USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “State Government”

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 685 records · Page 38Linked to original sources
USGS2015

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake science strategy, 2015-2025—Informing ecosystem management of America’s largest estuary

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has the critical role of providing scientific information to improve the understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. The USGS works with Federal, State, and academic science partners to provide research and monitoring, and communicate results of these activities to enhance ecosystem management for both the Chesapeake and other National ecosystems. The USGS Chesapeake Science Strategy was prepared to guide science activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (2014–2025), to support the Department of the Interior (DOI) involvement in the Bay restoration efforts, and align with the USGS Mission Area (MA) Science strategies. The Chesapeake Bay is our Nation’s largest estuary, and provides critical goods and services to the people, fish, and wildlife that use the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The Chesapeake Bay watershed contains over 3,600 species of fish, wildlife, and plants and provides spawning grounds for many ecologically and economically important species including striped bass and blue crabs. The Bay watershed lies in the heart of the Atlantic Flyway and has 29 species of waterfowl, about 1 million of which winter in the region. The size of the Chesapeake seafood harvest is third in the Nation, only behind the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Along with agricultural production, tourism, and recreation, the estimated economic value of the services from the Chesapeake Bay watershed is about $100 billion annually. However, the health of the Bay ecosystem began to decline at the beginning of the 20th century due to overfishing and increasing human population and associated land change. The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) is the Federal-State cooperative effort that started in 1983 to restore the Bay and watershed. Given the ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake ecosystem, President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO) in 2009 for increased Federal leadership in the CBP to enhance the pace of restoration, and the supporting strategy was released in 2010. The EO directed the Federal Government, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), represented by the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS), and the USGS, to expand its efforts and increase leadership to restore the Bay and its watershed. The USGS and other Federal agencies expanded their activities in 2011 to meet the President’s Chesapeake EO. Since the EO was released, there have been several important changes in the USGS, DOI, and the CBP including: (1) the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, (2) increased DOI leadership in the CBP, and (3) the release of the USGS MA science strategies. The EO strategy served as a foundation for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement that was signed in 2014 by the CBP Partners, and has goals and outcomes to be met by 2025. The USGS developed the Chesapeake Science Strategy to guide our activities to address the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, DOI leadership in the CBP, and USGS MA strategies. Improving the understanding of fish and wildlife population and health, and the factors affecting their condition is the emphasis of the Strategy. The science focuses on documenting the critical ecosystem connections in the Chesapeake, and providing implications to enhance decision making for restoration and conservation activities. The revised Strategy has four themes that address 7 of the 10 goals in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement: Enhance science to support restoration, and conservation of fish, wildlife, and critical habitats. Characterize and explain changes in water quality, and its effect on freshwater and estuarine ecosystems. Assess and forecast effects of climate and land change on ecosystem conditions. Synthesize and provide information to support ecosystem management. The structure and function of biological communities of the Bay and its watershed are extremely complex and are affected by a variety of stressors and conditions. To better define the issues being addressed, the USGS has developed cross-cutting questions that define some of the most important scientific challenges where multiple disciplines and collaborators are needed to address an issue. The initial questions include: How do land and climate changes affect freshwater fish communities, health, and habitats? What are the relations among land use, water quality, contaminants, and the health of fish and wildlife? How are coastal wetlands and their carrying capacity for waterbirds affected by changing climate and land use? How is the water quality of rivers and estuaries responding to restoration actions, and changing land use? What are some of the best opportunities for management actions to benefit multiple restoration outcomes?

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2009

The Evolution of analytical technology and its impact on water-quality studies for selected herbicides and their degradation products in water

This chapter aims to describe advances in analytical instrumentation and methods for the analyses of herbicides and their degradation products and to assess their impact on major findings of broad surveys of herbicides in water conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey(USGS) over the last two decades. Standards for water purity have been set and continually revised by governments as new contaminants that may impact human health are identified. These water-purity standards have brought continued improvement in water quality of existing water sources by reducing the amount of pollution in drinking water, treating wastewater, diverting wastewater discharge from drinking-water supplies, implementing new filtration practices, and other innovative techniques. It is vital that state-of-the-art instrumentation for analyzing organic contaminants continually be introduced into the marketplace the advancement of analytical instrumentation has given scientists the capability to continually broaden their studies of the fate of herbicides and their degradation products over the last two decades. Studies by many scientists have continually expanded the knowledge of the occurrence, persistence, and transport of herbicides and their degradation products in the hydrologic environment.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

