Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science Report”

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 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources

Short papers in geology, hydrology, and topography; articles 120-179

This collection of 60 short papers on subjects in the fields of geology, hydrology, topography, and related sciences is the third of a series to be released during the year as chapters of Professional Paper 450. The papers in this chapter report on the scientific and economic results of current work by members of the Geologic, Water Resources, and Topographic Divisions of the United States Geologicai Survey. Some of the papers announce new discoveries or present observations on problems of limited scope; other papers draw conclusions from more extensive or continuing investigations that in large part will be discussed in greater detail in reports to be published in the future. Chapter A of this series, to be published later in the year, will present a synopsis of results from a wide range of work done during the present fiscal year.

Professional Paper↗

Strategic plan for science-U.S. Geological Survey, Ohio Water Science Center, 2010-15

This Science Plan identifies specific scientific and technical programmatic issues of current importance to Ohio and the Nation. An examination of those issues yielded a set of five major focus areas with associated science goals and strategies that the Ohio Water Science Center will emphasize in its program during 2010-15. A primary goal of the Science Plan is to establish a relevant multidisciplinary scientific and technical program that generates high-quality products that meet or exceed the expectations of our partners while supporting the goals and initiatives of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Science Plan will be used to set the direction of new and existing programs and will influence future training and hiring decisions by the Ohio Water Science Center.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗

The geography and geology of Alaska; a summary of existing knowledge, with a section on climate, and a topographic map and description thereof

