Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Planning”

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 1,765 records · Page 98Linked to original sources
USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices

The USGS has a long and proud tradition of objective, unbiased science in service to the Nation. A reputation for impartiality and excellence is one of our most important assets. To help preserve this vital asset, in 2004 the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) of the USGS was charged by the Director to develop a set of fundamental science practices, philosophical premises, and operational principles as the foundation for all USGS research and monitoring activities. In a concept document, 'Fundamental Science Practices of the U.S. Geological Survey', the ELT proposed 'a set of fundamental principles to underlie USGS science practices.' The document noted that protecting the reputation of USGS science for quality and objectivity requires the following key elements: - Clearly articulated, Bureau-wide fundamental science practices. - A shared understanding at all levels of the organization that the health and future of the USGS depend on following these practices. - The investment of budget, time, and people to ensure that the USGS reputation and high-quality standards are maintained. The USGS Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) encompass all elements of research investigations, including data collection, experimentation, analysis, writing results, peer review, management review, and Bureau approval and publication of information products. The focus of FSP is on how science is carried out and how products are produced and disseminated. FSP is not designed to address the question of what work the USGS should do; that is addressed in USGS science planning handbooks and other documents. Building from longstanding existing USGS policies and the ELT concept document, in May 2006, FSP policies were developed with input from all parts of the organization and were subsequently incorporated into the Bureau's Survey Manual. In developing an implementation plan for FSP policy, the intent was to recognize and incorporate the best of USGS current practices to obtain the optimum overall program for our science. In January 2009, the USGS moved to full implementation of FSP. The FSP Advisory Committee (FSPAC) was formed to serve as the Bureau's working and standing committee to ensure the objectivity and quality of the Bureau's science information products and to provide support for the full implementation of FSP.

Circular↗
USGS2011

Development of industrial minerals in Colorado

Technology and engineering have helped make mining safer and cleaner for both humans and the environment. Inevitably, mineral development entails costs as well as benefits. Developing a mine is an environmental, engineering, and planning challenge that must conform to many Federal, State, and local regulations. Community collaboration, creative design, and best management practices of sustainability and biodiversity can be positive indicators for the mining industry. A better understanding of aesthetics, culture, economics, geology, climate, vegetation and wildlife, topography, historical significance, and regional land planning is important in resolving land-use issues and managing mineral resources wisely. Ultimately, the consuming public makes choices about product use (including water, food, highways, housing, and thousands of other items) that influence operations of the mineral industry. Land planners, resource managers, earth scientists, designers, and public groups have a responsibility to consider sound scientific information, society's needs, and community appeals in making smart decisions concerning resource use and how complex landscapes should change. An effort to provide comprehensive geosciences data for land management agencies in central Colorado was undertaken in 2003 by scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Colorado Geological Survey. This effort, the Central Colorado Assessment Project, addressed a variety of land-use issues: an understanding of the availability of industrial and metallic rocks and minerals, the geochemical and environmental effects of historic mining activity on surface water and groundwater, and the geologic controls on the availability and quality of groundwater. The USDA Forest Service and other land management agencies have the opportunity to contribute to the sustainable management of natural aggregate and other mineral resources through the identification and selective development of mineral resources and the reclamation of mines on lands that they administer. The information in this Circular will help them carry out that task.

Colorado↗
USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey sagebrush ecosystem research annual report for 2020

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across 251,473 square miles over portions of 13 western States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, invasive plants, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and ensure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for more than 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as an iconic species of this ecosystem. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States, and 2 Canadian Provinces and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat; however, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, rely on various parts of the sagebrush ecosystem but only for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem, wildlife species within the ecosystem, and the species’ response to stressors and management actions. The program provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. By providing the science to inform these decisions, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards the goal of sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. This information can inform planning and management conducted by nongovernmental organizations as well. USGS research is tailored specifically to inform adaptive management, improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush, and restoring degraded landscapes. Examples of research support for partners include providing information for actions such as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans and land use. The USGS continues to provide foundational science to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nev↗
USGS2024

Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE): Summary of U.S. Geological Survey URGE pod deliverables

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is in a unique position to be a leader in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the Earth sciences. As one of the largest geoscience employers, the USGS wields significant community influence and has a responsibility to adopt and implement robust, unbiased policies so that the science it is charged to deliver is better connected to the diverse communities it serves. Meaningful and effective improvements in implementation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility principles made within the USGS will be seen across the geoscience community. Despite this opportunity, however, the community, including the USGS, has struggled to diversify the geoscience workforce, which does not reflect the Nation’s diversity. This disparity suggests that the implementation of past policies did not achieve their desired outcomes in sustainable ways. The persistent lack of diversity across the geosciences and the racial justice protests of 2020 motivated a group of geoscience scholars to launch a global, virtual initiative known as Unlearning Racism in Geoscience (URGE) in the winter of 2021. The 16-week facilitated URGE curriculum was designed to highlight existing literature, share expert opinions, and foster discussion within groups (pods) around the world to build action plans for affecting change within their home institutions ( https://urgeoscience.org/ ). Whereas most of the approximately 4,500 participants were university faculty and students or from professional societies and nonprofit organizations, 6 pods totaling over 120 participants from the USGS joined the program—the largest participation of any Federal science agency. Summarizing the recommendations of over 100 USGS employees across the USGS who participated in URGE, this Circular represents a grassroots plan for making the USGS workforce more diverse and inclusive. To identify how peer-reviewed best practices could be implemented at the USGS, participants read existing literature, reviewed USGS policies and procedures, explored new and existing demographic data, and listened to and discussed primary interviews with scholars, all facilitated by the URGE program. This Circular leverages the efforts and momentum of the USGS URGE participants to catalyze and support positive, systemic change throughout the organization in a holistic way that represents an achievable departure from past policies that fell short of success. These recommendations are starting points. Reflecting the overall lack of diversity in the USGS workforce, the USGS URGE participants were predominantly White, meaning recommendations in this document can and should continue to evolve to include the lived perspectives and input from the broader USGS community. Finally, this summary document only highlights some of the key findings of these working groups. Additional details that may be more suitable to specific USGS Centers and programs can be found in the primary documents developed by each USGS URGE pod; a list of all registered pods can be found at https://urgeoscience.org/pods/ .

Circular↗
USGS2023

Integrated science strategy for assessing and monitoring water availability and migratory birds for terminal lakes across the Great Basin, United States

