Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Article”

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 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Gunnison sage-grouse published from January 2005 to September 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Centrocercus minimus (Gunnison sage-grouse; hereafter GUSG) has been a focus of scientific investigation since the early 2000s. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed GUSG as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 2014 because of declining populations and increasing habitat loss. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife have sought to increase the conservation of this species by adapting management and recovery plans to reduce threats and increase population resiliency. GUSG are studied less than the closely related Centrocercus urophasianus (greater sage-grouse); however, research efforts have recently increased to understand the life history, genetics, and habitat suitability of this sagebrush-obligate species. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on GUSG, published between January 2005 and September 2022. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the following search phrases: “Gunnison sage-grouse” or “lesser sage-grouse” or “Gunnison grouse” or “Gunnison sage grouse” or “lesser sage grouse” or “ Centrocercus minimus .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products that did not have GUSG as a research focus or products that did not present new data or findings about GUSG. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, population estimates or targets, habitat, and management efforts) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 80 total products, of which 63 met our criteria for inclusion of which 53 were products that had not been summarized before. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics; population estimates or targets; behavior or demographics; and genetics were the most commonly addressed management topics. The bibliographies are available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ) and are searchable by topic, location, and year, and the search tool includes links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized in this annotated bibliography may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GUSG populations across the GUSG range.

Colorado↗
USGS2023

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on greater sage-grouse published from October 2019 to July 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) created a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here and built on to incorporate new information. The greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereafter “GRSG”) has been a focus of scientific investigation and management action for the past two decades. The 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listing determination of “not warranted” under the Endangered Species Act was in part a result of a large-scale collaborative effort to develop strategies to conserve GRSG populations and their habitat and to reduce threats to both. New scientific information augments existing knowledge and can help inform updates or modifications to existing plans for managing GRSG and sagebrush ecosystems. However, the sheer number of scientific publications can be a challenge for managers tasked with evaluating and determining the need for potential updates to existing planning documents. To assist in this process, the USGS has reviewed and summarized the scientific literature published since January 1, 2015. Our most recent GRSG literature summary was published in 2020 (Carter and others, 2020) and included products published through October 2, 2019. Here, we consider products published between October 2, 2019, and July 21, 2022. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and USGS Open-File Reports) on greater sage-grouse. We first systematically searched three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “greater sage-grouse.” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) publications not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (3) products for which greater sage-grouse was not a research focus or the study did not present new data or findings about greater sage-grouse. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified management topics addressed by each product; for example, species and population characteristics. We also identified projects that provided new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included two initial internal colleague reviews of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 221 total products, of which 147 met our criteria for inclusion. Across products summarized in the annotated bibliography, broad-scale habitat characteristics, behavior or demographics, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat selection, and population estimates or targets were the most commonly addressed management topics. The online version of this bibliography, which will be available on the Science for Resource Managers tool ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ), will be searchable by topic, location, and year, and will include links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and GRSG populations across the GRSG range.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

Annotated bibliography of scientific research on Taeniatherum caput-medusae published from January 2010 to January 2022

