Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “INformation”

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 1,297 records · Page 72Linked to original sources
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Activities Related to American Indians and Alaska Natives Fiscal Year 2001

Information is a resource that can help Native American governments and their people. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) makes available technical expertise, reports, and other impartial information sources that can benefit Native Americans interested in subsistence issues, water, land use, and the health of many parts of the environment. The USGS works in cooperation with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, conducting research on water and mineral resources, animals and plants of environmental, economic, or subsistence importance, natural hazards, and geologic resources. Digital data on cartography, mineral resources, stream flow, biota, and other topics are available to American Indian and Alaska Native individuals and institutions. The USGS recognizes the need to learn from and share knowledge with Native peoples. This report describes most of the activities that the USGS conducted with American Indian and Alaska Native governments, educational institutions, and individuals during Federal fiscal year 2001. Some of these USGS activities were carried out in concert with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Others were conducted by Tribes and the USGS. In 2001, the USGS began examining its activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives to determine how it can better serve these customers within its mandates. A growing number of Tribal governments, educational institutions, and other Tribal organizations have begun using geographic information systems and other digital technologies in recent years. As Tribes become more interested in and more adept at managing digital information, they are seeking relevant data from the USGS more frequently. Using digital technologies provides Tribal governments with additional means of managing lands and resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The USGS recognizes the need to make its information available to Tribal governments, and to work with those governments and other institutions to advance data management capabilities. The USGS is responding to this need by increasing the transfer of scientific information to American Indian and Alaska Native governments and by training employees of those governments to conduct and improve scientific studies. The USGS is also encouraging American Indians and Alaska Natives to pursue careers in science, and seeking ways to hire Indian and Native students. By identifying, improving, and disseminating information about available hiring mechanisms, the USGS is working to make hiring such students easier, and therefore more likely, for USGS managers. The U.S. Geological Survey is the Federal science bureau within the Department of the Interior (DoI). The USGS is non-regulatory and is not a significant manager of Federal or Trust lands or assets. However, there are two types of USGS activities that do involve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and their lands. The first type of activity is the course of formal studies, conducted through existing USGS programs, that involves collection of specific types of data as well as investigative and research projects. These projects typically last 2 or 3 years, although a few are parts of longer-term activities. Some projects are funded through cooperative agreements, from monies provided to the USGS by individual Tribal governments or by the BIA. The USGS provides matching funds for cooperative projects. These formal projects may also receive funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service (part of the Department of Health and Human Services), or other Federal agencies. The USGS routinely works with its sister bureaus in the Department of the Interior to provide the scientific information and expertise needed to meet the Department's science priorities. Within this context, the USGS and the BIA are cooperating to use USGS information resources to benefit American Indian and Alaska Native peoples and their lands. The second type of USGS activity is less formal, based on initiatives designed and conducted by USGS employees. Frequently involving educational activities, these endeavors are prompted by employee interests, often as collateral issues, that result from one or more USGS employees identifying and responding to an observed need. In these activities, USGS employees help fulfill a mission of the USGS-to make science relevant-while helping their fellow citizens. USGS employees have also taken the initiative in assisting American Indians and Alaska Natives through participation in several organizations that were created to foster awareness of science among Native peoples and to help build support and communication networks. One such group is the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES). This group sponsors an annual national meeting in which USGS employees participate. USGS employees join this organization on a voluntary basis, bringing the benefits of this expanded network to the USGS, as many employees do with other professional organizations. Each part of the USGS has identified an American Indian/Alaska Native liaison. Furthermore, the USGS has instituted a regional organizational structure, with Western, Central, and Eastern Regions. The regions work in concert with specific scientific disciplines to conduct the scientific mission of the USGS. The regional structure is intended to bring us closer to our customers; we hope that Native Americans and Alaska Natives will use the contacts listed at the end of this report.