Executive Summary In 2022, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) established the Saline Lake Ecosystems Integrated Water Availability Assessment (IWAAs) to monitor and assess the hydrology of terminal lakes in the Great Basin and the migratory birds and other wildlife dependent on those habitats. Scientists from across the USGS (with specialties in water quantity, water quality, limnology, avian biology, data science, landscape ecology, and science communication) formed the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs Team. The team has developed this regional strategic science plan to guide data collection and assessment activities at terminal lakes in the Great Basin. The U.S. Congress requested the USGS to establish the Saline Lake Ecosystems IWAAs in response to historically low water levels at terminal lakes and associated wetlands across the Great Basin. Not all Great Basin terminal lakes have high salinity; however, all terminal lakes occur in endorheic, closed, basins with no surface-water outflow. Low lake levels across the Great Basin are the result of increased water use for agriculture and municipalities, drought conditions, and a warming climate. Great Basin terminal lake water extents have decreased by as much as 90 percent over the last 150 years, and terminal lake wetlands have decreased in area by as much as 47 percent since 1984. Lake elevations and wetland areas are primarily supported by freshwater inputs from snowmelt feeding upgradient rivers, streams, and springs. These freshwater inputs have been severely reduced because of continued and increased surface-water diversions and surface-water capture through groundwater pumping for agriculture, mining, and public supply as well as unprecedented drought conditions and warming temperatures related to climate change. Water quality, specifically salinity, is highly variable for terminal lakes of the Great Basin, and this variability is a result of the balance between freshwater inflow and evaporation. Variability of salinity at each of the terminal lakes can be affected by lake morphology, hydrogeologic features of the basin, annual variability in weather patterns, and changes in upgradient water use. Hypersaline terminal lakes provide abundant food resources such as brine shrimp and brine flies that support nesting and migrating birds. The density and composition of invertebrates are closely tied to lake salinity. Increased salinity can exceed the tolerance of invertebrates, severely limiting their biomass. In contrast, decreased salinity can lead to altered invertebrate community composition, reducing the abundance of optimal avian prey resources. Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems, including open-water and adjacent aquatic and terrestrial environments, provide resources necessary to sustain many animal populations throughout the year. Although a variety of taxa use terminal lakes, these ecosystems are of acute importance for the millions of migratory waterbirds (for example, shorebirds, wading birds, and waterfowl) dependent on the network of terminal lakes and their associated wetlands. Migratory birds transiting the Pacific and Central Flyways use Great Basin terminal lake ecosystems throughout the year to feed, nest, and transit between wintering and breeding ranges. As such, successful conservation of birds and their habitats requires coordinated management of water and habitats across the Great Basin network of terminal lakes and wetlands. The linkages between water availability and ecosystem vulnerability of terminal lakes in the Great Basin are not well understood. The vulnerability of terminal lakes is related to the factors driving change and adaptive capacity of the lake ecosystem. Saline lake ecosystems are vulnerable when changes in water quantity affect ecosystem function. Water quantity affects salinity, which affects food webs and habitat; these linkages can be investigated with water-quality and food web monitoring. Water quantity also affects inundated habitat, which can be quantified through remote sensing. It is necessary to quantify hydroclimatic and water use controls on water availability to terminal lakes to assess the response of the ecosystems. Remotely sensed data can provide a broad-scale and long-term synoptic view of terminal lake hydrologic characteristics, but ground observations are required to interpret changes in water quality and ecological functions. Some terminal lake basins have ongoing monitoring and modeling efforts within the Great Basin (for example, Great Salt Lake, Carson River Basin), yet most monitoring locations are hydrologically upgradient and too far away from lake inflows to provide an accurate assessment of hydrological trends for the lake ecosystems. Other terminal lakes have no long-term hydrological monitoring in their respective watersheds (for example, Lake Abert). Ecological data collection in the Great Basin is also insufficient to understand how many birds exist on the landscape, how birds use the mosaic of terminal-lake habitats as an interconnected system, and how Great Basin terminal lakes are linked to the larger continental system of the Pacific and Central Flyways. Across agencies and organizations, tracking bird movement, abundance, and diversity is inconsistent, with some lakes having once- or twice-a-year bird survey efforts and a few locations having more intensive ecological data-gathering efforts (for example, Great Salt Lake, Lake Abert). Bridging hydrological and ecological information gaps will improve understanding of the trends in water supply and water quality, habitat availability and usage, and impacts on vulnerable waterbird species, all of which would be used by managers in coordinated conservation of this unique network of terminal-lake habitats. The terminal lakes of the Great Basin are part of the Basin and Range physiographic province that extends from the Colorado Plateau on the east to the Sierra Nevada on the west, and from the Snake River Plain on the north to the Garlock fault and the Mojave block on the south. The Great Basin is larger than 650,000 square kilometers and encompasses most of the State of Nevada but also extends to western Utah, eastern California, southeastern Idaho, southwestern Wyoming, and southeastern Oregon. The climate is arid to semiarid with a hydrologic regime that is snowmelt dominated, providing as much as 75 percent of total annual runoff for the region. Terminal lakes of the Great Basin occupy the lowest areas of closed (endorheic) drainage basins, such that lake levels and water quality respond rapidly to surface-water inflow. Terminal lakes provide local and regional economic value to the States in the Great Basin, including mineral extraction, aquaculture, public works, and recreational uses. As an example, assessments of Great Salt Lake’s ecological health and economic impact find hemispheric importance for the former and regional importance for the latter. Great Salt Lake creates about 7,000 jobs and $2 billion of economic output per year, most of which would be lost with further declines in lake level. The objectives of this Science Strategy are threefold: (1) to identify how changing water availability affects the quality, diversity, and abundance of habitats supporting continental waterbird populations; (2) to highlight the scientific monitoring and assessment needs of Great Basin terminal lakes; and (3) to support coordinated management and conservation actions to benefit those ecosystems, migratory birds, and other wildlife. There are long-term hydrological, ecological, and societal challenges associated with terminal lakes ecosystems in the Great Basin. This Science Strategy benefits partners by providing a conceptual model, nested at different spatial extents, that identifies key scientific information needs to inform coordinated implementation of management and conservation plans within and among hydrologic basins to address these complex challenges.

