USGS Science⌕ Search

subject

Report

Report: explore 620 source-linked works published from 1913 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-15. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

USGS2022

New Hampshire and Landsat

At its widest point, a mere 80 miles separate the eastern and western borders of New Hampshire. Its northern and southern borders are just 175 miles apart. Even so, few States can boast as much rugged natural beauty per mile as the Nation’s fifth smallest. Nestled within New Hampshire are 93 State parks teeming with moose, Ursus americanus (Pallas, 1780; black bears), coyotes, beavers, river otters, and foxes. The largest section of White Mountain National Forest cuts across north-central New Hampshire, drawing visitors to its lakes, streams, mountain peaks, and hardwood forests. New Hampshire also is home to Lake Winnipesaukee, the State’s largest lake, notable for its floating post offices, the annual “ice-out” contest that sees residents vying to guess the date its surface ice dissipates, and its supporting role in films such as “On Golden Pond” and “What About Bob?” However, the scenic forests of New Hampshire face challenges in the form of invasive species such as Lymantria dispar (Linnaeus, 1758; spongy moth), Adelges piceae (balsam woolly adelgid), and Agrilus planipennis (emerald ash borer). In recent years, New Hampshire’s lakes and streams have seen more cyanobacterial blooms as well. The U.S. Geological Survey Landsat Program offers a consistent, reliable, and historically unmatched source of Earth observations that can aid in the mapping, monitoring, and management of New Hampshire’s land and water resources. Here are a few ways Landsat data have been used in the Granite State.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2022

South Carolina and Landsat

South Carolina, the eighth State admitted to the union, transcends its size with its deep, rich history; striking beauty; vast natural resources; and extensive cultural diversity. Home to part of the Blue Ridge Mountains of the Central Appalachians, the Upstate is graced with more than 100 waterfalls, while the Lowcountry borders the Atlantic Ocean with 187 miles of coastline and 35 barrier islands. Forests cover two-thirds of the State, and forestry and agriculture together, as agribusiness, make up South Carolina’s leading industry. Two historic crops—cotton and tobacco—still rank in the top 10 commodities, though corn and soybeans now rank higher. Poultry, cattle, peanuts, and flowers also make the list. South Carolina’s population totals more than five million. Other residents include a variety of wildlife, bird, reptile, and fish species, including Ursus americanus (black bears), Alligator mississippiensis (American alligators), and Tursiops truncatus (bottlenose dolphins). More than 100 tree species also reside in South Carolina, which pays homage to one with its “The Palmetto State” nickname. South Carolina’s subtropical climate, long coastline, and lower elevations make it highly susceptible to tornado and hurricane activity and coastal flooding. Projected sea-level rise is a growing concern. A view from space can help monitor and manage natural resources on the land and in rivers, marshes, and the coast. Landsat reveals not just what an area looks like now, but also insights from decades ago.

South Carolina↗
USGS2021

Virginia and Landsat

From the shores of Jamestown and spreading north, south, and west, the lands that became the State of Virginia were some of the first in North America top experience rapid landscape change from European settlement. Imagery and data from the USGS Landsat series of satellites offer an unparalleled resource for the study, understanding, and preservation of Virginia’s land and water resources. From monitoring the health of water bodies to managing invasive species to planning for a range of climate change effects, the USGS National Land Imaging Program’s stewardship and public delivery of Landsat data have benefitted Virginians in myriad ways.

Virginia↗
USGS2021

New York and Landsat

From the iconic skyline of New York City to the forested landscapes of the Adirondack Mountains and the countryside of the Allegheny Plateau, the State of New York is overflowing with diversity and life. Bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the east and two of the Great Lakes to the north and west, New York has more than 7,600 lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and more than 70,000 miles of rivers and streams. New York’s stewardship of its freshwater resources is fundamental to the health and well-being of all who work at, reside in, and visit the State’s landmarks and places. Harmful algal blooms in the State’s waterbodies are a growing concern and threaten the health of the region and its inhabitants. Images and data from Landsat satellites continue to provide critical information to scientists, public health officials, and resource managers who are studying the effects and risks of the problem.

New York↗
USGS2018

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Introduction Effective communication in the geosciences requires a consistent nomenclature for stratigraphic units and, especially, for divisions of geologic time. A geologic time scale is composed of standard stratigraphic divisions based on rock sequences and is calibrated in years. Geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), State geological surveys, academia, and other organizations require a consistent time scale to be used in communicating ages of geo­logic units in the United States. Many international debates have occurred over names and boundaries of units, and various time scales have been used by the geoscience community. For consistent usage of time terms, the USGS Geologic Names Committee and the Association of American State Geologists devel­oped the Divisions of Geologic Time ; the 2018 update in this fact sheet contains the unit names and boundary age estimates ratified by the International Commission on Stratigraphy in 2018. Scientists may use other published time scales, provided that these are specified and referenced.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2017

Field-trip guide to Mount Hood, Oregon, highlighting eruptive history and hazards

