SEARCH · Geology Reports
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.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
By selecting one of the four series options shown below, namely, -A, -B, -C, and -D for the geologic, topographic, Landsat natural-color, and Landsat false-color maps, respectively, the user will be taken to that map.
The primary purpose of the USGS National Assessment of Coastal Change Project is to provide accurate representations of pre-storm ground conditions for areas that are designated high-priority because they have dense populations or valuable resources that are at risk from storm waves. Another purpose of the project is to develop a geomorphic (land feature) coastal classification that, with only minor modification, can be applied to most coastal regions in the United States. A Coastal Classification Map describing local geomorphic features is the first step toward determining the hazard vulnerability of an area. The Coastal Classification Maps of the National Assessment of Coastal Change Project present ground conditions such as beach width, dune elevations, overwash potential, and density of development. In order to complete a hazard vulnerability assessment, that information must be integrated with other information, such as prior storm impacts and beach stability. The Coastal Classification Maps provide much of the basic information for such an assessment and represent a critical component of a storm-impact forecasting capability. The map above shows the areas covered by this web site. Click on any of the location names or outlines to view the Coastal Classification Map for that area.
Researchers routinely deploy oceanographic equipment in estuaries, coastal nearshore environments, and shelf settings. These deployments usually include tripod-mounted instruments to measure a suite of physical parameters such as currents, waves, and pressure. Instruments such as the RD Instruments Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP(tm)), the Sontek Argonaut, and the Nortek Aquadopp(tm) Profiler (AP) can measure these parameters. The data from these instruments must be processed using proprietary software unique to each instrument to convert measurements to real physical values. These processed files are then available for dissemination and scientific evaluation. For example, the proprietary processing program used to process data from the RD Instruments ADCP for wave information is called WavesMon. Depending on the length of the deployment, WavesMon will typically produce thousands of processed data files. These files are difficult to archive and further analysis of the data becomes cumbersome. More imperative is that these files alone do not include sufficient information pertinent to that deployment (metadata), which could hinder future scientific interpretation. This open-file report describes a toolbox developed to compile, archive, and disseminate the processed wave measurement data from an RD Instruments ADCP, a Sontek Argonaut, or a Nortek AP. This toolbox will be referred to as the Wave Data Processing Toolbox. The Wave Data Processing Toolbox congregates the processed files output from the proprietary software into two NetCDF files: one file contains the statistics of the burst data and the other file contains the raw burst data (additional details described below). One important advantage of this toolbox is that it converts the data into NetCDF format. Data in NetCDF format is easy to disseminate, is portable to any computer platform, and is viewable with public-domain freely-available software. Another important advantage is that a metadata structure is embedded with the data to document pertinent information regarding the deployment and the parameters used to process the data. Using this format ensures that the relevant information about how the data was collected and converted to physical units is maintained with the actual data. EPIC-standard variable names have been utilized where appropriate. These standards, developed by the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/epic/), provide a universal vernacular allowing researchers to share data without translation.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) is 1 of 5 subspecies of pronghorn in North America. Sonoran pronghorn historically ranged from eastern California into southeastern Arizona and south to Sonora, Mexico. Sonoran pronghorn currently inhabit the Sonoran Desert in Southwestern Arizona and northern Sonora, Mexico. Unfortunately, their future in North America is uncertain. In the United States, as of December 2004, there were <51 freeranging individual Sonoran pronghorn. This subspecies has been listed as endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service since 1967. Because of the rapid decline in population size, biologists and managers increased management efforts to reverse the downward spiral to extinction. To assist with enhanced management we have compiled an annotated bibliography of most of the works published on Sonoran pronghorn including peer-reviewed papers (n = 31, including submitted manuscripts), books (n = 26), theses and dissertations (n = 5), conferences, proceedings and symposiums (n = 31), reports (n = 84), abstracts (n = 14), popular articles (n = 41), and others (n = 4). These are the same categories under which we list annotations. Most of the articles involve A. a. sonoriensis. We present the scientific name of other pronghorn when clarification is needed.