Report↗
USGS2007

Applying radar technology to migratory bird conservation and management: Strengthening and expanding a collaborative

Executive Summary Understanding the factors affecting migratory bird and bat populations during all three phases of their life cycle—breeding, nonbreeding, and migration—is critical to species conservation planning. This includes the need for information about these species’ responses to natural challenges, as well as information about the effects of human activities and structures. Habitats and other resources critical to migrants during passage and stopover are being destroyed, degraded, and threatened by human activities. Birds and bats are also uniquely susceptible to human use of the airspace. Wind turbines, communication and power transmission towers, and other tall structures, known to cause bird and bat mortality, are being erected or proposed in increasing numbers across the country. In addition, the potential for bird/aircraft collisions poses human safety threats. Management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry currently lack the information they need to meet their missions and statutory responsibilities. The biological data available from various radar technologies offer a unique opportunity to learn more about the spatiotemporal distribution patterns, flight characteristics, and habitat use of “aero-fauna.” Recognizing the opportunities presented by radar technologies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and university partners collaborated first on individual projects and then in a broader, informal “collaborative” to coordinate their radar-related research and work together to develop the suite of products needed for conservation of birds and bats. Having produced two summary documents (Sojda and others, 2005; Ruth and others, 2005), the next objective was to convene a workshop for researchers, management and regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The focus of this initial workshop was on strengthening the existing USGS-USFWS-university partnership and expanding the “collaborative” to include new Federal agency partners. The subject matter was centered on discussing available technologies, appropriate applications, management-related needs, and ways to strengthen collaborative research and conservation efforts. The workshop opened with presentations about the history of the “radar collaborative,” a description of the workshop objectives and focuses, and a summary of resource management and regulatory needs. Scientific presentations describing current research projects or subjects followed, given by USGS scientists, as well as scientists from other Federal agencies, academia, conservation and ornithological organizations, and a private contracting firm. Presenters addressed a wide variety of management issues including siting of wind-power facilities, bird/aircraft collisions, effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on bird migration, bird use of Conservation Reserve Program land, defining bird migration patterns at a broad regional scale, and associating migrant birds with their stopover habitats. Presentations described a variety of radar technologies including NEXRAD weather surveillance radar, modified mobile marine radar, military tracking radar, pencil beam radar, and dual polarization radar, as well as complementary techniques and analysis methods such as acoustic monitoring, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and individual-based modeling. Key issues, themes, and questions identified during the open discussions that followed fell into five main categories: (1) agency needs and challenges; (2) radar technology and applications—technical questions and issues; (3) tools and resources for managers and researchers; (4) standardization of protocols; and (5) collaborative opportunities. Participants identified the following management, regulatory, or business issues facing them which may be addressed with radar technologies: tall structures; wind turbines; identification and protection of key habitats; assessment of management activities; and bird/aircraft strikes. Participants frequently expressed the need for specific information about which radar technologies are best used for answering particular questions. User groups emphasized the importance of clear, defensible scientific information on which they can base their activities. In turn, researchers emphasized their need for clearly defined, specific questions from managers so that they can design and conduct the required research. Discussions about technical issues requiring further research and collaboration included target identity, ground-truthing, linking migrants to habitat, and standardized protocols for applied research. Workshop participants identified and endorsed a series of seven action items that would promote collaboration and begin to address key issues identified at the workshop: Action Item #1 : Establish a working subgroup to address large-scale surveillance radar standardization issues. Action Item #2 : Establish a working subgroup to address small-scale radar standardization issues. Action Item #3 : Bring management and regulatory agencies together to identify the three most important information needs for each key management issue relating to radar technologies. Action Item #4 : Develop Fact Sheet(s) to provide information about radar technology applications to migratory bird and bat conservation issues. Action Item #5 : Create a “radar collaborative” Website to provide information about radar biology applications, contacts, publications, and so forth. Action Item #6 : Formalize and expand the USGS-USFWS “radar collaborative.” Action Item #7 : Advance basic research, such as target identity and validation, which will support and improve our abilities to apply radar technologies to conservation objectives. There was considerable interest in expanding the “radar collaborative” to include those agencies, organizations, and industries represented at the workshop. It was felt that the publication of the workshop proceedings, implementation of action items, and additional future meetings or workshops will be crucial in strengthening the “radar collaborative” effort and promoting the use of these valuable technologies for conserving migratory species.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2026

Decision analysis of long-term research and monitoring investments for the Upper Mississippi River Restoration program

