USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Resource Publication”

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

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,315 records · Page 73Linked to original sources
USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗
USGS2000

Effects of ground-water withdrawals on the Rock River and associated valley aquifer, eastern Rock County, Minnesota

A better understanding of the ground-water and surface-water resources of the Rock River Valley in southwestern Minnesota was needed due to concerns surrounding future reliable sources of water for public supply. The Rock River Valley aquifer consists of a surficial sand and gravel unit that underlies the entire Rock River Valley and a buried sand and gravel unit that is present only in the vicinity of the Luverne Municipal and Airport well fields. The surficial and buried units of the aquifer are separated by a clay and till layer ranging in thickness from 1 to 38 feet. The combined maximum saturated thickness of the aquifer is 52 feet, with a median of 22 feet. The thickness of the buried unit ranges from 3 to 17 feet. Recharge to the Rock River Valley aquifer occurs primarily by infiltration of precipitation to the saturated zone (areal recharge) and by induced infiltration from the Rock River due to withdrawals from supply wells near the river. Discharge from the aquifer occurs primarily as leakage to streams and ground-water evapotranspiration. The water budget for the calibrated steady-state simulation indicated that areal recharge accounts for 38 percent of the sources of water to the Rock River Valley aquifer and leakage from streams contributes 58.7 percent. The largest discharge from the aquifer is leakage to streams, (71.1 percent). The net stream-aquifer leakage is approximately 5 cubic feet per second from the aquifer to the streams. The simulated contributing areas for the wells in the three well fields generally extend to the aquifer boundaries on the west and are generally truncated at the Rock River. The simulated transient water budget for 1996 indicated that the principal sources of water to the aquifer were as follows: (1) winter, spring, and late summer stress periods— leakage from streams and water released from storage and (2) early summer and fall stress periods—areal recharge and leakage from streams. The principal discharges from the aquifer were leakage to streams for all stress periods, ground-water evapotranspiration for the early and late summer stress periods, and addition to storage for the early summer and fall stress periods. The herbicides atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor, acetachlor, and cyanazine, and metabolites of these herbicides, occurred in concentrations of 0.05 to 11.5 micrograms per liter in the Rock River at Luverne during major runoff events following application of herbicides in the spring. Atrazine and metabolites, alachlor ESA (a metabolite of alachlor), metolachlor and metabolites, metolachlor ESA and metolachlor OA, and acetochlor metabolites acetochlor ESA and acetochlor OA, were detected at concentrations of 0.05 to 2.8 micrograms per liter in municipal supply wells less than 500 feet from the river during November 1995 through August 1997. The Rock River is the major source of the herbicides and metabolites. However, concentrations of atrazine and metabolites, alachlor ESA, metolachlor ESA, and metolachlor OA in supply wells may also reflect sources of these herbicides and metabolites in the ground-water contributing areas to the supply wells. Nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen concentrations in supply wells and in the ground-water contributing area to the Luverne Municipal well field were generally less than 1.5 milligrams per liter. Nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen concentrations of 2.4 to 8.5 milligrams per liter in the Rock River in the Rock County Rural Water well field and 14 to 18 milligrams per liter in the ground-water contributing area to the Rock County Rural Water supply wells are not having a substantial affect on nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen concentrations in most supply wells. Isotopic mixing calculations indicate that proportions of river water withdrawn from supply wells less than 500 feet from the river range from 5 to 60 percent of total withdrawals. The Rock River is a gaining stream in most reaches, but is losing water to the aquifer in the vicinity of the Luverne Municipal and Rock County Rural Water well fields, located 150 to 1,500 feet from the river. Simulated streamflow losses due to ground-water withdrawals in the well fields were approximately 2.1 cubic feet per second. Because an average of about 1.5 cubic feet per second of the water pumped by Luverne is returned to the Rock River as wastewater discharge, the net steady-state simulated streamflow loss for the study area is 0.6 cubic feet per second. The streamflow losses as a result of ground-water withdrawals are insignificant in comparison to typical streamflow, and are likely to have a measurable effect on streamflow only during low-flow conditions of less than approximately 10 cubic feet per second. Model results indicate that the additional water withdrawn by wells due to anticipated increased ground-water withdrawals was derived from a decrease in net leakage of ground water from the aquifer to the streams. The simulations indicated that the increased ground-water withdrawals and normal precipitation resulted in an increase in induced infiltration from the Rock River of 0.1 cubic feet per second for the Luverne Municipal well field and 0.3 cubic feet per second for the Rock County Rural Water well field. Maximum drawdowns ranged from 0.5 to 1.4 feet near the three well fields. For drought conditions, the simulated streamflow losses constituted approximately 30 percent and nearly 65 percent of the flows in the Rock River for the Luverne Municipal and Rock County Rural Water well fields, respectively. Maximum drawdowns ranged from 3.8 to 7.0 feet near the three well fields. Transient simulations with anticipated increased ground-water withdrawals and drought conditions indicated declines in hydraulic heads ranging from 0.2 to 0.4 feet per year in the vicinity of the three well fields, except for near the Rock River.