Integrating recent scientific knowledge into management decisions supports effective natural resource management and can lead to better resource outcomes. However, finding and accessing scientific knowledge can be time consuming and costly. To assist in this process, the U.S. Geological Survey is creating a series of annotated bibliographies on topics of management concern for western lands. Previously published reports introduced a methodology for preparing annotated bibliographies to facilitate the integration of recent, peer-reviewed science into resource management decisions. Therefore, relevant text from those efforts is reproduced here to frame the presentation. Invasive annual grasses are widely distributed throughout the western United States and threaten native ecosystems by altering fire regimes, replacing native plants, and altering grazing patterns, often with tremendous associated costs. One invasive annual grass, Taeniatherum caput-medusae (hereafter, medusahead), was first documented in the United States in 1887 and has been identified as a species of management concern. Medusahead’s life history traits allow it to quickly and effectively dominate native plant communities, and it has already taken over millions of acres in western North America. Although medusahead can spread widely and disrupt ecosystem function, it has been studied less than other western invasive grass species. We compiled and summarized peer-reviewed journal articles, data products, and formal technical reports (such as U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Reports and U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports) on medusahead, published between January 2010 and January 2022. We first performed a systematic search of three reference databases and three government databases using the search phrase “medusahead” OR “medusa head” OR “ Taeniatherum caput-medusae ” OR “ Taeniatherum caputmedusae ” OR “ Taeniatherum asperum .” We refined the initial list of products by removing (1) duplicates, (2) products not written in English, (3) publications that were not focused on North America, (4) publications that were not published as research, data products, or scientific review articles in peer-reviewed journals or as formal technical reports, and (5) products for which medusahead was not a research focus, or the study did not present new data or findings about medusahead. We summarized each product using a consistent structure (background, objectives, methods, location, findings, and implications) and identified the management topics (for example, species and population characteristics; habitat; and control and management efforts) addressed by each product. We also noted which publications included new geospatial data. The review process for this annotated bibliography included an initial internal colleague review of each summary, requesting input on each summary from an author of the original publication, and a formal peer review. Our initial searches resulted in 4,245 total products, of which 211 met our criteria for inclusion. The most commonly addressed management topics addressed in products summarized in the annotated bibliography were as follows: nonnative invasive plants, weed management, site-scale habitat characteristics, habitat restoration or reclamation, and cultural management of weeds. All published bibliographies, including the online version of this bibliography, are available at the Science for Resource Managers ( https://apps.usgs.gov/science-for-resource-managers ). This database is searchable by topic, location, and year and includes links to each original publication. The studies compiled and summarized here may inform planning and management actions that seek to maintain and restore sagebrush landscapes and associated native species across the western United States.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1974

A tabulation of K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and Pb-α ages obtained for materials within the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii) during the years 1965 through 1968

This tabulation of ages has been made as a convenience to anyone desiring a quick reference to ages published in the United States and Puerto Rico from 1965 through 1968. This tabulation does not include all published K-Ar, Rb-Sr, or Pb-α ages, but is probably 98 percent complete. Many of the radiometric ages published in abstracts, footnotes, personal communications, and even some articles are not included as sample localities are lacking or are not sufficiently detailed to be of value. Such ages are often published in a subsequent article with detailed sample locations and geologic interpretation. There may be some duplication of ages in this tabulation. The references listed are either the original source for an age or the best source in regard to sample location, decay constants, interpretation, etc. A minor number of unpublished radiometric ages from Ph.D. or M.S. theses are also listed in this tabulation. The tabulated ages are systematized according to year and state. All ages published during a specific year (i.e. 1965) are grouped together, with the ages listed under the name of the state in which the sample was collected. The states are alphabetized. The dated sample is described as to rock type, location, material analyzed, age(s) determined, radiometric method used, and published reference (by first author only). The complete reference is listed at the end of the tabulation for each specific year. To answer questions about geologic interpretation, decay constants, or location, one must review the source reference.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1981

Proceedings of a workshop on clathrates (gas hydrates) in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, July 16-17, 1979, Menlo Park, California

Purpose : The purpose of this report is to make available the results of the "Workshop on clathrates (gas hydrates) in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska," July 16-17, 1979, Menlo Park, California. Scope : Written reports presented by participants of the workshop, relevant letters generated by this workshop and some "forms" created within ONPRA to aid in collecting information are an unusual assemblage but are presented in the proceedings because I feel they can be of use to others. The articles are arranged alphabetically because of the diverse aspects in style and subject matter. A comprehensive list of references was forwarded to Gas Research Institute to avoid duplication of bibliographic effort and because I have been unable to unscramble Russian references to the satisfaction of our editors. The workshop on Clathrates in NPRA : The workshop was convened in Menlo Park on July 16-17, 1979, to review our "knowledge of clathrates and to help develop background for ONPRA 1 s program on clathrates. Speakers were invited to discuss clathrates or some aspect of the physical or chemical relations of clathrates. The letters of invitation, schedule of talks, list of attendees, and a list of workers interested in clathrates are inserted, although the procedure is unusual because these define the scope and objectives of the meetings. Conclusions from the meeting : Conclusions of the discussions are: (a) very little is known about in situ clathrates, (b) our ability to identify in situ clathrates while drilling is poor, (c) the engineering of ONPRA wells is not conductive to the study of clathrates because of the large holes drilled, and (d) ONPRA could justify only limited investigations of clathrates. The attendees unanimously agreed that the next step to be taken by ONPRA should be to examine the wire-line logs and drilling records of NPRA wells to identify probable zones of natural occurring gas hydrates (clathrates). The atttendees stressed the need for more accurate data on natural thermoclines and additional compositional analyses of gases encountered in NPRA wells in order to more accurately define the P/T fields of natural clathrates of NPRA. Article 2 is an overview of results of the meeting.