Alaska, the largest outlying possession of the United States, is that great land mass forming the northwestern extremity of the North American continent, whose western point is within 60 miles of the Asiatic coast (PI. II). About one-quarter of this area lies within the Arctic Circle, and from the standpoint of geographic position must be regarded as an arctic province; but the southern seaboard, exposed to the warm winds and waters of the Pacific, gives to the entire southern portion of the territory" a comparatively warm climate. It is not generally realized that the range of climate in Alaska is greater than that between Florida and Maine. At the southernmost point of the Pacific coast the mean annual temperature is not far from that of the city of Washington, the winters being warmer and characterized by less snowfall; the Yukon Valley on the other hand has a winter climate similar to that of northern Montana and Dakota; while in the extreme northern part of the territory the meteorologic conditions are invariably arctic. Though as yet only sparsely settled, Alaska's vast area and great resources make it one of the most important possessions of the United States and promise its rapid development. During the years 1890 to 1900 the population increased from 32,052* to 63,592. The mineral output, which in 1890 was valued at less than $800,000, exceeded $9,000,000 in 1904, and the fisheries show a corresponding growth. This rapid development has attracted public attention and led to urgent demand for explorations, surveys, and other investigations. So actively has this work been pushed, both by public and private enterprise, that exact knowledge of the geography, geology, and mineral resources of the interior has made greater strides within the last eight years than during the preceding thirty-one years since the acquisition of Alaska. The facts regarding the geography and geology, scattered as they are through the many books and reports of this period, are not always readily accessible, and the time seems ripe to present them in a summarized form. The topography of Alaska is varied and complex (see PI. I), and it is not easy to present briefly even the salient features. The limited number of pages here devoted to the subject precludes the possibility of detailed treatment, even if the facts were available. Much of the description has been taken from the results attained by other investigators, the writer being personally familiar with only a part of this large province. A list of the publications consulted is appended. The larger geographic features of Alaska are now fairly well known, though the detailed surveys which are demanded by the development of many localities have hardly been begun. Preliminary surveys have been completed of all but three 8 of the larger rivers. The most important mountain ranges have been at least outlined (fig. 3). Only three large areas remain almost entirely unmapped: One in southwestern Alaska, between Cook Inlet and the lower Kuskokwim, and the others in northern Alaska, embracing the Arctic watershed east and west of the Colville River. Nearly all the surveys of the interior, however, have been of a preliminary and exploratory character, and to meet the requirements of exact geography must be followed by more detailed mensuration. Though the coast line has been fairly well known for more than half a century, knowledge of the interior has been gained chiefly within the last two decades. This has not yet found its way into text-books and has too often been entirely ignored by cartographers. If facts are presented which may seem elementary, it is because even well-informed people have been known to harbor misconceptions in regard to the orographic features, climate, and general character of Alaska. Those who read of the perils and privations of winter travel and explorations are apt to picture a region of ice and snow; others, again, who have personal knowledge of the tourist route of southeastern Alaska, regard the whole district as one of rugged mountains and glaciers. In point of fact, glaciers are now nearly limited to the ranges bordering the Pacific and to the two slopes of the Alaska range; and even during the greatest development of glaciers but a small portion of Alaska was under ice (see map, PI. XXII). As a treatise on geography would hardly be complete without some discussion of the climate, meteorologic data have been compiled by Mr. Cleveland Abbe, jr., but the discussion of this does not pretend to be more than a cursory treatment of the subject. The scope of the paper seems to require also a brief summary of the development of geographic knowledge of Alaska. This subject, with its many ramifications, is of fascinating interest and offers a magnificent field for the trained historian. If the accompanying sketch of discovery and exploration awakens any measure of popular interest the writer will feel amply rewarded for having attacked a theme which hardly falls within the scope of his investigations. When this compilation was begun it was intended to be chiefly a description of the topography of Alaska, as illustrated by the accompanying map (PI. XXXIV, in pocket), which was compiled under the direction of the late R. U. Goode. In the course of the work there accumulated much geologic as well as geographic material which seemed worthy of inclusion in the report. As no comprehensive statement of the geology of Alaska has been made since the modern epoch of investigation was begun, an attempt will be made to give a summary of all results achieved. Since the writer has obtained much of his knowledge of the facts from the work of others, he disclaims any pretense of making an entirely original contribution to geologic science. He feels, however, that a personal familiarity with a considerable part of the province, gained during seven consecutive seasons of field work, will justify Mm in presenting conclusions which may in some cases be at variance with those in the reports on which he must draw for his facts. Throughout this report attempt will be made to credit borrowed material to the source from which it is drawn. Where such matter has been obtained entirely from published reports there is no difficulty in so doing; but as regards investigators of the Geological Survey, with whom the writer has collaborated both in field and in office, the case is somewhat different, for it is not always possible to know whether this or that theory originated with the writer or with one of his colleagues. It will, then, perhaps suffice to state that this report could not have been prepared without the explorations and researches of the geologists, F. C. Schrader, Walter C. Mendenhall, Arthur J. Collier, J. E. Spurr, and Arthur C. Spencer; and the surveys of the topographers, T. G. Gerdine, D. C. Witherspoon, D. L. Reaburn, W. J. Peters, and E. C. Barnard. Each of these men, in the course of from two to six years of field work, has made important contributions to the knowledge of the geography and geology of Alaska, and not all of these results have yet been put in print. In the last season (1903) L. M. Prindle, C. W. Wright, Arthur Hollick, G. C. Martin, F. L. Hess, and Fred H. Moffit have carried on geologic work in Alaska, and the writer has made use of their work now in course of publication. He has also been fortunate in having access to the manuscript reports of Walter C. Mendenhall and F. C. Schrader on the Copper River basin, to which references will be made. The matter here presented should be credited in a measure to all of these investigators, but for many of the theories advanced the writer alone is responsible. As this manuscript goes to press there has been opportunity to incorporate some of the results of the field work of 1904. As far as possible these have been embodied in the text, but in some instances it has been found advisable to add them only as footnotes. During the past summer F. E. and C. W. Wright extended the geologic reconnaissance in southeastern Alaska. In southwestern Alaska G. C. Martin and T. W. Stanton have determined the general Mesozoic section, while F. H. Moffit has made a reconnaissance of the northern part of the Kenai Peninsula. A. J. Collier has mapped the geology of the Cape Lisburne region, and L. M. Prindle and F. L. Hess have made contributions to the knowledge of the metamorphic terranes of the Yukon-Tanana district. It is the writer's purpose to describe in nontechnical language the larger geographic features and discuss their relation as far as the data available will permit. In the treatment of the geology, however, less effort will be made to make the matter acceptable to the lay reader. It is hoped, however, that a brief summary of the salient features of the geologic history' may be not without interest to the general public. If this paper serves in some measure to dispel the popular fallacies regarding Alaska and to disseminate more accurate knowledge of its geographic and geologic features, the purpose of its publication will be accomplished.

