USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Natural Science”

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 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
USGS2006

History of the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center ("the Center") has been a nucleus of research, technology development, and associated scientific activities within the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years. The Center’s historical activities are deeply rooted in federal biological resources research and its supporting disciplines, particularly as they relate to the needs of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its resource management agencies. The organizational framework and activities of the Center have changed and adapted over the years in response to shifts in the scientific issues and challenges facing the U.S. Department of the Interior and with the development of new strategies to meet these challenges. Thus, the history of the Center has been dynamic. The Center has been nested within the U.S. Geological Survey since 1996. From 1993 to 1996 the Center was a major unit of the National Biological Service (named the National Biological Survey at its inception). This was a period of great organizational flux. During that time the Center comprised multiple field stations and science functions that prior to 1993 had been scattered among the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1993, certain biological research components of these agencies were assigned to join with the National Ecology Research Center, formerly one of the major research and development hubs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the year when biological resources research in the U.S. Department of the Interior was consolidated by the Secretary of the Interior, who in an April 1993 memo explaining his intentions wrote, "Our Department has, without doubt, the best biologists in the world." Soon after formation of the new agency, the Center was re-named the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, reflecting its geographic location within the new Midcontinent administrative region of the National Biological Service (the other three original administrative regions were the eastern, western, and southern). The change in name to the Fort Collins Science Center took place in 2002, soon after the center moved to new facilities on the Colorado State University Natural Resources Research Campus. At various times during the period when it was part of the National Biological Service (1993–96), the Center served as the administrative and programmatic home base for a wide number of science activities in numerous Western states (table 1). This reflected the previous fragmentation of biological and related science efforts across resource management agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The organization of the 2 Center within the National Biological Service was a manifestation of the desire of the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate its biological science activities in administratively independent entities that would ensure that the science retained its objectivity. Congress later recognized the need to maintain a hierarchical independence between biological science and resource management in the Department. However, Congress also saw that the U.S. Geological Survey, with its long history of objective science support to the nation in geology, water resources, geography, and remote sensing, was a suitable alternative home for these biological science functions. Thus, in 1996 Congress transferred the biological resources functions of the National Biological Service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed overviews and opinions about the history and policy issues surrounding the formation and subsequent fate of the National Biological Service can be found elsewhere (for example Cohn, 1993, 2005; Kaufman, 1993; Kreeger, 1994; Pulliam, 1995, 1998a,b; Reichhardt, 1994; Wagner, 1999)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Tunison Laboratory of Aquatic Science research to rehabilitate native prey fish of the Lake Ontario fish community—Coregonine fishes

Restoration of native coregonines to Lake Ontario of the Laurentian Great Lakes will improve the diversity of forage for salmonid predators and ecological function in the lake, but efficacy of experimental releases for native species restoration must be evaluated. The Coregonine Research Program at the U.S. Geological Survey Tunison Laboratory of Aquatic Science encompassed a diverse array of research, with an emphasis on improved culture methods and field assessments of experimentally released juvenile coregonines. This research was carried out to support the Fish Community Objectives of the Lake Ontario Committee, is funded largely by the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and was done in collaboration with other laboratories and agencies, particularly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; and other U.S. Geological Survey laboratories. The Tunison Laboratory of Aquatic Science and partners have developed new and innovative hatchery techniques to raise cisco and bloater to life stages suitable for survival in Lake Ontario; assessed adult bloater survival in Lake Ontario; and evaluated survival, return rate, and reproduction of adult cisco in historic spawning locations in Lake Ontario embayments. Successes, challenges, and research needs are discussed.