Alaska↗
USGS1988

Water resources publications of the U.S. Geological Survey for Tennessee, 1906-1987

A bibliography was compiled of the water-resources investigations published by the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, in Tennessee. The bibliography includes an alphabetical listing by author, as well as listings by general and specific areas in Tennessee. The publications are classified also by discipline and type of report: open- file reports, water-supply papers, water-resources investigations, professional papers, circulars, hydrologic investigations atlases, miscellaneous investigations maps, journal and symposium articles, water-resources bulletin articles, and water-resources data reports.

Tennessee↗
USGS1990

Selected translations of the Russian literature on the electrogeochemical sampling technique called CHIM (chastichnoe izvlechennye metallov)

As part of our research into new methods for the assessment of mineral deposits, the U.S. Geological Survey has recently begun investigation of the CHIM method. As part of our studies, translation of a Russian manual on the CHIM methodology and eight articles from the Russian literature were transit ted to provide background for our own research. The translations were done by Earth Science Translation Services of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and are presented as received, without editing on our part. Below is a bibliography of the translated articles. For approximately the past 20 years Russian geoscientists have been applying an electrogeochemical sampling technique given the Russian acronym CHIM, derived from Chastichnoe Izvlechennye Metallov which translates as "partial extraction of metals". In this technique a direct current is introduced into the earth through collector electrodes similar to "porous pots" used in electrical geophysical applications. The solution in the cathode is dilute nitric acid, and current is passed through the cathode for times ranging from 6 hours to 48 hours or more. Electrical connections to the nitric acid are made through an inner conductor that is typically spectroscopically pure graphite. At the cathode, mobile cations collect on the graphite or in the nitric acid solution, both of which serve as the geochemical sampling media. These media are then analyzed by appropriate methods for the ions of interest. In most applications of the CHIM method only mobile cations are sampled, although Russian literature does refer to collection of anions as well. More recently the CHIM method has been applied by the Peoples Republic of China and the Indian Geological Survey. The literature indicates that the method has advantages over other geochemical sampling techniques by providing increased sensitivity to the metals being searched for, especially where deposits are covered by substantial overburden. In some cases success has been claimed with overburden in excess of 500 meters. The technique appears to have been applied principally to exploration for base- and precious-metal deposits, but does not appear to be limited to these. References are made in the literature to its application in the search for nickel, cobalt, molybdenum, uranium, tin, REE, tungsten, berylium, and oil and gas.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

Geologic studies in Alaska by the U.S. Geological Survey, 1995

This collection of 20 papers continues the annual series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) reports on geologic investigations in Alaska1 . Contributions cover a broad spectrum of earth science topics and report results from all parts of the State (fig. 1). USGS activities in Alaska include studies of environment and climate, hazards, resources, and geologic framework. Five papers in this volume discuss aspects of environment and climate. Environmental geochemistry of parts of southwestern and south-central Alaska is the focus of four articles; a fifth study, of emergent postglacial lake shorelines in southwestern Alaska, contributes to ongoing investigations of paleoclimate. Two papers address geologic hazards. The first assesses ground deformation in Katmai National Park at Novarupta dome, site of the largest volcanic eruption in this century, and the second evaluates earthquake risks related to the "Twin Peak fault" near Anchorage. Resources, including metallic minerals in northern, southwestern, and southeastern Alaska and coal in south-central Alaska, are discussed in four articles. Nine geologic framework studies apply a variety of techniques to a wide range of subjects throughout Alaska, including tectonics, geophysics, geochronology, bio stratigraphy, sedimentology, paleogeography, and paleomagnetism. Two bibliographies at the end of the volume list reports about Alaska in USGS publications released in 1995 and reports about Alaska by USGS authors in non-USGS publications in 1995.