This guidebook describes stops of interest for a geological field trip around Mount Hood volcano. It was developed for the 2017 International Association of Volcanology and Chemistry of the Earth’s Interior (IAVCEI) Scientific Assembly in Portland, Oregon. The intent of this guidebook and accompanying contributions is to provide an overview of Mount Hood, including its chief geologic processes, magmatic system, eruptive history, local tectonics, and hazards, by visiting a variety of readily accessible localities. We also describe coeval, largely monogenetic, volcanoes in the region. Accompanying the field-trip guidebook are separately authored contributions that discuss in detail the Mount Hood magmatic system and its products and behavior (Kent and Koleszar, this volume); Mount Hood earthquakes and their relation to regional tectonics and the volcanic system (Thelen and Moran, this volume); and young surface faults cutting the broader Mount Hood area whose extent has come to light after acquisition of regional light detection and ranging coverage (Madin and others, this volume). The trip makes an approximately 175-mile (280-kilometer) clockwise loop around Mount Hood, starting and ending in Portland. The route heads east on Interstate 84 through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The guidebook points out only a few conspicuous features of note in the gorge, but many other guides to the gorge are available. The route continues south on the Mount Hood National Scenic Byway on Oregon Route 35 following Hood River, and returns to Portland on U.S. Highway 26 following Sandy River. The route traverses rocks as old as the early Miocene Eagle Creek Formation and overlying Columbia River Basalt Group of middle Miocene age, but chiefly lava flows and clastic products of arc volcanism of late Miocene to Holocene age.

Oregon↗
USGS2016

Sedimentary exhalative (sedex) zinc-lead-silver deposit model

This report draws on previous syntheses and basic research studies of sedimentary exhalative (sedex) deposits to arrive at the defining criteria, both descriptive and genetic, for sedex-type deposits. Studies of the tectonic, sedimentary, and fluid evolution of modern and ancient sedimentary basins have also been used to select defining criteria. The focus here is on the geologic characteristics of sedex deposit-hosting basins that contain greater than 10 million metric tons of zinc and lead. The enormous size of sedex deposits strongly suggests that basin-scale geologic processes are involved in their formation. It follows that mass balance constraints of basinal processes can provide a conceptual underpinning for the evaluation of potential ore-forming mechanisms and the identification of geologic indicators for ore potential in specific sedimentary basins. Empirical data and a genetic understanding of the physicochemical, geologic, and mass balance conditions required for each of these elements are used to establish a hierarchy of quantifiable geologic criteria that can be used in U.S. Geological Survey national assessments. In addition, this report also provides a comprehensive evaluation of environmental considerations associated with the mining of sedex deposits.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Effective communication in the geosciences requires consistent uses of stratigraphic nomenclature, especially divisions of geologic time. A geologic time scale is composed of standard stratigraphic divisions based on rock sequences and is calibrated in years. Over the years, the development of new dating methods and the refinement of previous methods have stimulated revisions to geologic time scales. Advances in stratigraphy and geochronology require that any time scale be periodically updated. Therefore, Divisions of Geologic Time, which shows the major chronostratigraphic (position) and geochronologic (time) units, is intended to be a dynamic resource that will be modified to include accepted changes of unit names and boundary age estimates. This fact sheet is a modification of USGS Fact Sheet 2007-3015 by the U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Names Committee.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units

Effective communication in the geosciences requires consistent uses of stratigraphic nomenclature, especially divisions of geologic time. A geologic time scale is composed of standard stratigraphic divisions based on rock sequences and calibrated in years. Over the years, the development of new dating methods and refinement of previous ones have stimulated revisions to geologic time scales. Since the mid-1990s, geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), State geological surveys, academia, and other organizations have sought a consistent time scale to be used in communicating ages of geologic units in the United States. Many international debates have occurred over names and boundaries of units, and various time scales have been used by the geoscience community. For consistency purposes, the USGS Geologic Names Committee and the Association of American State Geologists developed Divisions of Geologic Time .

Fact Sheet↗
Compare source metadata on this page
WorkPublishedSource identifierSource
New Hampshire and Landsat2022-07-20fs20223058usgs
South Carolina and Landsat2022-02-18fs20223005usgs
Virginia and Landsat2021-09-07fs20213050usgs
New York and Landsat2021-04-26fs20213020usgs
Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units2018-08-27fs20183054usgs
Field-trip guide to Mount Hood, Oregon, highlighting eruptive history and hazards2017-06-22sir20175022Gusgs
Sedimentary exhalative (sedex) zinc-lead-silver deposit model2016-10-28sir20105070Nusgs
Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units2010fs20103059usgs
Divisions of geologic time—Major chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units2007fs20073015usgs
Historic conditions of MacDill AFB, Tampa Bay, Florida: Pre-settlement landscape2007ofr20071141usgs
Archive of digital boomer and chirp seismic reflection data collected during USGS Cruise 04SCC01 in Terrebonne, Timbalier, and Barataria Bays and Lake Pelto, Louisiana, June and July 20042006ds237usgs
Archive of digital boomer and chirp seismic reflection data collected during USGS Cruise 03SCC03 in Lake Pelto and Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays, Louisiana, September 20032006ds238usgs
Activity L-3-83-WF, ship station 2 ... disc 1 of 1, DVD-Video disc set of seafloor transects during USGS research cruises in the Pacific Ocean2006ofr20041102usgs
Archive of seismic-reflection data collected during USGS cruise Lake Mead 01007 in Lake Mead, Nevada and Arizona, 1-28 April, 20012003ofr02478usgs
Wisconsin potential field grids, derivative maps, and tectonic interpretations2003ofr03147usgs
Selected hydrogeologic datasets for the Antlers Aquifer, Texas2003ofr03161usgs
Selected hydrogeologic datasets for the Glen Rose Aquifer, Texas2003ofr03162usgs
Selected hydrogeologic datasets for the Paluxy Aquifer, Texas2003ofr03163usgs

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.