California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2025

An interagency perspective on improving consistency and transparency of land use and land cover mapping

Executive Summary Geospatial products of land use and land cover are broadly used in many applications. For example, the annual national greenhouse gas inventory uses the National Land Cover Database, the Coastal Change Analysis Program, Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools, the Forest Inventory and Analysis, and the National Resources Inventory to represent the land use and management base of the United States and attribute sources and sinks of greenhouse gas emissions. Federally produced land use and land cover datasets for the United States, including those from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, set the foundation for developing and informing applications such as land change, conservation, greenhouse gas monitoring, urban planning, agricultural production, ecosystem functions, and water quantity and use. No single land use and land cover product is optimal for all land use and land cover applications. Approaches for defining and mapping land use and land cover classes differ across Federal map products, reflecting the tailoring of product specifications to match specific agency needs. These differing approaches present a challenge when attempting to integrate and harmonize multiple land use and land cover products into single analysis or application frameworks. Nuanced understanding of how these products are designed and produced may not be immediately evident to users; however, the availability of a diverse suite of products also represents an opportunity, providing multiple approaches for observing landscape change. In response to the National Strategy to Advance an Integrated U.S. Greenhouse Gas Measurement, Monitoring, and Information System, this Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium-led interagency report presents (1) the current status of U.S. Federal land use and land cover products (as of May 2024), (2) existing synergies and integration among these federally produced land use and land cover products, (3) inherent challenges of creating a single consistent framework, and (4) strategies for collectively tackling these challenges to improve coordination and collaboration among data producers and facilitate the adoption of land use and land cover products for greenhouse gas monitoring and a variety of other applications.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Engineering and risk research—A strategic vision for extending USGS earthquake science to risk assessment and mitigation

As a part of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Natural Hazards Mission Area, the Engineering and Risk Project (ERP) of the Geologic Hazards Science Center conducts civil engineering research to extend natural hazards science to risk assessments. The ERP includes predominantly, but not exclusively, staff funded by the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program. A major focus of the ERP is to deliver actionable information to decisionmakers that helps promote the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The report discusses briefly the ERP’s evolution and scope, its organization structure, describes key products and deliverables, their efforts to engage with external partners, and its strategy and vision in conducting range of engineering and risk research. The research topics outlined in this report, as developed by the ERP, may be used to facilitate project planning activities during the next 10 years and serve as a longer-term planning resource for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program and Geologic Hazards Science Center.

Circular↗
USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗
USGS1952

Water resources of the Lake Erie shore region in Pennsylvania

An abundant supply of water is available to the Lake Erie Shore region in Pennsylvania. Lake i£rie furnishes an almost inexhaustible supply of water of satisfactory chemical quality. Small quantities of water are available from small streams in the area and from the ground. A satisfactory water supply is one of the factors that affect the economic growth of a region. Cities and towns must have adequate amounts of pure water for human consumption. Industries must have suitable water ih sufficient quantities for all purposes. In order to assure. success and economy, the development of water resources should be based on adequate knowledge of the quantity and quality of the water. As a nation, we can not afford to run the risk of dissipating our resources, especially in times of national emergency, by building projects that are not founded on sound engineering and adequate water-resources information. The purpose of this report is to summarize and interpret all available water-resources information for the Lake Erie Shore region in Pennsylvania. The report will be useful for initial guidance in the location or expansion of water facilities for defense and nondefense industries and the municipalities upon which they are dependent. It will also be useful in evaluating the adequacy of the Geological Survey's part of the basic research necessary to plan the orderly development of the water resources of the Lake Erie Shore region. Most of the data contained inthis report have been obtained'by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Waters, the Pennsylvania Department of Internal Affairs, and the Pennsylvania State Planning Board, Department of Commerce. The Pennsylv~nia Department of Health furnished information on water pollution. The report was prepared in the Water Resources Division of the U. S. Geological Survey b:y John W. Mangan (Surface Water). Donald W. VanTuyl (Ground Water). and Walter F. White, Jr. (Quality of Water), under the general direction of C. G. Paulsen, chief hydraulic engineer.

