SEARCH · USGS Science
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Kubelka et al. (Report, 9 November 2018, p. 680-683) claim that climate change has disrupted patterns of nest predation in shorebirds. They report that predation rates have increased since the 1950s, especially in the Arctic. We describe methodological problems with their analyses and argue that there is no solid statistical support for their claims.
The Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM), Sevres, France, hosted the 7th International Comparison of Absolute Gravimeters (ICAG) and the associated Relative Gravity Campaign (RGC) from August to September 2005.;ICAG 2005 was prepared and performed as a metrological pilot study, which aimed:;(1) To determine the gravity comparison reference values;;(2) To determine the offsets of the absolute gravimeters; and;(3) As a pilot study to accumulate experience for the CIPM Key Comparisons.;This document presents a complete and extensive review of the technical protocol and data processing procedures. The 1st ICAG-RGC comparison was held at the BIPM in 1980-1981 and since then meetings have been organized every 4 years.;In this paper, we present an overview of how the meeting was organized, the conditions of BIPM gravimetric sites, technical specifications, data processing strategy and an analysis of the final results. This 7th ICAG final report supersedes all previously published reports.;Readings were obtained from participating instruments, 19 absolute gravimeters and 15 relative gravimeters. Precise levelling measurements were carried out and all measurements were performed on the BIPM micro-gravity network which was specifically designed for the comparison.
This report contains the major findings of a 1999-2001 assessment of water quality in the Delmarva Peninsula. It is one of a series of reports by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program that present major findings in 51 major river basins and aquifer systems across the Nation. In these reports, water quality is assessed at many scales?from local ground-water flow paths to regional ground-water networks and in surface water?and is discussed in terms of local, State, and regional issues. Conditions in the Delmarva Peninsula are compared to conditions found elsewhere and to selected national benchmarks, such as those for drinking-water quality and the protection of aquatic organisms. This report is intended for individuals working with water-resource issues in Federal, State, or local agencies; universities; public interest groups; or in the private sector. The information will be useful in addressing a number of current issues, such as the effects of agricultural and urban land use on water quality, human health, drinking water, source-water protection, hypoxia and excessive growth of algae and plants, pesticide registration, and monitoring and sampling strategies. This report is also for individuals who wish to know more about the quality of streams and ground water in areas near where they live, and how that water quality compares to the quality of water in other areas across the Nation. Other products describing water-quality conditions in the Delmarva Peninsula are available. Detailed technical information, data and analyses, methodology, models, graphs, and maps that support the findings presented in this report can be accessed from http://md.water.usgs.gov/delmarva. Other reports in this series and data collected from other basins can be accessed from the national NAWQA Web site (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa).
Gas hydrate production technologies commonly feature reservoir depressurization. Depressurization occurs when a pressure gradient is established in a well, drawing mobile water from the reservoir and reducing reservoir pressure. As such, the occurrence of mobile water is a necessary condition for effective gas production from gas hydrate reservoirs using common borehole-based methods. However, recent field programs have revealed that mobile water exists widely within the overall gas hydrate reservoir system, including within overlying and underlying units once thought of as virtually impermeable seals. Further, excess free water may also be commonly found in hydrate-free or hydrate-poor permeable strata interbedded within the larger gas hydrate reservoir system. Such internal sources of water are complex to characterize, difficult to explain, potentially highly heterogeneous, and may pose significant challenges to depressurization-based production. This report summarizes the general occurrence of water in gas hydrate systems and select technical implications.
A "Level B" study is being made of the Platte River basin in Nebraska. The basin (approximately 40,800 square miles) extends the full length of the State, a distance of nearly 470 miles. The study is a Federal and State interagency effort to formulate a comprehensive plan for the conservation, development, and management of the water and related land resources of the Platte River basin. The technical information for the study will be provided by 14 task forces. This report describes the work of the Level B Stream-Aquifer Hydrology Task Force (Task Force 13). The U.S. Geological Survey is the lead agency for this task force. Task Force 13 will provide the agencies participating in the Level B study with a quantitative description of the operation of the hydrologic system with emphasis on the relation of ground water to surface water. A digital model will be developed to simulate the physical character and operation of the stream-aquifer system. After the model has been calibrated with field data, it will be used to evaluate the effect of proposed projects. Some of the uses of the model are evaluation of effects of proposed conjunctive use projects, effects of changes in water use, and study of future water problems such as water-logged areas, groundwater mining, and streamflow depletion.
This report contains abstracts presented at the NCTM '98 meeting in St. Louis, Missouri. The abstracts are of technical papers and demonstrations relating actual experiences in support of national disasters, the use of the World Wide Web for dissemination of data, system administration techniques, and new technology currently being evaluated in USGS.
This book is a compilation of papers from the extensive and varied published literature on the ecology and management of waterfowl. The 125 technical papers reprinted in this book are arranged in eight major sections and are from 21 journals, government reports, several books, and proceedings of symposia and annual conferences. The most frequent sources of papers are The Journal of Wildlife Management, The Auk, Transactions North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, and Wildfowl. These readings span the period from 1937 through 1981. A majority of the technical papers was published during the sixties and seventies, reflecting the expansion of waterfowl research during that period. The front cover and the introductory page of each section are illustrated with black-and-white drawings of North American waterfowl by D. R. Barrick.
