USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Hazards”

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 307 records · Page 17Linked to original sources
USGS2008

The National Map 2.0 Tactical Plan: "Toward the (Integrated) National Map"

The National Map's 2-year goal, as described in this plan, is to provide a range of geospatial products and services that meet the basic goals of the original vision for The National Map while furthering the National Spatial Data Infrastructure that underpins U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science. To accomplish this goal, the National Geospatial Program (NGP) will acquire, store, maintain, and distribute base map data. The management team for the NGP sets priorities for The National Map in three areas: Data and Products, Services, and Management. Priorities for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 (October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2009), involving the current data inventory, data acquisition, and the integration of data, are (1) incorporating current data from Federal, State, and local organizations into The National Map to the degree possible, given data availability and program resources; (2) collaborating with other USGS programs to incorporate data that support the USGS Science Strategy; (3) supporting the Department of the Interior (DOI) high-priority geospatial information needs; (4) emergency response; (5) homeland security, natural hazards; and (6) graphics products delivery. The management team identified known constraints, enablers, and drivers for the acquisition and integration of data. The NGP management team also identified customer-focused products and services of The National Map. Ongoing planning and management activities direct the development and delivery of these products and services. Management of work flow processes to support The National Map priorities are identified and established through a business-driven prioritization process. This tactical plan is primarily for use as a document to guide The National Map program for the next two fiscal years. The document is available to the public because of widespread interest in The National Map. The USGS collaborates with a broad range of customers and partners who are essential to the success of The National Map, including the science community, State and Federal agencies involved in homeland security, planners and emergency responders at the local level, and private companies. Partner contributions and data remain a primary input and foundation of The National Map. Partnership strategies for each of The National Map's component data themes are outlined in this plan. Because of the importance of The National Map customers, a reassessment of customer needs will be completed during 2008. Results of the assessment will be incorporated into future decisions and priorities. A performance milestone matrix has been developed that contains the full list of milestones, major deliverables, and major tasks. The matrix forms the basis for reporting on accomplishments and issues. However, a number of risks, dependencies, and issues have been identified that could affect meeting milestones in the matrix, such as: the USGS is not the Circular A-16 lead for boundaries, transportation, and structures; availability of sufficient and sustainable funding; availability of Federal workforce and contractors with necessary skills, and numerous competing customer and stakeholder requirements.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

A Bernoulli Formulation of the Land-Use Portfolio Model

Decision making for natural-hazards mitigation can be sketched as knowledge available in advance (a priori), knowledge available later (a posteriori), and how consequences of the mitigation decision might be viewed once future outcomes are known. Two outcomes - mitigating for a hazard event that will occur, and not mitigating for a hazard event that will not occur - can be considered narrowly correct. Two alternative outcomes - mitigating for a hazard event that will not occur, and not mitigating for a hazard event that will occur - can be considered narrowly incorrect. The dilemma facing the decision maker is that mitigation choices must be made before the event, and often must be made with imperfect statistical techniques and imperfect data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Seismic calibration shots conducted in 2009 in the Imperial Valley, southern California, for the Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP)

