SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Reviews in Engineering Geology”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

USGS2000

Gemstones

Part of the 1999 Industrial Minerals Review. A review of the state of the gemstone industry worldwide in 1999 is presented. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the estimated value of natural gemstones produced from U.S. deposits in 1999 was $13.5 million. The estimated value of U.S. apparent consumption of gemstones in 1999 was $6.88 billion, an increase of 9 percent from 1998. World demand for gem diamonds is expected to continue to increase with the increase in populations and personal incomes in industrialized nations.

Mining Engineering↗

USGS1981

Engineering geology investigation, Little Granite Creek road corridor, Teton National Forest, Teton County, Wyoming

This report summarizes the results of an engineering geology investigation for the proposed Little Granite Creek Road Corridor access to the Getty drill site. The purpose of the investigation was to provide geologic data so that the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey can jointly draft an Environmental Impact Statement. The location of the proposed road corridor is shown on Fig. 1. The general geologic conditions within the corridor are described and their anticipated impacts on the proposed road are discussed. The data and conclusions presented in this report are suitable for evaluating general impacts; however, additional detailed studies will be required for final design purposes. The geologic conditions in the proposed road corridor were evaluated by reviewing published regional geologic maps, a field reconnaissance, and interpretation of aerial photographs. The largest scale geologic map available for the area is the 1:24,000, Geologic Map of the Bull Creek Quadrangle, Schroeder (1976). In early October, 1980, a field reconnaissance was made by Doug Stack and Ralph Mock of Chen and Associates, Inc. along the proposed road alignment. In addition, colored aerial photography at a scale of 1:15840 was available for our investigation.

Wyoming↗

USGS2005

Utility of Viking Orbiter images and products for Mars mapping

This paper reports on mapping procedures developed by the U.S. Geological Survey that use Viking Orbiter imagery and Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) derived radii to produce topographic data. The use of Mosaiced Digital Image Models (MDIMs), created from Viking Orbiter images, and MOLA data to provide horizontal and vertical control is reviewed. We describe procedures to adapt a commercial digital photogrammetric workstation to work with planetary data.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗

USGS2017

PRISM Software: Processing and Review Interface for Strong‐Motion Data

A continually increasing number of high‐quality digital strong‐motion records from stations of the National Strong Motion Project (NSMP) of the U.S. Geological Survey, as well as data from regional seismic networks within the United States, calls for automated processing of strong‐motion records with human review limited to selected significant or flagged records. The NSMP has developed the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software to meet this need. In combination with the Advanced National Seismic System Quake Monitoring System (AQMS), PRISM automates the processing of strong‐motion records. When used without AQMS, PRISM provides batch‐processing capabilities. The PRISM software is platform independent (coded in Java), open source, and does not depend on any closed‐source or proprietary software. The software consists of two major components: a record processing engine composed of modules for each processing step, and a review tool, which is a graphical user interface for manual review, edit, and processing. To facilitate use by non‐NSMP earthquake engineers and scientists, PRISM (both its processing engine and review tool) is easy to install and run as a stand‐alone system on common operating systems such as Linux, OS X, and Windows. PRISM was designed to be flexible and extensible to accommodate implementation of new processing techniques. All the computing features have been thoroughly tested.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2019

Revisions to suspended-sediment concentration, percent smaller than 0.063 millimeter, and instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge reported for a cooperative program between the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the lower Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin, October 1989 to February 2015

