phoenix, and the U.S. Geological Survey offices in: Federal Building, 301 West Congress Street, Tucson , and 3788 North 16th Street, Suite E, Phoenix. Material from which copies can be made at private expense is available at the Tuscon and Phoenix offices of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Arizona↗
USGS1914

The Glacier National Park: A popular guide to its geology and scenery

The Glacier National Park includes that part of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains lying just south of the Canadian line, in Teton and Flathead counties, Mont. It is bounded on the west by Flathead River (locally called North Fork), on the south by the Middle Fork of Flathead River and the Great Northern Railway, and on the east by the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Although this part of the Rocky Mountains has been known since Lewis and Clark crossed the continent in 1805-6, the region later made a park appears not to have been visited by white men until 1853, when Cut Bank Pass was crossed by A. W. Tinkham, one of the Government engineers engaged in exploring a route for the Pacific railroad. Tinkham, who was encamped in the Bitterroot Valley, was ordered to examine Marias Pass, but in traversing Middle Fork of Flathead River along the line of the present railroad he was evidently misled by the large size of the valley of Nyack Creek and ascended that instead of keeping to the right up the main stream. He reported the pass impracticable for railroad construction, and so this region dropped out of public attention for a long time. The next explorers to enter the region were a group of surveyors who, under the direction of American and British commissioners, established the international boundary line along the forty-ninth parallel from the Pacific coast to the main summit of the Rocky Mountains. This party reached the area now included in the park in the summer of 1861, and the stone monument shown in Plate I, B, which they erected on the Continental Divide west of Waterton Lake, still marks a point on the boundary between the United States and Canada. The land on the west side of the range formed a part of the public domain which, until the erection of the park, was open to settlement, but the land on the east originally belonged to the Blackfeet Indians and the white men had no rights upon it. About 1890 copper ore was found near the heads of Quartz and Mineral creeks, and a great boom for this region followed. Many prospectors drifted in, expecting to reap rich rewards from the discovery of mineral deposits and the general development of the region. Several of the main trails were built about this time, and considerable money was spent in prospecting, in opening mines, and in providing machinery to handle the large output of copper ore that was expected. The copper-bearing veins were found to extend through the range to the east side, but prospecting in that part of the mountains was not possible, for the land was included in the Indian reservation. This situation produced a growing discontent among the prospectors, who began to have a strong feeling that the Government should come to their relief by acquiring the coveted land and placing it at their disposal. The urgent demand of the prospectors and promoters was felt in Congress, and a bill was passed providing for the purchase from the Indians of this supposed mineral land for $1,500,000. In accordance with this act, a treaty with the Blackfeet Indians was signed at Browning, Mont., September 26, 1895, and approved by the Senate on June 10, 1896, by which the west line of the reservation was removed from the Continental Divide and was fixed along the eastern points of the spurs of the mountain range, as shown on the accompanying map, and the land so acquired was thrown open to mineral entry only. Under the stimulus of the new territory acquired, active prospecting was carried on for a time, but copper ore was found only in small quantities, and gradually the prospectors and miners drifted away to newer or more promising fields, and the region reverted to its original condition. For a long time it was visited only by hunters in search of big game and by summer visitors who, in order to escape the heat of the plains, were willing to undergo the privations and discomforts of the rude hotels then to be found in the region. Although these mountains had ceased to interest prospectors in search of mineral wealth, they still possessed a fascination for the lovers of natural scenery and almost everyone who visited the region was impressed with its alpine beauty. Again it was brought to the attention of Congress, which was urged to secure it for the use of the people by setting it aside as a national park. On May 11, 1910, President Taft signed the bill creating the Glacier National Park, and this most interesting and beautiful region thus became a permanent playground for the American people.