The Volcano Hazards Program — Strategic science plan for 2022–2026

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Volcano Hazards Program (VHP) Strategic Science Plan, developed through discussion with scientists-in-charge of the USGS volcano observatories and the director of the USGS Volcano Science Center, specifies six major strategic goals to be pursued over the next 5 years. The purpose of these goals is to help fulfill the USGS VHP mission to enhance public safety and to minimize social and economic disruption caused by volcanic eruptions in the United States and its territories, through delivery of effective forecasts, warnings, and information on volcano hazards based on scientific understanding of volcanic processes. These six major strategic goals are to (1) continue—and when possible, accelerate—implementation of the National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS); (2) improve community preparedness for volcanic hazards by updating and standardizing essential components of volcano hazard assessments and providing training to land managers, emergency responders, and State and local communities; (3) develop the next generation of volcano hazard assessments using geographic information systems and other digital tools; (4) make observations with new instrumentation and take advantage of advances in real-time gas sensors; (5) rebuild the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and its monitoring capabilities; and (6) form new partnerships and strengthen existing partnerships with other government agencies and with academia and industry, to advance volcano monitoring, increase understanding of volcanic processes, and disseminate USGS information. In its effort to advance volcano science and monitoring techniques, the VHP has identified six scientific targets to pursue over the next 5 years, including: (1) increased understanding of volcano seismicity; (2) improved probabilistic forecasting; (3) deepened grasp of volcano eruption histories and geochronology; (4) newly developed and refined physical models of magmatic systems, leading to better situational awareness and accuracy of eruption forecasts; (5) improved warnings and forecasts of volcanic ash and gas clouds and characterization of volcanic smog sources; and (6) refined lava-flow modeling and forecasting of lava-flow paths.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Geologic map of the Beacon Rock quadrangle, Skamania County, Washington

The Beacon Rock 7.5′ quadrangle is located approximately 50 km east of Portland, Oregon, on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge, a scenic canyon carved through the axis of the Cascade Range by the Columbia River. Although approximately 75,000 people live within the gorge, much of the region remains little developed and is encompassed by the 292,500-acre Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area, managed by a consortium of government agencies “to pro­tect and provide for the enhancement of the scenic, cultural, recreational and natural resources of the Gorge and to protect and support the economy of the Columbia River Gorge area.” As the only low-elevation corridor through the Cascade Range, the gorge is a critical regional transportation and utilities corridor (Wang and Chaker, 2004). Major state and national highways and rail lines run along both shores of the Columbia River, which also provides important water access to ports in the agricultural interior of the Pacific Northwest. Transmission lines carry power from hydroelectric facilities in the gorge and farther east to the growing urban areas of western Oregon and Washington, and natural-gas pipelines transect the corridor (Wang and Chaker, 2004). These lifelines are highly vulnerable to disruption by earthquakes, landslides, and floods. A major purpose of the work described here is to identify and map geologic hazards, such as faults and landslide-prone areas, to provide more accurate assessments of the risks associated with these features. The steep canyon walls of the map area reveal exten­sive outcrops of Miocene flood-basalt flows of the Columbia River Basalt Group capped by fluvial deposits of the ances­tral Columbia River, Pliocene lavas erupted from the axis of the Cascade arc to the east, and volcanic rocks erupted from numerous local vents. The Columbia River Basalt Group unconformably rests on a sequence of late Oligocene and early Miocene rocks of the ancestral Cascade volcanic arc, which underlies most of the map area. The resistant flood-basalt flows form some of the famous landforms in the map area, such as Hamilton Mountain. Extensive landslide complexes have devel­oped where the basalt flows were emplaced on weak volcani­clastic rocks.