Congressional authorization of the Water Resource Development Act of 2020 increased funding for the Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) program and its Long Term Resource Monitoring (LTRM) element. With adequate resources there is an opportunity for LTRM to expand its understanding of the Upper Mississippi River System, address unmet partner information needs, and better inform restoration and management of the Upper Mississippi River System. Additional information needs will need to be identified and prioritized in a manner that accounts for potential tradeoffs among the preferences of UMRR partners for long-term commitments of effort. In this report, we describe a decision analysis process used by UMRR partners to develop a comprehensive framework for prioritizing and selecting the information needs they would address in the event of changes in available resources. The partners of the UMRR formed a “planning team” with members representing the UMRR partner agencies to work through the decision analysis process. This team included two facilitators who led the decision analysis process. The planning team began this process by articulating a consensus understanding of the specific decisions to be made and identifying a set of decision outcomes (objectives) the UMRR partners wanted to achieve. Next, they identified information needs not being addressed by ongoing monitoring and research, developed criteria for assessing the expected benefit of addressing each information need, and estimated the costs of addressing each information need. They then used an optimization approach to identify the portfolio of information needs that would produce the most benefit for a given cost if they were effectively addressed. Originally, the planning team expected this analysis to inform a project plan that would start in 2024, but in recognition of financial uncertainties, we refer to planning dates as the number of years after resources become available (for example, “year 1,” “year 2,” and so on).

Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin↗
USGS1976

Use of USGS earth-science products by county planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, ordinances, and other planning activities was made for eight counties in the San Francisco Bay region--a region of almost five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 87 earth-science information products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all eight counties had planning staffs who were very familiar with SFBRS products and had made frequent use of such products; (2) all eight counties had prepared planning documents which cite SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies, seismic safety and public safety plan elements, general reference, and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) over 90 percent of the 87 SFBRS products were used at least once, and nine of the products were used over 30 times each for various county planning activities; and (5) at least 85 other USGS products were also used for various county planning activities. After the inventory, selected county officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked--among other things--to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth-science information. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for working maps were 1:62,500 or larger and for plan implementation were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) only one county had a geologist on its planning staff, although six others had the benefit of geotechnical services from private consulting firms, county engineering staffs, or the State Division of Mines and Geology; (3) seven of the eight counties expressed some problems in using the products, primarily because of their small scale or lack of detail; (4) all eight counties expected to continue to use the products and expressed a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other information; (5) all eight counties suggested specific improvements to future products, primarily larger scale or more detail and fewer technical or more interpretive products; and (6) all eight counties received educational, advisory, and review services from USGS personnel. Seventeen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various county planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include four planning studies, seven plans, and two ordinances. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the counties in the Bay region are very familiar with, have made frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of county planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring emerging critical issues and analyzing new state and federal laws and regulations so as to better anticipate and respond to county earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and user needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development so as to husband staff resources; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by counties; (6) releasing earth-science information earlier and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1979

Use of U.S. Geological Survey earth-science products by selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) products in studies, plans, implementation, and other planning activities was made for seven selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region -- a region of over five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of over 100 earth-science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all seven agencies have staff members who are familiar with SFBRS products and make frequent use of them; (2) all seven agencies have prepared planning documents citing SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were water-quality and physical resources studies, potential site evaluation, and general reference; (4) almost 80 percent of the over 100 SFBRS products were used at least once, and eleven of the products were used 20 or more times each for various regional planning activities; and (5) at least 46 other USGS products were also used for various regional planning activities. During the inventory, over 50 regional agency. officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked -- among other things -- to indicate any problems they had noted in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any additional earth-science information needed or desired. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for "work" maps were 1:62,500 or larger, and for "implementation" maps were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) two agencies have a geologist on their planning staff, others have staff members with training or experience in earth-science or engineering, and all had the benefit of geotechnical services from outside their agency; (3) all seven agencies experienced some problems in using the products, primarily because the scale was too small or the detail not great enough; (4) all seven agencies expressed interest in the topical interpretive reports in preparation and a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other related information; (5) six of the seven agencies suggested specific improvements to future products -- primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretive information; and (6) all seven agencies received educational, advisory or review services from USGS personnel. Fifteen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various regional planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include six planning studies, five plans, two implementation activities, and two other types of activities. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the selected regional agencies in the bay region are familiar with, make frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of regional planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring and analyzing new State and Federal laws or regulations and emerging critical issues so as to anticipate and respond to regional earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by regional agencies; (6) releasing earth-science information faster and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

California↗
USGS2025

Clarifying the trophic state concept to advance macroscale freshwater science and management