This report presents revised results for four parameters reported for suspended-sediment samples that were collected in the lower Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin as part of a cooperative program between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi Valley Division, New Orleans District and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The cooperative program has been active since 1973 at seven sites: two sites on the main stem of the Mississippi River, three sites on the Atchafalaya River, one site on the Old River Outflow Channel, and one site on the lower Red River above the confluence with the Old River Outflow Channel. The four parameters—suspended-sediment concentration, percent by mass of the sediment that passes through a 0.063-millimeter (US 230) sieve, instantaneous stream discharge, and instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge—reported for 2,895 samples have been modified to reflect the findings of a full review of the cooperative program, which was initiated by both agencies in January 2015. The revised results are for samples collected from October 1989 through February 2015. Ninety-four percent of the revised values for suspended-sediment concentration are lower than their corresponding original reported values, indicating that less suspended sediment moves through the lower Mississippi River system than was previously reported. For example, the median revised instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge at the Mississippi River at Tarbert Landing, Miss. (USGS station 07295100), was 315,000 short tons per day, compared to 378,000 short tons per day as originally reported. At the Atchafalaya River at Simmesport, La. (USGS station 07381490), the median revised suspended-sediment discharge was 105,000 short tons per day, compared to 143,000 short tons per day as originally reported. The systematic downward revision in instantaneous suspended-sediment discharge values was due to a systematic downward revision in the suspended fine (less than 0.063 millimeter) sediment concentration. The effect of the revision on the suspended-sand concentration and instantaneous suspended-sand discharge was weaker. Any model of sediment load or transport processes in the basin that uses data from the affected samples should be reevaluated on the basis of the revised results.

Lower Mississippi basin↗

USGS1997

Reports and maps of the Military Geology Unit, 1942-1975

Included here are reports and maps which were prepared in the Military Geology Unit of the U. S. Geological Survey from 1942 through 1975. In addition to the references prepared primarily for military use and listed here, more than 200 reports of more general geologic interest were prepared for publication as Survey bulletins and professional papers and in outside journals. These reports are listed in "Publications of the Geological Survey" and other bibliographies. Military Geology reports generally include basic subjects such as rock types, soils, water resources, landforms and vegetation, as well as interpretive subjects such as suitability of terrain for cross-country movement and for construction of roads and airfields in areas throughout the world. Reports on specific areas range from generalized texts with small scab maps derived from published sources to detailed texts with large-scale maps commonly based on photo-interpretation and, especially for Alaska and western Pacific islands, involving field mapping. Other reports treat topics of interest in military geology without reference to specific areas. A number of reports covering the moon include the first photogeologic map of the near side. Authors are cited for some kinds of reports; however, many intelligence reports were published anonymously. Most of the reports were prepared by teams made up mainly of geologists but commonly including soils scientists, botanists, climatologists and geographers. Nearly all the soil scientists and climatologists were members of the World Soil Geography Unit, Soil Survey, Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. Manuscripts from this Unit were passed through a common review and other processing, as were the manuscripts originating in the Military Geology office, to be issued under the aegis of the latter. In some instances where it has not been possible to list all authors, names of project supervisors are given. File copies of many of the Military Geology reports prepared since 1975 are kept in the Special Geologic Studies Group, U.S. Geological Survey, National Center, Reston, and may be examined there by appropriately cleared persons. Additionally, copies of many of the unclassified studies are in the U.S. Geological Survey Library. Some of the older reports are in the files of the Terrain Analysis Center, Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and other offices within the Corps of Engineers. Most of the reports are out of print and many of the other studies are no longer available.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps

The 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the United States and are applied in seismic provisions of building codes, insurance rate structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. This update of the maps incorporates new findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the United States that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project developed these maps by incorporating information on potential earthquakes and associated ground shaking obtained from interaction in science and engineering workshops involving hundreds of participants, review by several science organizations and State surveys, and advice from two expert panels. The new probabilistic hazard maps represent an update of the 2002 seismic hazard maps developed by Frankel and others (2002), which used the methodology developed for the 1996 version of the maps (Frankel and others, 1996). Algermissen and Perkins (1976) published the first probabilistic seismic hazard map of the United States which was updated in Algermissen and others (1990). The National Seismic Hazard Maps represent our assessment of the “best available science” in earthquake hazards estimation for the United States (maps of Alaska and Hawaii as well as further information on hazard across the United States are available on our Web site at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/ ).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Processing and review interface for strong motion data (PRISM) software, version 1.0.0—Methodology and automated processing

