Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Natural Science”

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

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

At least 325 records · Page 18Linked to original sources
USGS2026

The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition—Working collaboratively to understand the geology of the Great Lakes Region

Introduction The Great Lakes Geologic Mapping Coalition (GLGMC), commonly referred to as the “Coalition,” is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the Canadian province of Ontario. The member States receive funding for geologic mapping work from the USGS National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), whereas Ontario participates as a nonfunded partner. The mission of the GLGMC is to produce three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps that depict unconsolidated sediments and near-surface bedrock in the Great Lakes region of North America. Geologic maps are the basis of most earth science investigations and help support resource exploration (energy, minerals, groundwater), natural hazard mitigation, infrastructure development, and land-use planning, all of which can be used to advance economic development and strengthen national security in the Great Lakes region. During the last few million years, the Great Lakes region has experienced repeated glacial advances and retreats, leaving behind extensive sediments, abundant natural resources, and widespread effects on the underlying bedrock geology (Swezey and others, 2022). Linked by shared histories of past glaciations, industrial agriculture, and legacy automotive, coal, steel, and manufacturing industries, the GLGMC member States collaborate to improve the understanding of the 3D distribution of the sediments overlying the region’s bedrock (fig. 1). Developing a comprehensive subsurface 3D framework of this glaciated terrain can provide earth science data to policymakers at all levels. These insights facilitate informed decisions on the exploration, use, and protection of vital resources, such as critical minerals, industrial materials, and aquifers, thereby supporting economic prosperity and the well-being of the citizens of this region. Since its inception in 1998, the Coalition has completed more than 100 geologic mapping projects across the Great Lakes region. Each project aims to deliver geologic maps, 3D datasets, and other information that improves understanding of the geology of the Great Lakes region, with an emphasis on economic and water resources. Key deliverables include 3D geologic maps and models typically portraying sediment thickness, often derived from top-of-bedrock and borehole data. These products are developed through a combination of fieldwork, subsurface modeling, and the collection and analysis of rock and sediment cores. To support Coalition goals, member States collaborate with scientists working on related STATEMAP, EDMAP, and FEDMAP projects. Coalition scientists also engage with Tribal Nations in the Great Lakes region to ensure that Tribal interests pertaining to Coalition work are addressed. Through this collaboration, the Coalition unites the efforts of State, Federal, and Tribal Nation stakeholders to advance geologic data production and enhance understanding of the geologic resources of the Great Lakes region.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2024

The Europa Imaging System (EIS) investigation

The Europa Imaging System (EIS) consists of a Narrow-Angle Camera (NAC) and a Wide-Angle Camera (WAC) that are designed to work together to address high-priority science objectives regarding Europa’s geology, composition, and the nature of its ice shell. EIS accommodates variable geometry and illumination during rapid, low-altitude flybys with both framing and pushbroom imaging capability using rapid-readout, 8-megapixel (4k × 2k) detectors. Color observations are acquired using pushbroom imaging with up to six broadband filters. The data processing units (DPUs) perform digital time delay integration (TDI) to enhance signal-to-noise ratios and use readout strategies to measure and correct spacecraft jitter. The NAC has a 2.3° × 1.2° field of view (FOV) with a 10-μrad instantaneous FOV (IFOV), thus achieving 0.5-m pixel scale over a swath that is 2 km wide and several km long from a range of 50 km. The NAC is mounted on a 2-axis gimbal, ±30° cross- and along-track, that enables independent targeting and near-global (≥90%) mapping of Europa at ≤100-m pixel scale (to date, only ∼15% of Europa has been imaged at ≤900 m/pixel), as well as stereo imaging from as close as 50-km altitude to generate digital terrain models (DTMs) with ≤4-m ground sample distance (GSD) and ≤0.5-m vertical precision. The NAC will also perform observations at long range to search for potential erupting plumes, achieving 10-km pixel scale at a distance of one million kilometers. The WAC has a 48° × 24° FOV with a 218-μrad IFOV, achieving 11-m pixel scale at the center of a 44-km-wide swath from a range of 50 km, and generating DTMs with 32-m GSD and ≤4-m vertical precision. The WAC is designed to acquire three-line pushbroom stereo and color swaths along flyby ground-tracks.