For over a century, ecologists have used the concept of trophic state (TS) to characterize an aquatic ecosystem's biological productivity. However, multiple TS classification schemes, each relying on a variety of measurable parameters as proxies for productivity, have emerged to meet use-specific needs. Frequently, chlorophyll a, phosphorus, and Secchi depth are used to classify TS based on autotrophic production, whereas phosphorus, dissolved organic carbon, and true color are used to classify TS based on both autotrophic and heterotrophic production. Both classification approaches aim to characterize an ecosystem's function broadly, but with varying degrees of autotrophic and heterotrophic processes considered in those characterizations. Moreover, differing classification schemes can create inconsistent interpretations of ecosystem integrity. For example, the US Clean Water Act focuses exclusively on algal threats to water quality, framed in terms of eutrophication in response to nutrient loading. This usage lacks information about non-algal threats to water quality, such as dystrophication in response to dissolved organic carbon loading. Consequently, the TS classification schemes used to identify eutrophication and dystrophication may refer to ecosystems similarly (e.g., oligotrophic and eutrophic), yet these categories are derived from different proxies. These inconsistencies in TS classification schemes may be compounded when interdisciplinary projects employ varied TS frameworks. Even with these shortcomings, TS can still be used to distill information on complex aquatic ecosystem function into a set of generalizable expectations. The usefulness of distilling complex information into a TS index is substantial such that usage inconsistencies should be explicitly addressed and resolved. To emphasize the consequences of diverging TS classification schemes, we present three case studies for which an improved understanding of the TS concept advances freshwater research, management efforts, and interdisciplinary collaboration. To increase clarity in TS, the aquatic sciences could benefit from including information about the proxy variables, ecosystem type, as well as the spatiotemporal domains used to classify TS. As the field of aquatic sciences expands and climatic irregularity increases, we highlight the importance of re-evaluating fundamental concepts, such as TS, to ensure their compatibility with evolving science.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2005

The World Coal Quality Inventory: A status report

National and international policy makers and industry require accurate information on coal, including coal quality data, to make informed decisions regarding international import needs and export opportunities, foreign policy, technology transfer policies, foreign investment prospects, environmental and health assessments, and byproduct use and disposal issues. Unfortunately, the information needed is generally proprietary and does not exist in the public domain. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in conjunction with partners in about 60 countries, is developing a digital compilation of worldwide coal quality. The World Coal Quality Inventory (WoCQI) will contain coal quality information for samples obtained from major coal beds in countries having significant coal production, as well as from many countries producing smaller volumes of coal, with an emphasis on coals currently being burned. The information that will be incorporated includes, but is not limited to, proximate and ultimate analyses; sulfur-form data; major, minor, and trace element analysis; and semi-quantitative analyses of minerals, modes of occurrence, and petrography. The coal quality information will eventually be linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS) that shows the coal basins and sample locations along with geologic, land use, transportation, industrial, and cultural information. The WoCQI will be accessible on the USGS web page and new data added periodically. This multi-national collaboration is developing global coal quality data that contain a broad array of technologic, economic, and environmental parameters, which should help to ensure the efficient and environmentally compatible use of global coal resources in the 21st century.

International Journal of Coal Geology↗
USGS2020

Anticipating future learning affects current control decisions: A comparison between passive and active adaptive management in an epidemiological setting

Infectious disease epidemics present a difficult task for policymakers, requiring the implementation of control strategies under significant time constraints and uncertainty. Mathematical models can be used to predict the outcome of control interventions, providing useful information to policymakers in the event of such an epidemic. However, these models suffer in the early stages of an outbreak from a lack of accurate, relevant information regarding the dynamics and spread of the disease and the efficacy of control. As such, recommendations provided by these models are often incorporated in an ad hoc fashion, as and when more reliable information becomes available. In this work, we show that such trial-and-error-type approaches to management, which do not formally take into account the resolution of uncertainty and how control actions affect this, can lead to sub-optimal management outcomes. We compare three approaches to managing a theoretical epidemic: a non-adaptive management (AM) approach that does not use real-time outbreak information to adapt control, a passive AM approach that incorporates real-time information if and when it becomes available, and an active AM approach that explicitly incorporates the future resolution of uncertainty through gathering real-time information into its initial recommendations. The structured framework of active AM encourages the specification of quantifiable objectives, models of system behaviour and possible control and monitoring actions, followed by an iterative learning and control phase that is able to employ complex control optimisations and resolve system uncertainty. The result is a management framework that is able to provide dynamic, long-term projections to help policymakers meet the objectives of management. We investigate in detail the effect of different methods of incorporating up-to-date outbreak information. We find that, even in a highly simplified system, the method of incorporating new data can lead to different results that may influence initial policy decisions, with an active AM approach to management providing better information that can lead to more desirable outcomes from an epidemic.