More than 51,000 acres within the National Capital Region (NCR) are administered by the National Park Service (NPS). These parks consist of parkways, trails, statues, monuments, memorials, historic sites, scenic areas, theatres, parks for performing arts, and Civil War battlefields. Although largely established for historical and cultural resources, each park is situated on a landscape that is influenced by bedrock and surficial geology of the central Appalachian mid-Atlantic region. Geologic mapping and field studies conducted for over 130 years are summarized here to provide the earliest history of the parklands. The age, type, names, and the interpreted origin of the rocks, as well as the processes active in the formation of surficial deposits and the landscape are discussed. These data are intended for educational and interpretative programs for visitors as well as the management of natural resources.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been publishing estimates of water use every five years since 1950 in the Estimated use of water in the United States circular series. In 1978, the Congress expanded the water-use activities of the USGS by establishing the National Water-Use Information Program (NWUIP). The water-use program in New York is part of the NWUIP and is based on a cooperative agreement between the USGS and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Together, the NYSDEC and USGS collect, compile, and store water-use data to provide a data base that is useful for water-resources management. The New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) collects a wide variety of data elements relating to public-water supplies such as the name and location of the suppliers and the amount of water withdrawn. This valuable information is provided to the water-use program. The information summarized in this fact sheet has been published in U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1268, Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000 which can be accessed at http://water.usgs.gov/watuse . The 2000 data (by county) as well as previous years data can also be found at that site. Water withdrawal refers to the removal of water from the ground or its diversion from a surface-water source for use. Withdrawals of fresh and saline surface water and fresh ground water during 2000 were included in this study. The categories considered in this data compilation are public-water supply; deliveries to domestic from public-water suppliers and domestic self-supplied; industrial; thermoelectric-power generation; and irrigation. Saline withdrawals were included for the categories of industrial, mining, and thermoelectric-power generation. Saline water is a significant percentage of total withdrawals for the category of thermoelectric-power generation. The categories of withdrawal for which data were compiled for the 2000 calendar year do not include some of the categories that were addressed in 1995 and published in USGS Circular 1200, Estimated use of water in the United States in 1995. For the 2000 compilation, emphasis was placed on ensuring the quality of data that were collected, rather than attempting to address all categories and data elements on a national scale. Categories that were included in 1995 but not in 2000 are commercial; livestock; mining; the non-withdrawal categories of hydroelectric-power generation, wastewater treatment and public-water supply deliveries to commercial and industrial users. Any comparison made between 1995 and 2000 data need to be made with these category differences in mind. In 1995, the categories of commercial, livestock, and mining were about 280 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of freshwater and 2.7 percent of total freshwater withdrawals. In addition, the report, New York water-use program and data, 1995, U. S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 014-02, concentrated on freshwater and did not include saline-surface water withdrawals in the figures. Any comparison between the 1995 and 2000 figures need to be made with this in mind. In 2000, about 12,100 Mgal/d (million gallons per day) of fresh surface and ground water and saline surface water were withdrawn from New York's rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, bays, and aquifers for the categories addressed. Freshwater withdrawals comprised about 7,080 Mgal/d of this total. With a total population of 18,980,000 people in New York State, the total freshwater withdrawals represent an average of more than 370 gal/d (gallons per day) per capita. The amounts of fresh surface water, ground water, saline surface water, and total amounts of water withdrawn by categories of water use in New York during 2000 are shown. Many of New York's large population centers have developed along major rivers and lakes; as a result, more than 87 percent of the freshwater withdrawals in 2000 were from surface-water bodies (6,190 Mgal/d). More than 65 percent of fresh surface-water withdrawals were for thermoelectric-power generation, and about 32 percent were by public-water suppliers. Of the 890 Mgal/d of ground water withdrawn in 2000 statewide, 65 percent was withdrawn by public-water suppliers, and about 16 percent each by industrial and domestic users. More freshwater is withdrawn by thermoelectric plants than for any other water-use category. Of the freshwater withdrawals within New York, about 57 percent were made by fossil-fuel and nuclear powerplants; about 36 percent were for public-water supply; about 4.2 percent was by industrial users, 2.0 percent by domestic users, and about 0.5 percent was for irrigation. Total withdrawals, total surface-water and fresh ground-water withdrawals, in New York are plotted, by county. The categories of public-water supply and thermoelectric power account for the withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d per county. The counties that have public-water supply withdrawals that exceed 100 Mgal/d are: Delaware (453 Mgal/d), Ulster, Nassau, Erie, Sullivan, Westchester, Suffolk, Putnam, and Schoharie (115 Mgal/d). These large withdrawals are from surface water except in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island, where groundwater is the sole source of freshwater. Delaware, Putnam, Schoharie, Sullivan, Ulster, and Westchester Counties, in the southeastern part of the State, provide surface water to the aqueducts that supply drinking water to New York City. In 2000, the average amount of water delivered to New York City from these counties averaged 1,260 Mgal/d. Erie County, in western New York, had withdrawals totaling 176 Mgal/d of fresh surface water for public-water supply. More freshwater and more total water is withdrawn for the generation of thermoelectric power than for any other water-use category. All of the withdrawals are of surface water. Seven counties have total thermoelectric withdrawals that exceed 500 Mgal/d: Queens (1,690 Mgal/d), Westchester, Oswego, Suffolk, Erie, Orange, and Rockland (560 Mgal/d). The counties of Oswego, Erie, and Orange withdrew only fresh surface water for thermoelectric plants. Their sources of water were Lake Ontario (Oswego County), Niagara River (Erie County), and the Hudson River (Orange County). Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland withdraw only saline surface water for the production of thermoelectric power. The sources of saline surface water for the thermoelectric plants in the counties of Queens, Westchester, Suffolk, and Rockland are the estuaries of the Hudson River and East River and bays of the Atlantic Ocean (Long Island Sound and the eastern shore of Jamaica Bay). New York ranked eighth in the United States in 2000 in total withdrawals (fresh and saline water); the States that exceeded New York in total withdrawals are those that have large populations (such as California and Texas) and (or) use large quantities of water for irrigation (such as Florida and Idaho). Of the categories considered for the 2000 compilation, New York did not have nationally significant withdrawals for either irrigation or industrial water use. New York ranked third after California and Texas in withdrawals of freshwater for public supply, in the withdrawal of fresh surface water for public-water supply, in total population, and in number of people served by public-water supplies. New York ranked sixth in total withdrawals for the generation of thermoelectric power and total surface-water withdrawals. Finally, New York ranked fourth in withdrawals of ground water for public supply.
