Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Natural Resources 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 1,261 records · Page 70Linked to original sources

Internships, employment opportunities, and research grants

As an unbiased, multidisciplinary science organization that focuses on biology, geography, geology, geospatial information, and water, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is dedicated to the timely, relevant, and impartial study of the landscape, our natural resources, and the natural hazards that threaten us. Opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students and faculty to participate in USGS science are available through the selected programs described below. Please note: U.S. citizenship is required for all positions, although some noncitizens may be eligible in rare circumstances.

General Information Product↗

Water-level map of the Mississippi delta alluvium in northwestern Mississippi, April 1981

The water-level map on the left was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Mississippi Bureau of Land and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The map represents the surface of the ground water as it was measured in 454 wells in the alluvial aquifer during April 13-24, 1981. The measurements were made near the beginning of the 1981 planting season after a year-long drought.

Mississippi↗

Ground-water movement and nitrate in ground water, East Erda area, Tooele County, Utah, 1997-2000

Nitrate was discovered in ground water in the east Erda area of Tooele County, Utah, in 1994. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with Tooele County, investigated the ground-water flow system and water quality in the eastern part of Tooele Valley to determine (1) the vertical and horizontal distribution of nitrate, (2) the direction of movement of the nitrate contamination, and (3) the source of the nitrate. The potentiometric surface of the upper part of the basin-fill aquifer indicates that the general direction of ground-water flow is to the northwest, the flow system is complex, and there is a ground-water mound probably associated with springs. The spatial distribution of nitrate reflects the flow system with the nitrate contamination split into a north and south part by the ground-water mound. The distribution of dissolved solids and sulfate in ground water varies spatially. Vertical profiles of nitrate in water from selected wells indicate that nitrate contamination generally is in the upper part of the saturated zone and in some wells has moved downward. Septic systems, mining and smelting, agriculture, and natural sources were considered to be possible sources of nitrate contamination in the east Erda area. Septic systems are not the source of nitrate because water from wells drilled upgradient of all septic systems in the area had elevated nitrate concentrations. Mining and smelting activity are a possible source of nitrate contamination but few data are available to link nitrate contamination with mining sites. Natural and agricultural sources of nitrate are present east of the Erda area but few data are available about these sources. The source(s) of nitrate in the east Erda area could not be clearly delineated in spite of considerable effort and expenditure of resources.

Utah↗

Effects of flow alterations on trout, angling, and recreation in the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam and Peachtree Creek

In 1974 county governments in the Atlanta vicinity realized that demands on the Chattahoochee River for water supply plus the streamflow required for water quality nearly equaled the minimum flow in the river. Increased demands for water supply in the following years could not be supplied under the then existing flow regime in the river. In response to the anticipated shortage of water, the Atlanta Regional Commission, a multicounty agency responsible for comprehensive regional planning in the Atlanta region, was contracted to prepare water demand projections to the year 2010 and identify alternatives for meeting projected water demands. The results of this study are published in an extensive final report, the Metropolitan Atlanta Area Water Resources Management Study (1981). Requests for copies should be directed to the District Engineer, Savannah District. Many of the identified alternatives to increase future water supply for the Atlanta area would result in modifications to the present flow regime within the Chattahoochee River between Buford Dam (river mile 348.3) and its confluence with Peachtree Creek (river mile 300.5). The present preferred alternative is construction of a reregulation dam at about river mile 342. The proposed reregulation dam would release a much more constant flow than the peaking flows presently released from Buford Dam (generally, a maximum release of approximately 9000 cfs or minimum release of about 550 cfs) by storing the generation releases from Buford Dam for gradual release during non-generation periods. The anticipated minimum release from the rereg dam would he approximately 1U5U cfs (based on contractual obligations to the Southeast Power Administration to supply a minimum of 11 hours of peaking power per week from Buford Dam). The average annual release from the proposed reregulation dam into the Chattahoochee River would be approximately 2000 cfs (based on USGS flow records) and the median release would he approximately 1500 cfs (value obtained from Savannah District). The proposed reregulation dam would have sufficient storage to provide some opportunity for flow management to optimize uses other than water supply and water quality. Flow modifications (and resultant water quality changes) within this reach of the Chattahoochee River to meet increased demands for water supply may have an effect on other beneficial uses of this important natural resource. In addition to supplying a significant proportion of the water supply for metropolitan Atlanta and providing for water quality, the Chattahoochee River also is used extensively for recreation and supports a valuable trout fishery. Altered flows in the channel to meet water supply needs may have an impact on river recreation and trout habitat.