Bulletin↗
USGS2024

One Health best practice case study: Advancing national One Health coordination in the United States through the One Health zoonotic disease prioritization process

The U.S. government advances One Health coordination through the best practices of jointly developing shared priorities and utilizing formalized coordination platforms to connect partners from public health, agriculture, wildlife, environment, and other sectors at the national, subnational (e.g. state, tribal, local, and territorial), and non-governmental levels (e.g. academia, industry, non-governmental organizations, and the public) levels. Coordinated efforts were strengthened through the U.S. One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization (OHZDP) workshop in 2017, which led to the prioritization of eight zoonotic diseases and development of next steps and action plans for One Health collaboration across federal agencies (Prioritizing Zoonotic Diseases for Multisectoral, One Health Collaboration in the United States, 2017). This One Health best practice was used to prioritize the top endemic and emerging zoonoses of greatest concern for the United States, identify gaps, and define plans for U.S. government One Health collaboration to address the priority zoonotic diseases. Multiple actions that strengthened One Health coordination were enacted, including establishing the One Health Federal Interagency COVID-19 Coordination (OH-FICC) group. To further advance One Health in the United States, Congress mandated that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture collaborate to develop the National One Health Framework to Address Zoonotic Diseases and Advance Public Health Preparedness in the United States as well as formalize a One Health, multisectoral coordination mechanism, the United States One Health Coordination Unit at the federal level (Appropriations Committee Report, 2021; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023). Enhancing national level One Health coordination in the United States has also helped advance collaboration with subnational and non-governmental levels to address timely One Health issues.

One Health Cases↗
USGS2025

Evaluating deterrent locations and sequence in the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway to minimize invasive carp occupancy and abundance

Invasive carps, specifically silver carp ( Hypophthalmichthys molitrix ), bighead carp ( H . nobilis ), grass carp ( Ctenopharyngodon idella ), and black carp ( Mylopharyngodon piceus ), have proliferated in the Mississippi River Basin owing to escapes from aquaculture facilities and intentional releases. In the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) of 2020 Sec. 509, Congress directed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to work with the Tennessee Valley Authority and other relevant agencies with deterrent projects to implement as many as 10 deterrent projects intended to manage and prevent the spread of invasive carp in the Tennessee and Cumberland River subbasins. The WRDA was amended in 2022 to include that at least one location must be situated on the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway. This report documents a structured decision-making process that engaged State and Federal agencies to evaluate alternative deterrent site sequences at specified lock and dam complexes on the Tennessee River, Cumberland River, and the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway. State and Federal agencies participated in a series of virtual and face-to-face meetings to structure the problem, expand the models used in previous decision analyses for the Tennessee River, and define management objectives. Potential deterrent sites were restricted to the downstream locations on the Tennessee River ( n =3), Cumberland River ( n =2), and the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway ( n =10). Only considering 15 sites allowed all feasible deterrent site combinations and sequences to be evaluated. Invasive carp relative abundance was projected for the Tennessee River, Cumberland River, and Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway management units for 20 years using a simulation model. The deterrent site sequences were ranked based on the system-level invasive carp relative abundance and distribution in year 20. The unique downstream expansion of invasive carp through the Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway was important to the interest group, but downstream movement rates were unknown; therefore, several downstream movement rates were evaluated, and the outcomes were used to rank deterrent site sequences. Additionally, the analysis incorporated two scenarios involving the retention and removal of an experimental deterrent at Barkley Lock on the Cumberland River. The results of the deterrent site sequences varied among downstream movement rates, with Tennessee–Tombigbee Waterway deterrent locations installed earlier in highly ranked sequences with increasing downstream movement rates. This analysis was time-limited owing to agency needs and represents Phase 1 of this project. Phase 2 expands Phase 1 to address additional uncertainties and more holistic management objectives and strategies.

Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee↗
USGS1966

Soviet books and publications on geological and chemical oceanography, hydrology, and other subjects acquired during the second international oceanographic congress, Moscow, June 1966: titles and some translated contents and notes

The listed publications represent a selection, by no means complete, of recent Soviet work in geological and chemical oceanography. Some works on hydrogeology and hydrochemistry of the continents, as well as a few publications on other subjects, such as geology, geophysics, and biology, also are included.