Rupture of the southern section of the San Andreas Fault, from the Coachella Valley to the Mojave Desert, is believed to be the greatest natural hazard facing California in the near future. With an estimated magnitude between 7.2 and 8.1, such an event would result in violent shaking, loss of life, and disruption of lifelines (freeways, aqueducts, power, petroleum, and communication lines) that would bring much of southern California to a standstill. As part of the Nation's efforts to prevent a catastrophe of this magnitude, a number of projects are underway to increase our knowledge of Earth processes in the area and to mitigate the effects of such an event. One such project is the Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP), which is a collaborative venture between the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). This project will generate and record seismic waves that travel through the crust and upper mantle of the Salton Trough. With these data, we will construct seismic images of the subsurface, both reflection and tomographic images. These images will contribute to the earthquake-hazard assessment in southern California by helping to constrain fault locations, sedimentary basin thickness and geometry, and sedimentary seismic velocity distributions. Data acquisition is currently scheduled for winter and spring of 2011. The design and goals of SSIP resemble those of the Los Angeles Region Seismic Experiment (LARSE) of the 1990's. LARSE focused on examining the San Andreas Fault system and associated thrust-fault systems of the Transverse Ranges. LARSE was successful in constraining the geometry of the San Andreas Fault at depth and in relating this geometry to mid-crustal, flower-structure-like decollements in the Transverse Ranges that splay upward into the network of hazardous thrust faults that caused the 1971 M 6.7 San Fernando and 1987 M 5.9 Whittier Narrows earthquakes. The project also succeeded in determining the depths and seismic-velocity distributions of several sedimentary basins, including the Los Angeles Basin, San Fernando Valley, and Antelope Valley. These results advanced our ability to understand and assess earthquake hazards in the Los Angeles region. In order to facilitate permitting and planning for the data collection phase of SSIP, in June of 2009 we set off calibration shots and recorded the seismic data with a variety of instruments at varying distances. We also exposed sections of buried clay drainage pipe near the shot points to determine the effect of seismic energy on the pipes. Clay drainage pipes are used by the irrigation districts in both the Coachella and Imperial Valleys to prevent ponding and remove salts and irrigation water. This report chronicles the calibration project. We present new near-source velocity data that are used to test the regression curves that were determined for the LARSE project. These curves are used to create setback tables to determine explosive charge size and for placement of shot points. We also found that our shots did not damage the irrigation pipes and that the ODEX drilling system did well in the clay rich soils of the Imperial Valley.

California↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Strategic directions for U.S. Geological Survey water science, 2012-2022 - Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that was begun in the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Strategic Science Plan is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences . The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 130-year history. Nine priority actions are presented in the report, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions listed throughout the report. Priority actions were developed as a means of providing the audience of this report with a list for focused attention, even if resources and time limit the ability of managers to address all of the strategic actions in the report. Priority actions focus on the following: Improve integrated science planning for water. Expand and enhance water-resource monitoring networks. Characterize the water cycle through development of state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D hydrogeologic framework models at multiple scales. Clarify the linkage between human water use (engineered hydrology) and the water cycle (natural hydrology). Advance ecological flow science. Provide flood-inundation science and information. Develop rapid deployment teams for water-related emergencies. Conduct integrated watershed assessment, research, and modeling. Deliver water data and analyses to the Nation. The body of the report is presented as a hierarchal set of 5 goals, 14 objectives, and 27 strategic actions that the USGS should undertake to advance water science through year 2022. The goals deal with: Providing society the information it needs regarding the amount and quality of water in all components of the water cycle at high temporal and spatial resolution, nationwide; Advancing our understanding of processes that determine water availability; Predicting changes in the quantity and quality of water resources in response to changing climate, population, land use, and management scenarios; Anticipating and responding to water-related emergencies and conflicts; and Delivering timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision-support tools seamlessly across the Nation to support water-resource decisions. Scientific information produced on water resources would be without value if it were not communicated to society in a fashion that can inform decisions and actions. Therefore, the chapter following the goals describes how the USGS should inform, involve, and educate society about the science it produces. This includes discussions on local outreach and the use of social media for effective communication. This report concludes with a chapter devoted to the crosscutting science issues of the Water Mission Area with the other USGS Mission Areas: Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health Science, and Natural Hazards. Not one of these Mission Areas stands alone—all must work together and integrate their actions to fulfill the USGS science mission for the future. This final chapter identifies the important linkages that must be realized and maintained for this integration to occur.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

2011 Year in review - Earth Resources Observation and Science Center

The USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center's 2011 Year in Review is an annual report recounting the broad scope of the Center's 2011 accomplishments. The report covers preparations for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) launch, the ever-increasing use of free Landsat data, monitoring the effects of natural hazards, and more to emphasize the importance of innovation in using satellite data to study change over time.

South Dakota↗
USGS2013

Bedrock and surficial geologic map of the Satan Butte and Greasewood 7.5’ quadrangles, Navajo and Apache Counties, northern Arizona