Space Science Reviews↗
USGS2026

Leveraging local species data, a global database, and an occupancy model to explore bee–plant interactions

Global declines in bee populations are threatening the ecosystem services they provide, including pollination. Many bee–plant interactions are understudied, producing an incomplete understanding of resulting ecosystem-level vulnerabilities. The last decade has generated a wealth of opportunistic data originating from natural history collection records, published ecological datasets, and citizen/community science initiatives in online databases such as Global Biotic Interactions (GloBI). Here, we explore hypotheses related to bee–plant interactions and detection processes using the GloBI database, curated checklists of bee and flowering plant species, and an occupancy model. We hypothesized that larger, social bees would visit a larger number of plant species, while smaller, solitary bees would visit fewer. We also predicted that flowers with open, bowl-like shapes would attract a greater diversity of bee visitors compared to closed shapes. Further, we hypothesized that both floral and bee traits, such as bright colors and conspicuous patterns, would increase detectability, and that different data collection methods would vary in their ability to capture bee–plant interactions. Lastly, we hypothesized that the interaction network generated by the output of the occupancy model, which accounted for imperfect bee–plant detection, would yield more interactions, thereby increasing measures of evenness and decreasing nestedness and specialization, as compared to the network generated from recorded interaction data. We found that smaller bees exhibited higher probabilities of plant interactions than larger bees, but we did not find evidence that bee sociality influenced the probability of interacting with plants. We found that blue flowers and closed (not-bowl-shaped) flowers had higher probabilities of bee-plant interaction than other flower colors or bowl-shaped flowers, respectively. We also found that larger bee size, blue flowers, bowl shapes, and community science sources were associated with higher detection probabilities of bee–plant interactions. Lastly, the interaction network generated by the occupancy model output showed higher levels of evenness, nestedness, and connectance than the network generated by the GloBI data. Our study is among the first to utilize occupancy modeling to directly model species' interactions, leverage aggregated, open-source databases and expert checklists, and highlight the influence of detection and collection biases on our understanding of ecological interactions.

California↗
USGS2011

Stable isotopes of transition and post-transition metals as tracers in environmental studies

The transition and post-transition metals, which include the elements in Groups 3–12 of the Periodic Table, have a broad range of geological and biological roles as well as industrial applications and thus are widespread in the environment. Interdisciplinary research over the past decade has resulted in a broad understanding of the isotope systematics of this important group of elements and revealed largely unexpected variability in isotope composition for natural materials. Significant kinetic and equilibrium isotope fractionation has been observed for redox sensitive metals such as iron, chromium, copper, molybdenum and mercury, and for metals that are not redox sensitive in nature such as cadmium and zinc. In the environmental sciences, the isotopes are increasingly being used to understand important issues such as tracing of metal contaminant sources and fates, unraveling metal redox cycles, deciphering metal nutrient pathways and cycles, and developing isotope biosignatures that can indicate the role of biological activity in ancient and modern planetary systems.

Book↗
USGS2001

Geochemical and mineralogical controls on trace element release from the Penn Mine base-metal slag dump, California

Base-metal slag deposits at the Penn Mine in Calaveras County, California, are a source of environmental contamination through leaching of potentially toxic elements. Historical Cu smelting at Penn Mine (1865-1919) generated approximately 200,000 m3 of slag. The slag deposits, which are flooded annually by a reservoir used for drinking water and irrigation, also may be in contact with acidic ground waters (pH < 4) from the adjacent mine area. Slags vary from grey to black, are glassy to crystalline, and range in size from coarse sand to large (0.6 ?? 0.7 ?? 1.5 m), tub-shaped casts. Metals are hosted by a variety of minerals and two glass phases. On the basis of mineralogy, slags are characterized by 4 main types: fayalite-rich, glassy, willemite-rich, and sulfide-rich. The ranges in metal and metalloid concentrations of 17 slag samples are: As, 0.0004-0.92; Ba, 0.13-2.9; Cd, 0.0014-1.4; Cu, 0.18-6.4; Pb, 0.02-11; and Zn, 3.2-28 wt.%. Leachates from Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure tests (acetic acid buffered at pH 4.93) on two wiltemite-rich slags contained Cd and Pb concentrations (up to 2.5 and 30 mg/l, respectively) in excess of US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulatory limits. Analyses of filtered (0.45 ??m) water, collected within the flooded slag dump during reservoir drawdown, reveal concentrations of Cd (1.7 ??g/l), Cu (35 ??g/l), and Zn (250 ??g/l) that exceed USEPA chronic toxicity guidelines for the protection of aquatic life. Data from field and laboratory studies were used to develop geochemical models with the program EQ3/6 that simulate irreversible mass-transfer between slag deposits and reservoir waters. These models include kinetic rate laws for abiotic sulfide oxidation and surface-controlled dissolution of silicates, oxides, and glass. Calculations demonstrate that the main processes controlling dissolved metal concentrations are (1) dissolution of fayalite, willemite, and glass; (2) sulfide oxidation; and (3) secondary phase precipitation. Close agreement between model results and measured concentrations of Al, Ba, Cu, Fe, SiO2, and SO4 in the slag dump pore waters suggests that the dissolved concentrations of these elements are controlled by solubility equilibrium with secondary phases. Differences between predicted and measured Cd and Pb concentrations imply that field weathering rates of glass and sulfides are approximately two orders of magnitude lower than laboratory rates. Overprediction of Pb release may also reflect other attenuation processes in the natural system, such as sorption or coprecipitation. ?? 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Applied Geochemistry↗
USGS2013

