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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Since the Twelfth Working Meeting of the IUCN/SSC Polar Bear Specialist Group in 1997, a number of changes in the management of polar bears have occurred in Alaska. On October 16, 2000, the governments of the United States and the Russian Federation signed the “Agreement on the Conservation and Management of the Alaska-Chukotka Polar Bear Population.” This agreement provides substantial benefits for the effective conservation of polar bears shared between the U.S. and Russia. It will require enactment of enabling legislation by the U.S. Congress and other steps by Russia before the agreement has the force of law. A copy of the agreement is included as Appendix 1 to this report. Also, during this period, regulations were developed to implement 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which allow polar bear trophies taken in approved Canadian populations by U.S. citizens to be imported into the U.S. A summary of the regulatory actions and a table listing populations approved for importation and the number of polar bears imported into the U.S. since 1997 is included in this report. Regarding oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat, three sets of regulations were published authorizing the incidental, non-intentional, taking of small numbers of polar bears concurrent to oil and gas activities. Cooperation continued with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission, representing the polar bear hunting communities in Alaska, as well as with the North Slope Borough and the Inuvialuit Game Council in their agreement for the management of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population. Harvest summaries and technical assistance in designing and assistance in conducting a National Park Service/Alaska Nanuuq Commission study to collect traditional ecological knowledge of polar bear habitat use in Chukotka were provided. In addition, a long-range plan was developed to address and minimize polar bear-human conflicts in North Slope communities. We continued to monitor the harvest of polar bears in Alaska and collect and analyze specimens for presence and level of organochlorine compounds and trace elements. A paper on genetic assessment of hunter reported sex of harvested bears was recently published (Schliebe et al. 1999). Population status and trend assessment efforts continued. An aerial survey of polar bears in the Eastern Chukchi Sea and western portions of the Southern Beaufort Sea was conducted from the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker “Polar Star” in August 2000. The first year of a multi-year survey of barrier islands and coastlines during the open water and freeze-up phase was conducted in the central Southern Beaufort Sea during fall 2000.
Topographical differencing and edge-matching analyses were used to evaluate agreement of the Coastal National Elevation Database Applications Project’s Northern Gulf of Mexico topobathymetric digital elevation model (TBDEM) with The National Map 3-Dimensional Elevation Program (3DEP) 1/3 arc-second digital elevation models (DEMs). In addition to topographic map products provided through the National Geospatial Program, the model integrates bathymetric and topobathymetric datasets for three-dimensional (3D) mapping of rivers, lakes, and bays in the upland and intertidal wetlands to offshore environments in coastal zones from the border between Texas and Louisiana to east of Mobile Bay, Alabama. Contoured elevation differences between the Northern Gulf of Mexico TBDEM and the 3DEP 1/3 arc-second DEMs indicate that 85 percent of elevation data in the Northern Gulf of Mexico TBDEM agree (no difference for contoured elevations) between 95 and 100 percent with 3DEP 1/3 arc-second DEMs. Edge matching differences between adjacent Northern Gulf of Mexico TBDEM source projects or between the TBDEM and 3DEP DEMs indicate most seams between integrated and 3DEP DEMs are smooth. Where seams did not match, most differences were in the range of tenths to hundredths of a meter. Valid differences that are greater than plus or minus 2 meters in areas of bathymetric data are found in the Mississippi River, Atchafalaya River, Lower Atchafalaya River, Wax Lake Pass channel, the Vermilion Bay bathymetric datasets, and where topobathymetric datasets are integrated in the model. Areas with positive or negative outlier difference elevations seem to be a result of site conditions that affect light detection and ranging (lidar) waveform return signals, misclassification of surface features, or possibly because of interpolation required to develop a smooth elevation surface. Results of this analysis provide information to help understand model parameters and agreement of the Northern Gulf of Mexico TBDEM developed using different data types from different sources with The National Map 3DEP DEMs. Inclusion of bathymetric and topobathymetric data types in the 3DEP aligns with the mission to respond to growing needs for a wide range of three-dimensional representations of the Nation and supports the U.S. Geological Survey strategy for developing a National Terrain Model to provide hydrographic and elevation data that extend the elevation surface below water bodies. The 3D Nation Requirements and Benefits Study sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to assess local to regional Tribal, State, and Federal technical requirements, needs, and benefits for using topographic and bathymetric 3DEP elevation data will be used to help develop and refine future program alternatives for 3D elevation data that include a category for bathymetry and topobathymetry. At the time of this report (2019), 3DEP acquisition is specific to topographic lidar that meets lidar DEM specifications and which requires surface-water feature areas to be hydroflattened. Cataloging bathymetric and topobathymetric DEMs as part of the 3DEP will require new specifications for acoustic, lidar, merged acoustic and lidar, and possibly other bathymetric and topobathymetric survey data types.