The geologic map of the Satan Butte and Greasewood 7.5’ quadrangles is the result of a cooperative effort of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Navajo Nation to provide regional geologic information for management and planning officials. This map provides geologic information useful for range management, plant and animal studies, flood control, water resource investigations, and natural hazards associated with sand-dune mobility. The map provides connectivity to the regional geologic framework of the Grand Canyon area of northern Arizona. The map area encompasses approximately 314 km 2 (123 mi 2 ) within Navajo and Apache Counties of northern Arizona and is bounded by lat 35°37'30" to 35°30' N., long 109°45' to 110° W. The quadrangles lie within the southern Colorado Plateau geologic province and within the northeastern portion of the Hopi Buttes (Tsézhin Bií). Large ephemeral drainages, Pueblo Colorado Wash and Steamboat Wash, originate north of the map area on the Defiance Plateau and Balakai Mesa respectively. Elevations range from 1,930 m (6,330 ft) at the top of Satan Butte to about 1,787 m (5,860 ft) at Pueblo Colorado Wash where it exits the southwest corner of the Greasewood quadrangle. The only settlement within the map area is Greasewood, Arizona, on the north side of Pueblo Colorado Wash. Navajo Highway 15 crosses both quadrangles and joins State Highway 264 northwest of Ganado. Unimproved dirt roads provide access to remote parts of the Navajo Reservation.

Arizona↗
USGS2013

Borehole-explosion and air-gun data acquired in the 2011 Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP), southern California: description of the survey

The Imperial and Coachella Valleys are being formed by active plate-tectonic processes. From the Imperial Valley southward into the Gulf of California, plate motions are rifting the continent apart. In the Coachella Valley, the plates are sliding past one another along the San Andreas and related faults (fig. 1). These processes build the stunning landscapes of the region, but also produce damaging earthquakes. Rupture of the southern section of the San Andreas Fault (SAF), from the Coachella Valley to the Mojave Desert, is believed to be the greatest natural hazard that California will face in the near future. With an estimated magnitude between 7.2 and 8.1, such an event would result in violent shaking, loss of life, and disruption of infrastructure (freeways, aqueducts, power, petroleum, and communication lines) that might bring much of southern California to a standstill. As part of the nation’s efforts to avert a catastrophe of this magnitude, a number of projects have been undertaken to more fully understand and mitigate the effects of such an event. The Salton Seismic Imaging Project (SSIP), funded jointly by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), seeks to understand, through seismic imaging, the structure of the Earth surrounding the SAF, including the sedimentary basins on which cities are built. The principal investigators (PIs) of this collaborative project represent the USGS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Stanford University. SSIP will create images of underground structure and sediments in the Imperial and Coachella Valleys and adjacent mountain ranges to investigate the earthquake hazards posed to cities in this area. Importantly, the images will help determine the underground geometry of the SAF, how deep the sediments are, and how fast earthquake energy can travel through the sediments. All of these factors determine how hard the earth will shake during a major earthquake. If we can improve on our understanding of how and where earthquakes will occur, and how strong their resultant shaking will be, then buildings can be designed or retrofitted accordingly in order to resist damage and collapse, and emergency plans can be adequately prepared. In addition, SSIP will investigate the processes of rifting and magmatism in the Salton Trough in order to better understand this important plate-boundary region. The Salton Trough is a unique rift in that subsidence is accompanied by huge influxes of infilling sediment from the Colorado River. Volcanism that accompanies the subsidence here is muted by these influxes of sediment. The Salton Trough, in the central part of the Imperial Valley, is apparently made up of entirely new crust: young sediment in the upper crust and basaltic intrusive rocks in the mid-to-lower crust (Fuis and others, 1984). Similar to the ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) scans performed by the medical industry, seismic imaging is a collection of techniques that enable scientists to obtain a picture of what is underground. The petroleum industry routinely uses these techniques to search for oil and gas at relatively shallow depths; however, the scope of this project demanded that we image as much as 30 km into the Earth’s crust. This project generated and recorded seismic waves, similar to sound waves, which move downward into the Earth and are bent (refracted) or echoed (reflected) back to the surface. SSIP acquired data in a series of intersecting lines that cover key areas of the Salton Trough. The sources of sound waves were detonations (shots) in deep boreholes, designed to create energy equivalent to magnitude 1–2 earthquakes. The study region routinely experiences earthquakes of these magnitudes, but earthquakes are not located in such a way as to permit us to create the detailed images we need for earthquake hazard assessment. Air gun bursts, generated in the Salton Sea along extensions of our onshore seismic lines, also were utilized as sound-wave sources. Temporary deployments of portable land seismometers, as well as ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) on the floor of the Salton Sea, recorded the energy from the land shots and air gun bursts. SSIP is similar to the Los Angeles Regional Seismic Experiments of 1994 and 1999 (LARSE I and II, respectively; Murphy and others, 1996; Fuis and others, 2001). The LARSE surveys demonstrated that the USGS and collaborators can safely and effectively conduct seismic imaging surveys in urban and nonurban areas, on lands owned and/or managed by many different types of agencies and entities. Information was produced that could not have been obtained any other way, and this information was key to changing the leading ideas about earthquake hazards at that time in the Los Angeles region. These surveys produced no significant environmental impact or damage to structures, and they did not trigger earthquakes.