Report↗
USGS2020

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2019 year in review

Acting Chief’s Message Dear Cooperators: Members of the Cooperative Research Units are pleased to provide you with the “2019 Year in Review” report for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs). You will first note that this report looks a little different than those published in the past few years, as we opted for a shorter, more concise format this year. Inside you will find brief descriptions of just a few highlighted activities of unit scientists, students, and cooperators in support of our joint mission. Because of the shorter format, we are not able to include activities from every unit or State, but rest assured that we continue to value the great work that all of you do across the country and around the world. In fiscal year 2019, the CRU program was very productive despite challenging conditions, including budget uncertainty, a month-long furlough, and hiring delays. John Organ, Chief of the CRU program, retired in January 2019. The process to replace John was delayed several times, but as I write this, the position has been announced on the Federal Government recruitment site. I am hopeful that by the time you read this, we will have a new permanent chief. Congress provided an increase of $1 million in our allocation for the express purpose of filling some of the vacancies in our scientific workforce. Since receiving that increase, the management team has been working to fill vacancies. The program is fortunate to have excellent research scientists, dedicated leadership, and an outstanding administrative staff. However, our accomplishments depend on the tremendous support from all of you. We look forward to a productive 2020. John D. Thompson

Circular↗
USGS2015

Sixth International Limnogeology Congress: abstract volume, Reno, Nevada, June 15-19, 2015

Limnogeology is the study of modern lakes and lake deposits in the geologic record. Limnogeologists have been active since the 1800s, but interest in limnogeology became prevalent in the early 1990s when it became clear that lake deposits contain continental environmental and climate records. A society that is focused on limnogeology would allow greater communication and access to research on these important subjects and contribute to providing sound science used to understand rapid global changes in our modern world; thus, the International Association of Limnogeology was founded in 1995 at the first International Limnogeology Congress (ILIC) held in Copenhagen, Denmark. The Sixth International Limnogeology Congress (ILIC6) was held in Reno, Nevada, from June 15–19, 2015. The ILIC meetings have been held every 4 years since the first meeting in1995 and were subsequently convened in Brest, France (1999), Tucson, Arizona, USA (2003), Barcelona, Spain (2007), and Konstanz, Germany (2011). The Congress in Reno, USA marks the second time the Congress has been held in the United States and more than 150 scientists from every part of the world participated. About one-half of the participants were from North America, together with scientists from Europe, South America, Asia, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. The format of the Reno Congress followed the format originated at the Tucson Congress (ILIC3), which is unusual for scientific meetings. Nine keynote speakers spread throughout the Congress gave 1-hour talks, with the rest of the time available for viewing posters that were presented by the bulk of the participants. Keynote presentations were diverse and showed the breadth of research that is being done in lake systems worldwide. The abstracts of the keynote speakers and about 140 poster presentations are included in this volume. These posters cover a variety of limnologic, paleolimnologic, and limnogeologic topics including contaminant histories of lakes, the role of groundwater in lake processes, the formation of minerals in lake sediments, terminal lakes, how lakes reveal climate changes and paleohydrologic processes, the impact of volcanic emissions on lakes, as well as the biologic and chemical evolution of lake systems. The U.S. Geological Survey has sponsored each ILIC that has been held in the United States because of the importance of understanding paleoclimate and contaminant histories of lakes, two main themes of the Congress. This volume provides a permanent record of the wide variety of studies that are being conducted in modern lakes and ancient lake deposits worldwide, and it provides a stepping stone for any one desiring further discussion of the work that was presented at ILIC6.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Characterizing 12 years of wildland fire science at the U.S. Geological Survey: Wildland Fire Science Publications, 2006–17

Wildland fire characteristics, such as area burned, number of large fires, burn intensity, and fire season duration, have increased steadily over the past 30 years, resulting in substantial increases in the costs of suppressing fires and managing damages from wildland fire events (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Wildland fire management could benefit from sound decision making based on reliable scientific information. Fire scientists produce data, tools, and information to support fire and land management decision making. With ever-changing land use scenarios, environmental conditions, and emerging technological capabilities, new assessments and studies are continually needed. Established by Congress in 1879, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary science branch of the Department of the Interior (DOI), which manages more than 400 million acres of public lands in the United States. The USGS has more than 100 scientists across seven Mission Areas that help address the wildland fire science needs of DOI bureaus and their stakeholders. The diverse expertise of these scientists allows them to address complex interdisciplinary challenges. In this report, we identify and characterize scientific literature produced by USGS scientists during 2006–17 that addresses topics associated with wildland fire science. Our goals were to (1) make the most complete list possible of product citations readily available in an organized format, and (2) use bibliometric analysis approaches to highlight the productivity of USGS scientists and the impact of contributions that the Bureau has provided to the scientific, land management, and fire management communities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

