USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Cooperator Science Series”

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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Middle Jurassic through Quaternary metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia, Chapter 8 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Tectonic and metallogenic model for northeast Asia, Chapter 9 in Metallogenesis and tectonics of northeast Asia

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Appendix A: Description of the Northeast Asia Project and Associated Products

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2009

Appendix B: Description of Map Units for Northeast Asia Summary Geodynamics Map

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Appendix C: Summary of Major Metallogenic Belts in Northeast Asia (the Russian Far East, Yakutia, Siberia, Transbaikalia, Northern China, Mongolia, South Korea, and Japan)

The major purposes of this chapter are to provide (1) an overview of the regional geology, tectonics, and metallogenesis of Northeast Asia for readers who are unfamiliar with the region, (2) a general scientific introduction to the succeeding chapters of this volume, and (3) an overview of the methodology of metallogenic and tectonic analysis used in this study. We also describe how a high-quality metallogenic and tectonic analysis, including construction of an associated metallogenic-tectonic model will greatly benefit other mineral resource studies, including synthesis of mineral-deposit models; improve prediction of undiscovered mineral deposit as part of a quantitative mineral-resource-assessment studies; assist land-use and mineral-exploration planning; improve interpretations of the origins of host rocks, mineral deposits, and metallogenic belts, and suggest new research. Research on the metallogenesis and tectonics of such major regions as Northeast Asia (eastern Russia, Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, and Japan) and the Circum-North Pacific (the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera) requires a complex methodology including (1) definitions of key terms, (2) compilation of a regional geologic base map that can be interpreted according to modern tectonic concepts and definitions, (3) compilation of a mineral-deposit database that enables a determination of mineral-deposit models and clarification of the relations of deposits to host rocks and tectonic origins, (4) synthesis of a series of mineral-deposit models that characterize the known mineral deposits and inferred undiscovered deposits in the region, (5) compilation of a series of metallogenic-belt belts constructed on the regional geologic base map, and (6) construction of a unified metallogenic and tectonic model. The summary of regional geology and metallogenesis presented here is based on publications of the major international collaborative studies of the metallogenesis and tectonics of Northeast Asia that have been led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These studies have produced two broad types of publications (1) a series of regional geologic, mineral-deposit, and metallogenic-belt maps, with companion descriptions of the region, and (2) a suite of metallogenic and tectonic analyses of the same region. The study area consists of eastern Russia (most of eastern Siberia and the Russian Far East), Mongolia, northern China, South Korea, Japan, and adjacent offshore areas. The major cooperative agencies are the Russian Academy of Sciences; the Academy of Sciences of the Sakha Republic (Yakutia); VNIIOkeangeologia and Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation; the Mongolian Academy of Sciences; the Mongolian University of Science and Technology; the Mongolian National University; Jilin University, Changchun, People?s Republic of China, the China Geological Survey; the Korea Institute of Geosciences and Mineral Resources; the Geological Survey of Japan/AIST; the University of Texas, Arlington, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). This study builds on and extends the data and interpretations from a previous project on the Major Mineral Deposits, Metallogenesis, and Tectonics of the Russian Far East, Alaska, and the Canadian Cordillera conducted by the USGS, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the Geological Survey of Canada. The major products of this project were summarized by Naumova and others (2006) and are described in appendix A.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2019

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units program—2018 year in review

