Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Report to Congress”

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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS2008

USGS Workshop on Scientific Aspects of a Long-Term Experimental Plan for Glen Canyon Dam, April 10-11, 2007, Flagstaff, Arizona

Executive Summary Glen Canyon Dam is located in the lower reaches of Glen Canyon National Recreation Area on the Colorado River, approximately 15 miles upriver from Grand Canyon National Park (fig. 1). In 1992, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA; title XVIII, sec. 1801?1809, of Public Law 102-575), which seeks ?to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreation Area were established.? The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) was implemented as a result of the 1996 Record of Decision on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that the primary mandate of the GCPA is met through advances in information and resources management (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). On November 3, 2006, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) announced it would develop a long-term experimental plan environmental impact statement (LTEP EIS) for operational activities at Glen Canyon Dam and other management actions on the Colorado River. The purpose of the long-term experimental plan is twofold: (1) to increase the scientific understanding of the ecosystem and (2) to improve and protect important downstream resources. The proposed plan would implement a structured, longterm program of experimentation to include dam operations, potential modifications to Glen Canyon Dam intake structures, and other management actions such as removal of nonnative fish species. The development of the long-term experimental plan continues efforts begun by the GCDAMP to protect resources downstream of Glen Canyon Dam, including Grand Canyon, through adaptive management and scientific experimentation. The LTEP EIS will rely on the extensive scientific studies that have been undertaken as part of the adaptive management program by the U.S. Geological Survey?s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), one of the four research stations within the USGS Southwest Biological Science Center. On April 10 and 11, 2007, at the behest of Reclamation, the GCMRC convened a workshop with scientific experts to identify one or more scientifically credible, long-term experimental options for Reclamation to consider for the LTEP EIS that would be consistent with the purpose and need for the plan. Workshop participants included government, academic, and private scientists with broad experience in the Colorado River in Grand Canyon and regulated rivers around the world. Resource managers and GCDAMP participants were also present on the second day of the workshop. In advance of the workshop, Reclamation and LTEP EIS cooperating agencies identified 14 core scientific questions. Workshop participants were asked to consider how proposed options would address these questions, which fall primarily into four areas: (1) conservation of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and other high-priority biological resources, (2) conservation of sediment resources, (3) enhancement of recreational resources, and (4) preservation of cultural resources. A secondary objective of the workshop was the evaluation of four long-term experimental options developed by the GCDAMP Science Planning Group (SPG) (appendix B). The flow and nonflow treatments called for in the four experimental options were an important starting point for workshop discussions. At the beginning of the workshop, participants were provided with the final LTEP EIS scoping report prepared by Reclamation. Participants were also advised that Reclamation had committed to ?make every effortEto ensure that a new population of humpback chub is established in the mainstem or one or more of the tributaries within Grand Canyon? in the 1995 Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995). This decision was consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?s 1995 bi

Open-File Report↗
USGS2000

Fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations in streams of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, Metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, May–October 1994 and 1995

The Metropolitan Atlanta area has been undergoing a period of rapid growth and development. The population in the 10-county metropolitan area almost doubled from about 1.5 million people in 1970 to 2.9 million people in 1995 (Atlanta Regional Commission, written commun., 2000). Residential, commercial, and other urban land uses more than tripled during the same period (Frick and others, 1998). The Chattahoochee River is the most utilized water resource in Georgia. The rapid growth of Metropolitan Atlanta and its location downstream of the headwaters of the drainage basin make the Chattahoochee River a vital resource for drinking-water supplies, recreational opportunities, and wastewater assimilation. In 1978, the U.S. Congress declared the natural, scenic, recreation, and other values of 48 miles of the Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam to Peachtree Creek to be of special national significance. To preserve this reach of the Chattahoochee River, the U.S. Congress created the Chattahoochee River National Recreational Area (CRNRA), which includes the Chattahoochee River downstream from Buford Dam to the mouth of Peachtree Creek and a series of park areas adjacent to the river in northern Metropolitan Atlanta Even with this protection, waters of the Chattahoochee River and many of its tributaries in Metropolitan Atlanta did not meet water-quality standards set for designated uses during 1994 and 1995 (fig. 1 and table 1). Much of the degradation of water quality has been associated with areas undergoing rapid urban growth and sprawling suburban development. The resulting conversion of mostly forested land to urban land has multiple adverse effects on water quality. Degradation of water quality may be caused by a number of factors including an increase in nutrient concentrations, sediment and sedimentbound contaminant concentrations (e.g., metals and pesticides) (Frick and others, 1998), and fecal-coliform bacteria concentrations (Center for Watershed Protection, 1999). The presence of fecal-coliform bacteria in streams and rivers indicates that contamination by fecal material from human or animal sources has occurred and contact with these waters can result in exposure to pathogenic bacteria often associated with fecal contamination. During 1994 and 1995, elevated concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria were the most common reason that the Chattahoochee River and tributaries did not meet their designated uses of drinking-water supply, recreation, and fishing. According to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (1997), during 1994 and 1995, 67 of 77 stream reaches assessed in Metropolitan Atlanta did not meet or only partially met water-quality requirements for designated uses. Excessive concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria were a contributing factor in 63 of the 67 streams that did not meet or only partially met designated uses. High concentrations of fecal-coliform bacteria have the potential to reduce the recreational value of the river and pose a continued threat, with unknown health risks, to humans that come in contact with the water while fishing, boating, rafting, wading, and swimming.