The National integrated water availability assessment, water years 2010–20

Water availability is fundamentally important to human well-being, economic vitality, and ecosystem health. Because of its central importance, the U.S. Congress tasked the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and other Federal agencies with conducting regular, comprehensive assessments of water availability in the United States through the requirements under the SECURE Water Act. In response to this mandate, the USGS has developed the U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessment—2010–20, which addresses aspects of water supply, quality, and use related to water availability in the United States. This is the first chapter of that report. The major climatic factors affecting water availability are also described. Multiple aspects of water availability are integrated to produce a more comprehensive analysis of water availability in the United States. This chapter enumerates the development, organization, and tools used in the USGS Integrated Water Availability Assessment. SECURE Water Act reports, developed by the Department of Energy Hydropower Climate Change Assessment and the Bureau of Reclamation West-Wide Climate and Hydrology Assessment, are also described. A distilled list of key findings from the overall report is also provided, serving as an introduction to each topic along with the most important high-level information.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2014

Report of committee on glaciers, April 1939

The Committee on Glaciers at present is constituted as follows: Harry Fielding Reid—Professor‐Emeritus of Geology, Johns Hopkins University (former member of the International Glacier Commission), 608 Cathedral Street, Baltimore, Maryland William H. Hobbs—Professor‐Emeritus of Geology, University of Michigan (until recently Vice‐ President of the International Glacier Commission, at present associate member), Ann Arbor, Michigan J. E. Church—Professor of Classics, University of Nevada (President of the International Commission of Snow, and Chairman of the Committee on Snow of the Section of Hydrology, American Geophysical Union), Reno, Nevada Colonel Lawrence Martin—Chief of the Division of Maps, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. Wm. Osgood Field, Jr.—Explorer, 18 West Twelfth Street, New York, N.Y. Earl A. Trager—Chief of the Naturalist Division, National Park Service, Washington, D. C. Glenn L. Parker—District Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, 406 Federal Building, Tacoma, Washington Oliver Kehrlein—Chairman, Committee on Glacier Studies, Sierra Club, 1050 Mills Tower, San Francisco, California Kenneth N. Phillips—Associate Hydraulic Engineer, Water Resources Branch, United States Geological Survey, Chairman, Research Committee of the Mazamas, 606 Post‐Office Building, Portland, Oregon William S. Cooper—Professor of Botany, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota Gerald FitzGerald, Senior Topographic Engineer, Alaska Branch, United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Laurence M. Gould, Professor of Geology, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota François E. Matthes, Chairman , Senior Geologist, Section of Glacial Geology, United States Geological Survey (titular member of the International Glacier Commission), Washington, D.C. In 1938, as in previous years, the Committee devoted its energies primarily to the collecting of data on the variations in length and volume of American glaciers, it being felt that the maintenance of a continuous record of these variations is of prime importance, not only to hydrology and glaciology, but, as has become increasingly evident recently, also to climatology, geomorphology, geography, ecology, history, and archaeology. As the time available for the work of the Committee is limited and does not permit covering the entire field of glaciology, it seems best to devote it before all else to this line of research which yields results of value to so many different sciences. Besides, the gathering of data on glacier‐oscillations is not a one‐man job that can be taken up or dropped at convenience from time to time, but is an organized and far‐flung enterprise whose success depends upon the faithful cooperation of many volunteer workers located in different parts of the country. Such an enterprise, once launched, must be kept running or it will disintegrate and the precious enthusiasm of the field‐workers will be lost.

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union↗