Minnesota↗
USGS1990

Map showing drill-hole depths, lithologic intercepts, and partial isopachs of basin fill in the Winnemucca 1 degree by 2 degrees quadrangle, Nevada

The purpose of this map is to aid in the mineral-resource assessment and exploration of covered host rocks by displaying and interpreting data that can be used to estimate the depth of basin fill in the Winnemucca 1° by 2° quadrangle, Nevada. Publicly available information used in making this map includes water, petroleum, and geothermal well data, gravity data and models, seismic profiles, and geologic and geomorphic reports. Wells logs used for this map of the Winnemucca quadrangle are from the following sources: (1) logs of more than 1,000 water wells reported to the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources, which are on file with them in Reno and at the with U.S. Geological Survey in Carson City, (2) 44 petroleum wells collected by the Nevada Bureau of Mines (Lintz, 1957; Schilling and Garside, 1968; Garside and Schilling, 1977, Garside and others, 1977; 1988), and (3) Two geothermal wells reported in Zoback (1979) and Flynn and others (1982). Data from isostatic residual and Bouguer gravity maps by Wagini (1985) contributed to the interpretation of basin configuration. Gravity models of Dixie Valley (Schaefer, 1982, and Speed, 1976) and Grass Valley (Grannell and Noble, 1977) and seismic profiles of Grass and Pine Valleys (Potter and others, 1987) helped refine basis interpretations in those areas. The geologic base map of Paleozoic and Mesozoic igneous and sedimentary rocks, Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rocks, and Cenozoic structures was simplified from Stewart and Carlson (1976b).

Nevada↗
USGS2014

Aquifers of Arkansas: protection, management, and hydrologic and geochemical characteristics of groundwater resources in Arkansas