Alaska↗
USGS2025

Stratigraphic notes—Volume 2, 2025

This is the second volume in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) series of reports on stratigraphy entitled “Stratigraphic Notes,” which consists of short papers that highlight stratigraphic studies, changes in stratigraphic nomenclature, and explanations of stratigraphic names and concepts used on published geologic maps. “Stratigraphic Notes” is a long-term (multiyear), multivolume publication containing articles that address updates or revisions to stratigraphic nomenclature (and whose content ultimately will be incorporated by National Geologic Map Database personnel into Geolex, https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/ ). We welcome papers for the “Stratigraphic Notes” series from geoscientists of the USGS, of State Geological Surveys, and from academicians. Papers can be submitted for publication in “Stratigraphic Notes” by contacting the USGS Geologic Names Committee ( gnc@usgs.gov ). As new “Stratigraphic Notes” volumes are published, links to the volumes will be posted at https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1879 .

Professional Paper↗
USGS2026

Cambrian and Ordovician stratigraphy, conodont biostratigraphy, and microfacies analysis to support 1:24,000-scale geologic mapping of the southern Lake Champlain valley, New York and Vermont

Introduction Geologic mapping in the southern Lake Champlain valley of New York and Vermont (fig. 1) has required evaluation of stratigraphic nomenclature used since the early 1900s. The paleogeography of the Cambrian and Ordovician adjacent to the Adirondack Highlands, the high-relief mountains of Proterozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks of northern New York, has impacted the lithostratigraphic succession, facies changes, and several hiatuses that occur within the package of clastic and carbonate rocks that demonstrates overall deepening consistent from the southern to northern Appalachians. The stratigraphic nomenclature used for the geologic mapping of the Cambrian and Ordovician strata of the study area is derived from evaluation of names put forth by previous workers from areas of northern New York and western Vermont. Descriptions of type localities or type sections and other criteria set forth by the North American Stratigraphic Code (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN], 2021) were consulted. The North American Stratigraphic Code states that lithostratigraphic units, such as the fundamental unit, the formation, be defined by lithic character and be mappable (NACSN, 2021, Article 24). However, some early workers (Walcott, 1912; Kay, 1937; Fisher and Hanson, 1951; Oxley and Kay, 1959) have defined stratigraphic units based on fossil content, which may or may not be facies dependent, and hence may not be mappable as lithostratigraphic units. Although preservation of older names takes priority in stratigraphic nomenclature (NACSN, 2021, Article 7), some do not have adequately defined stratotypes or are located a distance away with different lithologies than that in the study area. Biostratigraphy can be a helpful tool for understanding correlations and facies changes. Herein, conodont biostratigraphy is utilized to date and correlate separate lithologic units. Further, microfacies analyses of units through inspection of petrographic thin sections provide paleogeographic information that helps in understanding the genesis of geologic units.

New York, Vermont↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2008

Rapid Assessment of earthquake-induced landsliding

The Pacific Northwest in the United States including Seattle, Washington, experienced unusually heavy rainfall in the winters of 1995/1996 and 1996/1997, which caused numerous landslides. Following these two winters, the City of Seattle resolved to reduce future landslide losses within its jurisdiction. By coincidence, in 1997 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began a five-year project designed to increase scientific understanding of all the natural hazards facing the Seattle area, including landslides. This article documents the convergence of the efforts of the City of Seattle, the State of Washington, and the USGS to understand the landslide hazards facing the Seattle area and to implement hazard reduction and mitigation of damage from landslides. Specifically, this article identifies how and where USGS information on landslide hazards fit in with efforts already undertaken by the City. This combined effort enabled the City of Seattle to understand its landslide hazards, to formulate public policy, to educate its citizens, and to coordinate the activities of the numerous departments under its jurisdiction with the ultimate goal of lessening the impact of landslides. The City used USGS maps and reports to guide decisions that prioritized funds for siting, maintaining and constructing public facilities in addition to meeting Washington State laws that mandated growth management and environmental review.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1987