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) program had an interesting and challenging year in 2018. We made significant strategic advances on many fronts and had setbacks in others. Our relationship with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency we belonged to from 1935 to the mid-1990s, was further reinforced through strategic efforts with the Service’s Science Applications senior staff. This is bearing fruit in terms of research collaborations and funding support. As part of a larger effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area and the Service’s endangered species program, we are also collaborating to address science needs for species in pre-listing status. Barry Grand, Unit Supervisor (South), has been instrumental in this effort. Tom Edwards of the Utah Unit has met with representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to promote training of leaders and “hands dirty” biologists in species distribution modeling. The Association passed a unanimous resolution endorsing the training at their midyear meeting in March. Tom held a workshop at the annual meeting of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies in September, and future workshops, supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will be held bringing State agency and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists together to work on species of common concern. Wyoming Unit Leader Matt Kauffman’s pioneering work in identifying and mapping big-game migration corridors has captured the attention of conservationists far and wide. In the spring, the Secretary of the Interior signed Secretarial Order No. 3362, "Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors" directing efforts of several U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus to collaborate with States in identifying and protecting big-game corridors in 11 States. Matt has conducted several workshops that directly support the Secretarial order, and more are planned. Corridor mapping efforts supported by the USGS and the DOI, based in the States and coordinated by Matt, are unfolding. Unit Administrative Officer Shana Coulby and her staff hosted a training program for university support staff at USGS National Headquarters in March. Shana’s team did a superb job, and the camaraderie among all was evident. We co-sponsored the third in a series of workshops at the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in March on bridging the gap between science and management. The State Department requested that we coordinate a workshop that would bring CRU scientists and other U.S. representatives together with Brazilian, Colombian, and Peruvian scientists and decision makers to develop best practices to minimize environmental damage from infrastructure development in the Amazon and to collaborate on science needs. The workshop was held in Iquitos, Peru, in the heart of the Amazon during August. Our cooperator community, represented by the National Cooperators Coalition, was very active in response to the President’s budget proposal that would have redirected funding for the CRU program to other priorities. Their efforts are reflected in the House and Senate marks on the fiscal year 2019 budget that not only restored funding, but recommended increases. You will see in this report many other accomplishments of our individual scientists and students during 2018. It was an impressive and productive year! What you won’t see chronicled is the work of the CRU headquarters staff and University support staff. These folks are extraordinary in their dedication to working with cooperators and scientists to solve problems and ensure the important work gets accomplished with minimal interference. We are truly fortunate to have such skilled and dedicated folks in the trenches. I was fortunate to visit several units during 2018. For me, this is the most enriching part of my duties. I get to see firsthand the work our scientists do, the incredible students being mentored, and meet our cooperators on their turf. As we look forward towards the horizon, 2019 looks brighter for the CRU program. Efforts by our cooperators to generate support for filling our vacancies are materializing. Our cadre of scientists is second to none, and the breadth and depth of our work are nothing short of impressive. Thanks to all who are part of this cooperative endeavor—conservation is the ultimate winner in our efforts!

Circular↗
USGS2002

Water resources data, Washington, water year 2001

The Washington Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with State, local, and other Federal agencies, obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of Washington each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the State. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled "Water Resources Data— Washington."

Washington↗
USGS2012

Synoptic water-level measurements of the Upper Floridan aquifer in Florida and parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama, May-June 2010

Water levels for the Upper Floridan aquifer were measured throughout Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama in May-June 2010. These measurements were compiled for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Floridan Aquifer System Groundwater Availability Study and conducted as part of the USGS Groundwater Resources Program. Data were collected by personnel from the USGS Florida Water Science Center, Georgia Water Science Center, South Carolina Water Science Center and several state and county agencies in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama using standard techniques. Data collected by USGS personnel are stored in the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS), Groundwater Site-Inventory System (GWSI). Furnished records from cooperators are stored in NWIS/GWSI when possible, but are available from the source agency.

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina↗
USGS2007

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Activities in the Exploration of Antarctica: Introduction to Antarctica (Including USGS Field Personnel: 1946-59)