Journal of Theoretical Biology↗
USGS2022

Strength and memory of precipitation's control over streamflow across the conterminous United States

How precipitation (P) is translated into streamflow (Q) and over what timescales (i.e., “memory”) is difficult to predict without calibration of site-specific models or using geochemical approaches, posing barriers to prediction in ungauged basins or advancement of general theories. Here, we used a data-driven approach to identify regional patterns and exogenous controls on P–Q interactions. We applied an information flow analysis, which quantifies uncertainty reduction, to a daily time series of P and Q from 671 watersheds across the conterminous United States. We first demonstrated that information transfer from P to Q primarily reflects the quickflow component of water-budgets, based on a watershed model. Readily quantifiable information flows show a functional relationship with model parameters, suggesting utility for model calibration. Second, applied to real watersheds, P–Q information flows exhibit seasonally varying behavior within regions in a manner consistent with dominant runoff generation mechanisms. However, the timing and the magnitude of information flows also reflect considerable subregional heterogeneity, likely attributable to differences in watershed size, baseflow contributions, and variation in aerial coverage of preferential flow paths. A regression analysis showed that a combination of climate and watershed characteristics are predictive of P–Q information flows. Though information flows cannot, in most cases, uniquely determine dominant runoff mechanisms, they provide a means to quantify the heterogeneous outcomes of those mechanisms within regions, thereby serving as a benchmarking tool for models developed at the regional scale. Last, information flows characterize regionally specific ways in which catchment connectivity changes from the wet to dry season.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2019

Inversion of airborne EM data with an explicit choice of prior model

Inversion of airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data is an under-determined inverse problem, in that infinitely many resistivity models exist that will be able to explain the observed data, within measurement errors. Therefore, additional information or constraints must be taken into account to solve the inverse problem. In deterministic approaches, the goal is to locate one optimal model that can be obtained by using some form of smoothness constraints implied through a number of regularization choices. This model, however, will not necessarily represent realistic geological features. Probabilistic methods offer an alternative in which the solution is not one model, but a collection of models, whose variability represents the uncertainty. The probabilistic approach can also rely on implicit model assumptions, representing prior information (a type of regularization information) that may or may not be consistent with the actual available information. Here, we present an approach for AEM inversion in which the prior model is explicitly chosen by a user, preferably selected based on actual prior information available and then integrated with AEM data using a general Monte Carlo based sampling approach. This approach leads to a new workflow to AEM inversion in which geological prior information is independently and explicitly chosen before inversion is carried out. The main benefit of this approach is that each model obtained will, by construction, be consistent with prior (geological) information as well as geophysical data. Through examples based on synthetic and real AEM data, we will demonstrate the methodology, not least that the choice of prior information cannot be avoided: Either it is done explicitly, or it will be chosen implicitly by the choice of method used to invert the AEM data.

Geophysical Journal International↗
USGS2013

Meeting the Science Needs of the Nation in the Wake of Hurricane Sandy-- A U.S. Geological Survey Science Plan for Support of Restoration and Recovery