Sixteen aquifers in Arkansas that currently serve or have served as sources of water supply are described with respect to existing groundwater protection and management programs, geology, hydrologic characteristics, water use, water levels, deductive analysis, projections of hydrologic conditions, and water quality. State and Federal protection and management programs are described according to regulatory oversight, management strategies, and ambient groundwater-monitoring programs that currently (2013) are in place for assessing and protecting groundwater resources throughout the State. Physical attributes, groundwater geochemistry, and groundwater quality are described for each of the 16 aquifers of the State. Information in regard to the hydrology and geochemistry of each of the aquifers is summarized from about 550 historical and recent publications. Additionally, more than 8,000 sites with groundwater-quality data were obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Information System and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality databases and entered into a spatial database to investigate distribution and trends in chemical constituents for each of the aquifers. The 16 aquifers of the State were divided into two major physiographic regions of the State: the Coastal Plain Province (referred to as Coastal Plain) of eastern and southern Arkansas, which includes 11 of the 16 aquifers, and the Interior Highlands Division (referred to as Interior Highlands) of western Arkansas, which includes the remaining 5 aquifers. The 11 aquifers in the Coastal Plain consist of various geologic units that are Cenozoic in age and consist primarily of Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary sands, gravels, silts, and clays. Groundwater in the Coastal Plain represents one of the most valuable natural resources in the State, driving the economic engines of agriculture, while also supplying abundant water for commercial, industrial, and public-supply use. In terms of age from youngest to oldest, the aquifers of the Coastal Plain include Quaternary alluvial aquifers, including the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer (the most important aquifer in Arkansas in terms of volume of use and economic benefits), the Jackson Group (a regional confining unit that served for decades as an important source of domestic supply), and the Cockfield, Sparta, Cane River, Carrizo, Wilcox, Nacatoch, Ozan, Tokio, and Trinity aquifers. The Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer accounts for approximately 94 percent of all groundwater used in the State, and the aquifer is used primarily for irrigation purposes. The Sparta aquifer is the second most important aquifer in terms of use, and the aquifer was used in the past dominantly as a source of public and industrial supply, although increasing irrigation use is occurring because of critically declining water levels in the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. Other aquifers of the Coastal Plain generally are used as important local sources of domestic, industrial, and public supply, in addition to other minor uses. Water quality generally is good for all aquifers of the Coastal Plain, except for elevated iron concentrations and localized areas of high salinity. The high salinity results from intrusion from underlying formations, evapotranspiration processes in areas of low recharge, and inadequate flushing in downgradient areas of residual salinity from deposition in marine environments. Trends in the spatial distribution of individual chemical constituents are related to position along the flow path for most aquifers of the Coastal Plain. These trends include elevated iron and nitrate concentrations with lower pH values and dissolved solids in groundwater from the outcrop areas, transitioning to lower iron and nitrate (related to changes in redox) and higher pH and dissolved solids (dominantly from the dissolution of carbonate minerals) in groundwater downgradient from outcrop areas. Groundwater generally trended from a calcium- to a sodium-bicarbonate water type with increasing cation exchange along the flow path. The Interior Highlands of western Arkansas has less reported groundwater use than other areas of the State, reflecting a combination of factors. These factors include prevalent and increasing use of surface water, less intensive agricultural uses, lower population and industry densities, lesser potential yield of the resource, and lack of detailed reporting. The overall low yields of aquifers of the Interior Highlands result in domestic supply as the dominant use, with minor industrial, public, and commercial-supply use. Where greater volumes are required for growth of population and industry, surface water is the greatest supplier of water needs in the Interior Highlands. The various aquifers of the Interior Highlands generally occur in shallow, fractured, well-indurated, structurally modified bedrock of this mountainous region of the State, as compared to the relatively flat-lying, unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain. In terms of age from youngest to oldest, the aquifers of the Interior Highlands include: the Arkansas River Valley alluvial aquifer, the Ouachita Mountains aquifer, the Western Interior Plains confining system, the Springfield Plateau aquifer, and the Ozark aquifer. Spatial trends in groundwater geochemistry in the Interior Highlands differ greatly from trends noted for aquifers of the Coastal Plain. In the Coastal Plain, the prevalence of long regional flow paths results in regionally predictable and mappable geochemical changes along the flow paths. In the Interior Highlands, short, topographically controlled flow paths (from hilltops to valleys) within small watersheds represent the predominant groundwater-flow system. As such, dense data coverage from numerous wells would be required to effectively characterize these groundwater basins and define small-scale geochemical changes along any given flow path for aquifers of the Interior Highlands. Changes in geochemistry generally were related to rock type and residence time along individual flow paths. Dominant changes in geochemistry for the Ouachita Mountains aquifer and the Western Interior Plains confining system are attributed to rock/water interaction and changes in redox zonation along the flow path. In these areas, groundwater evolves along flow paths from a calcium- to a sodium-bicarbonate water type with increasing reducing conditions resulting in denitrification, elevated iron and manganese concentrations, and production of methane in the more geochemically evolved and strongest reducing conditions. In the Ozark and Springfield Plateau aquifers, rapid influx of surface-derived contaminants, especially nitrogen, coupled with few to no attenuation processes was attributed to the karst landscape developed on Mississippian- and Ordovician-age carbonate rocks of the Ozark Plateaus. Increasing nitrate concentrations are related to increasing agricultural land use, and areas of mature karst development result in higher nitrate concentrations than areas with less karst features.