California↗
USGS2015

California State Waters Map Series — Offshore of Point Reyes, California

This publication about the Offshore of Point Reyes map area includes ten map sheets that contain explanatory text, in addition to this descriptive pamphlet and a data catalog of geographic information system (GIS) files. Sheets 1, 2, and 3 combine data from four different sonar surveys to generate comprehensive high-resolution bathymetry and acoustic-backscatter coverage of the map area. These data reveal a range of physiographic features (highlighted in the perspective views on sheet 4) such as the flat, sediment-covered seafloor in Drakes Bay, as well as abundant “scour depressions” on the Bodega Head–Tomales Point shelf (see sheet 9) and local, tectonically controlled bedrock uplifts. To validate geological and biological interpretations of the sonar data shown in sheets 1, 2, and 3, the U.S. Geological Survey towed a camera sled over specific offshore locations, collecting both video and photographic imagery; these “ground-truth” surveying data are summarized on sheet 6. Sheet 5 is a “seafloor character” map, which classifies the seafloor on the basis of depth, slope, rugosity (ruggedness), and backscatter intensity and which is further informed by the ground-truth-survey imagery. Sheet 7 is a map of “potential habitats,” which are delineated on the basis of substrate type, geomorphology, seafloor process, or other attributes that may provide a habitat for a specific species or assemblage of organisms. Sheet 8 compiles representative seismic-reflection profiles from the map area, providing information on the subsurface stratigraphy and structure of the map area. Sheet 9 shows the distribution and thickness of young sediment (deposited over the last about 21,000 years, during the most recent sea-level rise) in both the map area and the larger Salt Point to Drakes Bay region, interpreted on the basis of the seismic-reflection data, and it identifies the Offshore of Point Reyes map area as lying within the Bodega Head–Tomales Point shelf, Point Reyes bar, and Bolinas shelf domains. Sheet 10 is a geologic map that merges onshore geologic mapping (compiled from existing maps by the California Geological Survey) and new offshore geologic mapping that is based on integration of high-resolution bathymetry and backscatter imagery (sheets 1, 2, 3), seafloor-sediment and rock samples (Reid and others, 2006), digital camera and video imagery (sheet 6), and high-resolution seismic-reflection profiles (sheet 8), as well as aerial-photographic interpretation of nearshore areas. The information provided by the map sheets, pamphlet, and data catalog have a broad range of applications. High-resolution bathymetry, acoustic backscatter, ground-truth-surveying imagery, and habitat mapping all contribute to habitat characterization and ecosystem-based management by providing essential data for delineation of marine protected areas and ecosystem restoration. Many of the maps provide high-resolution baselines that will be critical for monitoring environmental change associated with climate change, coastal development, or other forcings. High-resolution bathymetry is a critical component for modeling coastal flooding caused by storms and tsunamis, as well as inundation associated with longer term sea-level rise. Seismic-reflection and bathymetric data help characterize earthquake and tsunami sources, critical for natural-hazard assessments of coastal zones. Information on sediment distribution and thickness is essential to the understanding of local and regional sediment transport, as well as the development of regional sediment-management plans. In addition, siting of any new offshore infrastructure (for example, pipelines, cables, or renewable-energy facilities) will depend on high-resolution mapping. Finally, this mapping will both stimulate and enable new scientific research and also raise public awareness of, and education about, coastal environments and issues.