Georgia↗
USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior Southeast Climate Science Center Science and Operational Plan

Climate change challenges many of the basic assumptions routinely used by conservation planners and managers, including the identification and prioritization of areas for conservation based on current environmental conditions and the assumption those conditions could be controlled by management actions. Climate change will likely alter important ecosystem drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain current environmental conditions into the future. Additionally, the potential for future conservation of non-conservation lands may be affected by climate change, which further complicates resource planning. Potential changes to ecosystem drivers, as a result of climate change, highlight the need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change. The U.S. Congress, recognized the potential effects of climate change and authorized the creation of the U.S. Geological Survey National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) in 2008. The directive of the NCCWSC is to produce science that supports resource-management agencies as they anticipate and adapt to the effects of climate change on fish, wildlife, and their habitats. On September 14, 2009, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010), which expanded the mandate of the NCCWSC to address climate-change-related impacts on all DOI resources. Secretarial Order 3289 "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources," established the foundation of two partner-based conservation science entities: Climate Science Centers (CSC) and their primary partners, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase the understanding of climate change, and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. The NCCWSC is establishing a network of eight DOI CSCs (Alaska, Southeast, Northwest, North Central, Pacific Islands, Southwest, Northeast, and South Central) that will work with a variety of partners and stakeholders to provide resource managers the tools and information they need to help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The Southeast CSC, a federally led research collaboration hosted by North Carolina State University, was established in 2010. The Southeast CSC brings together the expertise of federal and university scientists to address climate-change priority needs of federal, state, non-governmental, and tribal resource managers. This document is the first draft of a science and operational plan for the Southeast CSC. The document describes operational considerations, provides the context for climate-change impacts in the Southeastern United States, and establishes six major science themes the Southeast CSC will address in collaboration with partners. This document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1988

Water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas– Fiscal year 1987

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct the systematic and scientific classification of the public lands and to examine the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of national domain. An integral part of that original mission includes publishing and disseminating the earth science information needed to understand, to plan the use of, and to manage the Nation's energy, land, mineral, and water resources. Since 1879, the research and fact-finding role of the USGS has grown and been modified to meet the changing needs of the Nation it serves. As part of that evolution, the USGS has become the Federal Government's largest earthscience research agency, the Nation's largest civilian mapmaking agency, the primary source of data on the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources, and the employer of the largest number of professional earth scientists. Today's programs serve a diversity of needs and users. Programs include: Conducting detailed assessments of the energy and mineral potential of the Nation's land and offshore areas. Investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards. Conducting research on the geologic structure of the Nation. Studying the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of the other planets of our solar system. Conducting topographic surveys of the Nation and preparing topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic products. Developing and producing digital cartographic data bases and products. Collecting data on a routine basis to determine the quantity, quality, and use of surface and ground water. Conducting water-resources appraisals in order to describe the consequences of alternative plans for developing land and water resources. Conducting research in hydraulics and hydrology and coordinating all Federal water-data acquisition. Using remotely sensed data to develop new cartographic, geologic, and hydrologic research techniques for natural resources planning and management. Providing earth-science information through an extensive publications program and a network of public access points. Along with its continuing commitment to meet the growing and changing earthscience information needs of the Nation, the USGS remains dedicated to its original mission to collect, analyze, interpret, publish, and disseminate information about the natural resources of the Nation providing "earth science in the public service."

Texas↗
USGS1985

Water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Texas; fiscal years 1982-84

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1879, to provide a permanent Federal agency to conduct the systematic and scientific classification of the public lands, and examination of the geological structure, mineral resources, and products of national domain. An integral part of that original mission includes publishing and disseminating the earth-science information needed to understand, to plan the use of, and to manage the Nation's energy, land, mineral, and water resources. Since 1879, the research and fact-finding role of the USGS has grown and been modified to meet the changing needs of the Nation it serves. As part of that evolution, the USGS has become the Federal Government's largest earth-science research agency, the Nation's largest civilian mapmaking agency, the primary source of data on the Nation's surface- and ground-water resources, and the employer of the largest number of professional earth scientists. Today's programs serve a diversity of needs and users. Programs include: Conducting detailed assessments of the energy and mineral potential of the Nation's land and offshore areas. Investigating and issuing warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other geologic and hydrologic hazards. Conducting research on the geologic structure of the Nation. Studying the geologic features, structure, processes, and history of the other planets of our solar system. Conducting topographic surveys of the Nation and preparing topographic and thematic maps and related cartographic products. Developing and producing digital cartographic data bases and products. Collecting data on a routine basis to determine the quantity, quality, and use of surface and ground water. Conducting water-resources appraisals in order to describe the consequences of alternative plans for developing land and water resources. Conducting research in hydraulics and hydrology and coordinating all Federal water-data acquisition. Using remotely sensed data to develop new cartographic, geologic, and hydrologic research techniques for natural resources planning and management. Providing earth-science information through an extensive publications program and a network of public access points. Along with its continuing commitment to meet the growing and changing earthscience information needs of the Nation, the USGS remains dedicated to its original mission to collect, analyze, interpret, publish, and disseminate information about the natural resources of the Nation providing "earth science in the public service."