Arkasas↗
USGS1978

Hydrologic Unit Map-1978, state of South Dakota

This map and accompanying table show Hydrologic Unites that are basically hydrographic in nature. The Cataloging Unites shown supplant the Cataloging Units previously depicted n the 1974 State Hydrologic Unit Map. The boundaries as shown have been adapted from the 1974 State Hydrologic Unit Map, "The Catalog of Information on Water Data" (1972), "Water Resources Regions and Subregions for the National Assessment of Water and Related Land Resources" by the U.S. Water Resources Council (1970), "River Basin of the United States" by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (1963, 1970), "River Basin Maps Showing Hydrologic Stations" by the Inter-Agency Committee on Water Resources, Subcommittee on Hydrology (1961), and State planning maps. The Political Subdivision has been adopted from "Counties and County Equivalents of the States if the United States" presented in Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 6-2, issued by the National Bureau of Standards (1973) in which each county or county equivalent is identified by a 2-character State code and a 3-character county code. The Regions, Subregions and Accounting Units are aggregates of the Cataloging Unites. The Regions and Sub regions are currently (1978) used by the U.S> Water Resources Council for comprehensive planning, including the National Assessment, and as a standard geographical framework for more detailed water and related land-resources planning. The Accounting Units are those currently (1978) in use by the U.S. Geological Survey for managing the National Water Data Network. This map was revised to include a boundary realinement between Cataloging Units 10140103 and 10160009.

South Dakota↗
USGS2003

Hydrogeology and Simulated Effects of Ground-Water Withdrawals in the Big River Area, Rhode Island

The Rhode Island Water Resources Board is considering expanded use of ground-water resources from the Big River area because increasing water demands in Rhode Island may exceed the capacity of current sources. This report describes the hydrology of the area and numerical simulation models that were used to examine effects of ground-water withdrawals during 1964?98 and to describe potential effects of different withdrawal scenarios in the area. The Big River study area covers 35.7 square miles (mi2) and includes three primary surface-water drainage basins?the Mishnock River Basin above Route 3, the Big River Basin, and the Carr River Basin, which is a tributary to the Big River. The principal aquifer (referred to as the surficial aquifer) in the study area, which is defined as the area of stratified deposits with a saturated thickness estimated to be 10 feet or greater, covers an area of 10.9 mi2. On average, an estimated 75 cubic feet per second (ft3/s) of water flows through the study area and about 70 ft3/s flows out of the area as streamflow in either the Big River (about 63 ft3/s) or the Mishnock River (about 7 ft3/s). Numerical simulation models are used to describe the hydrology of the area under simulated predevelopment conditions, conditions during 1964?98, and conditions that might occur in 14 hypothetical ground-water withdrawal scenarios with total ground-water withdrawal rates in the area that range from 2 to 11 million gallons per day. Streamflow depletion caused by these hypothetical ground-water withdrawals is calculated by comparison with simulated flows for the predevelopment conditions, which are identical to simulated conditions during the 1964?98 period but without withdrawals at public-supply wells and wastewater recharge. Interpretation of numerical simulation results indicates that the three basins in the study area are in fact a single ground-water resource. For example, the Carr River Basin above Capwell Mill Pond is naturally losing water to the Mishnock River Basin. Withdrawals in the Carr River Basin can deplete streamflows in the Mishnock River Basin. Withdrawals in the Mishnock River Basin deplete streamflows in the Big River Basin and can intercept water flowing to the Flat River Reservoir North of Hill Farm Road in Coventry, Rhode Island. Withdrawals in the Big River Basin can deplete streamflows in the western unnamed tributary to the Carr River, but do not deplete streamflows in the Mishnock River Basin or in the Carr River upstream of Capwell Mill Pond. Because withdrawals deplete streamflows in the study area, the total amount of ground water that may be withdrawn for public supply depends on the minimum allowable streamflow criterion that is applied for each basin.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2016

Optimizing selection of training and auxiliary data for operational land cover classification for the LCMAP initiative