Instream water use in the United States: water laws and methods for determining flow requirements

Water use generally is divided into two primary classes - offstream use and instream use. In offstream use, sometimes called out-of-stream or diversionary use, water is withdrawn (diverted) from a stream or aquifer and transported to the place of use. Examples are irrigated agriculture, municipal water supply, and industrial use. Each of these offstream uses, which decreases the volume of water available downstream from the point of diversion, is discussed in previous articles in this volume. Instream use, which generally does not diminish the flow downstream from its point of use, and its importance are described in this article. One of the earliest instream uses of water in the United States was to turn the water wheels that powered much of the Nation's industry in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although a small volume of water might have been diverted to a mill near streamside, that water usually was returned to the stream near the point of diversion and, thus, the flow was not diminished downstream from the mill. Over time, the generation of hydroelectric power replaced mill wheels as a means of converting water flow into energy. Since the 1920's, the generation of hydroelectric power increasingly has become a major instream use of water. By 1985, more than 3 billion acre-feet of water (3,050,000 million gallons per day) was used annually for hydropower generation (Solley and others, 1988, p. 45)-enough water to cover the State of Colorado to a depth of 51 feet. Navigation is another instream use with a long history. The Lewis and Clark expedition journals and many of Mark Twain's novels illustrate the extent to which the Nation originally depended on adequate streamfiows for basic transportation. Navigation in the 1980's is still considered to be an instream use; however, it often is based upon a stream system that has been modified greatly through channelization, diking, and construction of dams and locks. The present (1987) inland water navigation system in the conterminous United States consists of about 12,000 miles of maintained waterways, over which about 500 million tons of cargo is carried each year (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1988, p. 16). Although not so widely practiced in recent years, streams have been used to dispose of raw waste products from homes, communities, and factories. This use has been discouraged by law and public policy because of public health concerns and the damage it causes to the environment. Beginning in the mid-1960's, other instream uses gained new prominence in the water-resources arena-the assertion of a legal right to a free-flowing stream for biological, recreational, and esthetic purposes. These uses themselves, however, are not new. Riverine habitat always has produced fish, and the beauty of flowing water always has evoked a strong sense of esthetic appreciation. What is new is the emerging legitimacy and awareness of these noneconomic uses under State and Federal laws and regulations. In the past, environmental uses of flowing water were ignored, for the most part, under a long-standing legal tradition that favored offstream uses and certain instream uses that had a strong economic basis. The history of instream-flow policy debate really concerns those recently recognized types of interim uses. Although the more transitional water uses have been protected by law, the recognition of other in stream uses has resulted in substantial changes in State water laws. Although methods for determining the volume of water needed for most traditional water uses are relatively straight-forward and well-established, methods for determining water requirements for the in stream uses have been developed only recently and are continuing to evolve. Water laws that have favored the more traditional water uses, the inherent nature of conflict between instream and offstream water uses, and the special kinds of technological and philosophical problems posed by the "newer" types of instream uses are described below. Water laws that have been passed to accommodate the more recently recognized instream uses are summarized.