Circular↗
USGS1960

Conservation and protection

When I was a child we had a burro I called Gacho. He was a typical burro, omnivorous in his eating habits and prone to streaks of extreme recalcitrance. Our yard wasn't very large, but it did produce enough grass and weeds to keep old Gacho in good fettle. His first preference was for the native grasses, and he chose to graze the lush patches rather than the shriveled plants on the areas of thin soil. Nevertheless, he was not particular and seemed to graze to some extent all over the yard. He often nibbled in the flower beds and I sometimes wondered whether he did this just for spite. After a time I arranged some crude fences and a tethering rope to keep him out of the most important flower beds. The yard was so small that we had a waste problem. To ignore the problem would hardly have been civilized, but, on the other hand, one couldn't follow him around all day with a shovel. So a workable compromise was adopted by keeping him penned up at night in a small enclosure, which, of course, could not be kept immaculate but was at least reasonably clean. We had the burro and we weren't getting rid of him. He was useful; we enjoyed riding him and hitching him up to our wagons. But he was a bother sometimes. Here was a simple case of resource use and resource development. The case is incomplete, but it demonstrates a principle. The resource, represented by the vegetation, was being utilized, or developed if you will, by a small juggernaut which was only partly controllable by my youthful skills. There was no need to urge utilization. That followed as a matter of course. The problem was that the one who utilized the resource, in this case the burro, was not very discerning of relative values. To Gacho the choice of which plant to eat and where to get rid of the waste was governed only by his own interests and convenience. Now, when a planning body convenes, one may bet that either the burro has Jain down in a flower bed or he has messed up the yard. By this time everybody is already in a lather. An appreciation of the existence of problems usually leads to a period of organizing the facts, assessing the current situation, and surveying the future possibilities. In the New England area such an assessment has recently been completed. Since that stage has been reached, it is logical to discuss the function of a planning unit as a prelude to the next phase. I should like to outline my own thoughts on this matter, but I do so without expecting to convince all others.

Circular↗
USGS1976

A guide to State programs for the reclamation of surface mined areas

During 1975 inquiries of agencies in each State and review of State statutes and related administrative codes revealed that 38 States have established programs requiring the reclamation of surface mined lands. Results of analyses of those programs and ancillary data are presented in : (1) A table (matrix) which has been designed for the notation and elaboration of information pertaining to the mined-area reclamation programs of the 50 States; (2) a primer on surface mining activities and related reclamation practices and problems; and (3) a listing of types of non-Federal governmental controls applicable to reclamation. Interpretations of the status and content of State programs suggest that although a common thread runs through State statutory language, administrative requirements vary from State to State in order to meet different natural, economic, social, and political considerations. A general trend is seen in State programs toward the requiring of an integration of landuse planning and mine planning, with increased local governmental involvement.