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Land Change Monitoring, Assessment, and Projection (LCMAP) initiative is a new end-to-end capability to continuously track and characterize changes in land cover, use, and condition to better support research and applications relevant to resource management and environmental change. Among the LCMAP product suite are annual land cover maps that will be available to the public. This paper describes an approach to optimize the selection of training and auxiliary data for deriving the thematic land cover maps based on all available clear observations from Landsats 4–8. Training data were selected from map products of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Land Cover Trends project. The Random Forest classifier was applied for different classification scenarios based on the Continuous Change Detection and Classification (CCDC) algorithm. We found that extracting training data proportionally to the occurrence of land cover classes was superior to an equal distribution of training data per class, and suggest using a total of 20,000 training pixels to classify an area about the size of a Landsat scene. The problem of unbalanced training data was alleviated by extracting a minimum of 600 training pixels and a maximum of 8000 training pixels per class. We additionally explored removing outliers contained within the training data based on their spectral and spatial criteria, but observed no significant improvement in classification results. We also tested the importance of different types of auxiliary data that were available for the conterminous United States, including: (a) five variables used by the National Land Cover Database, (b) three variables from the cloud screening ‘‘Function of mask” (Fmask) statistics, and (c) two variables from the change detection results of CCDC. We found that auxiliary variables such as a Digital Elevation Model and its derivatives (aspect, position index, and slope), potential wetland index, water probability, snow probability, and cloud probability improved the accuracy of land cover classification. Compared to the original strategy of the CCDC algorithm (500 pixels per class), the use of the optimal strategy improved the classification accuracies substantially (15-percentage point increase in overall accuracy and 4-percentage point increase in minimum accuracy).

ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing↗
USGS1998

North American landscape characterization project: The production of a continental scale three-decade Landsat data set

The North American Landscape Characterization (NALC) project is a component of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Landsat Pathfinder program. Pathfinder projects are focused on the investigation of global change utilizing current remote sensing technologies. The NALC project is a cooperative effort between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and NASA to make Landsat data available to the widest possible user community for scientific research and general public interest. The NALC project is principally funded by the EPA Office of Research and Development and the USGS's Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center (EDC). The objectives of the NALC project are to produce standardized remote sensing data sets, develop standardized analysis methods, and derive standardized land cover change products for a large portion of the North American continent (the conterminous United States and Mexico) (Lunetta and Sturdevant, 1993). The standard product is the NALC “triplicate”;, consisting of co‐registered Landsat multispectral scanner data for the years 1973, 1986, and 1991 (plus or minus one year), plus co‐registered 3 arcsecond digital terrain elevation data. Processing began with the 1986 scene, which was precision corrected (with full terrain correction) to a 60 meter Universal Transverse Mercator base. Automated cross‐correlation procedures were used to co‐register the 1970's and 1990's data to the 1980's base, and independent verifications of registration quality were performed on all triplicate components. The pertinent metadata were compiled in a relational database, which includes WRS2 path/rows, scene ID's, image dates, solar azimuth and elevation, verification RMSE's, and the number of verification control points. NALC triplicate data sets are being used for a number of applications, including the analysis of urbanization patterns, dynamics of climatic fluctuations, deforestation studies, and vegetation classification and mapping. These data are being distributed through the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Information Management System (IMS) at a cost of $15(U.S.) for each triplicate.

Geocarto International↗
USGS1973

Floods in New York, 1971

This report, for the calendar year 1971, was prepared at the request of the New York State Department of Transportation under provisions of an agreement between the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S. Geological Survey fore a cooperative statewide program investigate the water resources of the State. The report was complied in the New York, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, under the direction of Robert J. Dingman, District Chief. The information was obtained from newspaper clippings, publications of the National Weather Service, and the Environmental Data Service, and the Environmental Data Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("Climatological Data" and "Storm Data"), and records of the U.S. Geological Survey.