California↗
USGS2016

Quaternary geologic map of the Wolf Point 1° × 2° quadrangle, Montana and North Dakota

The Wolf Point quadrangle encompasses approximately 16,084 km 2 (6,210 mi 2 ). The northern boundary is the Montana/Saskatchewan (U.S.-Canada) boundary. The quadrangle is in the Northern Plains physiographic province and it includes the Peerless Plateau and Flaxville Plain. The primary river is the Missouri River. The map units are surficial deposits and materials, not landforms. Deposits that comprise some constructional landforms (for example, ground-moraine deposits, end-moraine deposits, and stagnation-moraine deposits, all composed of till) are distinguished for purposes of reconstruction of glacial history. Surficial deposits and materials are assigned to 23 map units on the basis of genesis, age, lithology or composition, texture or particle size, and other physical, chemical, and engineering characteristics. It is not a map of soils that are recognized in pedology or agronomy. Rather, it is a generalized map of soils recognized in engineering geology, or of substrata or parent materials in which pedologic or agronomic soils are formed. Glaciotectonic (ice-thrust) structures and deposits are mapped separately, represented by a symbol. The surficial deposits are glacial, ice-contact, glaciofluvial, alluvial, lacustrine, eolian, colluvial, and mass-movement deposits. Till of late Wisconsin age is represented by three map units. Till of Illinoian age also is mapped. Till deposited during pre-Illinoian glaciations is not mapped, but is widespread in the subsurface. Linear ice-molded landforms (primarily drumlins), shown by symbol, indicate directions of ice flow during late Wisconsin and Illinoian glaciations. The Quaternary geologic map of the Wolf Point quadrangle, northeastern Montana and North Dakota, was prepared to provide a database for compilation of a Quaternary geologic map of the Regina 4° × 6° quadrangle, United States and Canada, at scale 1:1,000,000, for the U.S. Geological Survey Quaternary Geologic Atlas of the United States map series. This map was compiled from data from many sources, at several different map scales. That information was generalized and simplified, and then transferred to a base map at 1:250,000 scale to serve as the base for final reduction to 1:1,000,000, the nominal reading scale of maps in the Quaternary Geologic Atlas of the United States map series. This map is the generalized and simplified 1:250,000 scale compilation. Letter symbols for the map units are those used for the same units in the Quaternary Geologic Atlas of the United States map series. The map summarizes new, and selected published and unpublished, geologic information for public use and for use by Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for land use planning, including assessment of natural resources, natural hazards, recreation potential, and land use management. It also is a base from which a variety of maps relating to earth surface processes and Quaternary geologic history can be derived.

Montana, North Dakota↗
USGS2018

Geologic map of the Washington West 30’ × 60’ quadrangle, Maryland, Virginia, and Washington D.C.