Report↗
USGS2015

Global trends in emerging viral diseases of wildlife origin

Fifty years ago, infectious diseases were rarely considered threats to wildlife populations, and the study of wildlife diseases was largely a neglected endeavor. Furthermore, public health leaders at that time had declared that “it is time to close the book on infectious diseases and the war against pestilence won,” a quote attributed to Dr. William H. Stewart in 1967. There is some debate whether he actually said these words; however, they reflect the widespread belief at that time (Spellberg, 2008). Leap forward to today, and the book on infectious diseases has been dusted off. There is general consensus that the global environment favors the emergence of infectious diseases, and in particular, diseases of wildlife origin (Taylor et al., 2001). Examples of drivers of these infectious diseases include climate and landscape changes, human demographic and behavior changes, global travel and trade, microbial adaptation, and lack of appropriate infrastructure for wildlife disease control and prevention (Daszak et al., 2001). The consequences of these emerging diseases are global and profound with increased burden on the public health system, negative impacts on the global economy and food security, declines and extinctions of wildlife species, and subsequent loss of ecosystem integrity. For example, 35 million people are currently living with HIV infection globally (http://www.who.int/gho/hiv/en); 400 million poultry have been culled since 2003 as a result of efforts to control highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza (http://www.fao.org/avianflu/en/index.html), and there are increasing biological and ecological consequences. Examples of health threats to biodiversity include the “spillover” of human diseases to great ape populations (Köndgen et al., 2008), the near-extirpation of the black-footed ferret from canine distemper and sylvatic plague (for a review see Abbott et al., 2012), and threats to Hawaiian forest birds from introduced pathogens such as avian malaria and avian pox (van Riper et al., 1986, 2002). There are also newly discovered pathogens or diseases that have resulted in population declines, and global extinctions of several species. Examples include Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, which causes a cutaneous fungal infection of amphibians and is linked to declines of amphibians globally (Kriger and Hero, 2009); and recently discovered Pseudogymnoascus (Geomyces) destructans, the etiologic agent of white-nose syndrome (WNS), which has caused precipitous declines of North American bat species (Blehert et al., 2009). Furthermore, there is increasing evidence of the subsequent impacts on human and ecosystem health; for example, increasing risk of exposure to Lyme disease as a consequence of decreased biodiversity (LoGiudice et al., 2003) as well as the economic cost of the loss of bats due to decreased insect control services (Boyles et al., 2011). Figure A12-1 is a timeline of important diseases investigated by the U.S. Geological Survey since the 1970s, which illustrates three factors: 1. The unprecedented emergence of new pathogens and geographic spread of known pathogens since the 1990s; 2. Diseases are increasingly causing large-scale, negative impacts on wildlife populations and spreading over larger geographic areas rather than remaining localized; and 3. Diseases are increasingly of concern for multiple sectors, including public health, agriculture and wildlife management agencies. Of increasing concern are these novel diseases such as WNS as they are hard to anticipate, particularly devastating to human health or wildlife populations, challenging to manage, spread over large geographic areas in short time periods, and may result in ecological ripple effects that are difficult to predict. The following article provides examples of recently emerged viral diseases of wildlife origin. The examples have been selected to illustrate the drivers of emerging viral diseases, both novel pathogens and previously known diseases, the impacts of these diseases, as well as the role of wildlife both as “villains” or reservoirs as well as “victims” of these viral diseases. The article also discusses potential management strategies for emerging viral diseases in wildlife populations and future science directions in wildlife health to prevent, prepare, respond to, and recover from these disease events. Finally, the concept of One Health and its potential role in developing solutions to these issues of mutual concern is discussed.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2008

