SEARCH · Search USGS
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.
This report describes seven science goals conceived to address pressing issues facing the Nation in the next decade. These goals focus on understanding human interaction with the natural environment and build upon long-term USGS investments in basic research.
This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.
This report is written for the scientifically literate reader but is not limited to those who are involved in ground-water science. The report is intended to encourage U.S. Geological Survey scientists to develop a sense of excitement about ground-water science in the agency, to inform scientists about existing and potential ground-water science opportunities, and to engage scientists and managers in interdisciplinary discussions and collaboration. The report is intended for use by U.S. Geological Survey and Department of the Interior management to formulate long-term ground-water science programs and to continue sustained support of ground-water monitoring and research, some of which may not have an immediate impact. Finally, the report can be used to communicate the U.S. Geological Survey's vision of ground-water science to Congress, partners, other agencies, and the research community at large with the goals of enhancing collaborative opportunities, sharing information, and maintaining dialogue regarding the directions of U.S. Geological Survey ground-water science.
This collection of 20 papers continues the annual series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on geologic investigations in Alaska1 . Contributions cover a broad spectrum of earth science topics and report results from all parts of the State (fig. 1). USGS activities in Alaska include studies of environment and climate, hazards, resources, and geologic framework. Five papers in this volume discuss aspects of environment and climate. Environmental geochemistry of parts of southwestern and south-central Alaska is the focus of four articles; a fifth study, of emergent postglacial lake shorelines in southwestern Alaska, contributes to ongoing investigations of paleoclimate. Two papers address geologic hazards. The first assesses ground deformation in Katmai National Park at Novarupta dome, site of the largest volcanic eruption in this century, and the second evaluates earthquake risks related to the "Twin Peak fault" near Anchorage. Resources, including metallic minerals in northern, southwestern, and southeastern Alaska and coal in south-central Alaska, are discussed in four articles. Nine geologic framework studies apply a variety of techniques to a wide range of subjects throughout Alaska, including tectonics, geophysics, geochronology, bio stratigraphy, sedimentology, paleogeography, and paleomagnetism. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports about Alaska in USGS publications released in 1995 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications in 1995.
The Ice and Climate Evolution Science Analysis Group (ICE-SAG) was convened by the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) in fall 2018, with the aims of (1) identifying and prioritizing fundamental science questions related to the recent and ongoing evolution of Mars volatiles and climate, and (2) exploring new mission approaches that could address these high-priority science questions during the coming decade (2023–2032). In this white paper, we summarize the ICE-SAG final report via a selection of report materials and provide broad context for the content of this MEPAG-generated report (which is likely a reference mentioned within a number of other, community-based white papers).
Summary Great Lakes fishery managers have the opportunity and have expressed interest in reestablishing a native forage base in the Great Lakes consisting of various forms and species within the genus Coregonus . This report summarizes the proceedings of a workshop focused on a subset of the genus, and the term “coregonines” is used to refer to several species of deepwater ciscoes (also known as “chubs”) and the one more pelagic-oriented cisco species ( Coregonus artedi , also known as “lake herring”). As the principal conservation agency for the United States Government, the Department of Interior has unique and significant authorities and capacities to support a coregonine reestablishment program in the Great Lakes. To identify and discuss key uncertainties associated with such a program and develop a coordinated approach, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the principal Department of the Interior bureaus to address Great Lakes fishery issues, held the first of a series of workshops on coregonine science in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on October 11–13, 2016. Workshop objectives were to identify (1) perceived key uncertainties associated with coregonine restoration in the Great Lakes and (2) DOI capacities for addressing these key uncertainties.
Humic substances as a collective term and humic and fulvic acids as specific terms are not household words. For about a century, these terms belonged to the domain of the soil scientist. Even^though their chemical structures remained elusive, they were recognized as important entities in soil. During the past decade or so, there has been a renewed interest in humic substances in soil and water. Such interest has been the result of improved analytical instrumentation, and by a need to understand the structure and function of natural organic substances in water. A responsibility of the U.S. Geological Survey is to assess the Nation's water resources; this includes water quality, which is the study of material in water. Such material may be suspended, colloidal, or in true solution. Because humic substances are a major carbon source in water, they have received attention by Geological Survey scientists. This attention has been a major focus by members of the Geological Survey's organic-chemistry group. For more than a decade, this group has collected samples, made analyses, and worked toward determining the structures and function of humic substances in water. Their work has brought worldwide recognition to the field, and in 1981, through Geological Survey support, they helped organize the International Humic Substances Society, which held its first meeting in Estes Park, Colorado, in August 1983. At the second meeting of the Society in Birmingham, England, in August 1984, it became apparent that Geological Survey scientists were rapidly advancing the study of the chemistry of humic substances. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to publish this Open-File report on humic and fulvic acids from the Suwannee River in Georgia. The results represent our most definitive findings to date (1986). Though this work is not conclusive, it is state-of-the-science. Hopefully, our reporting on this work will aid in moving the science of humic substances forward as others read of our progress, findings, and theories. If so, this Open-File report will have served its purpose.