New York↗
USGS1952

Coal resources of Virginia

The U. S. Geological Survey and the Virginia Geological Survey have cooperated in preparing this reappraisal of the coal resources of Virginia, which is based on a study of all information" on the reserves of the State available in the publications and files of the two organizations, supplemented by mine and drill-hole information provided by mining companies and private individuals. Coal is found in Virginia in three widely separated and entirely dissimilar areas: the Southwest Virginia field, or simply the Southwest field, which comprises all or part of Tazewell, Buchanan, Dickenson, Russell, Scott, Wise, and Lee Counties; the Valley fields, a series of long, narrow coal-bearing areas in the Valley of Virginia that are concentrated largely in Montgomery, Pulaski, and Wythe Counties; and the Eastern fields, consisting of two relatively small basins near Richmond and Farmville, respectively. Of the total reserves of the State, about 97 percent are in the Southwest Virginia field. In estimating reserves of the Southwest Virginia field the cooperating agencies were assisted by a series of excellent county reports covering the entire field and by the generous cooperation received from the coal-mining companies. Because of this help, it was possible not only to prepare estimates of reserves in that field by individual coal beds, but to outline most of the important mined-out areas on the bed maps and thus to prepare an estimate that takes into consideration the coal mined and lost in mining prior to January 1, 1951. The Valley fields, which were mined to some extent prior to 1860 and which have an almost continuous production record since 1883, have been mapped and studied in some detail, but the data on the area are in general inadequate and the structure is too complex to permit a detailed estimate of reserves. Estimates of indicated and inferred reserves in six. of the ten Valley fields were prepared, however, and are presented in subsequent pages. The estimates for the Valley fields are on the basis of original reserves, as mine information is too scanty and production figures too generalized to be of value in translating original reserves into remaining reserves. The Richmond basin, the easternmost of the Eastern fields, was first mined in 1748, and operations were carried on almost continuously for 150 yr of more after that date. Activity died rapidly as rail transportation made the more easily mined Appalachian coals available, and the Eastern basins have seen little activity since about 1905. Despite the fact that an all-time total of more than 8 million tons has been taken from the Richmond basin, the data now available on the coal beds are considerably less than those on the Valley fields and it was impossible to estimate the reserves with any degree of accuracy. The reserves of the Eastern fields are therefore omitted from the tables, though the fields are discussed in later sections of this report. Whether presented as remaining reserves (Southwest field) or original reserves (Valley fields) the estimates presented in this report have been calculated on a most conservative basis, and in all probability these estimates will be increased rather than diminished as additional field work is done. Undoubtedly much of the coal reserves shown herein as indicated or inferred reserves will be changed to the measured or indicated category as development work progresses.

Circular↗
USGS2009

Ground-Water Quality Data in the Coachella Valley Study Unit, 2007: Results from the California GAMA Program

Ground-water quality in the approximately 820 square-mile Coachella Valley Study Unit (COA) was investigated during February and March 2007 as part of the Priority Basin Project of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program. The GAMA Priority Basin Project was developed in response to the Groundwater Quality Monitoring Act of 2001, and is being conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The study was designed to provide a spatially unbiased assessment of raw ground water used for public-water supplies within the Coachella Valley, and to facilitate statistically consistent comparisons of ground-water quality throughout California. Samples were collected from 35 wells in Riverside County. Nineteen of the wells were selected using a spatially distributed, randomized grid-based method to provide statistical representation of the study unit (grid wells). Sixteen additional wells were sampled to evaluate changes in water chemistry along selected ground-water flow paths, examine land use effects on ground-water quality, and to collect water-quality data in areas where little exists. These wells were referred to as 'understanding wells'. The ground-water samples were analyzed for a large number of organic constituents (volatile organic compounds [VOC], pesticides and pesticide degradates, pharmaceutical compounds, and potential wastewater-indicator compounds), constituents of special interest (perchlorate and 1,2,3-trichloropropane [1,2,3-TCP]), naturally occurring inorganic constituents (nutrients, major and minor ions, and trace elements), radioactive constituents, and microbial indicators. Naturally occurring isotopes (uranium, tritium, carbon-14, and stable isotopes of hydrogen, oxygen, and boron), and dissolved noble gases (the last in collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) also were measured to help identify the source and age of the sampled ground water. A quality-control sample (blank, replicate, or matrix spike) was collected at approximately one quarter of the wells, and the results for these samples were used to evaluate the quality of the data for the ground-water samples. Assessment of the quality-control information resulted in V-coding less than 0.1 percent of the data collected. This study did not attempt to evaluate the quality of water delivered to consumers; after withdrawal from the ground, water typically is treated, disinfected, and (or) blended with other waters to maintain acceptable water quality. Regulatory thresholds apply to treated water that is supplied to the consumer, not to raw ground water. However, to provide some context for the results, concentrations of constituents measured in the raw ground water were compared with health-based thresholds established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and thresholds established for aesthetic purposes (secondary maximum contaminant levels, SMCL-CA) by CDPH. Most constituents detected in ground-water samples were at concentrations below drinking-water thresholds. Volatile organic compounds, pesticides, and pesticide degradates were detected in less than one-third of the grid well samples collected. All VOC and pesticide concentrations measured were below health-based thresholds. Potential waste-water indicators were detected in less than half of the wells sampled, and no detections were above health-based thresholds. Perchlorate was detected in seven grid wells; concentrations from two wells were above the CDPH maximum contaminant level (MCL-CA). Most detections of trace elements in samples collected from COA Study Unit wells were below water-quality thresholds. Exceptions include five samples of arsenic that were above the USEPA maximum contaminant level (MCL-US), two detections of boron above the CDPH notification level (NL-CA), and two detections of mol