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Design of Cycle 3 of the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 2013-2022: Part 1: Framework of Water-Quality Issues and Potential Approaches

In 1991, the U.S. Congress established the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program to develop long-term, nationally consistent information on the quality of the Nation's streams and groundwater. Congress recognized the critical need for this information to support scientifically sound management, regulatory, and policy decisions concerning the increasingly stressed water resources of the Nation. The long-term goals of NAWQA are to: (1) assess the status of water-quality conditions in the United States, (2) evaluate long-term trends in water-quality conditions, and (3) link status and trends with an understanding of the natural and human factors that affect water quality. These goals are national in scale, include both surface water and groundwater, and include consideration of water quality in relation to both human uses and aquatic ecosystems. Since 1991, NAWQA assessments and findings have fostered and supported major improvements in the availability and use of unbiased scientific information for decisionmaking, resource management, and planning at all levels of government. These improvements have enabled agencies and stakeholders to cost-effectively address a wide range of water-quality issues related to natural and human influences on the quality of water and potential effects on aquatic ecosystems and human health (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/xrel.pdf). NAWQA, like all USGS programs, provides policy relevant information that serves as a scientific basis for decisionmaking related to resource management, protection, and restoration. The information is freely available to all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, industry, academia, and the public, and is readily accessible on the NAWQA Web site and other diverse formats to serve the needs of the water-resource community at different technical levels. Water-quality conditions in streams and groundwater are described in more than 1,700 publications (available online at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/bib/), and are documented by more than 14 million data records representing about 7,600 stream sites, 8,100 wells, and 2,000 water-quality and ecological constituents that are available from the NAWQA data warehouse (http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/traverse/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:0). The Program promotes collaboration and liaison with government officials, resource managers, industry representatives, and other stakeholders to increase the utility and relevance of NAWQA science to decisionmakers. As part of this effort, NAWQA supports integration of data from other organizations into NAWQA assessments, where appropriate and cost-effective, so that more comprehensive findings are available across geographic and temporal scales.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Five-year external reviews of the eight Department of Interior Climate Science Centers: Southeast Climate Science Center

In 2008, the U.S. Congress authorized the establishment of the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC) within the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). Housed administratively within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), NCCWSC is part of the DOI’s ongoing mission to meet the challenges of climate change and its effects on wildlife and aquatic resources. From 2010 through 2012, NCCWSC established eight regional DOI Climate Science Centers (CSCs). Each of these regional CSCs operated with the mission to “synthesize and integrate climate change impact data and develop tools that the Department’s managers and partners can use when managing the Department’s land, water, fish and wildlife, and cultural heritage resources” (Salazar 2009). The model developed by NCCWSC for the regional CSCs employed a dual approach of a federal USGS-staffed component and a parallel host-university component established competitively through a 5-year cooperative agreement with NCCWSC. At the conclusion of this 5-year agreement, a review of each CSC was undertaken, with the Southeast Climate Science Center (SE CSC) review in February 2016. The SE CSC is hosted by North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh, North Carolina, and is physically housed within the NCSU Department of Applied Ecology along with the Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CFWRU), and the North Carolina Agromedicine Institute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Southeast Regional Climate Hub is based at NCSU as is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Southeast Regional Climate Center, the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the NOAA National Weather Service, the State Climate Office of North Carolina, and the U.S. Forest Service Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. This creates a strong core of organizations operating in close proximity focused on climate issues. The geographic area covered by the SE CSC represents all or part of 16 states and the Caribbean Islands and has overlapping boundaries with seven Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs): Appalachian LCC, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers LCC, Gulf Coast Prairie LCC, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks LCC, Peninsular Florida LCC, South Atlantic LCC, and Caribbean LCC. The SE CSC region also encompasses 134 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges and 89 National Park Service (NPS) units and is home to 11 federally recognized and 54 state recognized tribes.

Report↗
USGS1983

U.S. Geological Survey program of offshore resource and geoenvironmental studies, Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico region, from September 1, 1976, to December 31, 1978