Geochronological and thermochronological data are essential for constraining the timing and rates of geological processes, supporting geologic mapping, natural hazard assessment, and resource exploration. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geochron Database is a centralized, relational database that integrates USGS and State geological survey data in accordance with the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 and its reauthorizations. This report documents the structure and development of the database, including its standardized schema, controlled vocabularies, and protocols for compiling legacy and newly published data. The database is designed to adhere to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles and currently (2026) includes data from a wide range of geochronological and thermochronological methods. Public access is provided through the USGS Geochron Database Explorer, a browser-based geographic information system (GIS) interface, and through versioned data releases available on ScienceBase, which provide sample-level summary data and detailed analytical information. The USGS Geochron Database is structured to be extensible, supporting the inclusion of additional methods and data types as they are compiled. This format ensures long-term utility and aligns with the Mapping Act’s directive to create a national archive of geochronological information that adds interpretive value to geologic map data. Its design reflects a commitment to data transparency, scientific reproducibility, and national geoscience priorities.
The bibliography comprises 1,022 multidisciplinary references to technical and general literature for the three regions of the Edwards aquifer, Texas-San Antonio area; Barton Springs segment, Austin area; and northern segment, Austin area. The references in the bibliography were compiled from computerized data bases and from published bibliographies and reports. Dates of references range from the late 1800's through 1993. Subject and author indexes are included.
Significant developments have taken place in the disciplines of cartography and geography in recent years with the advent of computer hardware and software that manipulate and process digital cartographic and geographic data more efficiently. The availability of inexpensive and powerful hardware and software systems offers the capability of displaying and analyzing spatial data to a growing number of users. As a result, developing and using existing digital cartographic databases are becoming very popular. However, the absence of uniform standards for the transfer of digital spatial data is hindering the exchange of data and increasing costs. Several agencies of the U.S. government and the academic community have been working hard over the last few years to develop a spatial data transfer standard that includes definitions of standard terminology, a spatial data transfer specification, recommendations on reporting digital cartographic data quality, and standard topographic and hydrographic entity terms and definitions. This proposed standard was published in the January 1988 issue of The American Cartographer. Efforts to test and promote this standard were coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey. A Technical Review Board was appointed with representatives from the U.S. government, the private sector, and the academic community to complete the standard for submittal to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for approval as a Federal Information Processing Standard. The proposed standard was submitted in February 1992 for final approval.
While science provides reliable information to describe and understand the earth and its natural processes, it can contribute more. There are many important societal issues in which scientific information can play a critical role. Science can add greatly to policy and management decisions to minimize loss of life and property from natural and man-made disasters, to manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, and in general, to enhance and protect our quality of life. However, the link between science and decision-making is often complicated and imperfect. Technical language and methods surround scientific research and the dissemination of its results. Scientific investigations often are conducted under different conditions, with different spatial boundaries, and in different timeframes than those needed to support specific policy and societal decisions. Uncertainty is not uniformly reported in scientific investigations. If society does not know that data exist, what the data mean, where to use the data, or how to include uncertainty when a decision has to be made, then science gets left out -or misused- in a decision making process. This paper is about using Geospatial Decision Support Systems (GDSS) for quantitative policy analysis. Integrated natural -social science methods and tools in a Geographic Information System that respond to decision-making needs can be used to close the gap between science and society. The GDSS has been developed so that nonscientists can pose "what if" scenarios to evaluate hypothetical outcomes of policy and management choices. In this approach decision makers can evaluate the financial and geographic distribution of potential policy options and their societal implications. Actions, based on scientific information, can be taken to mitigate hazards, protect our air and water quality, preserve the planet's biodiversity, promote balanced land use planning, and judiciously exploit natural resources. Applications using the GDSS have demonstrated the benefits of utilizing science for policy decisions. Investment in science reduces decision-making uncertainty and reducing that uncertainty has economic value.