A continually increasing number of high-quality digital strong-motion records from stations of the National Strong-Motion Project (NSMP) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), as well as data from regional seismic networks within the United States, call for automated processing of strong-motion records with human review limited to selected significant or flagged records. The NSMP has developed the Processing and Review Interface for Strong Motion data (PRISM) software to meet this need. In combination with the Advanced National Seismic System Quake Monitoring System (AQMS), PRISM automates the processing of strong-motion records. When used without AQMS, PRISM provides batch-processing capabilities. The PRISM version 1.0.0 is platform independent (coded in Java), open source, and does not depend on any closed-source or proprietary software. The software consists of two major components: a record processing engine and a review tool that has a graphical user interface (GUI) to manually review, edit, and process records. To facilitate use by non-NSMP earthquake engineers and scientists, PRISM (both its processing engine and review tool) is easy to install and run as a stand-alone system on common operating systems such as Linux, OS X, and Windows. PRISM was designed to be flexible and extensible in order to accommodate new processing techniques. This report provides a thorough description and examples of the record processing features supported by PRISM. All the computing features of PRISM have been thoroughly tested.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Vertical datum conversion process for the inland and coastal gage network located in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and South Atlantic-Gulf hydrologic regions

Datum conversions from the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 among inland and coastal gages throughout the hydrologic regions of New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and the South Atlantic-Gulf have implications among river and storm surge forecasting, general commerce, and water-control operations. The process of data conversions may involve the application of a recovered National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929–North American Vertical Datum of 1988 offset, a simplistic datum transformation using VDatum or VERTCON software, or a survey, depending on a gaging network datum evaluation, anticipated uncertainties for data use among the cooperative water community, and methods used to derive the conversion. Datum transformations from National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 to North American Vertical Datum of 1988 using VERTCON purport errors of ± 0.13 foot at the 95 percent confidence level among modeled points, claiming more consistency along the east coast. Survey methods involving differential and trigonometric leveling, along with observations using Global Navigation Satellite System technology, afford a variety of approaches to establish or perpetuate a datum during a survey. Uncertainties among leveling approaches are generally < 0.1 foot, and and Global Navigation Satellite System approaches may be categorized with uncertainties of ≤0.1 foot for a Level I quality category and ≥0.1 foot for Level II or III quality categories (defined by the U.S. Geological Survey) by observation and review of experienced practice. The conversion process is initiated with an evaluation of the inland and coastal gage network datum, beginning with altitude datum components and the history of those components queried through the U.S. Geological Survey Groundwater Site Inventory database. Subsequent edits to the Groundwater Site Inventory database may be required and a consensus reached among the U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Centers to identify the outstanding workload categorized as in-office datum transformations or offset applications versus out-of-office survey efforts. Datum conversions or datum establishment for the inland or coastal gaging network should meet datum uncertainty requirements among other Federal agencies. Datum uncertainty requirements are ±0.25 foot for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers water-control or construction projects and ±0.16 foot for Federal Emergency Management Agency field surveys and checkpoint surveys used for mapping. River level forecasts generally are defined as ± 0.10 foot among the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service. Collaboration and communication among the cooperative water community is necessary during a datum conversion or datum change. Datum notification time-change requirements set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service vary from 30 to 120 days, depending on datum conversion or datum-change case scenarios. Notification times associated with these case scenarios may be useful to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Weather Service and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, because their daily operations are time sensitive, unlike the notification time change requirements of other entities that make up the cooperative water community. At the time of this writing, a future geopotential datum resulting from Gravity for the Redefinition of the American Vertical Datum is anticipated in 2022. A future version of VDatum and VERTCON is anticipated to provide a transformation among North American Vertical Datum of 1988 elevations to the new geopotential datum.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2006

Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, a Digital Representation of Lyons and Others 1997 Map and Ancillary Files