The Washington West 30’ × 60’ quadrangle covers an area of approximately 4,884 square kilometers (1,343 square miles) in and west of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The eastern part of the area is highly urbanized, and more rural areas to the west are rapidly being developed. The area lies entirely within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin and mostly within the Potomac River watershed. It contains part of the Nation's main north-south transportation corridor east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, consisting of Interstate Highway 95, U.S. Highway 1, and railroads, as well as parts of the Capital Beltway and Interstate Highway 66. Extensive Federal land holdings in addition to those in Washington, D.C., include the Marine Corps Development and Education Command at Quantico, Fort Belvoir, Vint Hill Farms Station, the Naval Ordnance Station at Indian Head, the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historic Park, Great Falls Park, and Manassas National Battlefield Park. The quadrangle contains most of Washington, D.C.; part or all of Arlington, Culpeper, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William, Rappahannock, and Stafford Counties in northern Virginia; and parts of Charles, Montgomery, and Prince Georges Counties in Maryland. The Washington West quadrangle spans four geologic provinces. From west to east these provinces are the Blue Ridge province, the early Mesozoic Culpeper basin, the Piedmont province, and the Coastal Plain province. There is some overlap in ages of rocks in the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces. The Blue Ridge province, which occupies the western part of the quadrangle, contains metamorphic and igneous rocks of Mesoproterozoic to Early Cambrian age. Mesoproterozoic (Grenville-age) rocks are mostly granitic gneisses, although older metaigneous rocks are found as xenoliths. Small areas of Neoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks nonconformably overlie Mesoproterozoic rocks. Neoproterozoic granitic rocks of the Robertson River Igneous Suite intruded the Mesoproterozoic rocks. The Mesoproterozoic rocks are nonconformably overlain by Neoproterozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Fauquier and Lynchburg Groups, which in turn are overlain by metabasalt of the Catoctin Formation. The Catoctin Formation is overlain by Lower Cambrian clastic metasedimentary rocks of the Chilhowee Group. The Piedmont province is exposed in the east-central part of the map area, between overlapping sedimentary units of the Culpeper basin on the west and those of the Coastal Plain province on the east. In this area, the Piedmont province contains Neoproterozoic and lower Paleozoic metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic, and plutonic rocks. Allochthonous mélange complexes on the western side of the Piedmont are bordered on the east by metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of the Chopawamsic Formation, which has been interpreted as part of volcanic arc. The mélange complexes are unconformably overlain by metasedimentary rocks of the Popes Head Formation. The Silurian and Ordovician Quantico Formation is the youngest metasedimentary unit in this part of the Piedmont. Igneous rocks include the Garrisonville Mafic Complex, transported ultramafic and mafic inclusions in mélanges, monzogranite of the Dale City pluton, and Ordovician tonalitic and granitic plutons. Jurassic diabase dikes are the youngest intrusions. The fault boundary between rocks of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont provinces is concealed beneath the Culpeper basin in this area but is exposed farther south. Early Mesozoic rocks of the Culpeper basin unconformably overlie those of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces in the central part of the quadrangle. The north-northeast-trending extensional basin contains Upper Triassic to Lower Jurassic nonmarine sedimentary rocks. Lower Jurassic sedimentary strata are interbedded with basalt flows, and both Upper Triassic and Lower Jurassic strata are intruded by diabase of Early Jurassic age. The Bull Run Mountain fault, a major Mesozoic normal fault characterized by down-to-the-east displacement, separates rocks of the Culpeper basin from those of the Blue Ridge province on the west. On the east, the contact between rocks of the Culpeper basin and those of the Piedmont province is an unconformity, which has been locally disrupted by normal faults. Sediments of the Coastal Plain province unconformably overlie rocks of the Piedmont province along the Fall Zone and occupy the eastern part of the quadrangle. Lower Cretaceous deposits of the Potomac Formation consist of fluvial-deltaic gravels, sands, silts, and clays. Discontinuous fluvial and estuarine terrace deposits of Pleistocene and middle- to late-Tertiary age flank the modern Potomac River valley unconformable capping these Cretaceous strata and the crystalline basement where the Cretaceous has been removed by erosion. East of the Potomac River, the Potomac Formation is onlapped and unconformably overlain by a westward thinning wedge of marine sedimentary deposits of Late Cretaceous and early- and late-Tertiary age. Basement rooted Coastal Plain faults of Tertiary to Quaternary age occur along the Fall Zone and this part of the inner Coastal Plain. These Coastal Plain faults have geomorphic expression that appear to influence river drainage patterns. The geologic map of the Washington West quadrangle is intended to serve as a foundation for applying geologic information to problems involving land use decisions, groundwater availability and quality, earth resources such as natural aggregate for construction, assessment of natural hazards, and engineering and environmental studies for waste disposal sites and construction projects. This 1:100,000-scale map is mainly based on more detailed geologic mapping at a scale of 1:24,000.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2018

Bedrock geologic map of the Lisbon quadrangle, and parts of the Sugar Hill and East Haverhill quadrangles, Grafton County, New Hampshire

