Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Information Circular”

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 541 records · Page 30Linked to original sources
USGS1976

A guide to State programs for the reclamation of surface mined areas

During 1975 inquiries of agencies in each State and review of State statutes and related administrative codes revealed that 38 States have established programs requiring the reclamation of surface mined lands. Results of analyses of those programs and ancillary data are presented in : (1) A table (matrix) which has been designed for the notation and elaboration of information pertaining to the mined-area reclamation programs of the 50 States; (2) a primer on surface mining activities and related reclamation practices and problems; and (3) a listing of types of non-Federal governmental controls applicable to reclamation. Interpretations of the status and content of State programs suggest that although a common thread runs through State statutory language, administrative requirements vary from State to State in order to meet different natural, economic, social, and political considerations. A general trend is seen in State programs toward the requiring of an integration of landuse planning and mine planning, with increased local governmental involvement.

Circular↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address chronic wasting disease and cervid health in 2024–2028

Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a neurological disease similar to scrapie in goats and sheep, has been spreading since the 1960s throughout cervid populations in the United States. It is currently detected in 30 States and now also extends to Canada, Korea, and Scandinavia. CWD is a fatal disease caused by an infectious abnormally folded prion protein. Population-level effects of CWD on localized subpopulations of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), and elk ( Cervus elaphus ) have been documented. While susceptible to CWD, free-ranging moose ( Alces alces ) and reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) populations do not currently appear to be as severely affected. The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health Science Team is to deliver integrated science to build resiliency into free-ranging cervid populations through more effective management of CWD, build capacity for ungulate health science, and enhance cervid health information sharing across USGS science centers and cooperative research units as well as with stakeholders. The USGS can play an important role in supporting regional and (or) national capacity building by providing resources and guidance to local, State, and Tribal management entities and by providing tools to enhance disease management. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area’s Biological Threats and Invasive Species Research Program (BTRP) is the lead Federal program for free-ranging wildlife disease research and surveillance. The BTRP is relied upon by Congress, as well as local, State, and Tribal partners, to provide quality science that allows for informed decisions to be made about wildlife disease policy, planning, and management. The information provided by our research gives policy makers and the public the understanding needed to improve management preparedness and response. This document describes the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy To Address Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health. It lays out a 5-year science strategy (2024–2028) for continued USGS research to study CWD in free-ranging cervids and their environments. The strategy includes improving detection methods, advancing our understanding of the mechanisms of transmission, incorporating the human dimensions and socio-economic effects of CWD in scientific studies, developing tools for decision making, and understanding potential effects of this disease on ecosystem health.

Circular↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey environmental health science strategy — Providing environmental health science for a changing world

Executive Summary America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, quality of life, and economic prosperity lead to environmental change. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will compound the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, synthetic chemicals and substances, natural earth materials, toxins, and other biogenic compounds. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public health managers. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decisionmaking. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The “One Health” paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO; World Health Organization, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA; American Veterinary Medical Association, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Hydroclimatic and land-use factors affecting peak streamflow in Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin

Flood-frequency analysis provides the basis for flood risk estimates used by water-resource managers in land-use planning, and it informs the design of essential infrastructure such as bridges and culverts. Federal guidelines for flood-frequency analysis do not offer guidance on addressing changing climate and land-use conditions when estimating floods. However, failing to consider climatic and land-use changes that cause abrupt or gradual changes in flood regimes can result in a poor representation of the true flood risk. In response to concerns about changing flood regimes, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with nine State agencies (Illinois Department of Transportation, Iowa Department of Transportation, Michigan Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Missouri Department of Transportation, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, North Dakota Department of Water Resources, South Dakota Department of Transportation, and Wisconsin Department of Transportation) began a study to examine variability and change in hydrology and climate and the effects of urbanization and tile drainage on flooding. The analyses of patterns and changes in hydrology and climate were reported in a multichapter Scientific Investigations Report, the findings of which are summarized in this U.S. Geological Survey Circular. Additional analyses documenting changes in seasonality of flooding and the effects of urbanization and tile drainage were completed and published as separate studies and are also summarized in this Circular. These studies provide extensive exploratory analysis of peak streamflow, daily streamflow, and climate data, setting the stage for advancements in flood-frequency analysis.

Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mon↗
USGS2002

Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: Providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers

Throughout the United States increasing demands for safe drinking water and requirements to maintain healthy ecosystems are leading policy makers to ask complex social and scientific questions about how to assess and manage our water resources. This challenge becomes particularly difficult as policy and management objectives require scientific assessments of the potential for ground-water resources to become contaminated from anthropogenic, as well as natural sources of contamination. Assessments of the vulnerability of ground water to contamination range in scope and complexity from simple, qualitative, and relatively inexpensive approaches to rigorous, quantitative, and costly assessments. Tradeoffs must be carefully considered among the competing influences of the cost of an assessment, the scientific defensibility, and the amount of acceptable uncertainty in meeting the objectives of the water-resource decision maker.