The New Hampshire Geological Survey collects data and performs research on the land, mineral, and water resources of the State, and disseminates the findings of such research to the public through maps, reports, and other publications. The Bedrock Geologic Map of New Hampshire, by John B. Lyons, Wallace A. Bothner, Robert H. Moench, and James B. Thompson, was published in paper format by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 1997. The online version of this CD contains digital datasets of the State map that are intended to assist the professional geologist, land-use planners, water resource professionals, and engineers and to inform the interested layperson. In addition to the bedrock geology, the datasets include geopolitical and hydrologic information, such as political boundaries, quadrangle boundaries, hydrologic units, and water-well data. A more thorough explanation for each of these datasets may be found in the accompanying metadata files. The data are spatially referenced and may be used in a geographic information system (GIS). ArcExplorer, the Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) free GIS data viewer, is available at http://www.esri.com/software/arcexplorer. ArcExplorer provides basic functions that are needed to harness the power and versatility of the spatial datasets. Additional information on the viewer and other ESRI products may be found on the ArcExplorer website. Although extensive review and revisions of the data have been performed by the USGS and the New Hampshire Geological Survey, these data represent interpretations made by professional geologists using the best available data, and are intended to provide general geologic information. Use of these data at scales larger than 1:250,000 will not provide greater accuracy. The data are not intended to replace site-specific or specific-use investigations. The U.S. Geological Survey, New Hampshire Geological Survey, and State of New Hampshire make no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the use, accuracy, or completeness of the data presented herein, or from a map printed from these data; nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. The New Hampshire Geological Survey disclaims any legal responsibility or liability for interpretations made from the map, or decisions based thereon. For more information on New Hampshire Geological Survey programs please visit the State's website at http://des.nh.gov/Geology/. New Hampshire Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information Transfer System (NH GRANIT) provides access to statewide GIS (http://www.granit.unh.edu/). Questions about this CD or about other datasets should be directed to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.

Data Series↗

USGS1991

Review of water demand and water utilization studies for the Provo River drainage basin, and review of a study of the effects of the proposed Jordanelle Reservoir on seepage to underground mines, Bonneville unit of the central Utah project

Problem: Questions have been raised concerning the adequacy of available water to fulfill the needs of storage, exchanges, diversions, and instream flows, pursuant to existing water rights in the Provo River drainage basin part of the Bonneville Unit. Also, concern has been expressed about the potential for seepage of water from Jordanelle Reservoir to underground mines. The Utah Congressional Delegation requested that the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) review the results of analyses performed by and for the USBR. Purpose and Scope: The purpose of this report is to present the results of the USGS review of (1) the hydrologic data, techniques, and model used by the USBR in their hydrologic analyses of the Provo River drainage basin and (2) the results of a study of the potential for seepage from the Jordanelle Reservoir to nearby underground mines. The USGS reviewed USBR-supplied water demands, water utilization studies, and models of seepage from Jordanelle Reservoir. The USBR estimated that about 90 percent of the water supply for Jordanelle Reservoir will be water from Strawberry Reservoir exchanged for water from the Provo River stored in Utah Lake. If the Utah State Engineer allows the USBR to claim an estimated 19,700 acre-feet of return flows from the CUP, only about 77 percent of the supply would be derived from exchange of existing water rights in Utah Lake. The USGS assumed that planned importations of water from the Uinta Basin will be available and deliverable to fulfill the proposed exchanges. Water rights and demands are important for determining water availability. The USGS did not conduct an independent review of water rights and demands. The USSR and Utah Division of Water Rights use different methods in some areas for determining stress on the system based on past records. The USSR used "historical observed diversions" and the Utah Division of Water Rights use "diversion entitlements", which may not be equal to the historical diversions. The USGS based its review upon water demands used by the USSR. The Utah Division of Water Rights has responsibility for granting and enforcing water rights, and the final decisions on how the rights will be adjudicated lies with the Utah Division of Water Rights and with the courts. The USGS review did not consider the draft water distribution plan for the Utah Lake drainage basin proposed by the Utah State Engineer (written commun., October 15,1991). This plan, when finalized, may have an effect on water availability to the CUP.