n late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy came ashore during a spring high tide on the New Jersey coastline, delivering hurricane-force winds, storm tides exceeding 19 feet, driving rain, and plummeting temperatures. Hurricane Sandy resulted in 72 direct fatalities in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern United States, and widespread and substantial physical, environmental, ecological, social, and economic impacts estimated at near $50 billion. Before the landfall of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS provided forecasts of potential coastal change; collected oblique aerial photography of pre-storm coastal morphology; deployed storm-surge sensors, rapid-deployment streamgages, wave sensors, and barometric pressure sensors; conducted Light Detection And Ranging (lidar) aerial topographic surveys of coastal areas; and issued a landslide alert for landslide prone areas. During the storm, Tidal Telemetry Networks provided real-time water-level information along the coast. Long-term network and rapid-deployment real-time streamgages and water-quality monitors reported on river levels and changes in water quality. Immediately after the storm, the USGS serviced real-time instrumentation, retrieved data from over 140 storm-surge sensors, and collected other essential environmental data, including more than 830 high-water marks mapping the extent and elevation of the storm surge. Post-storm lidar surveys documented storm impacts to coastal barriers informing response and recovery and providing a new baseline to assess vulnerability of the reconfigured coast. The USGS Hazard Data Distribution System served storm related information from many agencies on the Internet on a daily basis. This science plan was developed immediately following Hurricane Sandy to coordinate continuing USGS activities with other agencies and to guide continued data collection and analysis to ensure support for recovery and restoration efforts. The data, information, and tools that are produced by implementing this plan will: (1) further characterize impacts and changes, (2) guide mitigation and restoration of impacted communities and ecosystems, (3) inform a redevelopment strategy aimed at developing resilient coastal communities and ecosystems, (4) improve preparedness and responsiveness to the next hurricane or similar coastal disaster, and (5) enable improved hazard assessment, response, and recovery for future storms along the hurricane prone shoreline of the United States. The activities outlined in this plan are organized in five themes based on impact types and information needs. These USGS science themes are: Theme 1: Coastal topography and bathymetry. Theme 2: Impacts to coastal beaches and barriers. Theme 3: Impacts of storm surge and estuarine and bay hydrology. Theme 4: Impacts on environmental quality and persisting contaminant exposures. Theme 5: Impacts to coastal ecosystems, habitats, and fish and wildlife. A major emphasis in the implementation of this plan will be on interacting with stakeholders to better understand their specific data and information needs, to define the best way to make information available, and to support applications of USGS science and expertise to decisionmaking.

Connecticut;Delaware;Maine;Maryl;Massachusetts;New↗
USGS2005

Historical statistics for mineral and material commodities in the United States

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides information to the public and to policy-makers concerning the current use and flow of minerals and materials in the United States economy. The USGS collects, analyzes, and disseminates minerals information on most nonfuel mineral commodities. This USGS digital database is an online compilation of historical U.S. statistics on mineral and material commodities. The database contains information on approximately 90 mineral commodities, including production, imports, exports, and stocks; reported and apparent consumption; and unit value (the real and nominal price in U.S. dollars of a metric ton of apparent consumption). For many of the commodities, data are reported as far back as 1900. Each commodity file includes a document that describes the units of measure, defines terms, and lists USGS contacts for additional information. End-use tables complement these statistics by supplying, for most of these commodities, information about the distribution of apparent consumption. This publication draws on more than 125 years of minerals information experience. At the request of the 47th Congress of the United States (1882; 22 Stat. 329), the U.S. Government began the collection and public distribution of these types of data. The Federal agencies responsible for the collection of the data have changed through time. For the years 1882-1924, the USGS collected and published these data; the U.S. Bureau of Mines (USBM) performed these tasks from 1925-95; and in 1996, the responsibilities once again passed to the USGS (following the closure of the USBM) (Mlynarski, 1998). The USGS collects data on a monthly, quarterly, semiannual, and annual basis from more than 18,000 minerals-related producer and consumer establishments that cooperate with the USGS. These companies voluntarily complete about 40,000 canvass forms that survey production, consumption, recycling, stocks, shipments, and other essential information. Data are also gathered from site visits, memberships on domestic and international minerals-related committees, and coordination with other government organizations and trade associations. The USGS makes this information available through published products, including monthly, quarterly, and annual Mineral Industry Surveys, the annual Minerals Yearbook (MYB), the annual Mineral Commodity Summaries (MCS), and special mineral commodity studies, including the history of metal prices and materials flow studies.

Data Series↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Cumberland County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Cumberland County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Cumberland County, documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Cumberland County, Maine is 21 years. Most of these studies were in the early to mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-25 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Cumberland County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Cumberland County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how effective FIS data can be used in new project, and identify other data needed to

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Kennebec County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Kennebec County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Kennebec County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Kennebec County, Maine is 16 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Kennebec County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Kennebec County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and how e