Circular↗
USGS2015

Review of the USA National Phenology Network

In January 2014, leadership from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area commissioned a review of the USA National Phenology Network (USA–NPN) Program. The Ecosystems Mission Area has a key stake in the USA–NPN, providing both supervision of its Director and most of the appropriated funds. The products and objectives of the program are relevant to six of the seven USGS Mission Areas as well as to at least four Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus. A nine-person panel of reviewers, with representatives from the USGS, other Federal agencies, and academia, was convened to provide advice and recommendations to USGS leadership. Specifically, the panel was asked to assess the science utility of having a National Phenology Network; to consider USGS science mission and DOI management needs served by the USA–NPN; and to consider the utility of the USA–NPN to other Federal agency science missions or management needs (including the National Science Foundation [NSF] and university research funded by the NSF and other government agencies). This report summarizes the panel’s findings and offers five recommendations for USGS leadership: 1. Commit to stable USA–NPN funding and increase accountability. 2. Establish a Federal Steering Committee, led by the USGS, and a separate Scientific Phenology User Group. 3. Emphasize continental-scale phenology data and information. 4. Formalize volunteer engagement in phenology data collection. 5. Integrate phenology information into USGS science. The panel generally affirms the value of the USA–NPN program and finds that the program is successfully meeting the needs of its stakeholders, including the USGS. However, the USGS needs to be more engaged in the program, providing leadership and setting priorities for the future. The USA–NPN, in turn, needs to deliver more clearly defined, DOI-relevant, USGS-integrated, data product lines that have the broadest possible spatial and temporal scope to meet user needs across the United States. The panel recommends that the USA–NPN National Coordinating Office (NCO) establish an implementation plan that addresses all of the panel recommendations, with priorities, timelines, and assumptions to move the program forward successfully.

Circular↗
USGS1999

Environmental characteristics and water quality of hydrologic benchmark network stations in the Eastern United States, 1963-95

The information in this report was compiled to aid in the application and interpretation of historical water-quality data collected as part of the U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Benchmark Network program, which was established in 1963 to provide long-term measurements of streamflow and water quality in areas that are minimally affected by human activities. This report describes the environmental characteristics and water quality at 16 benchmark basins in the Eastern United States. In most of the basins, stream-water chemistry seems to be controlled by the interaction of acidic precipitation with the underlying soils and bedrock. Land use had a minimal effect on stream-water chemistry at most of the gaging stations.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗
USGS2019

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2017 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal year 2017 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2018 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal year 2018 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗
USGS1986

Bibliography on ground water in glacial-aquifer systems in the Northeastern United States

The U.S. Geological Survey established the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) program to evaluate major interconnected aquifers or groups of aquifers that share similar characteristics within a region. One of the objectives of the Northeastern Glacial RASA is to provide information on the occurrence and quality of ground water in glacial deposits in ten States: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. To help meet the objectives of the RASA program, an automated bibliographic data base was developed. The data base contains references to ground-water resources of glacial-aquifer systems in the ten States listed above. This bibliography contains more than 700 ground-water related references that date from 1839 through 1984. The bibliography lists books, journal articles, conference proceedings, government and other technical reports, theses, and maps. Unpublished manuscripts, publications in press, newspaper articles, and book reviews are omitted from the bibliography.

Circular↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2019–20 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2019–20 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

North Dakota↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center 2021–23 research activity report

The mission of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center is to provide scientific information needed to conserve and manage the Nation’s natural capital for current and future generations, with an emphasis on migratory birds, Department of the Interior trust resources, and ecosystems of the Nation’s interior. This report provides an overview of the studies conducted at Northern Prairie during fiscal years 2021–23 in pursuit of this mission. Studies are organized under a framework developed by the U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystems Mission Area, identifying primary and secondary alignment with focal areas of research, and summarizing recent scientific products resulting from these studies. Partnerships with Federal, State, and non-Governmental organizations are essential to a robust program of applied ecological research, and we thank our many collaborators and colleagues whose contributions made this work possible.

Circular↗
USGS1967

Flood information for flood-plain planning

Floods are natural and normal phenomena. They are catastrophic simply because man occupies the flood plain, the highwater channel of a river. Man occupies flood plains because it is convenient and profitable to do so, but he must purchase his occupancy at a price-either sustain flood damage, or provide flood-control facilities. Although large sums of money have been, and are being, spent for flood control, flood damage continues to mount. However, neither complete flood control nor abandonment of the flood plain is practicable. Flood plains are a valuable resource and will continue to be occupied, but the nature and degree of occupancy should be compatible with the risk involved and with the degree of protection that is practicable to provide. It is primarily to meet the needs for defining the risk that the flood-inundation maps of the U.S. Geological Survey are prepared.

