SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Resource Publication”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

USGS1972

ERTS and EROS

In June the National Aeronautics & Space Administration is to launch its first experimental satellite designed to view the Earth systematically with remote-sensing instruments that will provide new information about our resources and environment. The launching will culminate more than 8 years of planning and research by resource agencies of the Federal Government in cooperation with NASA, state and local governments, universities, and industry. The first Earth Resources Technology Satellite, ERTS-A, will be followed a year later by ERTS-B. Analyses of data from them, it is hoped, will lead to design of operational satellites for Earth resources investigations in the future. In the belief that satellite systems will be of significant assistance in meeting its responsibilities to map, monitor, and manage the vast resources and the public lands of the United States, the Department of the Interior assumed a major role in the ERTS-A Experiment.

Geotimes↗

USGS1982

HEP as a planning tool: an application to waterfowl enhancement

To many, the principal role of wildlife agencies in public and private resource development has been that of impact mitigation. With known or pending habitat damage, biologists have to develop mitigation or compensation plans. Unfortunately, once in a mitigation framework, they are in a no-win situation, seeking remedial action at best. Yet, the potential exists for cooperative project planning, thereby facilitating mitigation of impacts before they occur, and enhancement of environmental amenities through project development. In fact, such planning is mandated by federal legislation (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Outdoor Recreation Act, etc.).

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Na↗

USGS2002

Spatial data available on the web at http://mrdata.usgs.gov/

Earth science information is important to decisionmakers who formulate public policy related to mineral resource sustainability, land stewardship, environmental hazards, the economy, and public health. To meet the growing demand for easily accessible data, the Mineral Resources Program has developed, in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies, an Internet-based, data-delivery system that allows interested customers worldwide to download accurate, up-to-date mineral resource-related data at any time. All data in the system are spatially located and customers with Internet access and a modern Web browser can easily produce maps having user-defined overlays for any region of interest.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2004

Strategic plan for the U.S. Geological Survey status and trends of Biological Resources Program: 2004-2009

The mission of the USGS Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program is to measure, predict, assess, and report the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources to facilitate research, enable resource management and stewardship, and promote public understanding and appreciation of our living resources. Determining the status (abundance, distribution, productivity, and health) and trends (how these variables change over time) of our living natural resources is critical for their Trumpeter swan with numbered wing tags. This tech- protection or restoration. The Progg ran nique allows birds to he monitored remotely without the provides the USGS, other agencies of need for recapture to identify individuals. Photo by the Department of the Interior (DOI), Wayne Miller. other federal and state agencies, and the public with science-based monitoring data and information for local, regional, and national assessment of biological resources and the ecosystems that support them.

Circular↗

USGS2016

Voice, perceived fairness, agency trust, and acceptance of management decisions among Minnesota anglers

Although researchers agree that public participation in natural resource decision making is critical to institutional acceptance by stakeholders and the general public, the processes to gain public perceptions of fairness, agency trust, and acceptance of management decisions are not clear. Using results from a mail survey of Minnesota resident anglers, we used structural equation modeling to examine how instrumental versus symbolic motives related to anglers’ perceptions of agency fairness, trustworthiness, and ultimately acceptance of fisheries management decisions. We applied laboratory research on relationships among procedural fairness, trust, and management acceptance, and then tested models incorporating anglers’ perceptions of voice for anglers and nonanglers in management decisions. Results suggested that trust fully mediated the relationship between procedural fairness and management acceptance. Angler perceptions of angler and nonangler voice both related to views of procedural fairness, but angler voice was more strongly related and was also significantly related to acceptance of management decisions.