Mineral and energy resources of the continental margins of the United States arc important to the Nation's commodity independence and to its balance of payments. These resources are being studied along the continental margins of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico in keeping with the mission of the U.S. Geological Survey to survey the geologic structures, mineral resources, and products of the national domain.'(Organic Act of 1879). An essential corollary to these resource studies is the study of potential geologic hazards that may be associated with offshore resource exploration and exploitation. In cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the Geological Survey, through its Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico Marine Geology Program, carries out extensive research to evaluate hazards from sediment mobility, shallow gas, and slumping and to acquire information on the distribution and concentration of trace metals and biogenic and petroleum-derived hydrocarbons in sea-floor sediments. All these studies arc providing needed background information, including information on pollutant dispersal, on the nearshore, estuarine, and lacustrine areas that may be near pipeline and nuclear powerplant sites. Users of these data include the Congress, many Federal agencies, the coastal States, private industry, academia, and the concerned public. The results of the regional structural, stratigraphic, and resource studies carried out under the Atlantic-Gulf of Mexico Marine Geology Program have been used by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management to select areas for future leasing and to aid in the evaluation of tracts nominated for leasing. Resource studies have concentrated mostly on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf frontier areas. Geologic detailing of five major basins along the U.S. Atlantic margin, where sediments are as much as 14 km thick, have been revealed by 25,000 km of 24-and 48-channel common-depth-point seismic data, 187,000 km of acromagnetic data, and 39,000 km of gravity data, plus 10,000 samples and logs obtained from U.S. Geological Survey and industry drilling (for example, coreholes of the Atlantic Slope Program, Joint Oceanographic Institutions Deep Earth Sampling, Continental Offshore Stratigraphic Tests, and the Atlantic Margin Coring Program). A sedimentary section of Jurassic and Cretaceous age grades from terrigenous clastic rocks nearshore to carbonate rocks offshore; this section is part of an extensive buried bank-platform complex that could contain large reserves of natural gas and oil. The volume of sediment deposited offshore far exceeds the volume deposited onshore where extensive accumulations of oil, gas, and minerals have been found. Commercial exploratory drilling offshore thus far has been limited to the Baltimore Canyon Trough area off New Jersey, where at least two holes have found gas; leasing has taken place in the Southeast Georgia Embayment, where drilling was scheduled to begin in 1979, and is imminent in the Georges Bank area off New England. In addition, hydrogeologic and hydrochemical data obtained from the drilling studies have delineated freshwater-bearing submarine extensions of land aquifers that are important coastal ground-water resources. Hazards in the Georges Bank area include sand mobility associated with strong currents and storm-driven waves; high concentrations of suspended sediment in the water column that, when mixed with spilled oil, may sink to the bottom; and slumping along the upper slope. In the Baltimore Canyon, high sediment mobility accompanies major winter storms, and slumped material may cover as much as 20 percent of the upper slope. Potentially unstable slope areas are being studied in great detail to provide data on timing, triggering mechanisms, and rates of sediment movement. In the Southeast Georgia Embayment and Blake Plateau Basin, strong Gulf Stream flow poses a major problem to all offshore operations. In the Gulf o

Circular↗
USGS2025

Methodology and technical input for the 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals—Assessing the potential effects of mineral commodity supply chain disruptions on the U.S. economy

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is tasked by section 7002 (“Mineral Security”) of title VII (“Critical Minerals”) of the Energy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260, December 27, 2020, 116th Congress) with reviewing and revising the methodology used to evaluate mineral commodity supply risk and the U.S. List of Critical Minerals (LCM) no less than every 3 years. Following two previous LCM assessments, this analysis represents the latest technical input for evaluating each mineral commodity’s supply risk and determining their recommended status on the LCM. We evaluated mineral commodity supply risk using two criteria: (1) an economic effects assessment that quantified the potential effects of various trade disruption scenarios on the U.S. economy, and (2) an examination of whether the mineral commodity’s U.S. supply chain relied on a sole domestic producer that represented a single point of failure. For the first criterion, postdisruption equilibrium quantities and prices for each mineral commodity were calculated based on their price elasticities of supply and demand and the availability of excess production capacity for each yearlong foreign trade disruption scenario. Subsequently, a nonlinear optimization routine was used with detailed economic input-output tables to estimate the potential economic effects on the U.S. economy of over 1,200 scenarios for 84 mineral commodities. After accounting for the probability of each scenario’s occurrence, the overall results are presented in terms of changes in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by individual industry and the economy overall. The results, which ranged from a net decrease in U.S. GDP of nearly $4.5 billion to a net increase of $33 million, largely reflect U.S. import dependency and world production concentration. Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method, a statistical classification technique, we categorized the mineral commodities into several classes based on this overall risk quantification. Mineral commodities with annualized probability-weighted net decreases in U.S. GDP greater than $2 million were recommended for inclusion on the LCM. If a mineral commodity did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the LCM under the first criterion, its domestic supply chain was examined under the second criterion, which recommended a mineral commodity for inclusion on the LCM if there was only a single domestic producer. Ultimately, the two criteria resulted in the recommendation of the addition of six mineral commodities (in descending risk order, potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead) to and the removal of two mineral commodities (arsenic and tellurium) from the LCM. By using an economic effects assessment, the results of this analysis provide a prioritization that can also be compared directly against other risk analyses and the cost of various risk mitigation strategies.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Applying the land use portfolio model to estimate natural-hazard loss and risk — A hypothetical demonstration for Ventura County, California

With costs of natural disasters skyrocketing and populations increasingly settling in areas vulnerable to natural hazards, society is challenged to better allocate its limited risk-reduction resources. In 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act, amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-288, 1988; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002, 2008b; Disaster Mitigation Act, 2000), mandating that State, local, and tribal communities prepare natural-hazard mitigation plans to qualify for pre-disaster mitigation grants and post-disaster aid. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was assigned to coordinate and implement hazard-mitigation programs, and it published information about specific mitigation-plan requirements and the mechanisms (through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program-HMGP) for distributing funds (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002). FEMA requires that each community develop a mitigation strategy outlining long-term goals to reduce natural-hazard vulnerability, mitigation objectives and specific actions to reduce the impacts of natural hazards, and an implementation plan for those actions. The implementation plan should explain methods for prioritizing, implementing, and administering the actions, along with a 'cost-benefit review' justifying the prioritization. FEMA, along with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), supported the development of HAZUS ('Hazards U.S.'), a geospatial natural-hazards loss-estimation tool, to help communities quantify potential losses and to aid in the selection and prioritization of mitigation actions. HAZUS was expanded to a multiple-hazard version, HAZUS-MH, that combines population, building, and natural-hazard science and economic data and models to estimate physical damages, replacement costs, and business interruption for specific natural-hazard scenarios. HAZUS-MH currently performs analyses for earthquakes, floods, and hurricane wind. HAZUS-MH loss estimates, however, do not account for some uncertainties associated with the specific natural-hazard scenarios, such as the likelihood of occurrence within a particular time horizon or the effectiveness of alternative risk-reduction options. Because of the uncertainties involved, it is challenging to make informative decisions about how to cost-effectively reduce risk from natural-hazard events. Risk analysis is one approach that decision-makers can use to evaluate alternative risk-reduction choices when outcomes are unknown. The Land Use Portfolio Model (LUPM), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), is a geospatial scenario-based tool that incorporates hazard-event uncertainties to support risk analysis. The LUPM offers an approach to estimate and compare risks and returns from investments in risk-reduction measures. This paper describes and demonstrates a hypothetical application of the LUPM for Ventura County, California, and examines the challenges involved in developing decision tools that provide quantitative methods to estimate losses and analyze risk from natural hazards.