The Community for Data Integration (CDI) is a group that helps members grow their expertise on all aspects of working with scientific data. The CDI’s activities advance data and information integration capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey and in the wider Earth and biological sciences. This annual report describes the presentations, activities, collaboration areas, workshop, and other CDI-sponsored events in fiscal year 2017. The report also describes the objectives of the 11 CDI-funded projects in fiscal year 2017. The report shows how the CDI activities fulfill the strategic objective of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Core Science Systems Mission Area to develop a workplace model for interdisciplinary science.
Identifying and building solutions to help people and ecosystems adapt to climate change requires participation of all people; however, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, including environmental sciences, continue to lack diversity. To address this issue, many institutions have increased programming to recruit and retain people from historically marginalized backgrounds in STEM fields. Institutions use surveys to evaluate the experiences of community members and identify areas for improvement; however, surveys often summarize and reflect majority perspectives and disregard voices of historically marginalized individuals. In June 2021, a survey of graduate students, postdocs, faculty, staff, and researchers affiliated with the Northeast Climate Adaptation Science Center (NE CASC) evaluated their experiences of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) using Likert-based and long-answer questions. We analyzed the results as a whole, but also focused on the responses of people who self-identified as members of a marginalized group (“marginalized respondents”) in climate adaptation science to center their voices. Marginalized respondents reported being motivated to enter climate adaptation science to improve society and the environment rather than for intellectual curiosity, which motivated one third of non-marginalized respondents. Once in science, marginalized respondents reported feeling less supported and comfortable at work and were more likely to have considered leaving science and academia in the last year. Long-answer responses of marginalized respondents indicated distrust in the ability of leadership and existing DEIJ initiatives to effectively tackle systemic issues and emphasized the importance of focusing on equity and inclusion before recruitment. Marginalized respondents identified additional funding to support existing DEIJ efforts and undergraduates as priorities. By allowing participants to self-identify as part of a marginalized group, we were able to highlight experiences and needs without risking exposure based on race, gender, disability status, or sexual orientation. This approach can be applied to other small organizations with limited demographic diversity.
This report describes laboratory procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey Kentucky Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory for the processing and analysis of fluvial-sediment samples for concentration of sand and finer material. The report details the processing of a sediment sample through the laboratory from receiving the sediment sample, through the analytical process, to compiling results of the requested analysis. Procedures for preserving sample integrity, calibrating and maintaining of laboratory and field instruments and equipment, analyzing samples, internal quality assurance and quality control, and validity of the sediment-analysis results also are described. The report includes a list of references cited and a glossary of sediment and quality-assurance terms.
This report reviews and presents findings from the Lunar Surface Science Workshop Virtual Session 13: Inclusive Lunar Exploration. The report consists of a brief introduction to the workshop, followed by summaries of the six workshop sessions, and a synthesis section discussing seven key findings.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the use of water in the United States at 5-year intervals since 1950. This report describes the water-use categories and data elements used for the national water-use compilation conducted as part of the USGS National Water-Use Science Project. The report identifies sources of water-use information, provides standard methods and techniques for estimating water use at the county level, and outlines steps for preparing documentation for the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. As part of this USGS program to document water use on a national scale, estimates of water withdrawals for the categories of public supply, self-supplied domestic, industrial, irrigation, and thermoelectric power are prepared for each county in each State, District, or territory by using the guidelines in this report. County estimates of water withdrawals for aquaculture, livestock, and mining are prepared for each State by using a county-based national model, although water-use programs in each State or Water Science Center have the option of producing independent county estimates of water withdrawals for these categories. Estimates of water withdrawals and consumptive use for thermoelectric power will be aggregated to the county level for each State by the national project; additionally, irrigation consumptive use at the county level will also be provided, although study chiefs in each State have the option of producing independent county estimates of water withdrawals and consumptive use for these categories. Estimates of deliveries of water from public supplies for domestic use by county also will be prepared for each State. As a result, total domestic water use can be determined for each State by combining self-supplied domestic withdrawals and public-supplied domestic deliveries. Fresh groundwater and surface-water estimates will be prepared for all categories of use, and saline groundwater and surface-water estimates by county will be prepared for the categories of public supply, industrial, mining, and thermoelectric power. Power production for thermoelectric power and irrigated acres by irrigation system type will be compiled. If data are available, reclaimed-wastewater use will be compiled for the public-supply, industrial, mining, thermoelectric-power, and irrigation categories. Optional water-use categories are commercial, hydroelectric power, and wastewater treatment. Optional data elements are public-supply deliveries to commercial, industrial, and thermoelectric-power users; consumptive use (for categories other than thermoelectric power and irrigation); irrigation conveyance loss; and number of facilities. Aggregation of water-use data by stream basin (eight-digit hydrologic unit code) and principal aquifers also is optional. Water-use data compiled by the States will be stored in the USGS Aggregate Water-Use Data System (AWUDS). This database is a comprehensive aggregated database designed to store mandatory and optional data elements. AWUDS contains several routines that can be used for quality assurance and quality control of the data, and AWUDS produces tables of water-use data from the previous compilations.