Society and Natural Resources↗

USGS2017

Critical mineral resources of the United States—An introduction

Many changes have taken place in the mineral resource sector since the publication by the U.S. Geological Survey of Professional Paper 820, “United States Mineral Resources,” which is a review of the long-term United States resource position for 65 mineral commodities or commodity groups. For example, since 1973, the United States has continued to become increasingly dependent on imports to meet its demands for an increasing number of mineral commodities. The global demand for mineral commodities is at an alltime high and is expected to continue to increase, and the development of new technologies and products has led to the use of a greater number of mineral commodities in increasing quantities to the point that, today, essentially all naturally occurring elements have several significant industrial uses. Although most mineral commodities are present in sufficient amounts in the earth to provide adequate supplies for many years to come, their availability can be affected by such factors as social constraints, politics, laws, environmental regulations, land-use restrictions, economics, and infrastructure. This volume presents updated reviews of 23 mineral commodities and commodity groups viewed as critical to a broad range of existing and emerging technologies, renewable energy, and national security. The commodities or commodity groups included are antimony, barite, beryllium, cobalt, fluorine, gallium, germanium, graphite, hafnium, indium, lithium, manganese, niobium, platinum-group elements, rare-earth elements, rhenium, selenium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, vanadium, and zirconium. All these commodities have been listed as critical and (or) strategic in one or more of the recent studies based on assessed likelihood of supply interruption and the possible cost of such a disruption to the assessor. For some of the minerals, current production is limited to only one or a few countries. For many, the United States currently has no mine production or any significant identified resources and is largely dependent on imports to meet its needs. As a result, the emphasis in this volume is on the global distribution and availability of each mineral commodity. The environmental issues related to production of each mineral commodity, including current mitigation and remediation approaches to deal with these challenges, are also addressed. This introductory chapter provides an overview of the mineral resource classifications, terms, and definitions used in this volume. A review of the history of the use and meaning of the term “critical” minerals (or materials) is included as an appendix to the chapter.

Professional Paper↗

USGS2011

Natural resource mitigation, adaptation and research needs related to climate change in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert

This report synthesizes the knowledge, opinions, and concerns of many Federal and State land managers, scientists, stakeholders, and partners from a workshop, held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on April 20-22, 2010. Land managers, research scientists, and resource specialists identified common concerns regarding the potential effects of climate change on public lands and natural resources in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert and developed recommendations for mitigation, adaptation, and research needs. Water and, conversely, the effects of drought emerged as a common theme in all breakout sessions on terrestrial and aquatic species at risk, managing across boundaries, monitoring, and ecosystem services. Climate change models for the southwestern deserts predict general warming and drying with increasing precipitation variability year to year. Scientists noted that under these changing conditions the past may no longer be a guide to the future in which managers envision increasing conflicts between human water uses and sustaining ecosystems. Increasing environmental stress also is expected as a consequence of shifting ecosystem boundaries and species distributions, expansion of non-native species, and decoupling of biotic mutualisms, leading to increasingly unstable biologic communities. Managers uniformly expressed a desire to work across management and agency boundaries at a landscape scale but conceded that conflicting agency missions and budgetary constraints often impede collaboration. More and better science is needed to cope with the effects of climate change but, perhaps even more important is the application of science to management issues using the methods of adaptive management based on long-term monitoring to assess the merits of management actions. Access to data is essential for science-based land management. Basic inventories, spatial databases, baseline condition assessments, data quality assurance, and data sharing were identified as top information priorities by all participants at this workshop. Optimizing the utility of ecosystem monitoring data will require standardizing monitoring protocols across agencies. Better communication among researchers and managers and cooperation through partnerships to manage resources across boundaries were emphasized as necessary for adapting to changing climatic conditions. However, even these strategies may be insufficient unless policy mandates, agency missions, and funding are coordinated at a high level.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2021

Identifying policy-relevant indicators for assessing landscape vegetation patterns to inform planning and management on multiple use public lands

Understanding the structure and composition of landscapes can empower agencies to effectively manage public lands for multiple uses while sustaining land health. Many landscape metrics exist, but they are not often used in public land decision-making. Our objectives were to (1) develop and (2) apply a process for identifying a core set of indicators that public land managers can use to understand landscape-level resource patterns on and around public lands. We first developed a process for identifying indicators that are grounded in policy, feasible to quantify using existing data and resources, and useful for managers. We surveyed landscape monitoring efforts by other agencies, gathered science and agency input on monitoring goals, and quantified the prevalence of potential indicators in agency land health standards to identify five landscape indicators: amount, distribution, patch size, structural connectivity, and diversity of vegetation types. We then conducted pilot applications in four bureau of land management (BLM) field offices in Arizona, California, and Colorado to refine procedures for quantifying the indicators and assess the utility of the indicators for managers. Results highlighted the dominance of upland and the limited extent of riparian/wetland vegetation communities, moderate connectivity of priority vegetation patches, and lower diversity of native vegetation types on BLM compared to non-BLM lands. Agency staff can use the indicators to inform the development of quantitative resource management objectives in land use plans, evaluate progress in meeting those objectives, quantify potential impacts of proposed actions, and as a foundation for an all-lands approach to landscape-level management across public lands.