Executive Summary Landslide hazards are present in all 50 States and most U.S. territories, and they affect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Landslides are the downslope movement of earth materials under the force of gravity. They can occur without any obvious trigger. Widespread or severe landslide events are often driven by such hazards as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heavy rain events, flooding, and wildfires. Landslides can also cause their own cascading consequences, such as the spread of hazardous materials or the creation of devastating local tsunamis. This strategy document describes goals and strategic actions of a comprehensive strategy to meet key challenges to reducing the Nation’s risk from landslide hazards equitably and effectively. The document follows the direction of the National Landslide Preparedness Act (Public Law 116–323) by presenting a strategy for addressing landslide hazards, including risk reduction and response. The act directs the Department of the Interior to establish a program that will work with State, Tribal, and local governments as well as with academia, the private sector, community-based groups, and nonprofit organizations to identify landslide hazards and risk and improve communication, coordination, and emergency preparedness, with the objective of reducing landslide losses. As the only Federal program dedicated to landslide hazard science, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program will lead and coordinate many of the efforts described in this strategy document. Landslide hazard risk reduction must be undertaken collectively and collaboratively across the Federal Government. This strategy document will provide a framework for the creation of an interagency management plan that describes the programs, projects, workforce, and budgets required to carry out the national strategy. The strategy outlined in this document presents a vision of how to equitably produce, communicate, and apply landslide data and science to support a broad range of land management, infrastructure, planning, and emergency response decisions. These decisions are made by a variety of actors, including private and nonprofit landholders; State, Tribal, territorial, city, and county planners; emergency managers; engineers; infrastructure managers; Federal agencies and their partners; and community leaders and individuals. Supporting those decisions and reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to landslides requires overcoming three main challenges: (1) gaps in basic information needed to describe and understand landslide occurrence and societal risk, (2) difficulty in accurately mapping and forecasting landslide hazards, and (3) communication and coordination among the many jurisdictions and sectors that have responsibility for and interest in reducing landslide losses. To address those challenges, this strategy document puts forward a series of strategic actions to achieve four goals: Assess: Decision makers have access to detailed, nationwide, and contextually relevant information on landslide hazard and risk. Coordinate: Landslide hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are coordinated across Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local levels. Plan: Communities and land managers are prepared and able to plan for landslide hazards. Respond: Landslide surveillance, warnings, and responses to events are effective, efficient, equitable, cooperative, and data-driven to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. These strategic actions focus on expanding the knowledge of societal risk posed by landslides as well as better understanding of where, when, and why they occur. They focus on applying that knowledge to support landslide risk reduction efforts and decisions, including the establishment of new advisory, coordination, and working groups focused on landslide hazard and risk. They take into account that supporting landslide loss reduction decisions also requires new guidance, tools, and training codeveloped with the entities, organizations, and individuals faced with making those decisions. Finally, they address actions needed to support and expand landslide warning information and improve the technical response to landslide emergencies.
Commercial-scale development of western oil shale resources will require a supply of water for both extraction and reclamation purposes. This paper summarizes some of the information on the occurrence of potential local supplies of water in the Piceance Creek Basin-Uinta Basin areas of northwest Colorado and northeast Utah. The discussion is somewhat hypothetical in that it is restricted to the physical occurrence of water with emphasis on water resources in each basin. Of course, the many potential constraints on water use (including economics, water quality, legal and other institutional factors) are necessarily secondary to the ultimate constraint, its physical occurrence. Perhaps the most obvious constraint is that of water rights and water laws. For example, "mining" of some of the ground water is herein assumed to be necessary for technically sound management and utilization of the water resource, but the hydrologic effects of such "mining" would require accommodation under water laws and agreements.