Washington↗
USGS2008

Instrumentation recommendations for volcano monitoring at U.S. volcanoes under the national volcano early warning system

As magma moves toward the surface, it interacts with anything in its path: hydrothermal systems, cooling magma bodies from previous eruptions, and (or) the surrounding “country rock.” Magma also undergoes significant changes in its physical properties as pressure and temperature conditions change along its path. These interactions and changes lead to a range of geophysical and geochemical phenomena. The goal of volcano monitoring is to detect and correctly interpret such phenomena in order to provide early and accurate warnings of impending eruptions. Given the well-documented hazards posed by volcanoes to both ground-based populations (for example, Blong, 1984; Scott, 1989) and aviation (for example, Neal and others, 1997; Miller and Casadevall, 2000), volcano monitoring is critical for public safety and hazard mitigation. Only with adequate monitoring systems in place can volcano observatories provide accurate and timely forecasts and alerts of possible eruptive activity. At most U.S. volcanoes, observatories traditionally have employed a two-component approach to volcano monitoring: (1) install instrumentation sufficient to detect unrest at volcanic systems likely to erupt in the not-too-distant future; and (2) once unrest is detected, install any instrumentation needed for eruption prediction and monitoring. This reactive approach is problematic, however, for two reasons. 1. At many volcanoes, rapid installation of new ground-1. based instruments is difficult or impossible. Factors that complicate rapid response include (a) eruptions that are preceded by short (hours to days) precursory sequences of geophysical and (or) geochemical activity, as occurred at Mount Redoubt (Alaska) in 1989 (24 hours), Anatahan (Mariana Islands) in 2003 (6 hours), and Mount St. Helens (Washington) in 1980 and 2004 (7 and 8 days, respectively); (b) inclement weather conditions, which may prohibit installation of new equipment for days, weeks, or even months, particularly at midlatitude or high-latitude volcanoes; (c) safety factors during unrest, which can limit where new instrumentation can safely be installed (particularly at near-vent sites that can be critical for precursor detection and eruption forecasting); and (d) the remoteness of many U.S. volcanoes (particularly those in the Aleutians and the Marianas Islands), where access is difficult or impossible most of the year. Given these difficulties, it is reasonable to anticipate that ground-based monitoring of eruptions at U.S. volcanoes will likely be performed primarily with instruments installed before unrest begins. 2. Given a growing awareness of previously undetected 2. phenomena that may occur before an eruption begins, at present the types and (or) density of instruments in use at most U.S. volcanoes is insufficient to provide reliable early warning of volcanic eruptions. As shown by the gap analysis of Ewert and others (2005), a number of U.S. volcanoes lack even rudimentary monitoring. At those volcanic systems with monitoring instrumentation in place, only a few types of phenomena can be tracked in near-real time, principally changes in seismicity, deformation, and large-scale changes in thermal flux (through satellite-based remote sensing). Furthermore, researchers employing technologically advanced instrumentation at volcanoes around the world starting in the 1990s have shown that subtle and previously undetectable phenomena can precede or accompany eruptions. Detection of such phenomena would greatly improve the ability of U.S. volcano observatories to provide accurate early warnings of impending eruptions, and is a critical capability particularly at the very high-threat volcanoes identified by Ewert and others (2005). For these two reasons, change from a reactive to a proactive volcano-monitoring strategy is clearly needed at U.S. volcanoes. Monitoring capabilities need to be expanded at virtually every volcanic center, regardless of its current state of unrest, with particular emphases on real-time data transmission and increasing the diversity, quality, and quantity of instrumentation at U.S. volcano observatories. In this report, we present recommendations for the types and numbers of instruments that should be deployed to monitor U.S. volcanoes. These recommendations are the result of discussions among members of a panel of government- and university-based scientists about the status and future directions of volcano monitoring, with discussions framed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)’s National Volcano Early Warning System (NVEWS) initiative (Ewert and others, 2005).

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2023

The benefits of big-team science for conservation: Lessons learned from trinational monarch butterfly collaborations

Many pressing conservation issues are complex problems caused by multiple social and environmental drivers; their resolution is aided by interdisciplinary teams of scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders working together. In these situations, how do we generate science to effectively guide conservation (resource management and policy) decisions? This paper describes elements of successful big-team science in conservation, as well as shortcomings and lessons learned, based on our work with the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ) in North America. We summarize literature on effective science teams, extracting information about elements of success, effective implementation approaches, and barriers or pitfalls. We then describe recent and ongoing conservation science for the monarch butterfly in North America. We focus primarily on the activities of the Monarch Conservation Science Partnership–an international collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists, policy experts and natural resource managers spanning government, non-governmental and academic institutions—which developed science to inform imperilment status, recovery options, and monitoring strategies. We couch these science efforts in the adaptative management framework of Strategic Habitat Conservation, the business model for conservation employed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to inform decision-making needs identified by stakeholders from Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We conclude with elements critical to effective big-team conservation science, discuss why science teams focused on applied conservation problems are unique relative to science teams focusing on traditional or theoretical research, and list benefits of big team science in conservation.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗
USGS1997