INTRODUCTION Antarctica is the planet's fifth largest continent [13.2 million km2 (5.1 million mi2)]; it contains the Earth's largest (of two) remaining ice sheets; it is considered to be one of the most important scientific laboratories on Earth. This report is the introduction to a series that covers 60 years of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientific activity in Antarctica. It will concentrate primarily on three major topics: 1) a brief chronological record of the historical search, discovery, and exploration of the southern continent by humans; 2) early USGS scientific activities in Antarctica, listing expeditions, projects, people and resulting professional publications for Operation Highjump, 1946-47; Operation Windmill, 1947-48; USS Atka Reconnaissance Cruise, 1954-55; and Operation Deep Freeze I, II, III, and IV, 1955-59, including IGY; 3) significant changes that have occurred in Antarctic exploration and research since World War II will be discussed at the end of this report. Subsequent Open-File Reports will provide a year-by-year documentation of USGS scientific activities and accomplishments in Antarctica beginning with the post-IGY, 1959-60 research team. One Open-File Report is planned to be written for each field-based season. For an example of the series format, see Open-File Reports 2006-1113 (Meunier, 2007a) and 2006-1114 (Meunier, 2007b). This report is a companion document to Open-File Report 2006-1116 (Meunier, 2007c). The USGS mapping and science programs in Antarctica are among the longest continuously funded projects in the United States Antarctic Program (USAP). The 2005-06 field season is the 56th consecutive U.S. expedition in which USGS scientists have been participants, starting in 1946. USGS and the National Science Foundation (NSF) cooperation began with the establishment by NSF of the U.S. Antarctic (Research) Program [USA(R)P] in 1958-59 under Operation Deep Freeze IV (DF IV) and was given the responsibility for the principal coordination and management of all U.S. scientific activities in Antarctica in Deep Freeze 60 (DF 60) (1959-60). Financial support from NSF, mostly in the form of Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) and Cooperative Agreements, extends back to this period and can be attributed to the need for accurate geologic, geophysical, and topographic base maps of specific field areas or regions where NSF-funded science projects were planned. The epoch of Antarctic exploration during the IGY was driven by science and, in a spirit of peaceful cooperation, the international scientific community wanted to limit military activities on the continent to logistical support (Meunier, 1979 [2007], p. 38). The USGS, a Federal civilian science agency in the Department of the Interior, has, since its founding in 1879, carried out numerous field-based national (and some international) programs in biology, geology, geophysics, hydrology, and mapping. Therefore, the USGS was the obvious choice for these tasks, because it already had a professional staff of experienced mapmakers, scientists, and program managers with the foresight, dedication, and understanding of the need for accurate maps to support the science programs in Antarctica when asked to do so by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Public Laws 85-743 and 87-626, signed in August 1958, and in September 1962, respectively, authorized the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, through the USGS, to support mapping and scientific work in Antarctica (Meunier, 1979 [2007], appendix A). Open-File Report 2006-1116 includes scanned facsimiles of postal cachets. It has become an international practice to create postal cachets to commemorate special events and projects in Antarctica. A cachet is defined as a seal or commemorative design printed or stamped on an envelope to mark a philatelic or special event. The inked impression illustrates to the scientist, historian, stamp collector, and general public the multidisciplinary science projects staffed by USGS and collaborating scientists during the field season. Since 1960, philatelic cachets have been created by team members for each USGS field season and, in most cases, these cachets depict the specific geographic areas and field season program objectives. The cachets become a convenient documentation of the people, projects, and geographic places of interest for that year. Because the cachets are representative of USGS activities, each year's cachet is included as a digital facsimile in that year's Open-File Report. In the 1980s, multiple USGS cachets were prepared each year, one for use by the winter team at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station and the other for the project work areas of the austral summer field season programs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Water resources data, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, water year 2004

The Caribbean Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with local and Federal agencies obtains a large amount of data pertaining to the water resources of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Territory of the U.S. Virgin Islands each water year. These data, accumulated during many water years, constitute a valuable data base for developing an improved understanding of the water resources of the area. To make these data readily available to interested parties outside the U.S. Geological Survey, the data are published annually in this report series entitled 'Water Resources Data for Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.' This report includes records on both surface and ground water. Specifically, it contains: (1) discharge records for 89 streamflow-gaging stations, daily sediment records for 13 sediment stations, stage records for 18 reservoirs, and (2) water-quality records for 20 streamflow-gaging stations, and for 38 ungaged stream sites, 13 lake sites, 2 lagoons, and 1 bay, and (3) water-level records for 72 observation wells. Water-resources data for Puerto Rico for calendar years 1958-67 were released in a series of reports entitled 'Water Records of Puerto Rico.' Water-resources data for the U.S. Virgin Islands for the calendar years 1962-69 were released in a report entitled 'Water Records of U.S. Virgin Islands.' Included were records of streamflow, ground-water levels, and water-quality data for both surface and ground water. Beginning with the 1968 calendar year, surface-water records for Puerto Rico were released separately on an annual basis. Ground-water level records and water-quality data for surface and ground water were released in companion reports covering periods of several years. Data for the 1973-74 reports were published under separate covers. Water-resources data reports for 1975 to 2003 water years consist of one volume each and contain data for streamflow, water quality, and ground water.

Water Data Report↗
USGS2022

Great Lakes lake trout thiamine monitoring program annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC), Eastern Ecological Science Center, and Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), and the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport have conducted in collaboration with partner agencies a cooperative program to monitor thiamine concentrations in lake trout eggs since the late 1990s. In 2021, egg thiamine concentrations were highly variable at each sampling site. No eggs samples with thiamine concentrations less than the 4 nmol/g threshold recommended for successful lake trout reproduction were collected in Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie, and Champlain. In contrast, every site in Lakes Michigan and Ontario and Cayuga Lake had some lake trout eggs below 4 nmol/g. Time series of mean lake trout egg thiamine concentrations showed high temporal and spatial variability within the Great Lakes region.