Circular↗
USGS1981

Geologic mapping of Kentucky: A history and evaluation of the Kentucky Geological Survey--U.S. Geological Survey Mapping Program, 1960-1978

In 1960, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Kentucky Geological Survey began a program to map the State geologically at a scale of 1:24,000 and to publish the maps as 707 U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Maps. Fieldwork was completed by the spring of 1977, and all maps were published by December 1978. Geologic mapping of the State was proposed by the Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers in 1959. Wallace W. Hagan, Director and State Geologist of the Kentucky Geological Survey, and Preston McGrain, Assistant State Geologist, promoted support for the proposal among organizations such as Chambers of Commerce, industrial associations, professional societies, and among members of the State government. It was also arranged for the U.S. Geological Survey to supply mapping personnel and to publish the maps; the cost would be shared equally by the two organizations. Members of the U.S. Geological Survey assigned to the program were organized as the Branch of Kentucky Geology. Branch headquarters, including an editorial staff, was at Lexington, Ky., but actual mapping was conducted from 18 field offices distributed throughout the State. The Publications Division of the U.S. Geological Survey established a cartographic office at Lexington to prepare the maps for publication. About 260 people, including more than 200 professionals, were assigned to the Branch of Kentucky Geology by the U.S. Geological Survey at one time or another. The most geologists assigned any one year was 61. To complete the mapping and ancillary studies, 661 professional man-years were required, compared with an original estimate of 600 man-years. A wide variety of field methods were used, but most geologists relied on the surveying altimeter to obtain elevations. Surface data were supplemented by drill-hole records, and several dozen shallow diamond-drill holes were drilled to aid the mapping. Geologists generally scribed their own maps, with a consequent saving of publication costs. Paleontologists and stratigraphers of the U.S. Geological Survey cooperated closely with the program. Paleontologic studies were concentrated in the Ordovician of central Kentucky, the Pennsylvanian of eastern and western Kentucky, and the Mesozoic and Cenozoic of westernmost Kentucky. In addition to financial support, the Kentucky Geological Survey provided economic data, stratigraphic support, and drillhole records to the field offices. Geologists of the State Survey made subsurface structural interpretations, constructed bedrock topography maps, and mapped several quadrangles. Some of the problems encountered were the inadequacy of much of the existing stratigraphic nomenclature, the uneven quality of some of the mapping, and the effects of relative isolation on the professional development of some of the geologists. The program cost a total of $20,927,500. In terms of 1960 dollars, it cost $16,035,000; this compares with an original estimate of $12,000,000. Although it is difficult to place a monetary value on the geologic mapping, the program has contributed to newly discovered mineral wealth, jobs, and money saved by government and industry. The maps are used widely in the exploration for coal, oil and gas, fluorspar, limestone, and clay. The maps are also used in planning highways and locations of dams, in evaluating foundation and excavation conditions, in preparing environmental impact statements, and in land-use planning.

Kentucky↗
USGS1980

A review and evaluation of alternatives for updating U.S. Geological Survey land use and land cover maps

Since 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey has been engaged in a nationwide program of baseline mapping of land use and land cover and associated data at a scale of 1:250,000. As l:100,000-scale bases have become available, they have been used for mapping certain areas and for special applications. These two scales are appropriate for mapping land use and land cover data on a nationwide basis within a practical time frame, and with an acceptable degree of standardization, accuracy, and level of detail. An essential requisite to better use of the land is current information on land use and land cover conditions and on the rates and trends of changes with time. Thus, plans are underway to update these maps and data. The major considerations in planning a nationwide program for updating U.S. Geological Survey land use and land cover maps are as follows: (1) How often should maps be updated? (2) What remotely sensed source materials should be used for detecting and compiling changes in land use and land cover? (3) What base maps should be used for presenting data on land use and land cover changes? (4) What maps or portions of a map should be updated? (5) What methods should be used for identifying and mapping changes? (6) What procedures should be followed for updating maps and what formats should be used? These factors must be considered in developing a map update program that portrays an appropriate level of information, relates to and builds upon the existing U.S. Geological Survey land use and land cover digital and statistical data base, is timely, cost-effective and standardized, and meets the varying needs of land use and land cover data users.