Alaska↗

Surficial sediment character of the New York-New Jersey offshore continental shelf region: A GIS compilation

Broad continental shelf regions such as the New York Bight are the product of a complex geologic history and dynamic oceanographic processes, dominated by the Holocene marine transgression (>100 m sea-level rise) following the end of the last Pleistocene ice advance ~ 20,000 years ago. The area of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (U.S. EEZ) territory, extending 200 nautical miles seaward from the coast, is larger than the continental U.S. and contains submerged landforms that provide a variety of natural functions and societal benefits, such as: critical habitats for fisheries, ship navigation and homeland security, and engineering activities (i.e. oil and gas platforms, pipeline and cable routes, potential wind-energy-generation sites). Some parts of the continental margins, particularly inner-continental shelf regions, also contain unconsolidated hard-mineral deposits such as sand and gravel that are regarded as potential aggregate resources to meet or augment needs not met by onshore deposits (Williams, 1992). The present distribution of surficial sediment off the northeastern United States is shaped from the deposits left by the last glaciation and reflects the cumulative effects of sediment erosion, transport, sorting, and deposition by storm and tidal processes during the Holocene rise in sea level. As a result, the sediments on the sea floor represent both an historical record of former conditions and a guide to possible future sedimentary environments. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) through the Coastal and Marine Geology Program, in cooperation with the University of Colorado and other partners, has compiled extant sediment character and textural data as well as other geologic information on the sea floor from all regions around the U.S. into the usSEABED data system (Reid and others, 2005; Buczkowski and others, 2006; Reid and others, 2006). The usSEABED system, which contains information on sediment grain size and lithology for more than 340,500 stations within the U.S. EEZ. has been developed and populated with data as part of the USGS Marine Aggregate Resources and Processes and the National Benthic Habitats projects in order to provide the base-line data needed to update the current maps of offshore surficial geologic character and sediment distribution. The maps are also used to characterize benthic sea floor environments important for marine ecosystems. U.S. Geological Survey, Data Series 118 (Reid and others, 2005), of the usSEABED data release series, represents the combined efforts of the USGS and several other government agencies to provide a unified resource for accessing and preserving records of U.S. east coast sea floor geologic information and sediment texture data. For this present report, we have chosen to focus on the New York-New Jersey region, an area that has been intensely studied by the USGS for many years to address many complex issues. This report illustrates the uses of the usSEABED database for GIS applications, while offering additional insight into the resources and data available from the USGS and its collaborative institutions. This report is based on data contained in U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 118 (Reid and others, 2005) and shows an assortment of example GIS products that are possible using usSEABED. All data are intended to be GIS-ready and should not require any additional cleanup, formatting, or renaming of fields in order to use the data in a Geographic Information System. This project employs the Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView™ software. Many of these maps were made as part of the ongoing USGS study to assess marine aggregate resources offshore New York and New Jersey, but these maps can serve many other purposes. The marine science community, educators, students and others are encouraged to use these data to generate GIS products for their own purposes. The objectives of the Marine Aggregate Resources and Processes project are to produce a series of new geologic maps and reports of the sea floor that will provide scientific insights into the character and geologic development of U.S. continental margins and to use these maps and information to assess the potential availability of offshore sand and gravel resources. The mapping and aggregate resource assessments are being conducted on a national scale using the usSEABED data base as described in Williams and others (2003). Potential uses for these data include: (1) defining the geological variability of the sea floor in relation to benthic habitat diversity; (2) improving our understanding of the processes that control the distribution and transport of bottom sediments and benthic habitats; (3) locating aggregate resources for beach nourishment and industrial applications; and (4) providing a detailed geospatial framework for future marine science research, monitoring, and management activities. The initial assessments are in progress for the New York Bight and Louisiana offshore areas.

New Jersey, New York↗

Stressor identification framework of biological impairment in Mississippi streams to support watershed restoration and TMDL development

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to identify waters that are impaired for designated uses. These waters are published through a State’s §303(d) list. The CWA also requires that a total maximum daily load (TMDL) be completed for each water body to calculate the maximum amount of contaminants that can be present in that water body and still meet water-quality standards. The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) uses a statewide monitoring and assessment strategy to collect benthic macroinvertebrate community data to assess the health of streams and rivers and to identify impaired waters. Waters that are found to be impaired based on the macroinvertebrate community data are listed on the Mississippi §303(d) list, and the cause of impairment is listed as “biological impairment.” Although the CWA requires TMDLs to be developed for applicable contaminants identified in the §303(d) list, TMDLs cannot be computed for stream reaches in Mississippi listed for biological impairment because the actual stressors causing the impairment have not yet been determined. The MDEQ and other water-resource managers in Mississippi require a framework for stressor identification in biologically impaired streams and rivers. This report is organized to (1) provide a general overview of biological impairment and stressor identification in stream ecosystems and (2) provide a detailed framework for stressor identification of Mississippi streams that are biologically impaired. The intent is for the framework to reduce subjectivity, provide consistency, and allow for adaptation as the science evolves. The stressor identification framework for Mississippi involves six key steps: Define the impairment, List the candidate causes of impairment and develop a conceptual model, Compile all relevant data, Evaluate the data, Identify probable causes of impairment by using a weight-of-evidence approach, and Generate a report of results.