The Energy Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey promotes and supports coal research to improve the understanding of the coal endowment of the United States. This results in geologically based, non-biased energy information products for policy and decision makers, land and resource managers, other federal and state agencies, the domestic energy industry, foreign governments, nongovernmental groups, academia, and other scientists. A more integrated approach to our coal quality work involves what we call a 'cradle to grave' approach. These types of studies focus not on just one aspect of the coal but rather on how or where different quality parameters form and (or) occur and what happens to them through the mining, production, transport, utilization and waste disposal process. An extensive suite of coal quality analyses, mineralogical, petrology, and leaching investigations are determined on samples taken from the different phases of the coal utilization process. This report consists of a tutorial that was given on June 10, 2007 at the 32nd International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, The Power of Coal, Clearwater Coal Conference in Clearwater, Florida, USA. This tutorial covers how these studies are conducted and the importance of providing improved, comprehensive, science-based data sets for policy and decision makers.
Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.
This report summarizes the economic component of the U.S. Geological Survey's 1995 National Assessment of oil and gas resources for the US onshore areas and State waters. This area accounts for 80 percent of US hydrocarbon production and 85 percent of US proved reserves. The Minerals Management Service has released a parallel study for Federal offshore areas (1996). Estimates are as of January 1994. The economic evaluation uses mean values of the technically recoverable resources assessed by geologists.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently assessed the potential for undiscovered oil and gas resources of the West Greenland-East Canada Province as part of the USGS Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal program. The province lies in the offshore area between western Greenland and eastern Canada and includes Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, Lancaster Sound, and Nares Strait west of and including part of Kane Basin. A series of major tectonic events led to the formation of several distinct structural domains that are the geologic basis for defining five assessment units (AU) in the province, all of which are within the Mesozoic-Cenozoic Composite Total Petroleum System (TPS). Potential petroleum source rocks within the TPS include strata of Ordovician, Early and Late Cretaceous, and Paleogene ages. The five AUs defined for this study-the Eurekan Structures AU, Northwest Greenland Rifted Margin AU, Northeast Canada Rifted Margin AU, Baffin Bay Basin AU, and the Greater Ungava Fault Zone AU-encompass the entire province and were assessed for undiscovered, technically recoverable resources.
The intended target audience for this document initially is management and project technical specialist and scientists involved in the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) and the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools - (LANDFIRE) program to help communicate coordination activities to all involved parties. This document is also intended to give background information in other parts of the USGS and beyond, although some details given are relatively oriented to management of the respective programs. Because the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) and the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools - LANDFIRE programs both rely on characterizations of land cover using similar scales and resolutions, the programs have been coordinating their work to improve scientific consistency and efficiency of production. Initial discussions and informal sharing of ideas and work began in 2008. Although this collaboration was fruitful, there was no formal process for reporting results, plans, or outstanding issues, nor was there any formally-defined coordinated management team that spanned the two programs. In 2012, leadership from the two programs agreed to strengthen the coordination of their respective work efforts. In 2013 the GAP and LANDFIRE programs developed an umbrella plan of objectives and components related to three mutual focus areas for the GAP and LANDFIRE collaboration for the years 2013 and 2014 (GAP/LANDFIRE 2013). The evolution of this partnership resulted in the drafting of an inter-program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2014. This MOU identified three coordination topics relevant to the two programs participating at this point in the MOU history: Vegetation mapping Disturbance classes Formal quality assessment
A report by O. E. MEINZER, published as Appendix B of the annual report of the Committee for 1942–43 [Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union, Part II, pp. 418–420, 1943], describes in some detail the previous work of the United States Geological Survey and cooperating agencies on ground water for war purposes. The geologists from the staff of the Geological Survey listed in that report and several other ground‐water geologists have served in the Army during the past year on water‐supply assignments. Only sketchy and unofficial information is as yet available concerning the activities of these geologists, but it is believed that they are now all engaged in overseas theaters of warfare and that their services in water‐supply and other technical work are of substantial value. In this service they have been supported by ground‐water maps and reports furnished by the Geological Survey for the different theaters.
Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.
Project Sterling provided for the detonation of a nuclear device in the cavity resulting from the Salmon nuclear explosion in the Tatum salt dome in southern Mississippi. It also provided for a high explosive (HE) comparison shot in a nearby drill hole. The purpose of the experiment was to gather information on the seismic decoupling of a nuclear explosion in a cavity by comparing seismic signals from a nuclear shot in the Salmon cavity with seismic signals recorded from Salmon and with seismic signals recorded from a muall (about 2 tons) HE shot in the salt dome. Surface seismic measurements were made by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, and the Air Force Technical Applications Center with coordination and overall direction by the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory. This report covers only the seismic measurements made by the U. S. Geological Survey. The first objective of this report is to describe the field recording procedures and the data obtained by the U. S. Geological Survey from these events. The second objective is to describe the spectral analyses which have been made on the data and the relative seismic amplitudes which have been determined from these analyses.
The objectives of the cooperative program with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department are described. Accomplishments within the program are summarized and reports are listed. The accomplishments include operation of a crest-stage station network, modeling of rainfall-runoff station data, publication of drainage-area reports for all major river basins in Arkansas, floodflow-characteristics reports at proposed bridge sites, furnishing peak-flow and stage information at many sites, and furnishing technical advice and field training to Highway and Transportation Department personnel. Program plans for the 1982 fiscal year are listed and discussed. Other water-resources programs and publications that may be of interest are discussed and all available flood-prone-area maps for Arkansas are listed.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.