Abstracts from the Technical Sessions of the First U.S. Geological Survey Water-Quality Workshop, Northeastern Region, Skyland, Virginia March 31 - April 3, 1986
The Hope Basin, an independent petroleum province that lies mostly offshore in the southern Chukchi Sea north of the Chukotka and Seward Peninsulas and south of Wrangel Island, the Herald Arch, and the Lisburne Peninsula, is the largest in a series of postorogenic (successor) basins in the East Siberian-Chukchi Sea region and the only one with exploratory-well control and extensive seismic coverage. In spite of the seismic coverage and well data, the petroleum potential of the Hope Basin Province is poorly known. The adequacy of hydrocarbon charge, in combination with uncertainties in source-rock potential and maturation, was the greatest risk in this assessment. A single assessment unit was defined and assessed, resulting in mean estimates of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources that include ~3 million barrels of oil and 650 billion cubic feet of nonassociated gas.
The mission of the Water Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to provide the information and understanding needed for wise management of the Nation's water resources. Inherent in this mission is the responsibility to collect data that accurately describe the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of water systems. These data are used for environmental and resource assessments by the USGS, other government agenices and scientific organizations, and the general public. Reliable and quality-assured data are essential to the credibility and impartiality of the water-resources appraisals carried out by the USGS. The development and use of a National Field Manual is necessary to achieve consistency in the scientific methods and procedures used, to document those methods and procedures, and to maintain technical expertise. USGS field personnel use this manual to ensure that the data collected are of the quality required to fulfill our mission.
A three-day workshop on ‘Global Modelling of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’, was held in the Hague, Netherlands, from 24th to 26th June 2019. The workshop, attended by 35 modelling and scenario-building experts, was organised on behalf of the former IPBES1 expert group on scenarios and models of the first IPBES work programme by its interim technical support unit, and hosted by the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. The workshop drew on the ‘nature futures’ participatory scenario-building exercise initiated by the IPBES expert group on scenarios and models, and other biodiversity modelling initiatives such as the ISIMIP project2 working on adding biodiversity to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenarios framework, the 'bending the curve' initiative3 led by IIASA4 and WWF5, and GEOBON6 working on modelling Essential Biodiversity Variables. The workshop was a step towards coordinating across biodiversity modelling initiatives, to build on each other’s work, and to seek synergies for the production of innovative scenarios on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform the post-2020 agenda of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the Sustainable Development Goals. The aims of the workshop were to: 1. Compile material as input for a first draft of the fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5) based on recent scenario work, including the ‘bending the curve’ scenarios and the newly developed PBL scenarios (modified from the Rio+20 scenarios), and existing models (to be completed by August 2019) 2. Develop a protocol for modelling trends and near term projections on indicators relevant to the Nature Futures Framework7 using models that are readily available (to be completed by early 2020) 3. Set the agenda and define the aims for a larger meeting at the end of 2019 to discuss the long term strategy towards the development of appropriate indicators and models to produce Nature Futures scenarios (to continue beyond Jan 2020)
The papers in this volume are products of a cooperative program between the Geological Survey of Pakistan (GSP) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), sponsored by the Government of Pakistan and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The focus of the program, the Coal Resources Exploration and Assessment Program (COALREAP), was to explore and assess Pakistan?s indigenous coal resources. As part of COALREAP, GSP and USGS geologists conducted regional geologic studies from 1988 to 1991 of the coal-bearing areas in the Potwar region of northern Pakistan. A reference section was selected from which to obtain faunal and floral analyses. The composite sections at Nammal Pass and Nammal Dam served as the basis for this regional reference. Although this Bulletin 2078 is being released in 2007, the writing and technical reviews were completed in 1993, and the chapters reflect the work done until that time. During the long production process for the Bulletin, which ultimately resulted in the oversize plates being digitized, the scientific content of the chapters was not changed, and most reports published since 1993 were not cited. A change in the age of the Patala Formation is discussed below [in the full preface], but the age discussions and illustrations in the chapters were not updated.