California↗
USGS2023

Application of surrogate technology to predict real-time metallic-contaminant concentrations and loads in the Clark Fork near Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site, Montana, water years 2019–20

Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site (GRKO) in southwestern Montana commemorates the frontier cattle era and its formative role in shaping the culture and history of the Western United States. The ranch was designated a national historic landmark in 1960 and a unit of the National Park Service (NPS) by Congress in 1972. The GRKO is unique because of its proximity to large-scale extraction, milling, and smelting of gold, silver, copper, and lead ore from the 1860s to the 1980s in the Butte mining district. During this time, mining and milling wastes were discarded in the upper Clark Fork Basin, resulting in the deposition of large amounts of waste materials (tailings) enriched with metallic contaminants (including cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, zinc, and the metalloid trace element arsenic) in soils and in nearby streams and floodplains. Denuded vegetation and fish kills attributed to large concentrations of heavy metals caused the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to designate a 120-mile section of the Clark Fork River (hereafter referred to as the “Clark Fork”), including GRKO, to be included on the National Priority List for Superfund cleanup in 1989. In 2018, with oversight from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the NPS began remediation of 2.6 miles of the Clark Fork as it flows through GRKO property. In 2019, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with the NPS, conducted a study using time-series data from backscatter signals from fixed-point turbidity and acoustic sensors with the intent to provide a high-resolution monitoring tool to estimate metallic-contaminant concentrations (MCCs) and loads during NPS remediation of the Clark Fork. Two monitoring sites at USGS streamgages on the Clark Fork on either side of GRKO property were instrumented with turbidity and acoustic sensors and surrogate relations were developed among time-series data and MCCs. The application of high-resolution surrogate data was used to infer contaminant source and fate and evaluate MCC values relative to aquatic-life standards. Using high-resolution surrogate data, it was determined that during spring runoff and storm-related runoff events, MCCs peaked at their highest values at streamflows markedly lower and prior to peak streamflow. Because MCCs peaked prior to streamflow peaks, it could be inferred that the source of MCCs originated from channel bed sediments in close spatial proximity to the monitoring site or from nearby streambanks and floodplains. High-resolution surrogate data revealed that copper concentrations in the Clark Fork exceeded chronic aquatic-life standards 90 percent of the time when streamflow exceeded 200 cubic feet per second (ft 3 /s) and exceeded acute aquatic-life standards 85 percent of the time when streamflow exceeded 260 ft 3 /s. These data helped support NPS management goals for evaluating variation in water quality during remediation of GRKO property, evaluating MCC values relative to aquatic-life standards, and quantifying benefits from Superfund remediation activities.

Montana↗
USGS1902

The Geology and Petrography of Crater Lake National Park

Twenty years ago Crater Lake was unknown to the general public, but since then a knowledge of its remarkable features has been spread abroad through the press, and Congress recognized its worth as an educational feature and made it a national park by the act approved May 22, 1902. As defined in the bill, the park is 'bounded north by the parallel forty-three degrees four minutes north latitude, south by forty-two degrees forty-eight minutes north latitude, east by the meridian one hundred and twenty-two degrees west longitude, and west by the meridian one hundred and twenty-two degrees sixteen minutes west longitude, having an area of two hundred and forty-nine square miles'. The Ashland sheet of United States Geological Survey, on the scale of 4 miles to 1 inch, includes the area lying between meridians 122 deg and 123 deg and parallels 42 deg and 43 deg. This map includes the region between Ashland and Crater Lake. On account of the great scientific interest of Crater Lake a special map, known as the Crater Lake special sheet, was prepared on the scale of 1 mile to an inch, including the country immediately adjacent to Crater Lake, between meridians 122 deg and 122 deg 15' and parallels 42 deg 50' and 43 deg 4'. From these two maps the accompanying map of the Crater Lake National Park (Pl. 1) has been prepared. The two papers published here refer practically to the whole region included in the National Park. The one, Part I, treats primarily of the geology, the development of the great volcano, Mount Mazama, and its collapse, which gave birth to Crater Lake; the other, Part II, deals with the petrography, and gives a special description of the various rocks occurring in the park. Origin of the name Mount Mazama - A great impetus to the spread of information concerning Crater Lake was given by the Mazamas of Portland, Oreg., who held a meeting at the lake in August, 1896, which attracted many visitors. The principal features in the history of the lake had previously been made out, and the Mazamas, recognizing the fact that the great peak which was nearly destroyed in preparing the pit for the lake had no name, gave it the name of their own society. Upon the rim of the lake are a number of small peaks, each having its own designation. The term Mount Mazama refers to the whole rim encircling the lake. It is but a mere remnant of the once lofty peak, the real Mount Mazama, which rose far into the region of eternal snow. To get a basis for reconstructing the original Mount Mazama it is necessary to study in detail the structure and composition of its foundation, now so attractively displayed in the encircling cliffs of Crater Lake.