Environmental presence and persistence of pharmaceuticals: An overview

Emerging contaminants (ECs) in the environment – that is, chemicals with domestic, municipal, industrial, or agricultural sources that are not commonly monitored but may have the potential for adverse environmental effects – is a rapidly growing field of research. The use of “emerging” is not intended to infer that the presence of these compounds in the environment is new. These chemicals have been released into the environment as long as they have been in production or, in the case of hormones and other endogenous compounds, since the rise of animal life. What is emerging is the interest by the scientific and lay communities in the presence of these chemicals in the environment, the analytical capabilities required for detection, and the subtle effects that very small concentrations of these chemicals appear to have on aquatic biota. In December 2006, Environmental Science & Technology devoted an entire special issue (volume 40, number 23) to the topic of ECs, illustrating the increased interest in the subject. Within the EGs, one particular class that has seen a substantial increase in research over the past 10 years is pharmaceuticals and personal-care products (PPCPs). This increased research interest can be demonstrated by several means, including requests for proposals from funding agencies, but the clearest indication of a focused effort to understand the introduction, transformation, and potential health and environmental effects of PPCPs and ECs, in general, is the number of published reports. This increase can be shown by examining six environmental journals that regularly publish PPCP-related papers – Chemosphere , Environmental Science & Technology , Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry , Science of the Total Environment , Water Research , and Water Science and Technology . In 1998 there were 22 papers published on pharmaceuticals, antibiotics, or drugs in these 6 journals; by 2006, this number increased sixfold to 132 papers (Figure 1.1). This growth can be attributed to a number of factors. The presence of pharmaceuticals in surface-water samples from Europe and the United States was documented in several sentinel papers. These ground-breaking works encouraged other scientists to examine the rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs in their regions for such chemicals. In addition, the intense public attention paid to news reports on the environmental detections of these chemicals and possible effects of aquatic life has made this issue visible to the wastewater-treatment, drinking-water treatment, and regulatory communities. This has driven the funding bodies associated with these communities to fund studies or request proposals that address the presence, fate, and effects of PPCPs in aquatic systems. The release of the first comprehensive reconnaissance of pharmaceuticals and other wastewater contaminants in the United States provides an example of the intense media interest in this topic. Within 6 days on online publication of this study, 72 newspapers across the United States had published articles describing the results, either locally written or based on international media syndicate reports. There also was substantial concurrent coverage by local and national radio and television outlets, including the Cable News Network, ABC World News Tonight , and National Public Radio. A substantial fraction of these news stories may be attributable to press releases and media briefings prior to publication. However, the interest by television and print journalists in reporting the results of a peer-reviewed journal article to the general public was motivated by the recognition that describing the presence of PPCPs in water supplies would be of interest to the public. To better convey the results of the study published by Koplin et al. to the public, a separate general-interest fact sheet was published to summarize the important points of the study. Because PPCPs are commonly and widely used by individuals, there is likely a preexisting, personal identification with these compounds that does not occur for the wide range of other organic and inorganic contaminants whose presence in the environment has previously been described. This greater public “name recognition” makes itself known through the media to the regulatory and technical community and has prompted interest in sponsoring research that defines the composition and concentrations of PPCPs in potential sources and their fate and effects following relase into the environment. Independent of the drivers that potentially fuel the interest in studies of PPCPs, it is clear that PPCP research has grown beyond surface-water studies to examine issues such as: • Presence in other matrices, such as groundwater, landfill leachates, sediments, and biosolids. • Environmental transport and fate in surface water, groundwater, and soils amended with reclaimed water or biosolids. • PPCP source elucidation, such as wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents, confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and aquaculture. • Removal during wastewater and drinking-water treatment. • Effects on aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial ecosystems, and human health. The chapters in this book provide an extensive examination of current environmental pharmaceutical research and are divided into three sections: “Occurrence and Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in the Environment,” “Environment Fate and Transformations of Veterinary Pharmaceuticals,” and “treatment of Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water and Wastewater.” The purpose of this introductory overview chapter is to outline current (2004-2006) knowledge about the presence and concentration of PPCPs as described in the published literature. Previous reviews should be consulted for discussions on pre-2004 publications. Those reviews will provide the reader with a comprehensive introduction to the topic of PPCPs in the environment. This chapter describes the sources of PPCPs and other organic contaminants often associated with human wastewater into the environment, the range of concentrations present in various environmental compartments, and the potential routes of removal/sequestration. An overview of the sources and fate of veterinary pharmaceuticals will be discussed in Chapter 5, “Fate and Transport of Veterinary Medicines in the Soil Environment.”

Book chapter↗
USGS1999

Time series of suspended-solids concentration in Honker Bay during water year 1997