Lake Ontario↗
USGS2003

Geothermal energy: clean power from the Earth's heat

Societies in the 21st century require enormous amounts of energy to drive the machines of commerce and to sustain the lifestyles that many people have come to expect. Today, most of this energy is derived from oil, natural gas, and coal, supplemented by nuclear power. Local exceptions exist, but oil is by far the most common source of energy worldwide. Oil resources, however, are nonrenewable and concentrated in only a few places around the globe, creating uncertainty in long-term supply for many nations. At the time of the Middle East oil embargo of the 1970s, about a third of the United States oil supply was imported, mostly from that region. An interruption in the flow of this import disrupted nearly every citizen’s daily life, as well as the Nation’s economy. In response, the Federal Government launched substantial programs to accelerate development of means to increasingly harness “alternative energies”—primarily biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind. The new emphasis on simultaneously pursuing development of several sources of energy recognized the timeless wisdom found in the proverb of “not putting all eggs in one basket.” This book helps explain the role that geothermal resources can play in helping promote such diversity and in satisfying our Nation’s vast energy needs as we enter a new millennium. For centuries, people have enjoyed the benefits of geothermal energy available at hot springs, but it is only through technological advances made during the 20th century that we can tap this energy source in the subsurface and use it in a variety of ways, including the generation of electricity. Geothermal resources are simply exploitable concentrations of the Earth’s natural heat (thermal energy). The Earth is a bountiful source of thermal energy, continuously producing heat at depth, primarily by the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes—principally of uranium, thorium, and potassium—that occur in small amounts in all rocks. This heat then rises to and through the Earth’s surface, where it escapes into the atmosphere. The amount of heat that flows annually from the Earth into the atmosphere is enormous—equivalent to ten times the annual energy consumption of the United States and more than that needed to power all nations of the world, if it could be fully harnessed. Even if only 1 percent of the thermal energy contained within the uppermost 10 kilometers of our planet could be tapped, this amount would be 500 times that contained in all oil and gas resources of the world. How might we benefit from this vast amount of thermal energy beneath our feet? Where, by what means, and how much of the Earth’s natural heat can be usefully harnessed? These are especially important questions to contemplate, because global population is expected to soon exceed seven billion and many scientists believe that the world’s fossilfuel resources may be substantially depleted within this century. Faced with such prospects, both the public and private sectors are working toward more fully utilizing the Earth’s abundant thermal energy and other alternative energy resources. A skeptic might question the wisdom of devoting much national effort to geothermal energy development, especially because many experts think that geothermal heat can contribute at most about 10 percent to the Nation’s energy supply using current technologies. However, ongoing advances in exploration and heat-extraction technologies are improving our ability to use the resource and may substantially increase the geothermal contribution to the Nation’s energy supply. In an attempt to help national planners and average citizens alike understand the nature and energy potential of geothermal resources, this book (1) describes the distribution and nature of geothermal energy, (2) reviews the common types of geothermal systems that provide useful energy with current technology, (3) considers potential geothermal resources that might someday be tapped with developing technologies, and (4) summarizes the role of earth-science information in assessing and harnessing geothermal resources wherever they occur worldwide. The predecessor to this book (Tapping the Earth’s Natural Heat, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1125, published in 1994) summarized the situation in the early 1990s. In an effort to support national energy planners, this new circular incorporates more recent advances in geothermal science and technology.

Circular↗
USGS2023

User’s Guide to planetary image analysis and geologic mapping in ArcGIS Pro

Geologic maps are valuable tools in planetary science. Though planetary geologic maps are similar to terrestrial (Earthbased) geologic maps, the nature of planetary exploration introduces unique challenges for geologic mappers. Terrestrial geologic mappers prepare products from field-based observation, often comparing or refining those with aerial and (or) orbital images. Planetary geologic mapping relies almost exclusively on remote observations, which are made by orbiting spacecraft. Therefore, with a few exceptions for locations with rovers, landers, or crewed surface missions, planetary geologic mappers are not able to observe their map area in detail or at smaller scales. As a result, they must interpret and describe their map features differently than those used in terrestrial geologic maps. For example, terrestrial geologic mappers commonly divide units by lithology (rock type) or grain size. However, planetary geologic mappers often do not have detailed enough information to know what type of rock or grain size is present, and instead must divide the planet’s surface into geologic units using differences in tone, color, and surface texture (at multiple scales). Cross-cutting relationships, where apparent, can provide excellent—and often crucial—observations for identifying and subdividing geologic units using orbital datasets. The process of creating planetary maps has evolved over time, from original hand-drawn maps created during the early 1800s through the late 1900s, to the fully digital products created today. Modern-day planetary geologic mapping uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software and tools to visualize data, delineate units and landforms, and accurately convey spatial relationships to a map user using cartographic features represented by points, lines, and polygons. This tutorial was written to familiarize both new and experienced planetary geologic mappers with ArcGIS Pro, a commonly used GIS software package developed by Esri. This tutorial introduces new planetary geologic mappers to fundamental concepts and best practices in planetary geologic mapping. For mappers with experience using ArcMap (a previous version of ArcGIS), this tutorial will help to familiarize users with new changes in layout and functionality, so current projects may be migrated into the ArcGIS Pro environment. No prior knowledge is required, although a general familiarity with geology, GIS, and planetary science is recommended. This tutorial includes links to helpful glossaries of common GIS terms and other GIS and planetary science resources in appendix 1. For additional information on planetary geologic mapping, see the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Astrogeology NASA Planetary Geologic Mapping Program website and the Planetary Mapping Guidelines. Numerous ArcGIS tutorials are also available from Esri’s Tutorials page, through the Esri Academy catalog, and Esri’s ArcGIS Pro Resources page.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2013