Circular↗
USGS1981

Guides to some volcanic terranes in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Northern California

This guidebook arose out of a series of field trips held in conjunction with the Pacific Northwest American Geophysical Union meeting held in Bend, Oregon, September 1979. The PNAGU meeting included special volcanology sessions planned by William I. Rose, Jr., Bruce A. Nolf, amd David A. Johnston. Publication of the guidebook volume was originally planned for early 1980 by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Inevitable delays, subsequent scheduling problems, and the death of Dave Johnston in the May 18 eruption of Mount St. Helens led to this publication as a USGS Circular. This circular differs from typical U.S. Geological Survey compilations in that not all these papers have been examined by the Geologic Names Committee of the Survey. This Committee is charged with ensuring consistent usage of formational and other stratigraphic names in U.S. Geological Survey publications. Because many of the contributions are from workers outside the Survey, review by the Geologic Names Committee would have been inappropriate. Each author provided camera-ready pages, and the articles have not been edited for uniformity of style or usage. The contributions are generally ordered so as to describe the areas from north to south. Typically, the roadlog comes after the descriptive article except in the case of the Medicine Lake Highland articles, for which the road log is first and several topical contributions follow.

California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington↗
USGS1951

Geology of anthracite in the southwestern part of the Mount Carmel quadrangle, Pennsylvania

This report is the second to be prepared as a result of a geologic investigation of the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania begun after consultation with the Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Surveys of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This report and others in preparation will show (1) the location of coal outcrops, (2) the depth, pitch, and other structural features of representative coal beds, (3) the natural and artificial barriers between mines and the structural relationships between the various coal basins, and (4) the correlation of the beds, the stratigraphic intervals between them, and the thickness, continuity, and other physical characteristics of the coal. The reports will bring up to date and amplify the Grand Atlas of the Anthracite Fields published by the Second Geological Survey of Pennsylvania in 1884-1885, and the reports that supplemented that atlas. It is expected that the reports will aid operators who are mining either on the surface or underground, or who are formulating plans for control of mine water. It is hoped that these reports will also direct attention to overlooked or unutilized reserves of coal. A preceding report described the west-central part of the Mount Carmel quadrangle (Rothrock et al., 1950) and it is planned to publish similar reports on other unit areas as they are completed.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS2024

National shoreline change—Summary statistics for vector shorelines from the early 1900s to the 2010s for Puerto Rico

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a database of historical shoreline positions for the United States coasts derived from historical sources, such as aerial photographs or topographic surveys, and contemporary sources, such as modern orthophotography, light detection and ranging (lidar) point clouds, and digital elevation models. These shorelines are compiled within a geographic information system and analyzed in the USGS Digital Shoreline Analysis System (version 5.1) software to calculate rates of change. Keeping a record of historical shoreline positions is an effective method to monitor change over time, enabling scientists and resource managers to identify areas that are historically most susceptible to erosion or accretion. The effort in this report represents an expansion of the USGS national-scale shoreline database to include Puerto Rico and the islands of the territory, Vieques and Culebra. The USGS, in cooperation with the Coastal Research and Planning Institute of Puerto Rico (part of the Graduate School of Planning at the University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus) has derived and compiled a database of historical shoreline positions for Puerto Rico from the early 1900s through 2018, with the goal of providing beneficial insight for coastal managers and communities vulnerable to coastal change.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS2025

Parentage and sibship relationships among captive snakes at the Phoenix Zoo—2024 data summary

Introduction The narrow-headed gartersnake ( Thamnophis rufipunctatus ) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2014). This species has a strong association with aquatic habitats, and these habitats have been highly altered by impoundments, land-use changes, and the introduction and spread of non-native aquatic species, which contributed to declines in Arizona and New Mexico for the last 30–40 years. Captive breeding programs can be used for genetic rescue and conservation of threatened and endangered species (Frankham, 2010). Often based on pedigree analyses, captive management plans aim to retain genetic diversity, limit inbreeding, and avoid adaptation to captivity (Foose and Ballou, 1988; Hedrick and Miller, 1992; Ivy and others, 2009; Frankham, 2010). In 2011, the Arizona Center for Nature Conservation/Phoenix Zoo (hereafter Phoenix Zoo) developed an ex-situ captive breeding management plan for T. rufipunctatus , with the aim to propagate and release individual T. rufipunctatus back into their native range (Blais and others, 2022). We sequenced 125 microsatellite loci to generate genetic toolsets to track pedigree and assess paternity and sibship relationships for this captive breeding program. Specifically, we used microsatellite loci to assign paternity and relatedness among eight litters composed of multiple female and male snakes born between 2014 and 2023 at the Phoenix Zoo breeding facility. We also completed sibship analysis for six wild gartersnakes collected from Canyon Creek, Arizona, that were brought into the Phoenix Zoo breeding facility in 2017 and 2018.