Data Series↗
USGS2014

Petroleum systems and assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Anadarko Basin Province, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas: USGS Province 58

This publication provides research results and related data in support of the U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the undiscovered oil and gas resource potential of the Anadarko Basin Province of western Oklahoma and Kansas, northern Texas, and southeastern Colorado. This province area includes the Las Animas arch of southeastern Colorado, part of the Palo Duro Basin of Texas, and the Anadarko Basin. Results of the geologic analysis and resource assessment are based on the geologic elements of each defined total petroleum system, including hydrocarbon source rocks (source-rock maturation, hydrocarbon generation and migration), reservoir rocks (sequence stratigraphic and petrophysical properties), hydrocarbon traps (trapping mechanisms and timing), and seals. Using this geologic framework, the U.S. Geological Survey defined 2 total petroleum systems, the Woodford Composite total petroleum system and Pennsylvanian Composite total petroleum system and 12 included assessment units, and quantitatively estimated the undiscovered oil and gas resources within these conventional and continuous (unconventional) AUs. The 13 chapters included in U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series DDS–69–EE cover topics that range from the oil and gas resource assessment results (chapter 1 and 5–7), to geological, geochemical, and geophysical research across the province (chapters 3–11), tabular data and graphs in support of the assessment (chapter 12), and data releases of zmap-format grid files that were used to build petroleum system models and a standalone three-dimensional geologic model (chapter 13).

Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas↗
USGS2004

Fort Collins Science Center

The U.S. Geological Survey's Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) is one of 17 USGS biological science centers nationwide. FORT conducts research and develops technical applications to assist land managers in understanding and managing biological resources, habitats, and ecosystems. Although the majority of FORT's activities are conducted within the 15-state Central Region of the USGS, many FORT projects are national or international in scope. FORT serves all Department of the Interior land management bureaus and other natural resource agencies. In addition, FORT scientists partner with DOI and other federal entities such as CDC, DOE, EPA, NASA, NIH, and USDA to share expertise and resources. FORT also partners with several universities and works cooperatively with states and nongovernmental organizations. Products and services include reports and publications, predictive models and software, maps and GIS products, and other technical assistance in the form of meetings, workshops, training, field visits, and needs assessments.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2006

Garnet--An Essential Industrial Mineral and January's Birthstone

Garnet is one of the most common minerals in the world. Occurring in almost any color, it is most widely known for its beauty as a gem stone. Because of its hardness and other properties, garnet is also an essential industrial mineral used in abrasive products, non-slip surfaces, and filtration. To help manage our Nation's resources of such essential minerals, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides crucial data and scientific information to industry, policymakers, and the public.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2020

Ohio and Landsat

In Ohio, remote-sensing systems such as Landsat play an important role in monitoring natural resources and informing management decisions on everything from dangerous freshwater algal blooms to gypsy moth defoliation and more. Landsat imagery underpins public and private sector decisions in Ohio and across the Nation for effective adaptation to changing landscapes. Those decisions lead to enhanced agricultural productivity, smart urban development, sustainable forest management, and inland lake water-quality monitoring.