Challenge theme 1: Understanding and preserving ecological resources: Chapter 3 in United States-Mexican Borderlands: Facing tomorrow's challenges through USGS science

The notable biodiversity within the United States–Mexican border region is driven by the wide variety of natural landscapes in the area and its biologically unique transition zone of habitats for xeric, temperate, and subtropical species. Six diverse ecoregions cover the length of the border (fig. 3–1): California Coastal Sage, Chaparral, and Oak Woodlands; Sonoran Desert; Madrean Archipelago; Chihuahuan Desert; Southern Texas Plains; and Western Gulf Coastal Plain. The unique geology and many of the distinctive geographic features and climatic conditions that have given rise to the diverse populations of plants and animals found in the Borderlands also attract human populations. The number of people living in the Borderlands has increased dramatically over recent years, from about 7 million in 1980 to almost 12 million in 2003; the population is estimated to be more than 18 million by 2020 (Peach and Williams, 2003). The human population increase and associated change in land use have contributed to habitat fragmentation and habitat loss for native species, thus threatening their survival. Some ways in which humans negatively affect plants and animals in the Borderlands include dewatering of aquatic ecosystems, water pollution, introduction and spread of invasive species, outdoor lighting, military and border enforcement activity, and energy development and transmission.

United States-Mexico Borderlands↗
USGS2002

Human impact on the planet: an earth system science perspective and ethical considerations

The modern Earth Narrative, the scientific story of the 4.5 billion-year natural and human history of the Earth, has emerged from the solid foundation of two factual concepts: Deep (or Geologic) Time and Biological Evolution. spread acceptance of the Earth Narrative is critically important as we begin the third millennium, because it provides a clear understanding of the growing impact of human population growth and associated activities on the Earth System, especially the negative impact on Earth?s biosphere. It is important for humans to realize that we are but one of 4,500 species of mammals that exist on Earth and that we are but one species in the estimated 30 to 100 million species that form the complex biosphere. We also need to recognize that all species exist within the physical limits imposed by the geosphere. We are totally dependent on the biosphere for food, oxygen, and other necessities of life. mans are one of the latest results of biological evolution operating over a long period of Geologic Time. We find ourselves on Earth, after 4.5 billion years of Earth history by chance, not by design. Humans have become so successful at modifying their environment that many of the natural limitations on the expansion of populations of our fellow animals have been overcome by technological and cultural innovations. According to Peter Raven, ?Humans, at a current population of 6 billion [expected to nearly double by 2050], are consuming or wasting about 50 percent of the total net biological productivity on land and 50 percent of the available supply of freshwater. The overwhelming and expanding human presence leaves less and less room in the environment for other biota.? st century will be a pivotal time in the fate of Earth?s biosphere. Whereas human modification of the geosphere will slowly recover over time, human changes to the biosphere are a far more consequential matter? extinction of a species is forever! Will humans effectively use our new knowledge of natural and human history to stop further degradation of Earth?s ecosystems and extinction of its biota? The fate of the biosphere, including humanity, depends on a reaffirmation by all humans of all cultures and religions of the global importance of a planet-wide conservation of the Earth?s biotic heritage. For the world?s religions it means elevation of stewardship of the Earth to a moral imperative and a goal of complete preservation of the Earth?s biotic inheritance, one which is based on a Do No Harm ethic.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

The Colorado Plateau IV: shaping conservation through science and management

Roughly centered on the Four Corners region of the southwestern United States, the Colorado Plateau covers some 130,000 square miles of sparsely vegetated plateaus, mesas, canyons, arches, and cliffs in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. With elevations ranging from 3,000 to 14,000 feet, the natural systems found within the plateau are dramatically varied, from desert to alpine conditions. This book focuses on the integration of science and resource management issues in this unique and highly varied environment. Broken into three subsections, this volume addresses conservation biology, biophysical resources, and inventory and monitoring concerns. The chapters range in content, addressing conservation issues–past, present, and future–on the Colorado Plateau, measurement of human impacts on resources, grazing and wildland-urban interfaces, and tools and methods for monitoring habitats and species. An informative read for people interested in the conservation and natural history of the region, the book will also serve as a valuable reference for those people engaged in the management of cultural and biological resources of the Colorado Plateau, as well as scientists interested in methods and tools for land and resource management throughout the West.