The bedrock geologic map of the Lisbon quadrangle, and parts of the Sugar Hill and East Haverhill quadrangles, Grafton County, New Hampshire, covers an area of approximately 73 square miles (189 square kilometers) in west-central New Hampshire. This map was created as part of a larger effort to produce a new bedrock geologic map of Vermont through the collection of field data at a scale of 1:24,000. A large part of the map area consists of the Bronson Hill anticlinorium, a post-Early Devonian structure that is cored by metamorphosed Cambrian to Devonian sedimentary, volcanic, and plutonic rocks. The Bronson Hill anticlinorium is the apex of the Middle Ordovician to earliest-Silurian Bronson Hill magmatic arc that contains the Ammonoosuc Volcanics, Partridge Formation, and Oliverian Plutonic Suite, and extends from Maine, through western New Hampshire (down the eastern side of the Connecticut River), through southern New England to Long Island Sound. The deformed and partially eroded arc is locally overlain by a relatively thin Silurian section of metasedimentary rocks (Clough Quartzite and Fitch Formation) that thickens to the east. The Silurian section near Littleton is disconformably overlain by a thicker, Lower Devonian section that includes mostly metasedimentary and minor metavolcanic rocks of the Littleton Formation. The Bronson Hill anticlinorium is bisected by a series of northeast-southwest trending Mesozoic normal faults. Primarily among them is the steeply northwest-dipping Ammonoosuc fault that divides older and younger units (lower and upper sections) of the Ammonoosuc Volcanics. The Ammonoosuc Volcanics are lithologically complex and predominantly include interlayered and interfingered rhyolitic to basaltic volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks, as well as lesser amounts of slate, phyllite, ironstone, chert, sandstone, and pelite. The Albee Formation underlies the Ammonoosuc Volcanics and is predominantly composed of interbedded metamorphosed sandstone, siltstone, and phyllite. During the Late Ordovician, a series of arc-related plutons intruded the Ammonoosuc Volcanics including the Moody Ledge pluton and the Scrag granite of Billings (1937). Subsequent plutonism related to the Acadian orogeny occurred after volcanism and deposition resulted in the Littleton Formation during the Late Devonian, including the intrusion of the Haverhill pluton and French Pond Granite found in the southern part of the map. This report consists of a geologic map and an online geographic information systems database that includes contacts of bedrock geologic units, faults, outcrops, and structural geologic information. The geologic map is intended to serve as a foundation for applying geologic information to problems involving land use decisions, groundwater availability and quality, earth resources such as natural aggregate for construction, assessment of natural hazards, and engineering and environmental studies for waste disposal sites and construction projects.

New Hampshire↗
USGS2018

Bedrock geologic map of the Miles Pond and Concord quadrangles, Essex and Caledonia Counties, Vermont, and Grafton County, New Hampshire

The bedrock geologic map of the Miles Pond and Concord quadrangles covers an area of approximately 107 square miles (276 square kilometers) in east-central Vermont and adjacent New Hampshire, north of and along the Connecticut River. This map was created as part of a larger effort to produce a new bedrock geologic map of Vermont through the collection of field data at a scale of 1:24,000. The majority of the map area consists of the Bronson Hill anticlinorium, a post-Early Devonian structure that is cored by metamorphosed Cambrian to Silurian sedimentary, volcanic, and plutonic rocks. A major feature on the map is the Monroe fault, interpreted to be a west-directed, steeply dipping Late Devonian (Acadian) thrust fault. To the west of the Monroe fault, rocks of the Connecticut Valley-Gaspé trough dominate and consist primarily of metamorphosed Silurian and Devonian sedimentary rocks. To the north, the Victory pluton intrudes the Bronson Hill anticlinorium. The Bronson Hill anticlinorium consists of the metamorphosed Albee Formation, the Ammonoosuc Volcanics, the Comerford Intrusive Complex, the Highlandcroft Granodiorite, and the Joselin Turn tonalite. The Albee Formation is an interlayered, feldspathic metasandstone and pelite that is locally sulfidic. Much of the deformed metasandstone is tectonically pinstriped. In places, one can see compositional layering that was transposed by a steeply southeast-dipping foliation. The Ammonoosuc Volcanics are lithologically complex and predominantly include interlayered and interfingered rhyolitic to basaltic volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks, as well as lesser amounts of siltstone, phyllite, graywacke, and grit. The Comerford Intrusive Complex crops out east of the Monroe fault and consists of metamorphosed gabbro, diorite, tonalite, aplitic tonalite, and crosscutting diabase dikes. Abundant mafic dikes from the Comerford Intrusive Complex intruded the Albee Formation and Ammonoosuc Volcanics east of the Monroe fault. The Highlandcroft Granodiorite and Joslin Turn tonalite plutons intruded during the Middle to Late Ordovician. West of the Monroe fault, the Connecticut Valley-Gaspé trough consists of the Silurian and Devonian Waits River and Gile Mountain Formations. The Waits River Formation is a carbonaceous muscovite-biotite-quartz (±garnet) phyllite containing abundant beds of micaceous quartz-rich limestone. The Gile Mountain Formation consists of interlayered metasandstone and graphitic (and commonly sulfidic) slate, along with minor calcareous metasandstone and ironstone. Graded bedding is common in the Gile Mountain Formation. Rocks of the Devonian New Hampshire Plutonic Suite intruded as plutons, dikes, and sills. The largest of these is the Victory pluton, which consists of weakly foliated, biotite granite and granodiorite. The Victory pluton also intruded a large part of the Albee Formation to the north. This report consists of a geologic map and an online geographic information systems database that includes contacts of bedrock geologic units, faults, outcrops, and structural geologic information. The geologic map is intended to serve as a foundation for applying geologic information to problems involving land use decisions, groundwater availability and quality, earth resources such as natural aggregate for construction, assessment of natural hazards, and engineering and environmental studies for waste disposal sites and construction projects.