Environmental Management↗

USGS1980

Ground water in the Thousand Oaks area, Ventura County, California

The ground-water basin beneath the city of Thousand Oaks, Calif. , corresponds closely in area with the surface-water drainage basin of Conejo Valley. Before World War II there was little ground-water development. After World War II, urban development put a stress on the ground-water basin; many wells were drilled and water levels in wells were drawn down as much as 300 feet in places. Beginning in 1963, imported water replaced domestic and municipal ground-water systems, and water levels rapidly recovered to predevelopment levels or nearly so. Most of the ground water in the Thousand Oaks area is stored in fractured basalt of the middle Miocene Conejo Volcanics. Depending on the degree of occurrence of open fractures and cavities in the basalt, recoverable ground water in the upper 300 to 500 feet of aquifer is estimated to be between 400,000 and 600,000 acre-feet. The yield of water from wells in the area ranges from 17 to 1,080 gallons per minute. Most of the ground-water in the eastern part of the valley is high insulfate and has a dissolved-solids concentration greater than 1,000 milligrams per liter. In the western part of the valley the ground-water is mostly of a bicarbonate type, and the dissolved-solids concentration is less than 800 milligrams per liter. In most areas of Conejo Valley, ground-water is a viable resource for irrigation of public lands and recreation areas. (USGS)

California↗

USGS2020

Tracking fisheries through time: The American Fisheries Society as an historical lens

The historical context of current environment conditions offers vital guidance to North American fisheries professionals as they strive to develop effective management plans and policies. This retrospective includes understanding the remarkable historic fisheries resource and causative reasons for establishing their public fisheries agencies and the American Fisheries Society (Society). Through a review of primary historical documents and literature for North America, this paper identifies: factors contributing to the of founding of the Society and public fish commissions; shows how selected resource issues evolved; and documents how and why selected fisheries and aquatic habitat policies changed in response to those issues. Overexploitation, landscape-scale habitat alterations, mining, and dams were the causative agents for emergence of fisheries agencies and the Society, and these environmental factors remain relevant today. Beginning in the 1960s, after 100 years of inaction, North Americans grew tired of degraded waters and fisheries and forced policy changes that have directly and indirectly affected the fisheries we manage today. The historical events and resulting corrective legislation are taken for granted by those unaware that our Society has actively participated in developing policies to address these environmental harms. Further, the Society continues to play a vital role in identifying key issues, providing conduits for information to cope with impairments, and advocating for policies to conserve intact habitats and improve degraded systems. The struggles documented in this paper offer crucial lessons as we continue to be challenged by legacy resource issues and face emerging environmental stressors such as climate change as well as regression in long-standing environmental protection policies.

Fisheries Magazine↗

USGS2005

Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program: Goals and Objectives 2004-2009

The mission of the Status and Trends of Biological Resources Program is to measure, predict, assess, and report the status and trends of the Nation's biological resources to facilitate research, enable resource management and stewardship, and promote public understanding and appreciation of our living resources.

General Information Product↗

USGS2004

Partnerships - Working Together to Build The National Map

Through The National Map, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working with partners to ensure that current, accurate, and complete base geographic information is available for the Nation. Designed as a network of online digital databases, it provides a consistent geographic data framework for the country and serves as a foundation for integrating, sharing, and using data easily and reliably. It provides public access to high quality geospatial data and information from multiple partners to help inform decisionmaking by resource managers and the public, and to support intergovernmental homeland security and emergency management requirements.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2013

National assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources: Data

In 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) completed the national assessment of geologic carbon dioxide storage resources. Its data and results are reported in three publications: the assessment data publication (this report), the assessment results publication (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013a, USGS Circular 1386), and the assessment summary publication (U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Carbon Dioxide Storage Resources Assessment Team, 2013b, USGS Fact Sheet 2013–3020). This data publication supports the results publication and contains (1) individual storage assessment unit (SAU) input data forms with all input parameters and details on the allocation of the SAU surface land area by State and general land-ownership category; (2) figures representing the distribution of all storage classes for each SAU; (3) a table containing most input data and assessment result values for each SAU; and (4) a pairwise correlation matrix specifying geological and methodological dependencies between SAUs that are needed for aggregation of results.