Arizona↗
USGS2018

High-water marks from Hurricane Sandy for coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, October 2012

Because coastal areas in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts were heavily affected by Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), under a mission agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, collected storm tide high-water marks in those coastal areas. This effort was undertaken to better understand the areal extent and impact of storm tides resulting from strong storms. On October 27–29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy moved up the eastern coast of the United States after passing over the Bahamas. On October 29 at about 7:30 p.m. eastern daylight time, Hurricane Sandy made landfall its final time near Brigantine, New Jersey, with recorded wind speeds of about 80 miles per hour. The damages from Hurricane Sandy exceeded $50 billion in total, making it the second most costly Atlantic hurricane at that time, second only to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Hurricane Sandy also resulted in 147 deaths, and about 650,000 homes and many businesses being damaged along the eastern coast of the United States. The severity of Hurricane Sandy’s effects resulted in presidential disaster declarations being declared in 10 States from Virginia to Massachusetts and the District of Columbia in the months following Hurricane Sandy; the list of States affected included Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. In response to the approach of Hurricane Sandy, the USGS deployed 60 temporary storm tide sensors and 2 temporary real-time rapid deployment gages to collect tide elevation data during the storm along the coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. This activity was done from Virginia to Maine before the storm. Following Hurricane Sandy, in October and November 2012, 371 storm tide high-water marks were identified and flagged in the coastal areas of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. High-water marks near USGS temporary storm tide sensors, real-time rapid deployment gages, and streamgages affected by the tides as well as high-water marks on Block Island, R.I., and Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket, Mass., were surveyed at the same time the high-water marks were identified and flagged in October and November 2012. The remaining high-water marks flagged during October and November 2012 were surveyed from December 2013 through June 2014 and in December 2016. Elevations of all high-water marks were referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 and horizontal coordinates to the North American Datum of 1983 using the Global Navigation Satellite System, survey-grade Digital Global Positioning System receivers, and total station surveying equipment. Of the 371 storm tide high-water marks flagged following Hurricane Sandy, only 364 high-water marks were surveyed; the remaining 7 could not be found or had been destroyed when locations were revisited to conduct surveys. The 157 high-water marks surveyed in Connecticut had elevations that ranged from 2.5 to 12.2 feet (ft) with an average elevation of 8.1 ft and a median elevation of 8.3 ft. The 76 high-water marks in Rhode Island had elevations that ranged from 3.6 to 16.2 ft and averaged 7.1 ft with a median of 6.6 ft. The 131 high-water marks in Massachusetts had elevations that ranged from 2.8 to 22.7 ft and averaged 7.3 ft with a median of 6.6 ft. Individual information on the location, type, accuracy, and elevation of the 371 high-water marks can be found in an accompanying USGS data release and at the USGS Flood Event Viewer website for Hurricane Sandy ( https://stn.wim.usgs.gov/fev/#Sandy ). The high-water marks along the coast line of Connecticut and eastern Massachusetts, including Nantucket, generally had higher storm tide elevations than the coast line of Rhode Island including Block Island and southern Massachusetts, including Martha’s Vineyard. The high-water mark elevations compare well with recorded peak-storm tide data at USGS temporary storm tide sensors and real-time rapid deployment gages deployed for Hurricane Sandy in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. High-water mark data collected following Hurricane Sandy will be used by Federal, State, and local government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, universities, and the public for better understanding the areal extent and impact of the storm tides. Additionally, these data can be used for such activities as land-use planning, flood risk studies, flood resiliency studies, and coastal modeling. These data from this historic storm can be compared with other regional hurricanes and tropical storms for planning into the future.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island↗