New Hampshire, Vermont↗
USGS2019

Optimizing historical preservation under climate change—An overview of the optimal preservation model and pilot testing at Cape Lookout National Seashore

Adapting cultural resources to climate-change effects challenges traditional cultural resource decision making because some adaptation strategies can negatively affect the integrity of cultural resources. Yet, the inevitability of climate-change effects—even given the uncertain timing of those effects—necessitates that managers begin prioritizing resources for climate-change adaptation. Prioritization imposes an additional management challenge: managers must make difficult tradeoffs to achieve desired management outcomes related to maximizing the resource values. This report provides an overview of a pilot effort to integrate vulnerability (exposure and sensitivity), significance, and use potential metrics in a decision framework—the Optimal Preservation (OptiPres) Model—to inform climate adaptation planning of a subset of buildings in historic districts (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) at Cape Lookout National Seashore. The OptiPres Model uses a numerical optimization algorithm to assess the timing and application of a portfolio of adaptation actions that could most effectively preserve an assortment of buildings associated with different histories, intended uses, and construction design and materials over a 30-year planning horizon. The outputs from the different budget scenarios, though not prescriptive, provide visualizations of and insights to the sequence and type of optimal actions and the changes to individual building resource values and accumulated resource values. Study findings suggest the OptiPres Model has planning utility related to fiscal efficiency by identifying a budget threshold necessary to maintain the historical significance and use potential of historical buildings while reducing vulnerability (collectively, the accumulated resource value). Specifically, findings identify that a minimum of the industry standard ($222,000 annually for the 17 buildings) is needed to maintain the current accumulated resource value. Additionally, results suggest that additional appropriations provided on regular intervals when annual appropriations are at the industry standard are nearly as efficient as annual appropriations at twice the rate of industry standards and increase the amount of accumulated resource values to nearly the same level. However, periodic increases in funding may increase the risks posed to buildings from the probability of a natural hazard (that is, damage or loss from a hurricane). Suggestions for model refinements include developing standardized cost estimations for adaptation actions based on square footage and building materials, developing metrics to quantify the historical integrity of buildings, integrating social values data, including additional objectives (such as public safety) in the model, refining vulnerability data and transforming the data to include risk assessment, and incorporating stochastic events (that is, hurricane and wind effects) into the model.

North Carolina↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

U.S. Geological Survey — Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska—2019 annual science report

In keeping with our national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help the Nation address issues and solve problems in five major topical areas (listed alphabetically): Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Wildlife, Fish, and Habitat. The USGS in Alaska engages about 400 scientists and support staff working in three major science centers, Cooperative Research Units, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In just the last 5 years, the USGS in Alaska has produced scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,000 publications and about 250 technical reports. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey—Department of the Interior Region 11, Alaska —2020 annual science report

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mission: The USGS national mission is to monitor, analyze, and predict current and evolving dynamics of complex human and natural Earth-system interactions and to deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision-makers. Consistent with the national mission, the USGS in Alaska provides timely and objective scientific information to help address issues and inform management decisions across five inter-connected themes: Energy and Minerals; Geospatial Mapping; Natural Hazards; Water Quality, Streamflow, and Ice Dynamics; and Ecosystems. The USGS in Alaska consists of approximately 350 scientists and support staff working in three Alaska-based science centers, a Cooperative Research Unit, and USGS centers outside Alaska, with a combined annual science budget of about $60 million. In the last 5 years, USGS research in Alaska has produced many scientific benefits resulting from more than 1,100 publications. Publications relevant to Alaska can be conveniently searched by keyword through the USGS Publications Warehouse at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/search?q=Alaska .

Alaska↗