Utah↗

USGS2018

A practical primer on geostatistics

Introduction The Challenge —Most geological phenomena are extraordinarily complex in their interrelationships and vast in their geographical extension. Ordinarily, engineers and geoscientists are faced with corporate or scientific requirements to properly prepare geological models with measurements involving a small fraction of the entire area or volume of interest. Exact description of a system such as an oil reservoir is neither feasible nor economically possible. The results are necessarily uncertain. Note that the uncertainty is not an intrinsic property of the systems; it is the result of incomplete knowledge by the observer. The Aim of Geostatistics —The main objective of geostatistics is the characterization of spatial systems that are incompletely known, systems that are common in geology. A key difference from classical statistics is that geostatistics uses the sampling location of every measurement. Unless the measurements show spatial correlation, the application of geostatistics is pointless. Ordinarily the need for additional knowledge goes beyond a few points, which explains the display of results graphically as fishnet plots, block diagrams, and maps. Geostatistical Methods —Geostatistics is a collection of numerical techniques for the characterization of spatial attributes using primarily two tools: probabilistic models, which are used for spatial data in a manner similar to the way in which time-series analysis characterizes temporal data, or pattern recognition techniques. The probabilistic models are used as a way to handle uncertainty in results away from sampling locations, making a radical departure from alternative approaches like inverse distance estimation methods. Differences with Time Series —On dealing with time-series analysis, users frequently concentrate their attention on extrapolations for making forecasts. Although users of geostatistics may be interested in extrapolation, the methods work at their best interpolating. This simple difference has significant methodological implications. Historical Remarks —As a discipline, geostatistics was firmly established in the 1960s by the French engineer Georges Matheron, who was interested in the appraisal of ore reserves in mining. Geostatistics did not develop overnight. Like other disciplines, it has built on previous results, many of which were formulated with different objectives in various fields. Pioneers —Seminal ideas conceptually related to what today we call geostatistics or spatial statistics are found in the work of several pioneers, including: 1940s: A.N. Kolmogorov in turbulent flow and N. Wiener in stochastic processing; 1950s: D. Krige in mining; 1960s: B. Mathern in forestry and L.S. Gandin in meteorology Calculations —Serious applications of geostatistics require the use of digital computers. Although for most geostatistical techniques rudimentary implementation from scratch is fairly straightforward, coding programs from scratch is recommended only as part of a practice that may help users to gain a better grasp of the formulations. Software —For professional work, the reader should employ software packages that have been thoroughly tested to handle any sampling scheme, that run as efficiently as possible, and that offer graphic capabilities for the analysis and display of results. This primer employs primarily the package Stanford Geomodeling Software (SGeMS) - recently developed at the Energy Resources Engineering Department at Stanford University - as a way to show how to obtain results practically. This applied side of the primer should not be interpreted as the notes being a manual for the use of SGeMS. The main objective of the primer is to help the reader gain an understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools in geostatistics. Organization of the Primer —The chapters of greatest importance are those covering kriging and simulation. All other materials are peripheral and are included for better comprehension of these main geostatistical modeling tools. The choice of kriging versus simulation is often a big puzzle to the uninitiated, let alone the different variants of both of them. Chapters 14, 18, and 19 are intended to shed light on those subjects. The critical aspect of assessing and modeling spatial correlation is covered in chapter 7. Chapters 2 and 3 review relevant concepts in classical statistics. Course Objectives —This course offers stochastic solutions to common problems in the characterization of complex geological systems. At the end of the course, participants should have: an understanding of the theoretical foundations of geostatistics; a good grasp of its possibilities and limitations; and reasonable familiarity with the SGeMS software, thus opening the possibility of practically applying geostatistics.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

A geologic field guide to S P Mountain and its lava flow, San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona

Introduction We created this guide to introduce the user to the San Francisco Volcanic Field as a terrestrial analog site for planetary volcanic processes. For decades, the San Francisco Volcanic Field has been used to teach scientists to recognize the products of common types of volcanic eruptions and associated volcanic features. The volcanic processes and products observed in this volcanic field are like those observed on lunar and Martian surfaces. As a result, this region has been a favored location for training National Aeronautics and Space Administration astronauts and engineers since the Apollo missions. Though the San Francisco Volcanic Field has more than 600 volcanic vents and flows, this guide will focus on S P Mountain (known locally as S P Crater, located ~30 miles north of Flagstaff, Arizona), one of the best preserved and most accessible of the volcanic cones and lava flows. S P Mountain presents both major types of basaltic eruptions—explosive and effusive—as well as some commonly associated tectonic landforms. We assume that the user has a basic understanding of geologic concepts and terminology. For more specialized terminology, we include tables showing the classification scheme for lava compositions, styles of eruptions, and tephra sizes (tables 1, 2, and 3). If a further introduction or refresher in volcanological terminology is desired, we suggest reviewing such terms on the U.S. Geological Survey Volcano Science Center’s online glossary ( https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/glossary/ ). One term requires clarification at the start of this guide—the term cinder. The terms cinder and cinder cone are widely used to describe the material and edifice produced by lava fountains. However, the term comes from the mining and construction industries and has no clear or formal definition. The international committees in geology and volcanology have chosen the term tephra to be the general term to describe pyroclasts (material ejected through a volcanic explosion or from a volcanic vent). Therefore, in this guide, we use the term tephra rather than cinder. This guide is outlined as follows: A brief tour of volcanism across the solar system A brief geologic history of the Colorado Plateau and San Francisco Volcanic Field Background on distributed volcanism and S P Mountain Driving directions and field stops Questions for discussion Each field stop includes a brief description, learning goals, tasks, and a summary of key points. At the end of the field guide are discussion points and questions that will ask the user to consider what they have observed and learned and how such knowledge can be used to better our understanding of geologic processes on other planetary bodies. Upon the completion of this field guide, we expect the user to: Have a basic understanding of the volcanic processes relevant to S P Mountain and its lava flow. Be able to identify different volcanic textures that are associated with tephra cones. Be aware of the different observations one can make at different scales (for example, observing lava flow morphology from aerial or satellite imagery versus tephra characteristics in the field).

Arizona↗

USGS1982

U.S. Geological Survey activities, fiscal year 1981

This U.S. Geological Survey Activities report for fiscal year 1981 presents a summary of the work performed between October 1, 1980 and September 30, 1981. The main sections of this report are: (1) The Year in Review; a brief overview of the significant events of the Geological Survey during fiscal year 1980; (2) Perspectives; essays focusing on specific events (rather than scientific topics) and programs involving multi-Division participation; (3) Missions, Organization, and Budget; a description of the Geological Survey 's major duties and assignments and of the organizational structure that supports its missions; and (4) Division Chapters; a description of the significant accomplishments (rather than a comprehensive program by program discussion) of each of the eight operating Divisions and Offices. Also included are supplementary information regarding key personnel, cooperators, and selected summary budgetary tables. (USGS)

Circular↗

USGS2019

Evaluation of groundwater-flow models for estimating drawdown from proposed groundwater development in Tule Desert, Nevada

At the request of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is releasing with this open-file report (OFR) a previously unpublished review and comparison of two numerical models for Tule Desert, Nevada. The original review was performed in spring 2013, and only minor editorial revisions were made in the current (2019) OFR for clarity and to reformat the original interagency correspondence to the USGS OFR template. No revisions have been made to the technical content of the original review for this OFR release. Report content presented in the purpose and scope statement, and all subsequent sections of the OFR, are original content submitted to BLM in May 2013. Model review and comparisons described in the following paragraphs are based on, in part, results of a long-term (more than 2 years) aquifer test mandated by Nevada State Engineer Order 1169. Additional information on Order 1169 and associated aquifer test results can be found at the State of Nevada Division of Water Resources website (State of Nevada, 2019).