Ohio↗
USGS2006

USGS Abandoned Mine Lands Research Presented at the NAAMLP Meeting in Billings, Mont., Sept. 25, 2006

The following talk was an invited presentation given at the National Association of Abandoned Mine Lands Programs meeting in Billings, Montana on Sept. 25, 2006. The objective of the talk was to outline the scope of the U.S. Geological Survey research, past, present and future, in the area of abandoned mine research. Two large Professional Papers have come out of our AML studies: Nimick, D.A., Church, S.E., and Finger, S.E., eds., 2004, Integrated investigations of environmental effects of historical mining in the Basin and Boulder mining districts, Boulder River watershed, Jefferson County, Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1652, 524 p., 2 plates, 1 DVD, URL: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/pp/pp1652 Church, S.E., von Guerard, Paul, and Finger, S.E., eds., 2006, Integrated Investigations of Environmental Effects of Historical Mining in the Animas River Watershed, San Juan County, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1651, 1,096 p., 6 plates, 1 DVD (in press). Additional publications and links can be found on the USGS AML website at URL: http://amli.usgs.gov/ or are accessible from the USGS Mineral Resource Program website at URL: http://minerals.usgs.gov/.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Quality assurance and quality control of geochemical data—A primer for the research scientist

Geochemistry is a constantly expanding science. More and more, scientists are employing geochemical tools to help answer questions about the Earth and earth system processes. Scientists may assume that the responsibility of examining and assessing the quality of the geochemical data they generate is not theirs but rather that of the analytical laboratories to which their samples have been submitted. This assumption may be partially based on knowledge about internal and external quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programs in which analytical laboratories typically participate. Or there may be a perceived lack of time or resources to adequately examine data quality. Regardless of the reason, the lack of QA/QC protocols can lead to the generation and publication of erroneous data. Because the interpretations drawn from the data are primary products to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stakeholders, the consequences of publishing erroneous results can be significant. The principal investigator of a scientific study ultimately is responsible for the quality and interpretation of the project's findings, and thus must also play a role in the understanding, implementation, and presentation of QA/QC information about the data. Although occasionally ignored, QA/QC protocols apply not only to procedures in the laboratory but also in the initial planning of a research study and throughout the life of the project. Many of the tenets of developing a sound QA/QC program or protocols also parallel the core concepts of developing a good study: What is the main objective of the study? Will the methods selected provide data of enough resolution to answer the hypothesis? How should samples be collected? Are there known or unknown artifacts or contamination sources in the sampling and analysis methods? Assessing data quality requires communication between the scientists responsible for designing the study and those collecting samples, analyzing samples, treating data, and interpreting results. This primer has been developed to provide basic information and guidance about developing QA/QC protocols for geochemical studies. It is not intended to be a comprehensive guide but rather an introduction to key concepts tied to a list of relevant references for further reading. The guidelines are presented in stepwise order beginning with presampling considerations and continuing through final data interpretation. The goal of this primer is to outline basic QA/QC practices that scientists can use before, during, and after chemical analysis to ensure the validity of the data they collect with the goal of providing defendable results and conclusions.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1981

Status of Regional Gravity Project, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as of 1 January, 1979

Regional gravity data have now been obtained for approximately 33 percent of the area of the Arabian Shield, associated harrat areas, and the Red Sea coastal plain. Virtually no surveys have been done on the Phanerozoic platform around the edges of the shield, and although regional gravity coverage is available for the Eastern Province from the Arabian American Oil Company, it is confidential. Approximately 4,500 more gravity stations at 10 km spacing are needed to complete the coverage of the shield, and 5,250 are needed on the Phanerozoic platform to the north and east of the shield. The initial gravity maps compiled from the regional gravity project will be along the "geophysical strip", a band approximately 150 km wide across the shield from Al Qawayiyah to the Farasan Islands. As more data become available, additional maps will be compiled at 1:500,000 scale covering the same areas as the USGS Miscellaneous Investigations Maps 1-700-A to I-220-A. Computer software development and implementation for gravity data reduction, storage, retrieval, and display are 80 percent complete. Development and implementation of software for routine semi-quantitative and quantitative interpretation are 50 percent complete. If the Directorate General of Mineral Resources were to commit full support for the regional gravity project, phase 1 (data acquisition) and phase 2 (data reduction and publication of maps and principal facts) could be completed and phase 3 (interpretation) could be about 50 percent completed by the end of the Third Five Year Development Plan (1985).

Open-File Report↗