Suspended-solids concentration (SSC) responds differently to seasonal variations, such as Delta outflow and wind in shallow water areas than in deep-water channels. Although San Francisco Bay includes extensive areas of shallow water, with about one-half of the surface area of the Bay being less than 2 meters deep (Conomos and Peterson, 1977), deep-water channels along the spine of San Francisco Bay, not shallow waters, are generally sampled by the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP; SFEI, 1997) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS; Buchanan and Schoellhamer, 1996; Edmunds et al., 1997; Freeman et al., 1997). The purpose of this article is to provide an example of how SSC varies in shallow water. Time series of SSC were measured at several sites in Honker Bay. Measurements were made from December 1996 to March 1997 to observe the first wintertime freshwater flood pulse pushing salinity out of Honker Bay and delivering the first flush of sediment from the Central Valley watershed to the Bay. Instruments also were deployed from April to August 1997 to measure the return of salinity to Honker Bay as freshwater flow diminished, and to measure resuspension of sediment by wind-waves. Honker Bay was chosen because of its ecological significance to many estuarine plants and animals that depend on shallow waters for shelter and nourishment (Atwater et al., 1979; Cloern et al., 1983). Total concentrations of seven trace elements measured by the RMP are well correlated with SSC (Schoellhamer, 1997a, 1997b). Thus, the spatial and temporal variability of some trace elements of concern to the RMP is analogous to the SSC variability discussed in this article.

California↗
USGS1997

Water quality variability in San Francisco Bay, Some gGeneral lessons from 1996 sampling: 1996 annual report, San Francisco estuary regional monitoring program for trace substances

This report describes the results from the 1996 Regional Monitoring Program for Trace Substances (RMP). It is the fourth Annual Report from the RMP which began in 1993 and attempts to synthesize the most obvious data patterns from the last four years. This report includes data from Base Program monitoring activities, as well as results of Pilot and Special Studies conducted or completed in 1996. Additionally, several articles contributed by RMP investigators and others, are included. These articles provide perspective and insight on important contaminant issues identified by the RMP. This summary addresses which kinds of pollutants measured by the RMP appear to be at levels that warrant concern, what kinds of trends may be discerned, and which stations have consistently shown elevated contaminant levels. The goals or general objectives of the RMP are: 1. To obtain high quality baseline data describing the concentrations of toxic and potentially toxic trace elements and organic contaminants in the water and sediment of the San Francisco Estuary. 2. To determine seasonal and annual trends in chemical and biological water quality in the San Francisco Estuary. 3. To continue to develop a data set that can be used to determine long-term trends in the concentrations of toxic and potentially toxic trace elements and organic contaminants in the water and sediments of the San Francisco Estuary. 4. To determine whether water quality and sediment quality in the Estuary at large are in compliance with objectives established by the Basin Plan (the regulatory planning document used by the Regional Water Quality Control Board). 5. To provide a database on water and sediment quality in the Estuary which is compatible with data being developed in other ongoing studies, including wasteload allocation studies and model development, sediment quality objectives development, in-bay studies of dredged material disposal, Interagency Ecological Program (IEP) water quality studies, primary productivity studies, local effects biomonitoring programs, and state and federal mussel watch programs.

California↗
USGS2016

Testing and use of radar water level sensors by the U.S. Geological Survey

The United States Geological Survey uses water-level (or stage) measurements to compute streamflow at over 8000 stream gaging stations located throughout the United States (waterwatch.usgs.gov, 2016). Streamflow (or discharge) is computed at five minute to hourly intervals from a relationship between water level and discharge that is uniquely determined for each station. The discharges are posted hourly to WaterWatch (waterwatch. usgs.gov) and are used by water managers to issue flood warnings and manage water supply and by other users of water information to make decisions. The accuracy of the water-level measurement is vital to the accuracy of the computed discharge. Because of the importance of water-level measurements, USGS has an accuracy policy of 0.02 ft or 0.2 percent of reading (whichever is larger) (Sauer and Turnipseed, 2010). Older technologies, such as float and shaft-encoder systems, bubbler systems and submersible pressure sensors, provide the needed accuracy but often require extensive construction to install and are prone to malfunctioning and damage from floating debris and sediment. No stilling wells or orifice lines need to be constructed for radar installations. During the last decade testing by the USGS Hydrologic Instrumentation Facility(HIF) found that radar water-level sensors can provide the needed accuracy for water-level measurements and because the sensor can be easily attached to bridges, reduce the construction required for installation. Additionally, the non-contact sensing of water level minimizes or eliminates damage and fouling from floating debris and sediment. This article is a brief summary of the testing efforts by the USGS HIF and field experiences with models of radar water-level sensors in streamflow measurement applications. Any use of trade names in this article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Report↗