Nevada↗

USGS1991

Faulting and seismic activity

This chapter traces some of the ideas and concepts leading to the current understanding of the process of faulting and earthquake generation, gives examples of engineering geology investigations contributing to that understanding, describes some engineering projects that have been strongly influenced by the process, and suggests needed research. Each of these topics is discussed in sequence. The understanding of faulting and earthquakes and of the significance of these to engineering has developed over several centuries. John Michell in 1761 was probably the first to publish a cross section of a clearly recognizable fault (Adams, 1938, Fig. 66). Michell did not attribute earthquakes to faulting, but proposed the important idea that seismic vibrations were the result of the propagation of elastic waves in the earth (Adams, 1938). Charles Lyell (1830) emphasized the uplift and depression of land that accompanies earthquakes. He did not attribute earthquakes to faulting, but a contemporary of his evidently did, for the following statement appeared in a review of Lyell’s book (Scrap, 1830, p. 463): The sudden fracture of solid strata by any disruptive force must necessarily produce a violent vibratory jar to a considerable distance along the continuation of these strata. Such vibrations would be propagated in undulations, which may be expected, when influencing a mass of rocks several thousand feet at least in thickness, to produce on the surface exactly the wave-like motion, the opening and shutting of crevices, the tumbling down of cliffs and walls, and other characteristic phenomena of earthquakes. This idea was apparently disregarded, and coseismic faulting, some of which reached the ground surface, was generally considered to be the result rather than the cause of earthquakes until the time of G. K. Gilbert.

DNAG Special Publication↗

USGS2018

2018 report on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle, Washington

On March 22, 2018, the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) convened a workshop of engineers and seismologists to provide guidance on incorporating sedimentary basin response into the design of tall buildings in Seattle. This workshop provided recommendations that build on those from a March 2013 workshop (Chang and others, 2014), primarily based on new results from 3-D simulations of magnitude (M) 9 Cascadia earthquakes (The M9 Project). Susan Chang, a geotechnical engineer with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections, organized and led the workshop; Art Frankel (USGS) assisted in constructing the agenda. The workshop agenda and attendees are provided in the appendix. The attendees represented a wide range of expertise, including seismologists with expertise in ground motions and basin response, geotechnical engineers, and structural engineers. Their professional experience included working on local projects related to the design of long-period structures; peer reviewing ground motions for performance-based design of high-rises in Seattle; researching basin response in academic, government and industry settings; developing ground motion models; and representing local and national structural engineering organizations. In this report, we summarize the technical presentations, key discussion points, and recommendations from the workshop.

Washington↗

USGS2022

Contaminants of emerging concern in the Great Lakes: Science to inform management practices for protecting the health and integrity of wildlife populations from adverse effects: GLRI action plan I, focus area 1, goal 5