Great Lakes↗
USGS1993

International strategic minerals inventory summary report; niobium (columbium) and tantalum

Major world resources of niobium and tantalum are described in this summary report of information in the International Strategic Minerals Inventory (ISMI). ISMI is a cooperative data-collection effort of earth-science and mineral-resource agencies in Australia, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Part I of this report presents an overview of the resources and potential supply of niobium and tantalum based on inventory information; Part II contains tables of both geologic and mineral-resource information and includes production data collected by ISMI participants. Niobium is used principally as an alloying element in special steels and superalloys, and tantalum is used mainly in electronics. Minerals in the columbite-tantalite series are principal ore minerals of niobium and tantalum. Pyrochlore is a principal source of niobium. These minerals are found in carbonatite, certain rocks in alkaline igneous complexes, pegmatite, and placer deposits. ISMI estimates show that there are over 7 million metric tons of niobium and almost 0.5 million metric tons of tantalum in known deposits, outside of China and the former Soviet Union, for which reliable estimates have been made. Brazilian deposits, followed by Canadian deposits, contain by far the largest source of niobium. Tantalum production is spread widely among several countries, and Brazil and Canada are the most significant of these producers. Brazil's position is further strengthened by potential byproduct columbite from tin mining. Present economically exploitable resources of niobium appear to be sufficient for the near future, but Brazil will continue to be the predominant world supplier of ferrocolumbium. Tantalum, a byproduct of tin production, has been captive to the fluctuations of that market, but resources in pegmatite in Canada and Australia make it likely that future increases in the present modest demand will be met.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Great Lakes lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) thiamine monitoring program annual report

Thiamine deficiency in lake trout ( Salvelinus namaycush ) eggs has been linked to early life-stage mortality in the Great Lakes from the 1960s through the 1990s, potentially affecting lake trout recruitment. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC), Eastern Ecological Science Center (EESC), and Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), and the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport, in collaboration with partner agencies, initiated a cooperative monitoring program in the late 1990s to assess thiamine concentrations in lake trout eggs. In 2024, egg thiamine concentrations continued to show high variability across sampling sites. No samples with thiamine concentrations below the 4 nmol/g threshold recommended for successful reproduction were observed in Lakes Superior or Huron. In contrast, between 11% and 88% of lake trout sampled from sites in Lakes Michigan, Ontario, Champlain, and the Finger Lakes had egg thiamine concentrations below this critical threshold. Time series data revealed substantial temporal and spatial variation in mean lake trout egg thiamine concentrations across the Great Lakes region.

Finger Lakes, Great Lakes, Lake Champlain↗
USGS2024

Great Lakes lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) thiamine monitoring program annual report

Thiamine deficiency in lake trout eggs has been identified to induce early life-stage mortality in the Great Lakes in the 1960s through the 1990s and potentially affecting lake trout recruitment. As a results, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Great Lakes Science Center (GLSC), Eastern Ecological Science Center, and Columbia Environmental Research Center (CERC), and the State University of New York (SUNY) Brockport, in collaboration with partner agencies, have conducted a cooperative program to monitor thiamine concentrations in lake trout Salvelinus namaycush eggs since the late 1990s. In 2023, egg thiamine concentrations were highly variable at each sampling site. No egg samples with thiamine concentrations less than the 4 nmol/g threshold recommended for successful lake trout reproduction were collected in Lakes Superior or Huron. In contrast, 3 to 52% of the lake trout collected at sites in Lakes Michigan, Huron, Ontario and Champlain, and Cayuga Lake had eggs below 4 nmol/g. Time series of mean lake trout egg thiamine concentrations showed high temporal and spatial variability within the Great Lakes region.