Georgia↗

Managing effects of drought and other water resource challenges in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest

This is a Cooperator Report. As such, there is no specific abstract. The physical, ecological, and social environments of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest (PNW) region of the United States are extremely diverse. Alaska ranges from the Arctic Ocean and the very cold, dry environments of the North Slope to the cool and very rainy coastal North Pacific region of Southeast Alaska. Most precipitation falls as snow at higher elevations. In Arctic Alaska, average annual temperature is 14.6 F, and average annual precipitation is 11 inches. By contrast, in Southeast Alaska, average annual temperature is 35.8 F, and annual average precipitation is 143 inches. The PNW, defined here as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, ranges from the Pacific Coast (annual precipitation of 200 inches) to interior semi-arid regions (annual precipitation of 8 inches). Precipitation patterns in the PNW are strongly governed by orographic phenomena, with high, persistent snowpack in the higher mountains (e.g., record annual snowfall of 1,130 in at Mount Baker, Washington in 1999-2000). Ecosystems in the PNW include productive temperate coniferous forests near the Pacific coast and along the (wet) west slope of the Cascade Range, less productive mixed-conifer forest along the (dry) east slope of the Cascades and in interior mountain ranges, and sagebrush-steppe and shrublands at lower elevations in much of the interior and mountain valleys. Large rivers and thousands of smaller tributaries form an extensive network of riparian, wetland, and estuarine systems that provide both critical hydrologic function and biological diversity at broad and fine spatial scales. Although Alaska and the Pacific Northwest differ in important physical, ecological, and social features, the importance of natural resources is evident in both regions. Water is important for wildlife and people. Water provides critical habitat for salmon, which are culturally and economically valuable species. Timber production has declined in recent decades. Recreation has emerged as a major revenue source.

Alaska, Oregon, Washington↗

Experience preferences and place attachment of Minnesota wildlife management area hunters

Hunters in the United States are motivated to obtain and benefit from diverse experiences or experience preferences. Using a mail survey conducted during the 2015–2016 hunting season, we examined goal-oriented, introspective, and leadership experiences among hunters on Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ Wildlife Management Area (WMAs). We used k-means cluster analysis to identify six clusters based on experience preferences. We defined these clusters using their ranked experience preferences and segregated them into categories of either participants or enthusiasts. These clusters showed differences in demographic characteristics, as well as support for management actions on WMAs. Hunters in clusters with lower importance ratings of experience preferences also reported less attachment to WMAs. High levels of support for management actions were closely related to high levels of place attachment. Using information gained from describing the heterogeneity of desired experiences, managers may be better able to understand their constituents and prioritize management goals to provide a variety of hunting experiences.

Minnesota↗

U.S. Geological Survey collections—Preserving the past to inform the future: Tour three federal repositories—Core Research Center, Paleontological Collection, and the NSF National Ice Core Laboratory

This 2016 Geological Society of America (GSA) Annual Meeting trip will explore the Core Research Center, Paleontological Collection, and National Science Foundation National Ice Core Laboratory—three collections of major national signifi cance managed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Since its inception in 1879, USGS has collected, preserved, and managed physical collections for scientifi c investigations of Earth’s systems. The Core Research Center is the largest federal core repository in the United States, where over 74 million meters (242 million feet) of the subsurface are represented by the collection of rock cores and well cuttings, available for use by researchers investigating resource potential, tectonics, structures, aquifers, and more. The USGS has conducted paleontological research for more than 110 years to inform geological mapping, biostratigraphy, paleoecology, paleoclimate, and other research. Most of these paleontological samples are at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) and USGS Denver facilities. The USGS Denver paleontological collection includes ~1.2 million samples. Ancillary materials consisting of handwritten ledgers, index cards, fi eld reports, maps, and other information produced by USGS investigators provide profound knowledge about the specimens and associated geological systems. The USGS is working with NMNH to systematically digitize the collection to preserve and expose samples and data to research. The National Science Foundation (NSF) National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) is the nation’s repository for preserving, archiving, and sampling meteoric ice cores collected from the world’s ice sheets, ice caps, and glaciers, mostly from Antarctica and Greenland. NICL’s primary mission is to store and curate ice cores, primarily collected during NSF-sponsored projects, for present and future sample investigations.