Circular↗
USGS2022

System characterization report on PRecursore IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA)

Executive Summary This report addresses system characterization of the Italian Space Agency’s PRecursore IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA) and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the specific sensing system being evaluated; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (band to band and image to image), radiometric, and spatial performances. Results of these analyses indicate that PRISMA has a band-to-band geometric performance in the range of −0.046 to 0.040 pixel; an image-to-image geometric performance (relative to the Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager) in the range of −60.791 meters (m; −2.03 pixels) to 299.541 m (9.98 pixels); a radiometric performance in the range of −0.037 to −0.001 in offset and 1.026 to 1.274 in slope; and a spatial performance with a relative edge response in the range of 0.56 to 0.63, full width at half maximum in the range of 1.84 to 1.97 pixels, and a modulation transfer function at a Nyquist frequency in the range of 0.054 to 0.096. Regarding fairly large geometric accuracy, the following explanation is provided to help the reader. The geometric accuracy required for PRISMA is a 200-m circular error at 90 percent (CE90) without ground control points (GCPs), a 15-m CE90 using GCPs is documented in the PRISMA mission overview (Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, 2021). The PRISMA images used for the current system characterization were georeferenced without using any GCPs; thus, the 200-m geometric accuracy requirement is applied. Beginning in 2022, a worldwide GCP database will be used in the PRISMA product processing chain, which will improve georeferencing accuracy to meet the 15-m CE90 requirement.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1951

Index of surface-water records, part 7, Lower Mississippi River basin, to September 30, 1950

The index lists the steam-flow and reservoir stations in the Lower Mississippi River Basin for which records have been or are to be published for periods prior to September 30, 1950. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the inclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures published or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Some drainage areas not published by the Geological Survey are listed with an appropriate footnote stating the published source of the figure of drainage area. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1950. The years given are calendar years. Periods of records published by agencies other than the Geological Survey are listed in parentheses only when they contain more detailed information or are for period.s not reported in publications of the Geological Survey. Records both of gage height and of discharge are listed for stream-flow stations, and records of gage height and of contents (or of change in contents) are listed for stations on reservoirs. Records of gage heights only and records consisting only of monthly figures either of stream flow or reservoir contents are designated by symbols and footnotes. For early years when daily discharges were not generally published by the Geological Survey, published daily gage heights and a published rating table were considered to be equivalent to daily discharges. An alphabetical index of streams, canals, and reservoirs is given on pages 14-16.

Circular↗
USGS1951

Index of surface-water records, part 4, St. Lawrence River Basin, to September 30, 1950

The index lists the stream-flow and reservoir stations in the St. Lawrence River Basin for which records have been or are to be published for periods prior to September 30, 1950. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the inclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name or the station or in a name under which records were published by same agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures published or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Some drainage areas not published by the Geological Survey are listed with an appropriate footnote stating the published source or the figure or drainage area. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1950. The years given are calendar years. Periods of records published by agencies other than the Geological Survey are listed in parentheses only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications to the Geological Survey. Records both of gage height and of discharge are listed for stream-flow stations, and records of gage height and of contents (or of change in contents) are listed for stations on reservoirs. Records of gage heights only and records consisting only of monthly figures either of stream flow or reservoir contents are designated by symbols and footnotes. For early years when daily discharges were not generally published by the Geological Survey, published daily gage heights and a published rating table are considered to be equivalent to daily discharges. An alphabetical index of streams. canals. and reservoirs is given on pages 12 to 14.

St. Lawrence River Basin↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey landscape science strategy 2020–2030

Across our Nation, multiple Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and landowners to restore, conserve, and manage lands and resources to benefit fish, wildlife, and people. One of the largest Federal efforts is led by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), with multiple DOI agencies working to conserve and manage public lands, resources, and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations. As a science provider within the DOI, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has an important role in developing actionable science products that can inform decision making on public lands and across all of our Nation’s landscapes. Our landscapes and resources are undergoing continual change from a complex and interacting suite of stressors that include traditional and nontraditional land uses, a changing climate, a dynamic economy, and a culturally diverse and ever-changing society. Landscape science seeks to understand how the physical, biological, and social components of ecosystems and landscapes interact with each other and are affected by these stressors across local to global scales. The USGS has developed this landscape science strategy to focus and strengthen the agency’s efforts to inform critical conservation, restoration, and management decisions for American landscapes. The strategy directly supports the overarching 21st-century science strategy of the USGS and expands our perspective and focus on partnerships, including with internal, external, traditional, and nontraditional partners. The vision for USGS landscape science is to integrate multiple disciplines and approaches to create and deliver relevant, timely, and scientifically sound products that enable our partners to make informed decisions about how to manage complex interacting natural and human systems across changing American landscapes. This strategy seeks to leverage the expertise, data, analytical capacity, and tools of the agency and to strengthen integration of science efforts across programs and scales. A cornerstone of the strategy is working closely with landowners and resource managers to identify the science that is needed to inform management actions, and then working collaboratively with those same partners to coproduce science and data products that are timely, practical, and useful for their decision making. Many individual efforts within the USGS already embrace landscape science ideas and practices. With the development of this strategy, we are seeking to build on these efforts and to focus agency attention and expertise on expanding, connecting, and institutionalizing core practices and approaches for landscape science that produces actionable science products and tools that decision makers can use to help conserve and manage American landscapes.

Circular↗