This report describes laboratory procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey New Mexico Water Science Center Sediment Laboratory for the processing and analysis of fluvial-sediment samples for concentration of sand and finer material. The report details the processing of a sediment sample through the laboratory from receiving the sediment sample, through the analytical process, to compiling results of the requested analysis. Procedures for preserving sample integrity, calibrating and maintaining of laboratory and field instruments and equipment used to analyze samples, internal quality assurance and quality control, and validity of the sediment-analysis results also are described. The report includes a list of references cited and a glossary of sediment and quality-assurance terms.
The two geography research programs of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Land Remote Sensing and Geographic Analysis and Monitoring, have very strong relevance to the USGS mission and science strategy. In the western United States, the particular niche of these geography programs is in connecting USGS science to people and communities. Reports from the National Academy of Sciences and other organizations invariably encourage the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to ensure the quality of its science while finding ways to make it more relevant to important societal issues. Much of the geography research conducted in the USGS Western Region does exactly that. In Menlo Park, California, the geography research team is focused on developing tools and techniques to help people assess risk from natural hazards and environmental impacts. In Flagstaff and Tucson, Arizona, geography scientists explore new ways to use remote sensing to help communities deal with environmental issues.
The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) was established in 2008 to address the scientific and conservation questions associated with land use changes because of energy development and other factors in southwest Wyoming. Over the past decade, partners from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), State and Federal land management agencies, universities, and the public have collaborated to implement a long-term (defined here as more than 10 years), science-based program that assesses and enhances the quality and quantity of wildlife habitats in this region while facilitating responsible development. The USGS Science Team completes scientific research and develops tools that inform and support WLCI partner planning, decision making, and on-the-ground management actions. In fiscal year 2017, USGS published 18 products (including peer-reviewed journal articles, USGS series publications, and data releases), prepared an additional 7 products for publication, and presented 14 talks or posters at professional scientific meetings in addition to numerous informal presentations to WLCI partners at meetings and workshops. In this report, we summarize the science themes that describe USGS science for the WLCI and highlight work completed in fiscal year 2017 for each science theme. We also provide information on how USGS science is being used by land managers to better achieve habitat conservation objectives.