Open-File Report↗
USGS2006

Scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine

This report was prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Maine Water Science Center as the deliverable for scoping of flood hazard mapping needs for Somerset County, Maine, under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Inter-Agency Agreement Number HSFE01-05-X-0018. This section of the report explains the objective of the task and the purpose of the report. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) developed a plan in 1997 to modernize the FEMA flood mapping program. FEMA flood maps delineate flood hazard areas in support of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). FEMA's plan outlined the steps necessary to update FEMA's flood maps for the nation to a seamless digital format and streamline FEMA's operations in raising public awareness of the importance of the maps and responding to requests to revise them. The modernization of flood maps involves conversion of existing information to digital format and integration of improved flood hazard data as needed. To determine flood mapping modernization needs, FEMA has established specific scoping activities to be done on a county-by-county basis for identifying and prioritizing requisite flood-mapping activities for map modernization. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with FEMA and the Maine State Planning Office Floodplain Management Program, began scoping work in 2005 for Somerset County. Scoping activities included assembling existing data and map needs information for communities in Somerset County (efforts were made to not duplicate those of pre-scoping completed in March 2005), documentation of data, contacts, community meetings, and prioritized mapping needs in a final scoping report (this document), and updating the Mapping Needs Update Support System (MNUSS) Database or its successor with information gathered during the scoping process. The average age of the FEMA floodplain maps in Somerset County, Maine is 18.1 years. Most of these studies were in the late 1970's to the mid 1980s. However, in the ensuing 20-30 years, development has occurred in many of the watersheds, and the characteristics of the watersheds have changed with time. Therefore, many of the older studies may not depict current conditions nor accurately estimate risk in terms of flood heights. The following is the scope of work as defined in the FEMA/USGS Statement of Work: Task 1: Collect data from a variety of sources including community surveys, other Federal and State Agencies, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) State Coordinators, Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and FEMA archives. Lists of mapping needs will be obtained from the MNUSS database, community surveys, and CAVs, if available. FEMA archives will be inventoried for effective FIRM panels, FIS reports, and other flood-hazard data or existing study data. Best available base map information, topographic data, flood-hazard data, and hydrologic and hydraulic data will be identified. Data from the Maine Floodplain Management Program database also will be utilized. Task 2: Contact communities in Somerset County to notify them that FEMA and the State have selected them for a map update, and that a project scope will be developed with their input. Topics to be reviewed with the communities include (1) Purpose of the Flood Map Project (for example, the update needs that have prompted the map update); (2) The community's mapping needs; (3) The community's available mapping, hydrologic, hydraulic, and flooding information; (4) target schedule for completing the project; and (5) The community's engineering, planning, and geographic information system (GIS) capabilities. On the basis of the collected information from Task 1 and community contacts/meetings in Task 2, the USGS will develop a Draft Project Scope for the identified mapping needs of the communities in Somerset County. The following items will be addressed in the Draft Project Scope: review of available information, determine if and ho

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

World Map Showing Surface and Subsurface Distribution, and Lithologic Character of Middle and Late Neoproterozoic Rocks

INTRODUCTION The map was prepared to outline the basic information on where Neoproterozoic rocks are present in the World, and of the lithologic character of these rocks. The information provides a better understanding of major Neoproterozoic tectonic subdivisions useful in paleogeographic and plate tectonic reconstructions. The time frame of the map is within the middle and late Neoproterozoic from approximately 870 to 540 Ma and is after widespread Mesoproterozoic Grenville-age collisional events that are considered to have formed the hypothetical supercontinent of Rodinia. Much of the time represented by the map is interpreted to be during the fragmentation of Rodinia. The recognition of Neoproterozoic rocks is commonly difficult because of limited isotopic or paloeontological dating. Thus, some rocks shown on the map could be older or younger than the age indicated. However, at the scale of the map the the problem may be minor. Enough information seems to be available to indicate the general age of the rocks. Many of the successions contain diamictite deposits considered to be glaciogenic and dated as middle or late Neoproterozoic. These deposits thus show a rough correlation of middle and late Neoproterozoic rocks of the world. The map is a Richardson map projection, except for Antarctica which is a polar projection. The map was prepared from about 650 references, shown in the text linked below under 'Sources of Information', used to outline distribution patterns, determine rock types, and provide information on the regional and local geologic framework of the rocks. The focus of the references is on the geologic information needed to prepare the map. Other information, such as plate tectonic reconstructions or paleomagnetic studies is generally not included. The 'Sources of Information' lists references alphabetically for each of 14 regions. In brackets is a code for each area. These codes provide help in locating the specific regions in the references.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

A Science Plan for a Comprehensive Regional Assessment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Aquifer System in Maryland