Coordination and standardization of federal sedimentation activities

In August 1964, the Bureau of the Budget issued Circular A-67 to set forth guidelines for the coordination of water-data acquisition activities throughout the Federal government. The U.S. Department of the Interior was assigned the task of implementing Circular A-67, which in turn redelegated this responsibility to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Delegation of the lead responsibility for water-data coordination to the USGS occurred because of its historical role as the primary agency for water-data acquisition in the United States. To provide overall leadership for implementing the provisions of Circular A-67, the USGS established the Office of Water Data Coordination in the Water Resources Division (WRD). In addition, regional and district offices of the WRD were delegated responsibility for coordinating water data within their geographic areas of responsibility. On December 10, 1991, the Office of Management and Budget issued OMB Number Memorandum M-92-01, which expands the USGS's coordination role to encompass all water information. This includes data critical to water resources in the following categories: - surface- and ground-water quality and quantity, - sediment, - constituent transport, - erosion, - water chemistry, and - precipitation information critical to water resources management. Memorandum M-92-01 covers primarily freshwater bodies and includes activities, such as "development and distribution of consensus standards, field-data collection and laboratory analytical methods, data processing and interpretation, data-base management, quality control and quality assurance, and water- resources appraisals, assessments, and investigations." Research activities are not included.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2023

National preparedness strategy & action plan for potentially hazardous near-Earth objects and planetary defense

Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are asteroids and comets that orbit the Sun, but have orbits that can bring them into Earth’s neighborhood—within 30 million miles of Earth’s orbit. Planetary defense is “applied planetary science” to address the NEO impact risks on Earth. This National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Objects and Planetary Defense (2023 Planetary Defense Strategy) updates the United States’ first comprehensive Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, released in 2018. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy builds on existing efforts by Federal Departments and Agencies to address the hazard of near-Earth object impacts, includes evaluation of where progress has been made since 2018, and focuses future work on planetary defense across the U.S. government. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy maintains and updates the core five goals of the 2018 Strategy and Action Plan, while adding a sixth goal to improve governance and interagency coordination on planetary defense issues across Federal Departments and Agencies for the decade ahead. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy focuses on six goals: • Goal 1: Enhance NEO detection, tracking, and characterization capabilities. • Goal 2: Improve NEO modeling, prediction, and information integration. • Goal 3: Develop technologies for NEO deflection and disruption missions. • Goal 4: Increase international cooperation on NEO preparation. • Goal 5: Strengthen and routinely exercise NEO impact emergency procedures and action protocols. • Goal 6: Improve U.S. governance of planetary defense through new interagency collaboration.

Report↗
USGS2024

Amphibian and reptile conservation in the United States of America

Wildlife stewardship is of utmost importance in the United States, where management for sustainable natural resources is extended to native species including amphibians and reptiles. The U.S. wildlife conservation framework is a nested system of authorities regulating species and habitats, science-based management and policy decisions, and adaptive management as new knowledge is applied to improve outcomes of population- and habitat-management actions. Yet the approach has evolved through time, from single-species management of game species to the conservation of entire ecosystems and the biodiversity they support. Today, the mismatch of conservation ideals with conservation capacity puts nongame species like amphibians and reptiles in the crosshairs for losses due to insufficient resources to address growing numbers of threats. Despite these challenges, optimism prevails, as the management and conservation of U.S. herpetofauna is an increasing priority of the public, with considerable investment into habitat restoration, species-specific threat mitigation, research, public outreach, and education. Herein, we outline key elements of U.S. herpetological conservation efficacy: (1) a web of legal authorities governing the management of U.S. herpetofauna and their habitats; (2) a network of people and organizations that work toward filling priority knowledge gaps by conducting scientific research and that are actively engaged in the science-management interface for species-to-ecosystem level conservation decision-making, and (3) a learning framework of adaptive management within the legal landscape (“lawscape”) and for improving effectiveness of conservation actions. Lastly, the human dimension of species conservation in the U.S. is emerging, where bottom-up local efforts are having success in addition to state- and regional-scale approaches. We propose U.S. herpetological conservation priorities under three themes: threats, research, and human dimensions (people). Together these multifaceted efforts are contributing to advances in the maintenance of U.S. amphibian and reptile diversity. The success of these efforts is notable and could be viewed as a model system, where lessons learned may apply elsewhere.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