Data Series↗

USGS2024

Status of water quality in groundwater resources used for drinking-water supply in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley, 2013–15—California GAMA Priority Basin Project

The California Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program Priority Basin Project (GAMA-PBP) investigated water quality of groundwater resources used for drinking-water supplies in the Madera-Chowchilla, Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Tulare Lake groundwater subbasins of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley during 2013–15. The study focused primarily on groundwater resources used for domestic-supply wells in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley (SESJV-D), which correspond mostly to shallower parts of aquifer systems, compared to the groundwater resources used for public-supply wells in the southeastern San Joaquin Valley (SESJV-P). The investigation had three components: (1) characterization of the status of water quality in the SESJV-D, (2) comparison between water quality in the SESJV-D and SESJV-P, and (3) identification of natural and anthropogenic factors that potentially could affect water quality in these resources. The characterization of water quality in the SESJV-D was based on data collected from 198 domestic wells sampled during 2013–15 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); characterization of water quality in the SESJV-P was based on data collected from 124 wells sampled by the USGS during 2005–18 and an additional 1,577 wells with publicly available data reported to the California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (SWRCB-DDW). Measured concentrations were compared to regulatory and non-regulatory drinking-water quality benchmarks. A grid-based method was used to estimate the areal proportions of each study area and the whole southeastern San Joaquin Valley with high (greater than benchmark concentration), moderate (greater than half of the benchmark for inorganic and one-tenth of the benchmark for organic), and low concentrations relative to those benchmarks. Natural and anthropogenic factors that could affect groundwater quality for the SESJV-D were identified in the context of the hydrogeologic setting of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley. The considered factors represented hydrologic conditions and position in the groundwater flow system (well depth, lateral position, presence of hydric soils, percentage of coarse-grained sediment, and aridity index), land-use characteristics (percentages of agricultural, urban, and natural land use, percentage of orchard or vineyard land use, and densities of septic tanks and underground storage tanks near the wells), and geochemical conditions (groundwater age class, oxidation-reduction class, pH, and dissolved oxygen and bicarbonate concentrations). Factors are compared between SESJV-D and SESJV-P at the scale of the five study areas. One or more inorganic constituents with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) were detected at high concentrations in 47 percent of the SESJV-D and in 32 percent of the SESJV-P. The inorganic constituents most commonly present at high concentrations in the SESJV-D were nitrate, uranium, and arsenic. Within the SESJV-D, the proportion of the study area with high concentrations of inorganic constituents ranged from 19 percent in Madera-Chowchilla to 60 percent in Kings and Tulare Lake. One or more inorganic constituents with California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL-CAs) were detected at high concentrations in 14 percent of the SESJV-D and in 19 percent of the SESJV-P. The constituents most commonly present at high concentrations were manganese, iron, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Although the proportion of SESJV-D and SESJV-P with high concentrations of TDS greater than the upper SMCL were similar at 4 percent, the proportion of the SESJV-D with moderate concentrations (between the recommended and upper SMCL-CA), 30 percent, was greater than the proportion of the SESJV-P with moderate concentrations, 12 percent. One or more organic constituents with MCLs were present at high concentrations in 19 percent of the SESJV-D and in 12 percent of the SESJV-P. All the constituents detected at high concentrations in the SESJV-D were fumigants, primarily 1,2,3-trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP) and 1,2-dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP). Fumigants also were the constituents most commonly detected at high concentrations in the SESJV-P, although high concentrations of solvents also were detected. The SESJV-D dataset included analysis of many organic constituents without MCL benchmarks and with detection levels far below drinking water benchmark concentrations; detections at these low concentrations can be used as tracers of anthropogenic influence on groundwater. Pesticides and degradates of pesticides were detected in 60 percent of the SESJV-D; the most frequently detected pesticides were the herbicides simazine, didealkylatrazine (CAAT, a degradate of simazine and atrazine), diuron, and bromacil.