Utah;Colorado;Arizona;New Mexico↗
USGS2020

Citizen science collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska

Citizen science is science undertaken by the public, usually in collaboration with professional scientific institutions. It encourages citizens to tackle real-world scientific problems and augments traditional science by expanding the coverage of data collection and by reducing costs of fieldwork in remote locations. Information collected by volunteers enables us all to gain a deeper understanding of how the natural world works and how it is changing. The U.S. Geological Survey is a leading Federal agency in fostering citizen-science collaborations, and the examples in this publication show the value of those collaborations.

Alaska↗
USGS2016

Perspectives on bay-delta science and policy

The State of Bay–Delta Science 2008 highlighted seven emerging perspectives on science and management of the Delta. These perspectives had important effects on policy and legislation concerning management of the Delta ecosystem and water exports. From the collection of papers that make up the State of Bay–Delta Science 2016, we derive another seven perspectives that augment those published in 2008. The new perspectives address nutrient and contaminant concentrations in Delta waters, the failure of the Delta food web to support native species, the role of multiple stressors in driving species toward extinction, and the emerging importance of extreme events in driving change in the ecosystem and the water supply. The scientific advances that underpin these new perspectives were made possible by new measurement and analytic tools. We briefly discuss some of these, including miniaturized acoustic fish tags, sensors for monitoring of water quality, analytic techniques for disaggregating complex contaminant mixtures, remote sensing to assess levee vulnerability, and multidimensional hydrodynamic modeling. Despite these new tools and scientific insights, species conservation objectives for the Delta are not being met. We believe that this lack of progress stems in part from the fact that science and policy do not incorporate sufficiently long-term perspectives. Looking forward half a century was central to the Delta Visioning process, but science and policy have not embraced this conceptual breadth. We are also concerned that protection and enhancement of the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place, as required by the Delta Reform Act, has received no critical study and analysis. Adopting wider and longer science and policy perspectives immediately encourages recognition of the need for evaluation, analysis, and public discourse on novel conservation approaches. These longer and wider perspectives also encourage more attention to the opportunities provided by heavily invaded ecosystems. It is past time to turn scientific and policy attention to these issues.

California↗
USGS1997

The effects of pollutants on wildlife

In this chapter, selected sources of information which address the effects of pollutants on wildlife are reviewed. Although naturally occurring plant and animal toxins also affect wildlife, the focus of this review is xenobiotic toxicants. Xenobiotic substances are chemicals introduced into the environment in the form of pesticides, heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other by-products of human activities. The science of examining the effects of these substances on animal and plant life is multi-disciplinary in nature and contributors to the literature in this field include toxicologists, wildlife and aquatic ecologists, chemists and those in the veterinary and medical professions.

Book chapter↗
USGS2018

Unmanned aerial systems capabilities of the U.S. Geological Survey Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center

Unmanned aerial system (UAS) technology provides a rapid and low-cost solution for mapping coastal environments and assessing short- and long-term changes. The interdisciplinary nature of the data collected and the breadth of applications make UAS technology applicable to multiple scientific investigations. The Aerial Imaging and Mapping (AIM) group at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center provides UAS services to scientists to advance the science mission of the Coastal-Marine Hazards and Resources Program. Scientists at the Woods Hole Coastal and Marine Science Center use UASs to acquire imagery of coastal and wetland environments, which is then used to produce detailed topographic and visual reflectance datasets. UAS technology supports the work of geologists, engineers, physical scientists, geographers, and geochemists who study coastal erosion, sediment transport, storm impacts, habitats, biomass, and marsh stability.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2006

Spatial patterns of large natural fires in Sierra Nevada wilderness areas

The effects of fire on vegetation vary based on the properties and amount of existing biomass (or fuel) in a forest stand, weather conditions, and topography. Identifying controls over the spatial patterning of fire-induced vegetation change, or fire severity, is critical in understanding fire as a landscape scale process. We use gridded estimates of fire severity, derived from Landsat ETM+ imagery, to identify the biotic and abiotic factors contributing to the observed spatial patterns of fire severity in two large natural fires. Regression tree analysis indicates the importance of weather, topography, and vegetation variables in explaining fire severity patterns between the two fires. Relative humidity explained the highest proportion of total sum of squares throughout the Hoover fire (Yosemite National Park, 2001). The lowest fire severity corresponded with increased relative humidity. For the Williams fire (Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks, 2003) dominant vegetation type explains the highest proportion of sum of squares. Dominant vegetation was also important in determining fire severity throughout the Hoover fire. In both fires, forest stands that were dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) burned at highest severity, while red fir (Abies magnifica) stands corresponded with the lowest fire severities. There was evidence in both fires that lower wind speed corresponded with higher fire severity, although the highest fire severity in the Williams fire occurred during increased wind speed. Additionally, in the vegetation types that were associated with lower severity, burn severity was lowest when the time since last fire was fewer than 11 and 17 years for the Williams and Hoover fires, respectively. Based on the factors and patterns identified, managers can anticipate the effects of management ignited and naturally ignited fires at the forest stand and the landscape levels. ?? 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