Attribution of monotonic trends and change points in peak streamflow across the conterminous United States using a multiple working hypotheses framework, 1941–2015 and 1966–2015

The U.S. Geological Survey has a long history of leading flood-frequency analysis studies. These studies play a critical role in the assessment of risk, protection of lives, and planning and design of flood protection infrastructure. Standard flood-frequency analysis is based on the assumption of stationarity—that is, that the distribution of floods at a given site varies around a particular mean within a particular envelope of variance (and skew) and that these parameters of the underlying statistical distribution representative of the floods do not vary over time. Gradual or abrupt changes in one or more of the distributional parameters are called nonstationarities and violate the underlying assumptions of current U.S. Federal Government guidelines for flood-frequency analysis. Uncertainty exists as to what degree of violations calls for the use of a modified method for flood-frequency analysis and what the modified method(s) should be. When deciding whether to perform nonstationary flood-frequency analysis and choosing a method for such analysis, it is important to understand the causes of the nonstationarity. Gradual or abrupt changes in distributional properties of floods may be the result of numerous factors, such as regulation, diversion, land-use change, or climate change. In the interest of developing a cohesive national approach for better understanding the causes of nonstationarities and incorporating potential or observed changes into flood-frequency estimates, subject-matter experts from the U.S. Geological Survey and cooperators worked together to develop a multiple working hypotheses framework for making attributions and a common vocabulary for making provisions of confidence. Seven regional teams of these experts used ancillary datasets and institutional knowledge to evaluate plausible causes for monotonic trends and change points in annual peak-streamflow data for the conterminous United States that had been identified in an earlier phase of the project. The first chapter of this professional paper describes the development of a list of the potential attributions, presents a literature review of the potential attributions, describes the regional approach, summarizes insights obtained from the attribution process, and suggests future research. The other chapters provide the methods used for attribution in the seven regions—Pacific Northwest, Upper Plains, Midwest, Northeast, Southwest, South-Central, and Southeast—and summarize the regional patterns of nonstationarities.

Conterminous United States↗
USGS2015

2014 National Park visitor spending effects: economic contributions to local communities, states, and the nation

The National Park System covers more than 84 million acres and is comprised of more than 401 sites across the Nation. These lands managed by the National Park Service (NPS) serve as recreational destinations for visitors from across the Nation and around the world. On vacations or on day trips, NPS visitors spend time and money in the gateway communities surrounding NPS sites. Spending by NPS visitors generates and supports a considerable amount of economic activity within park gateway economies. The NPS has been measuring and reporting visitor spending and economic effects for the past 25 years. The 2012 analysis marked a major revision to the NPS visitor spending effects analyses, with the development of the Visitor Spending Effects model (VSE model) which replaced the previous Money Generation Model (see Cullinane Thomas et al. (2014) for a description of how the VSE model differs from the previous model). This report provides updated VSE estimates associated with 2014 NPS visitation. System-wide visitation estimates in 2014 increased by 7% (or 19.2 million visits) compared to 2013 (Ziesler, 2015). Visitation in 2014 rebounded from a 2013 decline that included a 16-day government shutdown and many park closures for repairs after Superstorm Sandy hit the Northeast in late 2012. The re-opening of the Washington Monument, some 21 months after it was rocked by an earthquake and repaired, also added to 2014 visitation numbers. Additionally, several national parks saw record-breaking visitation in 2014, including Joshua Tree, Rocky Mountain, Grand Teton and Glacier national parks. This report begins by presenting an overview of economic effects analyses, followed by details about the data and methods used for this analysis and 2014 model updates. Estimates of NPS visitor spending in 2014 and resulting economic effects at the local, state, regional, and national levels are then presented. The report concludes with a description of current data limitations. Park-level spending and economic effects estimates are included in the appendix. New this year, results from the Visitor Spending Effects report series are available online via an interactive tool. Users can explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value added, and output effects by sector for national, state, and local economies. This interactive tool is available via the NPS Social Science Program webpage at http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/economics.cfm.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS2014

Mapping large-area landscape suitability for honey bees to assess the influence of land-use change on sustainability of national pollination services