The U.S. Geological Survey has been collecting water resources data in Nevada since 1890. Most of the projects in the current Nevada District program can be classified as either basic-data acquisition (about 25%) or hydrologic interpretation (about 75 %). About 52% of the activities are supported by cooperative agreements with State and local agencies. Technical projects supported by other Federal agencies make up about 23% of the program, and the remaining 25% consists of data collection, research, and interpretive projects supported directly by the U.S. Geological Survey. Water conditions in Nevada during the 4 years covered by this report were by no means average, with 1 very wet year (1986) and 2 very dry years (1987-88). The major water resources issues include: water allocation in the Truckee-Carson River basin; irrigation return flow contamination of the Stillwater Wildlife Management Area; effects of weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site; assessment of potential long-term impacts of the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository; and drought. Future water-resources issues in Nevada are likely to center on water supply for and the environmental effects of, the rapidly growing population centers at Las Vegas, Reno, and Elko; impacts of operations at the Nevada Test Site; management of interstate rivers such as the Truckee and Colorado Rivers; hydrologic and environmental impacts at heavily mined areas; and water quality management in the Lake Tahoe Basin. (Thacker-USGS-WRD)
The US Geological Survey (USGS) periodically conducts subjective probabilistic assessments of the technically recoverable undiscovered hydrocarbon resources of the US and of the world. In addition, the USGS prepares forecasts of that portion of the technically recoverable resources that may be economic under specified conditions of supply, demand, and price. Depending on priorities, regional hydrocarbon assessments of the US are revised every 5 to 10 years. These assessments of undiscovered hydrocarbons supplement the data on hydrocarbon reserves that are reported annually by the US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. In between assessments, USGS assessment geologists conduct research and compile geologic and production data that may be used to improve future assessments. This new information commonly effects changes in the way the USGS defines "plays" or "assessment units" from assessment to assessment. Furthermore, USGS assessment methodology is in a constant state of evolution and changes to some degree from assessment to assessment.
This map brings together data from all known reports on landslides in Alabama mentioned by Alger and Brabb (1985) and information provided by State and County Highway Departments in response to a questionnaire sent in 1981 by K. F. Rheams. Additional landslide data from the northern part of the state and from Jefferson County were added by Fred Taylor and E. E. Brabb from reports by Pomeroy (1982), Thomas (1979, 1982), and Szabo and others (1979). The locations of two landslides were provided by the U.S. Forest Service (written commun., 1982), and a few more additional landslide locations were noted by K. F. Rheams in 1981 and by E. E. Brabb in 1982. Locations of landslides from the various data sources were transferred to this map by measuring the distance from known landmarks. Substantial differences in scale, differential swelling and shrinking of paper source maps, and other technical problems in transferring the landslide data may have led to errors of as much as one mile in plotting the locations. The landslide locations, therefore, are located only approximately. Many more landslides exist in Alabama but have not yet been recognized or recorded in public documents. The absence of a landslide symbol on this map, therefore, does not indicate that an area is necessarily free of landslides. Conversely, the clustering of landslide symbols in an area should not be used to indicate that the area is unsafe, but rather that many landslides have been reported and that investigation of the problem by qualified geologists and engineers is prudent before development takes place. This map should be considered preliminary in the sense that a systematic evaluation of all areas in Alabama for landslides using standard photographic interpretation techniques has not yet been done. The user of this map is referred to Pomeroy and Thomas (1935) for a discussion of slope—stability problems in northern Alabama.
This report provides digital GIS files of maps for each of the 24 plays evaluated in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2002 petroleum resource assessment of the NPRA (Bird and Houseknecht, 2002a). These are the same maps released in pdf format by Bird and Houseknecht (2002b). The USGS released in 2002 a summary of the estimated volume of technically recoverable, undiscovered oil and nonassociated gas resources for 24 plays in NPRA (Bird and Houseknecht, 2002b). The NPRA assessment study area includes Federal and Native onshore land and adjacent State offshore areas. A map showing the areal extent of each play was prepared by USGS geologists as a preliminary step in the assessment process. Boundaries were drawn on the basis of a variety of information, including seismic reflection data, results of previous exploration drilling, and regional patterns of rock properties. Play boundary polygons were captured by digitizing the play maps prepared by USGS geologists. Federal, Native, and State areas were later clipped from the play boundary polygons, allowing for acreages to be calculated for entire plays and for various subareas within plays.