Oregon↗
USGS2010

Continuous tidal streamflow, water level, and specific conductance data for Union Creek and the Little Back, Middle, and Front Rivers, Savannah River Estuary, November 2008 to March 2009

In the Water Resource Development Act of 1999, the U.S. Congress authorized the deepening of the Savannah Harbor. Additional studies were then identified by the Georgia Ports Authority and other local and regional stakeholders to determine and fully describe the potential environmental effects of deepening the channel. One need that was identified was the validation of a three-dimensional hydrodynamic model developed to evaluate mitigation scenarios for a potential harbor deepening and the effects on the Savannah River estuary. The streamflow in the estuary is very complex due to reversing tidal flows, interconnections of streams and tidal creeks, and the daily flooding and draining of the marshes. The model was calibrated using very limited streamflow data and no continuous streamflow measurements. To better characterize the streamflow dynamics and mass transport of the estuary, two index-velocity sites were instrumented with continuous acoustic velocity, water level, and specific conductance sensors on the Little Back and Middle Rivers for the 5-month period of November 2008 through March 2009. During the same period, a third acoustic velocity meter was installed on the Front River just downstream from U.S. Geological Survey streamgaging station 02198920 (Savannah River at GA 25, at Port Wentworth, Georgia) where water level and specific conductance data were being collected. A fourth index-velocity site was instrumented with continuous acoustic velocity, water level, and specific conductance sensors on Union Creek for a 2-month period starting in November 2008. In addition to monitoring the tidal cycles, streamflow measurements were made at the four index-velocity sites to develop ratings to compute continuous discharge for each site. The maximum flood (incoming) and ebb (outgoing) tides measured on Little Back River were –4,570 and 7,990 cubic feet per second, respectively. On Middle River, the maximum flood and ebb tides measured were –9,630 and 13,600 cubic feet per second, respectively. On Front River, the maximum flood and ebb tides were –34,500 and 43,700 cubic feet per second, respectively; and on Union Creek, the maximum flood and ebb tides were –2,390 and 4,610 cubic feet per second, respectively. During the 5-month instrumentation deployment, computed tidal streamflows on Little Back River ranged from –7,820 to 9,600 cubic feet per second for the flood and ebb tides, respectively. On Middle River, the computed tidal streamflows ranged from –17,500 to 22,500 cubic feet per second for the flood and ebb tides, respectively. The computed tidal streamflows on Front River ranged from –78,900 to 87,200 cubic feet per second, and from –3,850 to 6,130 cubic feet per second on Union Creek for the flood and ebb tides, respectively. The streamgages on the Little Back, Middle, and Front Rivers have continued in operation following the initial 5-month deployment.

Georgia, South Carolina↗
USGS2006

Vegetation classification for south Florida natural areas

Introduction A critical component of any ecological restoration program is documenting the temporal changes in the spatial extent, pattern, and proportion of plant communities within the landscape. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP - www.evergladesplan.org), authorized as part of the Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 (U.S. Congress, 2000), is an $8 billion hydrologic restoration project for all of south Florida. CERP includes 68 separate projects to be managed over the next 30 years by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE), and other State and Federal agencies. Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) is a system-wide program of the CERP, designed to organize, manage, and provide the highest quality scientific and technical support during implementation of the restoration program (RECOVER, in prep.). It is the role of RECOVER to develop and implement a system-wide Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP) (RECOVER, 2004) and to document how well the CERP is meeting its objectives for ecosystem restoration. One critical component of the MAP is vegetation mapping to document changes in the spatial extent, pattern, and proportion of plant communities within the Everglades landscape. A major aspect of the vegetation mapping project was determining a classification system for labeling vegetation categories utilizing a grid method. The grid method was created specifically for use in the CERP RECOVER vegetation monitoring and assessment project (Rutchey and others, in prep). The CERP RECOVER vegetation mapping project utilizes aerial photography and photointerpretation techniques (with ground truthing) to identify and label vegetation classes. A classification system that had sufficient flexibility and detail to enable the designation of vegetation classes using various remote sensing platforms and identification techniques needed to be developed. The classification system had to be hierarchical, represent distinct ecological communities, individual species, and physical characteristics such as density and height. In addition, it was desirable to have a classification system that allowed exotic species and cattail to be identified using density classes. The classification system was developed specifically for peninsular south Florida and the Florida Keys, from Lake Okeechobee in the north to Key West in the south (Figure 1). Specific areas of interest include Everglades National Park, Big Cypress National Preserve, Biscayne National Park, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the State of Florida Water Conservation Areas, Holeyland Wildlife Management Area, Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area, Pal-Mar Wildlife Management Area, the Lake Okeechobee Littoral Zones, and additional coastal wetlands of south eastern Miami-Dade County. In addition to being used for mapping of CERP affected areas, the National Park Service-South Florida/Caribbean Network is using the classification for mapping the remaining areas of Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve outside the CERP footprint, Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, Biscayne National Park, and Dry Tortugas National Park.