Mississippi↗

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗

Vegetation map for the Seboeis Unit of Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

The Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument, located in the forests of central Maine, is a newly (2016) established unit for the National Park Service. To better understand the condition of lands within the monument and inform management planning, Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument resource managers wanted better information of the vegetation present within the monument. To meet this need, scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center worked with ecologists at the Maine Natural Areas Program to catalog and map the vegetation of the Seboeis Unit of the monument. This report details this process, provides results of the survey and mapping efforts, presents results in the form of a vegetation map for the Seboeis Unit, and provides vegetation descriptions and a dichotomous key for the entire Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument.

Maine↗

Proceedings of the Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Reporting Meeting to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program

(Hartwell) This report is prepared primarily to account for work conducted and products delivered in FY 2022 by GCMRC and to inform the Technical Work Group of science conducted by GCMRC and its cooperators in support of the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP). It includes a summary of accomplishments, modifications to work plans, results, and recommendations related to projects included in GCMRC’s FY 2021-23 Triennial Work Plan. This work was done to support the 11 resource goals identified in the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (Table 1).

Arizona↗

Group decision-making techniques for natural resource management applications

This report is an introduction to decision analysis and problem-solving techniques for professionals in natural resource management. Although these managers are often called upon to make complex decisions, their training in the natural sciences seldom provides exposure to the decision-making tools developed in management science. Our purpose is to being to fill this gap. We present a general analysis of the pitfalls of group problem solving, and suggestions for improved interactions followed by the specific techniques. Selected techniques are illustrated. The material is easy to understand and apply without previous training or excessive study and is applicable to natural resource management issues.

Report↗

Combining citizen science species distribution models and stable isotopes reveals migratory connectivity in the secretive Virginia rail

Stable hydrogen isotope (δD) methods for tracking animal movement are widely used yet often produce low resolution assignments. Incorporating prior knowledge of abundance, distribution or movement patterns can ameliorate this limitation, but data are lacking for most species. We demonstrate how observations reported by citizen scientists can be used to develop robust estimates of species distributions and to constrain δD assignments. We developed a Bayesian framework to refine isotopic estimates of migrant animal origins conditional on species distribution models constructed from citizen scientist observations. To illustrate this approach, we analysed the migratory connectivity of the Virginia rail Rallus limicola , a secretive and declining migratory game bird in North America. Citizen science observations enabled both estimation of sampling bias and construction of bias-corrected species distribution models. Conditioning δD assignments on these species distribution models yielded comparably high-resolution assignments. Most Virginia rails wintering across five Gulf Coast sites spent the previous summer near the Great Lakes, although a considerable minority originated from the Chesapeake Bay watershed or Prairie Pothole region of North Dakota. Conversely, the majority of migrating Virginia rails from a site in the Great Lakes most likely spent the previous winter on the Gulf Coast between Texas and Louisiana. Synthesis and applications . In this analysis, Virginia rail migratory connectivity does not fully correspond to the administrative flyways used to manage migratory birds. This example demonstrates that with the increasing availability of citizen science data to create species distribution models, our framework can produce high-resolution estimates of migratory connectivity for many animals, including cryptic species. Empirical evidence of links between seasonal habitats will help enable effective habitat management, hunting quotas and population monitoring and also highlight critical knowledge gaps.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗

Occurrence of mixed organic and inorganic chemicals in groundwater and tapwater, town of Campbell, Wisconsin, 2021–22