The Maryland Coastal Plain region is, at present, largely dependent upon ground water for its water supply. Decades of increasing pumpage have caused ground-water levels in parts of the Maryland Coastal Plain to decline by as much as 2 feet per year in some areas of southern Maryland. Continued declines at this rate could affect the long-term sustainability of ground-water resources in Maryland's heavily populated Coastal Plain communities and the agricultural industry of the Eastern Shore. In response to a recommendation in 2004 by the Advisory Committee on the Management and Protection of the State's Water Resources, the Maryland Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey have developed a science plan for a comprehensive assessment that will provide new scientific information and new data management and analysis tools for the State to use in allocating ground water in the Coastal Plain. The comprehensive assessment has five goals aimed at improving the current information and tools used to understand the resource potential of the aquifer system: (1) document the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the aquifer system in the Maryland Coastal Plain and appropriate areas of adjacent states; (2) conduct detailed studies of the regional ground-water-flow system and water budget for the aquifer system; (3) improve documentation of patterns of water quality in all Coastal Plain aquifers, including the distribution of saltwater; (4) enhance ground-water-level, streamflow, and water-quality-monitoring networks in the Maryland Coastal Plain; and (5) develop science-based tools to facilitate sound management of the ground-water resources in the Maryland Coastal Plain. The assessment, as designed, will be conducted in three phases and if fully implemented, is expected to take 7 to 8 years to complete. Phase I, which was initiated in January 2006, is an effort to assemble all the information and investigation tools needed to do a more comprehensive assessment of the aquifer system. The work will include updating the hydrogeologic framework, developing a Geographic Information System-based aquifer information system, refinement of water-use information, assessment of existing water-quality data, and development of detailed plans for ground-water-flow and management models. Phase II is an intensive study phase during which a regional ground-water-flow model will be developed and calibrated for the entire region of Maryland in the Atlantic Coastal Plain as well as appropriate areas of Delaware and Virginia. The model will be used to simulate flow and water levels in the aquifer system and to study the water budget of the system. The model analysis will be based on published information but will be supplemented with field investigations of recharge and leakage in the aquifer system. Localized and finely discretized ground-water-flow models that are embedded in the regional model will be developed for selected areas of heavy withdrawals. Other modeling studies will be conducted to better understand flow in the unconfined parts of the aquifer system and to support the recharge studies. Phase II will also include selected water-quality studies and a study to determine how hydrologic and water-quality-monitoring networks need to be enhanced to appropriately assess the sustainability of the Coastal Plain aquifer system. Phase III will be largely devoted to the development and application of a ground-water optimization model. This model will be linked to the ground-water-flow model to create a model package that can be used to test different water-management scenarios. The management criteria that will be used to develop these scenarios will be determined in consultation with a variety of state and local stakeholders and policy makers in Phases I and II of the assessment. The development of the aquifer information system is a key component of the assessment. The system will store all relevant aquifer data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2008

Methods for Monitoring Fish Communities of Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic Riverways in the Ozark Plateaus of Arkansas and Missouri: Version 1.0

Buffalo National River located in north-central Arkansas, and Ozark National Scenic Riverways, located in southeastern Missouri, are the two largest units of the National Park Service in the Ozark Plateaus physiographic province. The purpose of this report is to provide a protocol that will be used by the National Park Service to sample fish communities and collect related water-quality, habitat, and stream discharge data of Buffalo National River and Ozark National Scenic Riverways to meet inventory and long-term monitoring objectives. The protocol includes (1) a protocol narrative, (2) several standard operating procedures, and (3) supplemental information helpful for implementation of the protocol. The protocol narrative provides background information about the protocol such as the rationale of why a particular resource or resource issue was selected for monitoring, information concerning the resource or resource issue of interest, a description of how monitoring results will inform management decisions, and a discussion of the linkages between this and other monitoring projects. The standard operating procedures cover preparation, training, reach selection, water-quality sampling, fish community sampling, physical habitat collection, measuring stream discharge, equipment maintenance and storage, data management and analysis, reporting, and protocol revision procedures. Much of the information in the standard operating procedures was gathered from existing protocols of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Assessment program or other sources. Supplemental information that would be helpful for implementing the protocol is included. This information includes information on fish species known or suspected to occur in the parks, sample sites, sample design, fish species traits, index of biotic integrity metrics, sampling equipment, and field forms.

Open-File Report↗