USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Sustainability”

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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS1999

Sustainability of ground-water resources

The pumpage of fresh ground water in the United States in 1995 was estimated to be approximately 77 billion gallons per day (Solley and others, 1998), which is about 8 percent of the estimated 1 trillion gallons per day of natural recharge to the Nation's ground-water systems (Nace, 1960). From an overall national perspective, the ground-water resource appears ample. Locally, however, the availability of ground water varies widely. Moreover, only a part of the ground water stored in the subsurface can be recovered by wells in an economic manner and without adverse consequences.

Circular↗
USGS1998

Materials Flow and Sustainability

Materials extracted from the Earth are necessary to produce our most fundamental needs – food, clothing, and shelter. Materials are needed to maintain and improve our standard of living. Understanding the whole system of materials flow, from source to ultimate disposition, can help us better manage the use of natural resources and protect the environment.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2002

The Sparta Aquifer: A Sustainable Water Resource?

Introduction The Sparta aquifer is an aquifer of regional importance within the Mississippi embayment aquifer system. It consists of varying amounts of unconsolidated sand, inter-stratified with silt and clay lenses within the Sparta Sand of the Claiborne Group. It extends from south Texas, north into Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and eastward into Mississippi and Alabama (fig. 1). On both the west and east sides of the Mississippi embayment, the Sparta aquifer is exposed at the surface (outcrops) and is locally unconfined; it becomes confined as it dips toward the axis of the embayment, (generally corresponding with the Mississippi River) and southward toward the Gulf of Mexico where it is deeply buried in the subsurface (Hosman, 1968). Generalized ground-water flow in the Sparta aquifer is from the outcrop areas to the axis (center) of the embayment (fig. 2). In Arkansas, the Sparta aquifer outcrops parallel to the Fall Line at the western extreme of the Mississippi embayment (the Fall Line is a line dividing the mountainous highlands of Arkansas from the lowland area); and the formation dips from its outcrop area to the southeast. The Sparta aquifer supplies water for municipalities, industries such as paper production, and to a lesser degree, irrigation of agricultural crops (fig. 3). This report highlights hydrologic conditions of the aquifer in Arkansas County as an example of how water use is affecting water levels.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2005

Science to sustain terminal lakes: The Walker River Basin Study

Section 2507 of Public Law 107-171 (2002 Farm Bill) provided $200,000,000 to be used by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to provide water to at-risk natural desert terminal lakes. This bill was later amended under Public Law 108-7, Section 207 to include language 'Restoration of fish, wildlife, and associated habitats in watersheds of certain lakes'. The amendment specified that only Pyramid, Summit, and Walker Lakes in the State of Nevada were to be considered under Section 2507, Public Law 107-171.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2009

Sustainability of Water Resources in the Fractured-Rock Area of Maryland

The fractured-rock area of Maryland encompasses the region of the State west of the Fall Line, which is approximated by the Interstate 95 corridor. It includes the Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Ridge and Valley, and Appalachian Plateau Physiographic Provinces (fig. 1). Surface water and ground water are important and interconnected water sources in this area. Streamflow characteristics vary in response to different land use, geology, topography, soil, and other factors. Ground-water flow is quite localized, tending to be controlled by local watersheds. Water in this region moves down through the soil and decomposed rock (saprolite) and along joints, faults, and fractures in the underlying rock (fig. 2). Water availability depends upon the size of fractures as well as the interconnections between fractures.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2015

Sustainable groundwater management in California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses data collection, modeling tools, and scientific analysis to help water managers plan for, and assess, hydrologic issues that can cause “undesirable results” associated with groundwater use. This information helps managers understand trends and investigate and predict effects of different groundwater-management strategies.

California↗
USGS2005

A Science Framework for Connecticut River Watershed Sustainability

Introduction: This document outlines a research framework for water resource managers and land-use planners in the four-state Connecticut River Watershed (CRW). It specifically focuses on developing the decision-support tools and data needed by managers in the watershed. The purpose of the Science Framework is to identify critical research issues and information required to better equip managers to make decisions on desirable changes in the CRW. This Science Framework is the result of a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the University of Massachusetts at Amherst (UMass-Amherst), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The cooperative project was guided by a Science Steering Committee (SC) and included several focus groups, a 70-person workshop in September 2004, and an open collaborative process by which the workshop outcomes were synthesized, written up, and then progressively refined through peer review. This document is the product of that collaborative process.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Application of municipal biosolids to dry-land wheat fields - A monitoring program near Deer Trail, Colorado (USA). A presentation for an international conference: "The Future of Agriculture: Science, Stewardship, and Sustainability", August 7-9, 2006, Sacramento, CA

Since late 1993, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District of Denver (Metro District), a large wastewater treatment plant in Denver, Colorado, has applied Grade I, Class B biosolids to about 52,000 acres of non-irrigated farmland and rangeland near Deer Trail, Colorado. In cooperation with the Metro District in 1993, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began monitoring ground water at part of this site. In 1999, the USGS began a more comprehensive study of the entire site to address stakeholder concerns about the chemical effects of biosolids applications. This more comprehensive monitoring program has recently been extended through 2010. Monitoring components of the more comprehensive study included biosolids collected at the wastewater treatment plant, soil, crops, dust, alluvial and bedrock ground water, and stream bed sediment. Streams at the site are dry most of the year, so samples of stream bed sediment deposited after rain were used to indicate surface-water effects. This presentation will only address biosolids, soil, and crops. More information about these and the other monitoring components are presented in the literature (e.g., Yager and others, 2004a, b, c, d) and at the USGS Web site for the Deer Trail area studies at http://co.water.usgs.gov/projects/CO406/CO406.html. Priority parameters identified by the stakeholders for all monitoring components, included the total concentrations of nine trace elements (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc), plutonium isotopes, and gross alpha and beta activity, regulated by Colorado for biosolids to be used as an agricultural soil amendment. Nitrogen and chromium also were priority parameters for ground water and sediment components. In general, the objective of each component of the study was to determine whether concentrations of priority parameters (1) were higher than regulatory limits, (2) were increasing with time, or (3) were significantly higher in biosolids-applied areas than in a similar farmed area where biosolids were not applied. Where sufficient samples could be collected, statistical methods were used to evaluate effects. Rigorous quality assurance was included in all aspects of the study. The roles of hydrology and geology also were considered in the design, data collection, and interpretation phases of the study. Study results indicate that the chemistry of the biosolids from the Denver plant was consistent during 1999-2005, and total concentrations of regulated trace elements were consistently lower than the regulatory limits. Plutonium isotopes were not detected in the biosolids. Leach tests using deionized water to simulate natural precipitation indicate arsenic, molybdenum, and nickel were the most soluble priority parameters in the biosolids. Study results show no significant difference in concentrations of priority parameters between biosolids-applied soils and unamended soils where no biosolids were applied. However, biosolids were applied only twice during 1999-2003. The next soil sampling is not scheduled until 2010. To date concentrations of most of the priority parameters were not much greater in the biosolids than in natural soil from the sites. Therefore, many more biosolids applications would need to occur before biosolids effects on the soil priority constituents can be quantified. Leach tests using deionized water to simulate precipitation indicate that molybdenum and selenium were the priority parameters that were most soluble in both biosolids-applied soil and natural or unamended soil. Study results do not indicate significant differences in concentrations of priority parameters between crops grown in biosolids-applied areas and crops grown where no biosolids were applied. However, crops were grown only twice during 1999-2003, so only two crop samples could be collected. The wheat-grain elemental data collected during 1999-2003 for both biosolids-applied areas and unamended areas are similar

Open-File Report↗