In response to previous reports of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in French Island’s (located in the Mississippi River within the town of Campbell, Wisconsin) primary source of drinking water, 11 locations were sampled by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in October 2021 to assess the potential presence of contaminant mixtures, including PFAS, in tapwater. Three locations were assessed seven times each over the course of three days. These samples were chosen to evaluate the water quality of the deeper Mount Simon bedrock aquifer and the water quality of the shallower sand and gravel (alluvial) aquifer at two locations. The other eight sample locations were spatially distributed within Campbell and were sampled once each. For each of these 11 sites, tapwater samples were analyzed for disinfection byproducts (DBP), pesticides, PFAS, pharmaceuticals, semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOC), volatile organic compounds (VOC), cations, anions, trace elements, alkalinity, microbial indicators, as well as measurements of water temperature, specific conductance, and pH. Of the 506 organic compounds analyzed in each water-quality sample, 74 (14 percent) were detected at least one time in any of the samples collected. Of the 14 percent, detected analytes included 27 pesticides (5 percent), 14 PFAS (3 percent), 6 pharmaceuticals (1 percent), 7 SVOC (1 percent), and 20 VOC (4 percent). No DBP were detected. The total number of organic compounds detected per sample ranged from 0–20 (median of 10), with the sum of concentrations ranging from not detected (nd)–2.53 micrograms per liter (μg/L; median of 0.333 μg/L). Of the inorganic constituents measured, eight were not detected above their reporting limit in any of the samples. The inorganic constituents that were not detected were antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, molybdenum, selenium, and vanadium. Along with the 11 sites sampled throughout Campbell, Wisconsin, beginning in October 2021, four more wells were sampled on the Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) campus for PFAS. Three of these sites withdraw water from the shallow alluvial aquifer (the same source water for tapwater site 002) and one from the Mount Simon aquifer (the same source of water for tapwater site 001). This sampling is ongoing with results from samples through December 2022 summarized in this report. Of the 33 PFAS analyzed in samples from the four UMESC locations, 15 individual PFAS were detected at least one time in any of the samples analyzed with the sum of PFAS concentrations ranging from nd–1.49 μg/L (median of 0.309 μg/L).

Wisconsin↗

Digital mine claim density map for Federal lands in Montana, 1996

This report describes a digital map and data files generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim information for Federal lands in Montana as of March, 1997. Statewide, 159,704 claims had been recorded with the Bureau of Land Management since 1975. Of those claims, 21,055 (13%) are still actively held while 138,649 (87%) are closed and are no longer held. Montana contains 147,704 sections (usually 1 section equals 1 square mile) in the Public Land Survey System, with 8,569 sections (6%) containing claim data. Of the sections with claim data, 2,192 (26%) contain actively held claims. Only 1.5% of Montana’s sections contains actively held mining claims. The four types of mining claim are lode, placer, mill, and tunnel. A mill claim may be as much as 5 acres or 1/128th (0.78125%) of a square mile. A lode claim, about 20 acres, would cover 1/32nd (3.125%) of a square mile. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. The digital map and data files that are available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller. Campbell (1996) summarized the methodology and GIS techniques that were used to produce the mining claim density map of the Pacific Northwest. Campbell and Hyndman (1997) displayed mining claim information for the Pacific Northwest that used data acquired in 1994. Appendix A of this report lists the attribute data for the digital data files. Appendix B contains the GIS metadata.

Montana↗

National Mapping Division Strategic Direction 1997

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Mapping Division (NMD) is to meet the Nation's need for basic geopspatial data, ensuring access to and advancing the application of these data and other related earth science information for users worldwide.

Report↗

Wildlife research

Wildlife research conducted by scientists at the Leetown Science Center helps client bureaus to better manage federal lands and trust species by making objective, science-based decisions.

Fact Sheet↗

Coal resources of Wyoming

The Antlers aquifer, which consists of as much as 900 feet of friable sandstone, silt, clay, and shale crops out in areas of 1 ,860 square miles and underlies about 4,400 square miles in southeastern Oklahoma. Precipitation ranges from 34 to 50 inches per year across the outcrop area which is well suited to allow high rates of infiltration. The aquifer contains an estimated 70 ,000,000 acre-feet of water having less than 1,000 milligrams per liter dissolved solids. The average saturated thickness is 250 feet. Aquifer tests indicate the average transmissivity is 1 ,480 feet squared per day and the average storage coefficient is 0.0005. Large capacity wells tapping the aquifer commonly yield 100 to 500 gallons per minute; the maximum measured yield is 1 ,700 gallons per minute. Water usage from the aquifer is very small owing to an abundance of surface water. Water quality throughout the central and northern part of the aquifer is generally acceptable for municipal use. However, a few wells yield water containing concentrations of iron and manganese exceeding the limit recommended by the National Academy of Science for municipal use. (USGS)

Circular↗