Colorado↗

Hydrogeologic framework, hydrology, and refined conceptual model of groundwater flow for Coastal Plain aquifers at the Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc. Superfund Site, New Castle County, Delaware, 2005-12

From 1966 to 2002, activities at the Standard Chlorine of Delaware chemical facility in New Castle County, Delaware resulted in the contamination of groundwater, soils, and wetland sediment. In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, and the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control began a multi-year investigation of the hydrogeologic framework and hydrology of the confined aquifer system. The goals of the ongoing study at the site (the Potomac Aquifer Study) are to determine the hydraulic connection between the Columbia and Potomac aquifers, determine the direction of groundwater flow in the Potomac aquifer, and identify factors affecting the fate of contaminated groundwater. This report describes progress made towards these goals based on available data collected through September 2012. The regional hydrogeologic framework indicates that the site is underlain by Coastal Plain sediments of the Columbia, Merchantville, and Potomac Formations. Two primary aquifers underlying the site, the Columbia and the upper Potomac, are separated by the Merchantville Formation confining unit. Local groundwater flow in the surficial (Columbia) aquifer is controlled by topography and generally flows northward and discharges to nearby surface water. Regional flow within the Potomac aquifer is towards the southeast, and is strongly influenced by major water withdrawals locally. Previous investigations at the site indicated that contaminants, primarily benzene and chlorinated benzene compounds, were present in the Columbia aquifer in most locations; however, there were only limited detections in the upper Potomac aquifer as of 2004. From 2005 through 2012, the USGS designed a monitoring network, assisted with exploratory drilling, collected data at monitoring wells, conducted geophysical surveys, evaluated water-level responses in wells during pumping of a production well, and evaluated major aquifer withdrawals. Data collected through these efforts were used to refine the local conceptual flow system. The refined conceptual flow system for the site includes: (a) identification of gaps in confining units in the study area, (b) identification and correlation of multiple water-bearing sand intervals within the upper Potomac Formation, (c) connections between groundwater and surface water, (d) connections between shallow and deeper groundwater, (e) new water-level (or potentiometric surface) maps and inferred flow directions, and (f) identification of major local pumping well influences. The implications of the revised conceptual flow system on the occurrence and movement of site contaminants are that the resulting detection of contaminants in the upper Potomac aquifer at specific well locations can be attributed primarily to either advective lateral transport, direct vertical contaminant transport, or a combination of vertical and lateral movement resulting from changes in water withdrawal rates over time.

Delaware↗

Water resources of east-central Iowa

Water is vital in the lives of the people and the economy of any area. To utilize this natural resource in the most efficient and beneficial manner, a basic knowledge and understanding of its sources and the occurrence and potential of each source must be gained. To provide this knowledge, the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Iowa Geological Survey compiled this atlas describing the water resources available for development in an 12-county area in east-central Iowa. The report contains information on the availability, quality, and utilization of water from all known sources and the future demands upon the water resources in east-central Iowa. The information is presented to aid water users and other persons searching for and evaluating sources of water in a particular place, and planners and water managers who must consider water resources on a regional basis.

Iowa↗

Water resources of north-central Iowa

One of man's fundamental needs is water. Modern man needs both a safe and dependable supply of water to maintain his present economic, industrial, and cultural level. In order to use this natural resource in the most efficient and beneficial manner, a basic knowledge and understanding of water sources, and of the occurrence and potential of each source, needs to be gained. To provide this information, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Iowa Geological Survey, has compiled this atlas. It describes the water resources available for development in an 11-county area in north-central Iowa. The report contains information on the quantity, quality, and use of water from all known sources of water. This information is presented to aid water users and developers who are searching for and evaluating sources of water for specific sites. It also will be an aid to water planners and managers who must develop the available water resources on a regional basis.