Landscape Ecology↗
USGS2003

The role of climate and vegetation change in shaping past and future fire regimes in the northwestern US and the implications for ecosystem management

Fire is an important part of the disturbance regimes of northwestern US forests and its role in maintaining and altering forest vegetation is evident in the paleoecological record of the region. Long-term reconstructions of Holocene fire regimes, provided by the analysis of charcoal, pollen, and other fire proxies in a network of lake records, indicate that the Pacific Northwest and summer-dry regions of the northern Rocky Mountains experienced their highest fire activity in the early Holocene (11,000-7000 years ago) and during the Medieval Warm Period (ca. 1000 years ago) when drought conditions were more severe than today. In contrast, in summer-wet areas of the northern Rocky Mountains, the period of highest fire activity was registered in the last 7000 years when dry woodland vegetation developed. When synthesized across the entire northwestern US, the paleoecological record reveals that past and present fire regimes are strongly controlled by climate changes occurring on multiple time scales. The scarcity of fires in the 20th century in some northwestern US ecosystems may be the result of successful fire suppression policies, but in wetter forests this absence is consistent with long-term fire regime patterns. In addition, simulations of potential future climate and vegetation indicate that future fire conditions in some parts of the northwestern US could be more severe than they are today. The Holocene record of periods of intensified summer drought is used to assess the nature of future fire-climate-vegetation linkages in the region. ?? 2003 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2002

Vulnerability assessment of a port and harbor community to earthquake and tsunami hazards: Integrating technical expert and stakeholder input

Research suggests that the Pacific Northwest could experience catastrophic earthquakes and tsunamis in the near future, posing a significant threat to the numerous ports and harbors along the coast. A collaborative, multiagency initiative is underway to increase the resiliency of Pacific Northwest ports and harbors to these hazards, involving Oregon Sea Grant, Washington Sea Grant, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Services Center, and the U.S. Geological Survey Center for Science Policy. One element of this research, planning, and outreach initiative is a natural hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness planning process that combines technical expertise with local stakeholder values and perceptions. This paper summarizes and examines one component of the process, the vulnerability assessment methodology, used in the pilot port and harbor community of Yaquina River, Oregon, as a case study of assessing vulnerability at the local level. In this community, stakeholders were most concerned with potential life loss and other nonstructural vulnerability issues, such as inadequate hazard awareness, communication, and response logistics, rather than structural issues, such as damage to specific buildings or infrastructure.

Oregon↗
USGS2010

100-Year flood–it's all about chance

In the 1960's, the United States government decided to use the 1-percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood as the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program. The 1-percent AEP flood was thought to be a fair balance between protecting the public and overly stringent regulation. Because the 1-percent AEP flood has a 1 in 100 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any 1 year, and it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the '100-year flood'. The term '100-year flood' is part of the national lexicon, but is often a source of confusion by those not familiar with flood science and statistics. This poster is an attempt to explain the concept, probabilistic nature, and inherent uncertainties of the '100-year flood' to the layman.

General Information Product↗
USGS2005

ShakeMap manual: technical manual, user's guide, and software guide

ShakeMap (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/shakemap) --rapidly, automatically generated shaking and intensity maps--combines instrumental measurements of shaking with information about local geology and earthquake location and magnitude to estimate shaking variations throughout a geographic area. The results are rapidly available via the Web through a variety of map formats, including Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages. These maps have become a valuable tool for emergency response, public information, loss estimation, earthquake planning, and post-earthquake engineering and scientific analyses. With the adoption of ShakeMap as a standard tool for a wide array of users and uses came an impressive demand for up-to-date technical documentation and more general guidelines for users and software developers. This manual is meant to address this need. ShakeMap, and associated Web and data products, are rapidly evolving as new advances in communications, earthquake science, and user needs drive improvements. As such, this documentation is organic in nature. We will make every effort to keep it current, but undoubtedly necessary changes in operational systems take precedence over producing and making documentation publishable.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2014

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2014-15

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds. Nearly all the rural population obtain drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decision makers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2014) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗
USGS2016

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources, 2016-17

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. Although rainfall in normal years can support these activities and needs, occasional floods and droughts can disrupt streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie; it has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds (State of Ohio, 1994). Nearly all of the rural population obtains drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decisionmakers, policy makers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of the use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2016) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/ .

Ohio↗