The Palo Alto and southern part of the Redwood Point 7-1/2' quadrangles cover an area on the San Francisco peninsula between San Francisco Bay and the Santa Cruz Mountains. San Francisquito and Los Trancos Creeks, in the southeastern part of the map area, form the boundary between San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. The area covered by the geologic map extends from tidal and marsh lands at the edge of the bay southward across a gently sloping alluvial plain to the foothills of the northern Santa Cruz Mountains. The foothills are separated from the main mass of the mountains by two northwest-striking faults, the San Andreas and Pilarcitos, that cross the southwest corner of the map area (fig. 1). The map and adjoining areas are here divided into three structural blocks juxtaposed along these faults, adopting the scheme of Nilsen and Brabb (1979): (1) the San Francisco Bay block lying east of the San Andreas Fault Zone; (2) the Pilarcitos block lying between the San Andreas and Pilarcitos Faults; and (3) the La Honda block that includes the main mass of the Santa Cruz Mountains lying west of the Pilarcitos Fault. The west boundary of the La Honda block is the Seal Cove-San Gregorio Fault. Pre-late Pleistocene Cenozoic rocks of the foothills have been compressed into northwest-striking folds, which have been overridden by Mesozoic rocks along southwest-dipping low-angle faults. Coarse- to fine-grained upper Pleistocene and Holocene alluvial and estuarine deposits, eroded from the foothills and composing the alluvial plain, are essentially undeformed. Most of the alluvial plain, including some parts of the marsh land that borders the bay, has been covered by residential and commercial developments, and virtually all of the remaining marsh land has been diked off and used as salt evaporating ponds. The map area includes parts of the municipalities of San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County; and Palo Alto, Stanford University, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills in Santa Clara County (fig. 2). Much of the university land remains as undeveloped open space surrounded by densely urbanized lands. Geologic maps of all or part of the present map area have been prepared previously by Branner and others (1909), Thomas (1949), Dobbs and Forbes (1960), Dibblee (1966), Page and Tabor (1967), Pampeyan (1970a, 1970b), Beaulieu (1970), Helley and others (1979), and by numerous Stanford University students working on topical earth science problems. In addition, numerous engineering geologic studies have been conducted for site investigations relating to residential and commercial developments and, in particular, for construction of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). The reports pertaining to SLAC are summarized in Skjei and others (1965) and more recently in a report by Earth Sciences Associates (1983). The interested reader is referred to Brabb and Pampeyan (1983), Brabb and others (1982), Wentworth and others (1985), Wieczorek and others (1985), Thomson and Evernden (1986), Brabb and Olson (1986), Youd and Perkins (1987), Perkins (1987), and Mark and Newman (1988) for information pertaining to geology, history, slope stability, seismic shaking, liquifaction potential, and faulting and seismicity in San Mateo County, some of which can be applied directly to northern Santa Clara County. Field work for the present geologic map was done in 1962-1964 and 1966 when SLAC and Interstate 280 were in early stages of construction. Only minor additions and revisions have been made since this mapping was first released (Pampeyan, 1970a; 1970b) as it was impractical to keep pace with accelerating urban development of the area. Geologic units of the flatlands area are largely adapted from Helley and Lajoie (1979).
The Community for Data Integration (CDI) is a community of practice whose purpose is to build the U.S. Geological Survey knowledge base in data integration. This annual report describes the various presentations, activities, and outcomes of the CDI monthly forums, working groups, trainings, and other CDI-sponsored events in fiscal year 2018. The report also describes the objectives of the 10 CDI-funded projects for the year. The CDI had a topical theme for fiscal year 2018—Risk assessment and hazards vulnerability in support of integrated predictive science capacity. This report describes how the community coordinated its activities around this theme.
When the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed in 1972 by the Governments of Canada and the United States (the “Parties”) (Environment Canada, 2013a), groundwater was not recognized as important to the water quality of the Lakes. At that time, groundwater and surface water were still considered as two separate systems, with almost no appreciation for their interaction. When the GLWQA was revised in 1978 (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012), groundwater contamination, such as that reported at legacy industrial sites such as those at Love Canal near the Niagara River, was squarely in the news. Consequently, the potential impacts of contaminated groundwater from such sites on Great Lakes water quality became a concern (Beck, 1979), and Annex 16 was added to the agreement, to address “pollution from contaminated groundwater” (Francis, 1989). However, no formal process for reporting under this annex was provided. The GLWQA Protocol in 1987 modified Annex 16 and called for progress reports beginning in 1988 (USEPA, 1988). The Protocol in 2012 provided a new Annex 8 to address groundwater more holistically (Environment 2 Canada, 2013b). Annex 8 (Environment Canada, 2013b) commits the Parties to coordinate groundwater science and management actions; as a first step, to “publish a report on the relevant and available groundwater science” by February 2015 (this report); and to “identify priorities for science activities and actions for groundwater management, protection, and remediation…” The broader mandate of Annex 8 is to (1) “identify groundwater impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (2) “analyze contaminants, including nutrients in groundwater, derived from both point and non-point sources impacting the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (3) “assess information gaps and science needs related to groundwater to protect the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” and (4) “analyze other factors, such as climate change, that individually or cumulatively affect groundwater’s impact on the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” A binational Annex 8 Subcommittee was formed to lead efforts to fulfill the mandate of this annex (members listed on p. i of this report). In turn, this subcommittee has recruited a task team to prepare this report (listed as authors of each chapter). This report addresses all of the above four objectives, based on a compilation of the “relevant and available groundwater science.” Specifically, the second objective (to “analyze contaminants”) is addressed by incorporating information obtained in ongoing monitoring and research activities conducted by the Parties, and by various other members of the Great Lakes Executive Committee.