Choosing and using climate change scenarios for ecological-impact assessments and conservation decisions

Increased concern over climate change is demonstrated by the many efforts to assess climate effects and develop adaptation strategies. Scientists, resource managers, and decision makers are increasingly expected to use climate information, but they struggle with its uncertainty. With the current proliferation of climate simulations and downscaling methods, scientifically credible strategies for selecting a subset for analysis and decision making are needed. Drawing on a rich literature in climate science and impact assessment and on experience working with natural resource scientists and decision makers, we devised guidelines for choosing climate-change scenarios for ecological impact assessment that recognize irreducible uncertainty in climate projections and address common misconceptions about this uncertainty. This approach involves identifying primary local climate drivers by climate sensitivity of the biological system of interest; determining appropriate sources of information for future changes in those drivers; considering how well processes controlling local climate are spatially resolved; and selecting scenarios based on considering observed emission trends, relative importance of natural climate variability, and risk tolerance and time horizon of the associated decision. The most appropriate scenarios for a particular analysis will not necessarily be the most appropriate for another due to differences in local climate drivers, biophysical linkages to climate, decision characteristics, and how well a model simulates the climate parameters and processes of interest. Given these complexities, we recommend interaction among climate scientists, natural and physical scientists, and decision makers throughout the process of choosing and using climate-change scenarios for ecological impact assessment.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS1976

United States Geological Survey Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1975

The Survey resumes the practice of annually summarizing the progress it has made in identifying the Nation's land, water, energy, and mineral resources, classifying federally owned mineral lands and waterpower sites, and in supervising the exploration and development of energy and mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands. The Annual Report for 1975 consists of five parts: * The Year in Review - a review of the issues and events which affected Survey programs and highlights of program accomplishments. * Perspectives - several short papers which address major resource issues and summarize recent advances in the earth sciences. * A description of the Survey's budget, programs, and accomplishments. * A set of statistical tables and related information which documents program trends, workloads, and accomplishments. * A compendium of Survey publications and information services available to the public. One purpose of this report is to increase public awareness and understanding of the Geological Survey's programs and, more generally, of the role of earth sciences information in helping to resolve many of the natural resource conflicts that face our society now and in the years ahead. To be useful, however, information must be available and readily accessible to those responsible for natural resource policy at the time that the decisions are made. This report emphasizes the types of information products and services provided by the Survey and tells how to obtain additional information.

Annual Report↗
USGS1980

Examples of the use of earth-science information by decisionmakers in the San Francisco Bay region, California

In the six examples discussed and illustrated here, innovative decisionmakers -- public and private -- have used earth-science information to avoid areas with geologic hazards, protect natural resources, and reduce possible property damage in the San Francisco Bay region. The examples show how: 1) development in fault-rupture areas is regulated, 2) potential waste-disposal sites are identified, 3) aquatic and wildlife habitats are protected, 4) site investigations are required in hazardous areas, 5) supplemental building standards can be applied to unstable baylands, and 6) hazards are disclosed to real-estate buyers.

California↗
USGS2019

Natural resource management decision-making under climate uncertainty: Building social-ecological resilience in southwestern Colorado

The goal of this project was to facilitate climate change adaptation that contributes to social-ecological resilience, ecosystem and species conservation, and sustainable human communities in southwestern Colorado. The team developed and piloted integrated adaptation planning tools and principles that merge the strengths of the iterative scenario process, the Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) planning framework, institutional analysis, and climate modeling. These tools and principles generated practical strategies and scientific knowledge to advance climate change adaptation in both the Gunnison River Basin and San Juan River Basin and, potentially, other landscapes. A key objective of this project was to work with decision-makers to develop social-ecological adaptation strategies and coordinate actions to reduce the impacts of a changing climate on nature and people. To accomplish this, the project blended science (biophysical and social) and participatory approaches to integrate expert knowledge, land management decision making, and local needs. These adaptation strategies and their creation process were documented by the project team to assist communities and scientists elsewhere who are grappling with the challenges posed by climate change.