Florida↗
USGS1944

Manganese Deposits in the Artillery Mountains Region, Mohave County, Arizona

The manganese deposits of the Artillery Mountains region lie within an area of about 25 square miles between the Artillery and Rawhide Mountains, on the west side of the Bill Williams River in west-central Arizona. The richest croppings are on the northeast side of this area, among the foothills of the Artillery Mountains. They are 6 to 10 miles from Alamo. The nearest shipping points are Congress, about 50 miles to the east, and Aguila, about 50 miles to the southeast. The principal manganese deposits are part of a sequence of alluvial fan and playa material, probably of early Pliocene age, which were laid down in a fault basin. They are overlain by later Pliocene (?) basalt flows and sediments and by Quaternary basalt and alluvium. The Pliocene (?) rocks are folded into a shallow composite S1ncline ttat occupies the valley between the Artillery and Rawhide Mountains, and the folded rocks along either side of the valley, together with the overlying Quaternary basalt, are broken by faults that have produced a group of horsts, grabens, and step-fault blocks. The manganiferous beds, lie at two zones, 750 to 1,000 feet apart stratigraphically, each of which is locally as much as 300 to 400 feet thick. The main, or upper, zone contains three kinds of ore - sandstone ore, clay ore, and 'hard' ore. The sandstone and clay ores differ from the associated barren sandstone and clay, with which they are interlayered and into which they grade, primarily in containing a variable proportion of amorphous manganese oxides, besides iron oxides and clayey material such as are present in the barren beds. The 'hard' ore is sandstone that has been impregnated with opal and calcite and in which the original amorphous manganese oxides have been largely converted to psilomelane and manganite. The average manganese content of the sandstone and clay ores is between 3 and 4 percent and that of the 'hard' ore is between 6 and 7 percent. The ore contains an average of 3 percent of iron, 0.08 percent of phosphorus, 1.1 percent of barium, and minute quantities of copper, lead, and zinc. Although the manganese content of the sandstone and clay ore may change abruptly from bed to bed, the content within any individual bed changes gradually, and for any large volume of ore both the nanganese and iron content are remarkably uniform. Explorations to June 1941 consisted chiefly of 49 holes diamond-drilled in the upper zone on the Artillery Mountains side of the area. The district is estimated to contain an assured minimum of 200,000,000 tons of material having an average manganese content of 3 to 4 percent. About 20,000,000 tons of this total contains 5 percent or more of manganese, and 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 tons contains 10 percent or more. To what extent these deposits can be utilized is a metallurgical and economic problem. Although the clay and sandstone ores, as well as the 'hard' ore, are present in large tonnages, the 'hard' ore is the only kind that combines minable tonnage with promising grade. About 15,000,000 tons of 'hard' ore is present; about 500,000 tons of this contains 15 percent or more of manganese and averages 17 percent, and somewhat over 2,000,000 tons contains 10 percent or more and averages nearly 13 percent. Except for closer drilling to determine such things as the tonnage, grade, spacing, and form of the richer shoots with greater accuracy before beginning to mine them, further explorations are not recommended, for any new ore found is likely to be similar, both in grade and kind, to that already discovered.

Arizona↗
USGS2019

Hydrogeology of Lower Amargosa Valley and groundwater discharge to the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties, California, and adjacent areas in Nye and Clark Counties, Nevada

In 2009, Congress designated certain reaches of the Amargosa River in Inyo County, California between the town of Shoshone and Dumont Dunes as a Wild and Scenic River. As part of the management of the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River, the Bureau of Land Management cooperated with the U.S. Geological Survey to assess the surface and groundwater resources of the Tecopa basin. Groundwater is the primary source of water to the perennial reaches of the Amargosa River. The U.S. Geological Survey studied the surface and groundwater systems in the basin, and assessed the sources and volume of groundwater discharging into the perennial reaches of the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River. The springs within the Tecopa basin (and the greater Lower Amargosa Valley Hydrographic Area) can be generally grouped by spring type and geographic location. There are four types of groundwater discharge points in the Tecopa basin—regional carbonate-rock springs and seeps, Tecopa Hills springs and seeps, thermal springs and seeps, and Amargosa Canyon hillslope springs and seeps. Results of chemical analysis indicate that water from all of these springs in the Lower Amargosa Valley and particularly in the Tecopa basin, is sourced in the carbonate-rock aquifer, with a local component of recharge. Groundwater is recharged in the Spring Mountains and moves through and around the Nopah and Resting Spring Ranges and into the Tecopa basin. A small (less than 1 cubic foot per second [ft 3 /s] or 500 acre‑feet per year) component of flow from the Amargosa Desert moves through the river channel alluvium and basin fill from the north. The location and type of spring appear to be controlled by the geology and geologic structure of the Lower Amargosa Valley. The regional springs (such as Shoshone and Borax Springs) and associated seeps tend to occur along the west side of the basin whereas other carbonate-rock aquifer springs discharge from adjacent mountain ranges, such as the Resting Spring Range, and as a result of low-permeability barriers, such as the Tecopa Hills. The thermal springs and seeps discharge from an area near the town of Tecopa, California. The Amargosa Canyon hillslope springs and seeps discharge directly into the river. Salt-crusted soils adjacent to the river indicate additional areas of diffuse discharge where groundwater is being evaporated. Perennial flow in the main channel of the Amargosa River appears to originate in an area of thermal springs near Tecopa. Persistent groundwater-fed pools begin to appear along the river channel just to the south of the Tecopa Hills. Flow between these pools is evident, but difficult to measure. During the synoptic seepage measurement survey in February 2014, flow in the Amargosa River at the Tecopa streamgage (U.S. Geological Survey site 10251300, Amargosa River at Tecopa, California) was approximately 1 ft 3 /s. Just to the south of the Tecopa streamgage, a line of cooler water springs (the Amargosa Canyon hillslope springs) emerges east of the river channel and continues for approximately 1 mile along the Amargosa Canyon wall. At the end of the spring reach, the flow in the river increased to just over 4 ft 3 /s. Flow then decreased to approximately 3 ft 3 /s at the confluence of Willow Creek, approximately 3.5 miles downstream. Downstream from the confluence of Willow Creek, the river consistently loses water and was dry just north of Dumont Dunes during the February 2014 synoptic seepage measurement survey.