California↗

USGS1979

Minerals, lands, and geology for the common defence and general welfare, Volume 1, Before 1879 : A history of public lands, federal science and mapping policy, and development of mineral resources in the United States

This volume, the first of a four-volume study, is concerned with events in the United States before the establishment of the U.S. Geological Survey, during the years in which geology evolved as a science and began to influence economic development and national policy. Subsequent volumes continue the story but focus on the Survey and its role in the events and developments of later years. The method of analysis demonstrates that knowledge of the Earth and its history, processes, and resources has provided a basis for intelligent economic development; also that geologists very soon realized that uncontrolled development of the land and other natural resources could not continue, that some limitations must be made on man's use of the Earth. The Geological Survey was established when public awareness of the need for balance between development and conservation of our resources was becoming evident. That balance is even more necessary now and in the future for the "general welfare" and "common defence" of the Nation. We can be grateful for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in providing for publicly supported studies in earth science and engineering by well-trained and motivated scientists and engineers. Such studies, undertaken objectively in the search for facts, can continue to be of great value in the formulation and execution of wise policies to protect our environment and to maintain that balance between development and conservation of the natural resources.

Book↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗

USGS2011

Development of industrial minerals in Colorado

Technology and engineering have helped make mining safer and cleaner for both humans and the environment. Inevitably, mineral development entails costs as well as benefits. Developing a mine is an environmental, engineering, and planning challenge that must conform to many Federal, State, and local regulations. Community collaboration, creative design, and best management practices of sustainability and biodiversity can be positive indicators for the mining industry. A better understanding of aesthetics, culture, economics, geology, climate, vegetation and wildlife, topography, historical significance, and regional land planning is important in resolving land-use issues and managing mineral resources wisely. Ultimately, the consuming public makes choices about product use (including water, food, highways, housing, and thousands of other items) that influence operations of the mineral industry. Land planners, resource managers, earth scientists, designers, and public groups have a responsibility to consider sound scientific information, society's needs, and community appeals in making smart decisions concerning resource use and how complex landscapes should change. An effort to provide comprehensive geosciences data for land management agencies in central Colorado was undertaken in 2003 by scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological Survey. This effort, the Central Colorado Assessment Project, addressed a variety of land-use issues: an understanding of the availability of industrial and metallic rocks and minerals, the geochemical and environmental effects of historic mining activity on surface water and groundwater, and the geologic controls on the availability and quality of groundwater. The USDA Forest Service and other land management agencies have the opportunity to contribute to the sustainable management of natural aggregate and other mineral resources through the identification and selective development of mineral resources and the reclamation of mines on lands that they administer. The information in this Circular will help them carry out that task.

Colorado↗

USGS2026

Arizona Water Science Center activities at Lees Ferry, Arizona

Introduction In 1921, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established a streamgage on the Colorado River at Lees Ferry, Arizona, to monitor the river’s flow and level as it enters Grand Canyon. The following year, the seven States encompassing the Colorado River Basin (Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) negotiated the 1922 Colorado River Compact to regulate distribution of the river’s waters between them. The compact divided the basin into two regions—the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin—and established the dividing point between them about one mile downstream from Lees Ferry, just below the confluence of the Colorado and Paria Rivers. The Colorado River at Lees Ferry streamgage (USGS station 09380000) is one of the most important streamgages in the United States because it is used to measure how much water passes from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin through Glen Canyon Dam. The dam, constructed between 1956 and 1966, generates hydropower and stores water in Lake Powell reservoir, which is used to provide Upper and Lower Basin states with the water allotted to them by the compact. Lower Basin states depend on releases from the dam to receive their allotments. The Lees Ferry streamgage, located less than 16 miles downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, produces publicly available, real-time water data that allows the Colorado River’s streamflow below the dam to be monitored. Most years, the Colorado River runs dry before reaching its historical terminus at the Gulf of California in Mexico, so measuring and monitoring the river at Lees Ferry is critical for the Lower Basin ecosystems, agricultural resources, and municipal industries that rely on the river’s every drop. Additionally, Grand Canyon river guides and recreationalists depend on water level data from the Lees Ferry streamgage to determine when to run rapids and camp on sandbars. Streamflow and water-quality data collected at Lees Ferry are also important for monitoring the health of the Colorado River’s aquatic life because some species, including fish and macroinvertebrates, require certain water conditions to survive, reproduce, and spawn. The Arizona Water Science Center is responsible for maintaining and collecting water data from the Lees Ferry streamgage. The Arizona Water Science Center is a branch of the USGS dedicated to providing high quality, impartial water data to resource managers and the public for their use in understanding and managing critical water resources in Arizona and the Southwest.

Arizona↗