This publication contains zmap-format grid files of isopach intervals that represent strata associated with Devonian to Holocene petroleum systems of the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) of Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Also included is one grid file that represents elevations relative to sea level of the top of the Lower Cretaceous Mannville Group. Vertical and lateral scales are in meters. The age range represented by the stratigraphic intervals comprising the grid files is 373 million years ago (Ma) to present day. File names, age ranges, formation intervals, and primary petroleum system elements are listed in table 1. Metadata associated with this publication includes information on the study area and the zmap-format files. The digital files listed in table 1 were compiled as part of the Petroleum Processes Research Project being conducted by the Central Energy Resources Team of the U.S. Geological Survey, which focuses on modeling petroleum generation, 3 migration, and accumulation through time for petroleum systems of the WCSB. Primary purposes of the WCSB study are to Construct the 1-D/2-D/3-D petroleum system models of the WCSB. Actual boundaries of the study area are documented within the metadata; excluded are northern Alberta and eastern Saskatchewan, but fringing areas of the United States are included. Publish results of the research and the grid files generated for use in the 3-D model of the WCSB. Evaluate the use of petroleum system modeling in assessing undiscovered oil and gas resources for geologic provinces across the World.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is responsible for managing the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources so that these trust resources are preserved for the present and future use and enjoyment of the citizens of the United States. The FWS achieves this mission by managing many programs. These include the national system of refuges and fish hatcheries, Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Offices, migratory birds program, law enforcement, and working with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies to ensure protection of threatened and endangered species. Another role of the FWS is consulting with tribal, state, and other Federal agencies and private sector interests on the best conservation management practices consistent with Federal law. Each of these activities requires a workforce that is recognized for its professionalism, dedication to public service, and command of expert knowledge. Recognition for expert knowledge in fish and wildlife conservation is demonstrated, in part, when FWS personnel direct, conduct, or report research that is well-designed to answer questions of importance for natural resource management. The data reported in this document are one part of a three-part study of the status of organizational support for research in FWS, which was commissioned by the Directorate of the FWS. Funding for this study was provided by the FWS, and the Science Support Program of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1994, the biological research functions of the FWS were transferred to the National Biological Survey, and subsequently into the USGS. This transfer was principally accomplished by moving whole research units from one agency to another. The result was that some employees whose positions were involved with research were not transferred. In addition, some research, information, and management needs of the FWS have continued to be met by studies conducted within the FWS itself. Although the FWS relies on the USGS and others for most basic research investigations, the FWS also conducts its own studies to meet management needs. Because it is vital for FWS employees to be able to conduct such tactical and applied research tasks in a timely manner, the agency must promote the culture necessary to support and encourage these activities. Such research activities are spread widely across the various programs of the FWS, and there is presently no collective, formal, or systematic record of planned or existing research activities. In commissioning this organizational assessment research, the Directorate of the FWS recognized that it would be to the advantage of the agency to more fully understand its research capacity. To develop a clearer picture of the nature, extent, quality, and degree of administrative support available for conducting research within the FWS, investigations have been undertaken to: 1. identify positions in the FWS that may include, in whole or in part, a component of scientific research; 2. identify organizational units within the FWS that may conduct research as a significant portion of their mission; and 3. assess the attitudes of employees and managers about the obstacles and opportunities for scientific research existing within the FWS by using a scaled-response survey instrument. The findings presented in this report represent the basic results derived from the attitude assessment survey conducted in the last quarter of 2004. The findings set forth in this report are the frequency distributions for each question in the survey instrument for all respondents. The only statistics provided are descriptive in character - namely, means and associated standard deviations.
This map displays over 1,500 mineral facilities in Africa and the Middle East. The mineral facilities include mines, plants, mills, or refineries of aluminum, cement, coal, copper, diamond, gold, iron and steel, nickel, platinum-group metals, salt, and silver, among others. The data used in this poster were compiled from multiple sources, including the 2004 USGS Minerals Yearbook (Africa and Middle East volume), Minerals Statistics and Information from the USGS Web site (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/), and data collected by USGS minerals information country specialists. Data reflect the most recent published table of industry structure for each country. Other sources include statistical publications of individual countries, annual reports and press releases of operating companies, and trade journals. Due to the sensitivity of some energy commodity data, the quality of these data should be evaluated on a country-by-country basis. Additional information and explanation is available from the country specialists. See Table 1 for general information about each mineral facility site including country, location and facility name, facility type, latitude, longitude, mineral commodity, mining method, main operating company, status, capacity, and units.