California, Nevada↗
USGS2010

Southeast Regional Assessment Project for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The Southeastern United States spans a broad range of physiographic settings and maintains exceptionally high levels of faunal diversity. Unfortunately, many of these ecosystems are increasingly under threat due to rapid human development, and management agencies are increasingly aware of the potential effects that climate change will have on these ecosystems. Natural resource managers and conservation planners can be effective at preserving ecosystems in the face of these stressors only if they can adapt current conservation efforts to increase the overall resilience of the system. Climate change, in particular, challenges many of the basic assumptions used by conservation planners and managers. Previous conservation planning efforts identified and prioritized areas for conservation based on the current environmental conditions, such as habitat quality, and assumed that conditions in conservation lands would be largely controlled by management actions (including no action). Climate change, however, will likely alter important system drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain recent historic conditions in conservation lands into the future. Climate change will also influence the future conservation potential of non-conservation lands, further complicating conservation planning. Therefore, there is a need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change on future environmental conditions. Congress recognized this important issue and authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC; http://nccw.usgs.gov/) in the Fiscal Year 2008. The NCCWSC will produce science that will help resource management agencies anticipate and adapt to climate change impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. With the release of Secretarial Order 3289 on September 14, 2009, the mandate of the NCCWSC was expanded to address climate change-related impacts on all Department of the Interior (DOI) resources. The NCCWSC will establish a network of eight DOI Regional Climate Science Centers (RCSCs) that will work with a variety of partners to provide natural resource managers with tools and information that will help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The forecasting products produced by the RCSCs will aid fish, wildlife, and land managers in designing suitable adaptive management approaches for their programs. The DOI also is developing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) as science and conservation action partnerships at subregional scales. The USGS is working with the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop science collaboration between the future Southeast RCSC and future LCCs. The NCCWSC Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) will begin to develop regional downscaled climate models, land cover change models, regional ecological models, regional watershed models, and other science tools. Models and data produced by SERAP will be used in a collaborative process between the USGS, the FWS (LCCs), State and federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and academia to produce science at appropriate scales to answer resource management questions. The SERAP will produce an assessment of climate change, and impacts on land cover, ecosystems, and priority species in the region. The predictive tools developed by the SERAP project team will allow end users to better understand potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on terrestrial and aquatic populations in the Southeastern United States. The SERAP capitalizes on the integration of five existing projects: (1) the Multi-State Conservation Grants Program project "Designing Sustainable Landscapes," (2) the USGS multidisciplinary Science Thrust project "Water Availability for Ecological Needs," (3) the USGS Southeast Pilot Project "Climate Change in the Southeastern U.S. and its Impacts on Bird Distributions and Habitats," (4) a sea-level rise impacts study envisioned jointly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and (5) two USGS sea-level rise impact assessment projects that address inundation hazards and provide probabilistic forecasts of coastal geomorphic change. The SERAP will expand on these existing projects and include the following tasks, which were initiated in summer 2009: * Regionally downscaled probabilistic climate-change projections * Integrated coastal assessment * Integrated terrestrial assessment * Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: aquatic and hydrologic dynamics * Optimal conservation strategies to cope with climate change The SERAP seeks to formally integrate these tasks to aid conservation planning and design so that ecosystem management decisions can be optimized for providing desirable outcomes across a range of species and environments. The following chapters detail SERAP's efforts in providing a suite of regional climate, watershed, and landscape-change analyses and develop the interdisciplinary framework required for the biological planning phases of adaptive management and strategic conservation. The planning phase will include the identification of conservation alternatives, development of predictive models and decision support tools, and development of a template to address similar challenges and goals in other regions. The project teams will explore and develop ways to link the various ecological models arising from each component. The SERAP project team also will work closely with members of the LCCs and other partnerships throughout the life of the project to ensure that the objectives of the project meet resources mangers needs in the Southeast.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-­‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-­‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-­‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -­‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -­‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-­‐2000) -­‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -­‐Japan Tokai-­‐oki to Kumano-­‐nada Project (2004) -­‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -­‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -­‐Malaysia Gumusut-­‐Kakap Project (2006) -­‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -­‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -­‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -­‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -­‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -­‐MH-­‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-­‐Production Expedition (2012-­‐2013) -­‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-­‐2008) -­‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -­‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-­‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-­‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-­‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-­‐while-­‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-­‐situ nature of hydrate-­‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