Pollination is a critical ecosystem service affected by various drivers of land-use change, such as policies and programs aimed at land resources, market values for crop commodities, local land-management decisions, and shifts in climate. The United States is the world's most active market for pollination services by honey bees, and the Northern Great Plains provide the majority of bee colonies used to meet the Nation's annual pollination needs. Legislation requiring increased production of biofuel crops, increasing commodity prices for crops of little nutritional value for bees in the Northern Great Plains, and reductions in government programs aimed at promoting land conservation are converging to alter the regional landscape in ways that challenge beekeepers to provide adequate numbers of hives for national pollination services. We developed a spatially explicit model that identifies sites with the potential to support large apiaries based on local-scale land-cover requirements for honey bees. We produced maps of potential apiary locations for North Dakota, a leading producer of honey, based on land-cover maps representing (1) an annual time series compiled from existing operational products and (2) a realistic scenario of land change. We found that existing land-cover products lack sufficient local accuracy to monitor actual changes in landscape suitability for honey bees, but our model proved informative for evaluating effects on suitability under scenarios of land change. The scenario we implemented was aligned with current drivers of land-use change in the Northern Great Plains and highlighted the importance of conservation lands in landscapes intensively and extensively managed for crops.

PLoS ONE↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume III, Area Reports — International — Africa and the Middle East

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals, contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic, contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International, is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcome.

Minerals Yearbook↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume III, Area Reports — International — Asia and the Pacific

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals , contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic , contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International , is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcomed.

Minerals Yearbook↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume III, Area Reports — International — Europe and central Eurasia

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals , contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic , contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International , is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcomed.

Minerals Yearbook↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume III, Area Reports — International — Latin America and Canada

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals , contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic , contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International , is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcomed.

Central America, South America↗
USGS1996

U.S. Geological Survey programs in Texas

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the Federal Government's primary source of data on the quantity and quality of the Nation's water resources, its principal civilian map making agency, and its primary provider of information on natural hazards and mineral, energy, and biological resources. The USGS makes unbiased scientific information available equally to all interested parties. Most USGS work in Texas involves the appraisal of the State's water resources in cooperation with more than 80 local, State, and Federal agencies. The foundation of a wide range of hydrologic data-collection and interpretive programs is the stream-gaging program. The Texas network of streamflow-gaging stations, which provides water data for water-resources planning and design, hydrologic research, and operation of water-resources projects, is part of a nationwide aggregation of networks that is unique because of nationally consistent, prescribed standards by which the data are collected and processed. The USGS continues to expand collection of data for paper and digital maps. The best-known products of the USGS in Texas are its 1:24,000-scale topographic maps. These maps depict basic natural and cultural features of the landscape. Maps at this scale (1 inch on the map represents 2,000 feet on the ground) are useful for civil engineering, land-use planning, and natural-resource monitoring, and have long been favorites with the general public for a wide variety of outdoor uses. The USGS also continues to monitor geologic conditions in Texas associated with rare but potentially dangerous earthquakes. Recently, the Nation Biological Service (now the Biological Resources Division) joined the USGS to continue their appraisal of the nation's biological resources.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2024

Minerals Yearbook, volume I, Metals and Minerals

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the worldwide minerals and materials industries and provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. Content of the individual Minerals Yearbook volumes follows: Volume I, Metals and Minerals , contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Chapters on survey methods, summary statistics for domestic nonfuel minerals, and trends in mining and quarrying in the metals and industrial mineral industries in the United States are also included. Volume II, Area Reports: Domestic , contains a chapter on the mineral industry of each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. This volume also has chapters on survey methods and summary statistics of domestic nonfuel minerals. Volume III, Area Reports: International , is published as four separate reports. These regional reports contain the latest available minerals data on more than 180 foreign countries and discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these nations and the United States. Each report begins with an overview of the region’s mineral industries during the year. It continues with individual country chapters that examine the mining, refining, processing, and use of minerals in each country of the region and how each country’s mineral industry relates to U.S. industry. Most chapters include production tables and industry structure tables, information about Government policies and programs that affect the country’s mineral industry, and an outlook section. The USGS continually strives to improve the value of its publications to users. Constructive comments and suggestions by readers of the Minerals Yearbook are welcome.

Minerals Yearbook↗