Iowa↗

U.S. Geological Survey Virginia and West Virginia Water Science Center

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. In support of this mission, the USGS Virginia and West Virginia Water Science Center works in cooperation with many entities to provide reliable, impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and the public.

Virginia, West Virginia↗

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↗

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2022 year in review

Established in 1935, the CRU program is a unique cooperative partnership among State Fish and Wildlife agencies, host universities, Wildlife Management Institute, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Designed to meet the scientific needs of natural resource management agencies and to produce trained wildlife management professionals, the program has grown from the original 9 wildlife-only units to a program that today includes 42 units located on university campuses in 40 States.

Circular↗

Evaluation of a method for comparing phosphorus loads from barnyards and croplands in Otter Creek Watershed, Wisconsin

Control of phosphorus from rural nonpoint sources is a major focus of current efforts to improve and protect water resources in Wisconsin and is recommended in almost every priority watershed plan prepared for the State's Nonpoint Source (NFS) Program. Barnyards and crop- lands usually are identified as the primary rural sources of phosphorus. Numerous questions have arisen about which of these two sources to control and about the method currently being used by the NFS program to compare phosphorus loads from barnyards and croplands. To evaluate the method, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). in cooperation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, used phosphorus-load and sediment-load data from streams and phosphorus concentrations in soils from the Otter Creek Watershed (located in the Sheboygan River Basin: fig. 1) in conjunction with two computer-based models.

Wisconsin↗

USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center

Extreme storms, sea-level rise, and the health of marine communities are some of the major societal and environmental issues impacting our Nation's marine and coastal realm. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in St. Petersburg, Fla., investigates processes related to these ecosystems and the societal implications of natural hazards and resource sustainability. As one of three centers nationwide conducting research within the USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program, the center is integral towards developing an understanding of physical processes that will contribute to rational decisions regarding the use and stewardship of national coastal and marine environments.

Florida↗

An allocation of undiscovered oil and gas resources to Big South Fork National Recreation Area and Obed Wild and Scenic River, Kentucky and Tennessee

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated volumes of undiscovered oil and gas resources that may underlie Big South Fork National Recreation Area and Obed Wild and Scenic River in Kentucky and Tennessee. Applying the results of existing assessments of undiscovered resources from three assessment units in the Appalachian Basin Province and three plays in the Cincinnati Arch Province that include these land parcels, the USGS allocated approximately (1) 16 billion cubic feet of gas, 15 thousand barrels of oil, and 232 thousand barrels of natural gas liquids to Big South Fork National Recreation Area; and (2) 0.5 billion cubic feet of gas, 0.6 thousand barrels of oil, and 10 thousand barrels of natural gas liquids to Obed Wild and Scenic River. These estimated volumes of undiscovered resources represent potential volumes in new undiscovered fields, but do not include potential additions to reserves within existing fields.

Open-File Report↗

Bathymetric surveys and area/capacity tables of water-supply reservoirs for the city of Cameron, Missouri, July 2013

Years of sediment accumulation and dry conditions in recent years have led to the decline of water levels and capacities for many water-supply reservoirs in Missouri, and have caused renewed interest in modernizing outdated area/capacity tables for these reservoirs. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, surveyed the bathymetry of the four water-supply reservoirs used by the city of Cameron, Missouri, in July 2013. The data were used to provide water managers with area/capacity tables and bathymetric maps of the reservoirs at the time of the surveys.

Missouri↗

Water quality characteristics of six small lakes in Missouri: Mo. Dept. of Natural Resources.

A study of six small lakes, representative of those in the major physiographic regions of Missouri, shows variation in physical. chemical, and biological characteristics related to their location in the Slate. For example, because of climatic differences, ice cover and winter stratification are more prevalent in northern Missouri. Summer stratification lasts about one month longer in the southern than in the northern part of the State. Because of the difference in geology. lake water in the Plains area is more mineralized than in the Ozarks. Different geology and land use generally account for more sedimentation of Plains Jakes. Lakes in the Plains area usually receive enough nutrients to be classified as mesouophic or eutrophic while those in the Ozarks receive less nutrients from natural sources and are often oligotrophic or mesotrophic. However, as seen from one of the study lakes, an oligotrophic lake can be made quite productive through the application of commercial fertilizers within the lake.

Missouri↗