Executive Summary: Under Action Plan I (2010-2014) of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), Federal and Academic partners began an investigation of the presence and distribution of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) in the Great Lakes and potential impacts on fish and wildlife. The term CECs is applied to a broad range of chemicals that are currently in use but for which we currently lack good understanding of whether fish, wildlife, or humans are being exposed and/or whether negative health or environmental effects are expected if exposure occurs. Pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame retardants, many current use pesticides, and poly- and perfluorinated chemicals are some well-known groups of CECs, but there is no definitive or comprehensive list that can be used to support the management of CECs to reduce impacts on the Great Lakes ecosystem. Four overarching goals were identified for this collaborative investigation: 1. Evaluate the sources, occurrence, and distribution of CECs across the Great Lakes Basin. 2. Examine associations between the distribution of CECs and land-use patterns. 3. Review both scientific literature and field-generated data to determine the potential for CECs to cause adverse effects on Great Lakes fish and wildlife populations. 4. Develop efficient strategies to survey and/or monitor for threats that CECs may pose in order to take effective management actions before those threats evolve into large scale impacts on Great Lakes ecosystems or the services they provide. Achievement of these goals ensures progress towards Focus Area 1: Toxic Substances and Areas of Concern from GLRI Action Plan I, Goal 5: “ The health and integrity of wildlife populations and habitat are protected from adverse chemical and biological effects associated with the presence of toxic substances in the Great Lakes Basin ”. This large-scale research effort was comprised of individual and collaborative projects from multiple federal agencies and academic institutions, involving over 85 investigators, and overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 5, Great Lakes National Program Office. Partners include the United States Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Saint Cloud State University, the U.S. EPA Office of Research and Development, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key findings: 1. Contaminants of emerging concern were found throughout the monitored Great Lakes tributaries, but types and concentrations vary in association with regional land use. CECs were detected in nearly all samples collected. The type and concentration of the specific contaminants detected varied considerably among field sites and in association with land use type, such as urban, agricultural, wetland, 2 or forest. Contaminants were detected in the water column, sediment, and tissues of all species surveyed in the current work (mussels, aquatic insects, fish, and insect-eating birds). 2. There were over 20 contaminants for which CEC concentrations approached or exceeded those reported to cause toxicity in laboratory experiments. This was based on detection in water, sediments and or biota at one or more field sites. These contaminants represent compounds that warrant further investigation and monitoring with respect to potential impacts in certain areas of the Great Lakes basin. Based on the present investigation, compounds of greatest concern include: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, associated with oil-based products and combustion of organic matter; atrazine, an herbicide; dichlorvos, an insecticide; and ibuprofen and venlafaxine, both pharmaceuticals. 3. Results suggest that mixtures of CECs presently found in most Great Lakes tributary locations surveyed may elicit subtle biological effects, but likely are not, alone, causing obvious detriment to current communities of fish and wildlife. CECs detected in the Great Lakes were associated with subtle biological effects like changes in gene expression, altered circulating glucose, etc. in both wild-caught and laboratory-reared organisms. These effects were generally not indicative of reproductive failure or mortality. However, the effects may have more serious implications when combined with other sources of stress like habitat degradation, changing climate conditions, and competition with invasive species. Due to limited historical data, it is unknown whether severe CEC-related impacts have already affected aquatic communities in waterbodies that have received long-term inputs of these contaminants. Likewise, under Action Plan I, biological effects were not necessarily evaluated at the sites where CEC concentrations exceeding laboratory toxicity thresholds were detected. As a result, strategic, ongoing surveillance and monitoring of CECs is warranted. This collaborative investigation resulted in new tools, approaches, and data that can be used to inform and support the management of CECs to reduce their impacts on Great Lakes natural resources. The following products of this research effort are available through https://communities.geoplatform.gov/glri/ or by contacting the investigators (see technical chapters found in Appendices A-F): 1. Database of CEC occurrence and concentrations in US tributary streams. The database includes CEC detections in water, sediment, and fish and wildlife tissues, and represents the most comprehensive survey of CECs in the Great Lakes Region. 2. Synopses of results and key findings. Integrated summaries of results, conclusions, and management implications of the CEC research are available through reports, topical fact sheets, and presentations. 3. Technical publications: This collaborative research effort has resulted in over 50 peer-reviewed publications, agency reports, and data releases that can be of use to resource managers, the scientific community, and members of the public. 4. Innovative tools. Innovative monitoring devices, sampling equipment, conceptual frameworks, and software applications were developed over the course of this 3 research. These tools are transferable to stakeholders via internet accessibility or via specifications, instructions, and demonstration detailed in technical publications. Hypotheses to guide CECs research under Action Plan II. Findings from 2010-2014 were used to guide further research in 2015-2018 for basin-wide surveillance of CECs and for sites warranting further study of potential biological impacts of CECs. Additional surveillance included both evaluation of additional classes of contaminants and expanded lists for chemical classes shown to be of greatest concern. Mixtures of some of the most frequently detected contaminants were also tested in laboratory studies to understand whether long term exposures to multiple contaminants may result in effects not evident from uncontrolled, short-term field experiments.

Great Lakes↗