Cayuga Lake, Lake Champlain, Lake Erie, Lake Huron↗
USGS1986

Example evaluation of a permit application for a proposed hazardous-waste landfill in eastern Adams County, Colorado

A project was undertaken by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to demonstrate methods by which RCRA (Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) Part B permit applications might be evaluated. The purpose of the project was to prepare a report that would supplement a series of case studies to be made available to permit writers in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Four sites in the United States were chosen for their potential applicability to geologically similar sites. The Adams County, Colorado, site was chosen to be representative of sites in the Upper Cretaceous Pierre Shale. The intent of this report is to provide an example of how available earth-science information might be used in evaluating an application and not to evaluate the acceptability of the site. Because this study is an evaluation of a permit application, the data used are limited to the data supplied in the application and in published reports. Of the five criteria required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be addressed in the permit application considered in the case study, the application was evaluated to be inadequate in addressing three criteria: (1) Site characterization, (2) ability to monitor the location, and (3) flow paths and 100-foot time of travel. Details of the inadequacies and a description of the information needed to eliminate the inadequacies are included in the report. (USGS)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

Proceedings of the 2024 Asia-Pacific Wildlife Health Workshop—Collaborating against shared threats

Emerging diseases of wildlife origin are increasingly transboundary (they spread rapidly across geographic regions and across continents). In recent years, examples include the rapid spread of African swine fever across Europe and Asia with negative effects on food security, and the near global spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza which has devastated wildlife populations, caused economic harm, and which threatens public health; consequently, international partnerships and networks are essential to facilitate the sharing of information for improved situational awareness and better preparedness and response. In this regard, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Korea National Institute for Wildlife Disease Control and Prevention have had a long-standing partnership to foster scientific collaboration. A key part of the activities has been annual scientific workshops, which commenced in 2016. The 2024 workshop in Hilo, Hawaii, was the most recent in these series of workshops and included participants from across Asia and the Pacific region, including Thailand, Vietnam, China, Republic of Korea, Japan, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, and the United States. The goals of the workshop were: to continue to build the wildlife health community of practice in the Asia-Pacific region and expand the participants to agencies and institutions from other countries in the region; and exchange scientific knowledge among the participants to share best practices, create scientific networks, and build capacity in wildlife health science for the Asia-Pacific region. The themes discussed at the workshop included wildlife health risk management, avian Influenza, African swine fever, climate change and emerging diseases, and international cooperation. This report contains the author-submitted abstracts which provide a summary of the presentations and discussions during the workshop. The aim is to share this information to continue to foster international scientific exchange to protect wildlife health, livestock, and public health from the negative impacts of infectious and noninfectious diseases.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Ungulate migrations of the western United States, volume 2

Migration is widespread across taxonomic groups and increasingly recognized as fundamental to maintaining abundant wildlife populations and communities. Many ungulate herds migrate across the western United States to access food and avoid harsh environmental conditions. With the advent of global positioning system (GPS) collars, researchers can describe and map the year-round movements of ungulates at both large and small spatial scales. The migrations can traverse landscapes that are a mix of different jurisdictional ownership and management. Today, the landscapes migrating herds traverse are increasingly threatened by fencing, high-traffic roads, oil and gas development, and other types of permanent development. Through the use of GPS collars, a model of science-based conservation emerged in which migration corridors, stopovers, and winter ranges can be mapped in detail, thereby allowing threats and conservation opportunities to be identified and remedied. In 2018, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) assembled a Corridor Mapping Team (CMT) to work collaboratively with western states to map migrations of Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer), Cervus canadensis (elk), and Antilocapra americana (pronghorn). Led by the USGS Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, the team consists of Federal scientists, university researchers, and biologists and analysts from participating State and Tribal agencies. The first set of maps described a total of 42 migrations across 5 western states and was published in 2020 as the first volume of this report series. This second volume describes an additional 65 migrations mapped within 9 western states and select Tribal lands. As the western United States continues to grow, this report series and the associated map files released by the USGS will allow for migration maps to be used for conservation planning by a wide array of State and Federal stakeholders to reduce barriers to migration caused by fences, roads, and other development.

western United States↗
USGS2013

Archive of digital boomer subbottom data collected during USGS cruises 99FGS01 and 99FGS02 offshore southeast and southwest Florida, July and November, 1999

In July (19 - 26) and November (17 - 18) of 1999, the USGS, in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS), conducted two geophysical surveys in: (1) the Atlantic Ocean offshore of Florida's east coast from Orchid to Jupiter, FL, and (2) the Gulf of Mexico offshore of Venice, FL. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer subbottom data, trackline maps, navigation files, GIS files, Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and formal Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. Filtered and gained (showing a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital images of the subbottom profiles are also provided. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, identifiers 99FGS01 and 99FGS02 refer to field data collected in 1999 for cooperative work with the FGS. The numbers 01 and 02 indicate the data were collected during the first and second field activities for that project in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity identification (ID).

Florida↗