Colorado↗
USGS2009

Science for Stewardship of California's Water Resources

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the primary Federal agency responsible for scientific evaluation of the natural resources of the United States, including its water. To meet the demands of a growing California, the U.S. Geological Survey's California Water Science Center provides essential science to help Federal, State, and local water agencies evaluate and manage California's critical water resources; adapt to a changing climate; assess, predict, and mitigate natural hazards, such as mudslides and debris flows; and protect the health of rivers, forests, wetlands, and other habitats. The following are some of the ways the USGS is working with other agencies to protect California's water resources and assure that Californians have safe and reliable water supplies for now and in the future.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2017

Grand challenges for integrated USGS science — A workshop report

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a long history of advancing the traditional Earth science disciplines and identifying opportunities to integrate USGS science across disciplines to address complex societal problems. The USGS science strategy for 2007–2017 laid out key challenges in disciplinary and interdisciplinary arenas, culminating in a call for increased focus on a number of crosscutting science directions. Ten years on, to further the goal of integrated science and at the request of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), a workshop with three dozen invited scientists spanning different disciplines and career stages in the Bureau convened on February 7–10, 2017, at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis in Fort Collins, Colorado. The workshop focused on identifying “grand challenges” for integrated USGS science. Individual participants identified nearly 70 potential grand challenges before the workshop and through workshop discussions. After discussion, four overarching grand challenges emerged: Natural resource security, Societal risk from existing and emerging threats, Smart infrastructure development, and Anticipatory science for changing landscapes. Participants also identified a “comprehensive science challenge” that highlights the development of integrative science, data, models, and tools—all interacting in a modular framework—that can be used to address these and other future grand challenges: Earth Monitoring, Analyses, and Projections (EarthMAP) EarthMAP is our long-term vision for an integrated scientific framework that spans traditional scientific boundaries and disciplines, and integrates the full portfolio of USGS science: research, monitoring, assessment, analysis, and information delivery. The Department of Interior, and the Nation in general, have a vast array of information needs. The USGS meets these needs by having a broadly trained and agile scientific workforce. Encouraging and supporting cross-discipline engagement would position the USGS to tackle complex and multifaceted scientific and societal challenges in the 21st Century.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

Biological and ecological science for Florida—The Sunshine State

Florida is rich in sunshine and other natural resources essential to the State's economy. More than 100 million tourists visit Florida's beaches, wetlands, forests, oceans, lakes, and streams where they generate billions of dollars and sustain more than a million jobs. Florida also provides habitat for several thousand freshwater and marine fish, mammals, birds, and other wildlife that are viewed, hunted, or fished, or that provide valuable ecological services. Fertile soils and freshwater supplies support agriculture and forest industries and generate more than $8 billion of revenue annually and sustain thousands of jobs.

Florida↗
USGS2012

U.S. Department of the Interior South Central Climate Science Center

On September 14, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior signed a Secretarial Order (No. 3289) entitled, "Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources." The Order effectively established the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Climate Science Centers (CSCs) for the purpose of integrating DOI science and management expertise with similar contributions from our partners to provide information to support strategic adaptation and mitigation efforts on public and private lands across the United States and internationally. The South Central Climate Science Center (SC CSC) is supported by a consortium of partners that include The University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech University, Louisiana State University, The Chickasaw Nation, The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory. Additionally, the SC CSC will collaborate with a number of other universities, State and federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) with interests and expertise in climate science. The primary partners of the SC CSC are the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs), which include the Desert, Eastern Tallgrass Prairie and Big Rivers, Great Plains, Gulf Coast Prairie, Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks, and Southern Rockies. CSC collaborations are focused on common science priorities that address priority partner needs, eliminate redundancies in science, share scientific information and findings, and expand understanding of climate change impacts in the south-central United States and Mexico.

Arizona;Louisiana;Oklahoma;Texas↗
USGS2022

Adaptation strategies and approaches for managing fire in a changing climate

As the effects of climate change accumulate and intensify, resource managers juggle existing goals and new mandates to operationalize adaptation. Fire managers contend with the direct effects of climate change on resources in addition to climate-induced disruptions to fire regimes and subsequent ecosystem effects. In systems stressed by warming and drying, increased fire activity amplifies the pace of change and scale of severe disturbance events, heightening the urgency for management action. Fire managers are asked to integrate information on climate impacts with their professional expertise to determine how to achieve management objectives in a changing climate with altered fire regimes. This is a difficult task, and managers need support as they incorporate climate adaptation into planning and operations. We present a list of adaptation strategies and approaches specific to fire and climate based on co-produced knowledge from a science–management partnership and pilot-tested in a two-day workshop with natural resource managers and regional stakeholders. This “menu” is a flexible and useful tool for fire managers who need to connect the dots between fire ecology, climate science, adaptation intent, and management implementation. It was created and tested as part of an adaptation framework used widely across the United States and should be applicable and useful in many fire-prone forest ecosystems.

Climate↗
USGS1981

United States Geological Survey Yearbook, fiscal year 1980

It is not very often that a single event is so overwhelming that it changes public perceptions of natural hazards for generations. Perhaps for the U.S. Geological Survey, the explosive volcanic activity of Mount St. Helens began such a change. After 101 years of careful science of the Earth's past and meticulous observations and assessments of the present, predictive earth science was in full public view. However vague and faint the glimpse of the future made possible by earth science, it was enough. Warnings were issued, thousands of lives were saved, and the age of real-time geology began. The Survey's basic mission has not changed, but the power of our analytical tools has increased by several orders of magnitude. The Survey's efforts to understand Earth processes and hydrologic principles continued with the collection, during fiscal year 1980, of valuable new data on the geologic origin and framework, seismicity, and mineral and energy resources of the United States. The Survey is also responsible for classification of the leasable minerals on Federal lands and the regulation of mineral exploration and development activities on Federal and Indian lands. As the principal earth science fact-gathering agency, the Survey provides information for sound decisionmaking by government and private industry. Industry uses the Survey's information in exploring for energy and minerals and improving their efforts to make development of energy and minerals compatible with environmental protection standards. Government uses the Survey's information in conducting leasing operations on public lands, in regulating the safe design and siting of nuclear plants, and in establishing guidelines for determining and locating areas that are subject to geologic hazards such as landslides, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. The Yearbook reports a broad range of the Survey's accomplishments during the past fiscal year and provides an overview of future directions. Many of the topics covered will continue to be important natural resource and earth science issues of the 1980's.

Yearbook↗
USGS2020

Using information from global climate models to inform policymaking—The role of the U.S. Geological Survey

This report provides an overview of model-based climate science in a risk management context. In addition, it summarizes how the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) will continue to follow best scientific practices and when and how the results of this research will be delivered to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and other stakeholders to inform policymaking. Climate change is a risk management challenge for society because of the uncertain consequences for natural and human systems across decades to centuries. Climate-related science activities within the USGS emphasize research on adaptation to climate change. This research helps inform adaptive management processes and planning activities within other DOI bureaus and by DOI stakeholders. Global climate models are sophisticated numerical representations of the Earth’s climate system. Research groups from around the world regularly participate in a coordinated effort to produce a suite of climate models. This global effort provides a test bed to assess model performance and analyze projections of future change under various prescribed climate scenarios. These climate scenarios describe a plausible future outcome associated with a specific set of societal actions. Because scenarios are developed in a risk-based framework with a high degree of uncertainty about future societal developments, they are usually not assigned a formal likelihood of occurrence. Examining a range of projected climate outcomes based on multiple scenarios is a recommended best practice because it allows decision makers to better consider both short- and long-term risks and opportunities. As part of its routine science practices, the USGS regularly reviews the state of knowledge of climate science, develops and maintains best practices in using global climate models to project climate change impacts, and provides data and interpretations of potential impacts to the DOI and other stakeholders. Management and policy decisions within the DOI will reflect different tolerances for risk, which has implications for what type of information should be considered and how that information should be used. It is suggested that a followup document be produced that would describe in more detail how these management decisions with differing risk tolerances can be made effectively and consistently in light of an uncertain future.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

USGS Arctic Science Strategy

The United States is one of eight Arctic nations responsible for the stewardship of a polar region undergoing dramatic environmental, social, and economic changes. Although warming and cooling cycles have occurred over millennia in the Arctic region, the current warming trend is unlike anything recorded previously and is affecting the region faster than any other place on Earth, bringing dramatic reductions in sea ice extent, altered weather, and thawing permafrost. Implications of these changes include rapid coastal erosion threatening villages and critical infrastructure, potentially significant effects on subsistence activities and cultural resources, changes to wildlife habitat, increased greenhouse-gas emissions from thawing permafrost, threat of invasive species, and opening of the Arctic Ocean to oil and gas exploration and increased shipping. The Arctic science portfolio of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its response to climate-related changes focuses on landscapescale ecosystem and natural resource issues and provides scientific underpinning for understanding the physical processes that shape the Arctic. The science conducted by the USGS informs the Nation's resource management policies and improves the stewardship of the Arctic Region.

Fact Sheet↗