Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Earth Science”

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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Weakly supervised spatial deep learning for Earth image segmentation based on imperfect polyline labels

In recent years, deep learning has achieved tremendous success in image segmentation for computer vision applications. The performance of these models heavily relies on the availability of large-scale high-quality training labels (e.g., PASCAL VOC 2012). Unfortunately, such large-scale high-quality training data are often unavailable in many real-world spatial or spatiotemporal problems in earth science and remote sensing (e.g., mapping the nationwide river streams for water resource management). Although extensive efforts have been made to reduce the reliance on labeled data (e.g., semi-supervised or unsupervised learning, few-shot learning), the complex nature of geographic data such as spatial heterogeneity still requires sufficient training labels when transferring a pre-trained model from one region to another. On the other hand, it is often much easier to collect lower-quality training labels with imperfect alignment with earth imagery pixels (e.g., through interpreting coarse imagery by non-expert volunteers). However, directly training a deep neural network on imperfect labels with geometric annotation errors could significantly impact model performance. Existing research that overcomes imperfect training labels either focuses on errors in label class semantics or characterizes label location errors at the pixel level. These methods do not fully incorporate the geometric properties of label location errors in the vector representation. To fill the gap, this article proposes a weakly supervised learning framework to simultaneously update deep learning model parameters and infer hidden true vector label locations. Specifically, we model label location errors in the vector representation to partially reserve geometric properties (e.g., spatial contiguity within line segments). Evaluations on real-world datasets in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) refinement application illustrate that the proposed framework outperforms baseline methods in classification accuracy.

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Techno↗
USGS2002

A bibliography of terrain modeling (geomorphometry), the quantitative representation of topography: Supplement 4.0

Terrain modeling, the practice of ground-surface quantification, is an amalgam of Earth science, mathematics, engineering, and computer science. The discipline is known variously as geomorphometry (or simply morphometry), terrain analysis, and quantitative geomorphology. It continues to grow through myriad applications to hydrology, geohazards mapping, tectonics, sea-floor and planetary exploration, and other fields. Dating nominally to the co-founders of academic geography, Alexander von Humboldt (1808, 1817) and Carl Ritter (1826, 1828), the field was revolutionized late in the 20th Century by the computer manipulation of spatial arrays of terrain heights, or digital elevation models (DEMs), which can quantify and portray ground-surface form over large areas (Maune, 2001). Morphometric procedures are implemented routinely by commercial geographic information systems (GIS) as well as specialized software (Harvey and Eash, 1996; Köthe and others, 1996; ESRI, 1997; Drzewiecki et al., 1999; Dikau and Saurer, 1999; Djokic and Maidment, 2000; Wilson and Gallant, 2000; Breuer, 2001; Guth, 2001; Eastman, 2002). The new Earth Surface edition of the Journal of Geophysical Research, specializing in surficial processes, is the latest of many publication venues for terrain modeling. This is the fourth update of a bibliography and introduction to terrain modeling (Pike, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999) designed to collect the diverse, scattered literature on surface measurement as a resource for the research community. The use of DEMs in science and technology continues to accelerate and diversify (Pike, 2000a). New work appears so frequently that a sampling must suffice to represent the vast literature. This report adds 1636 entries to the 4374 in the four earlier publications1. Forty-eight additional entries correct dead Internet links and other errors found in the prior listings. Chronicling the history of terrain modeling, many entries in this report predate the 1999 supplement. Coverage is representative from about 1800 through early–mid 2002. Papers increasingly are published exclusively or in duplicate on the Internet's World Wide Web; the dates given here for Web addresses (URLs) that lack a print publication indicate a Web site's last update or my last access of it. The bibliography is arranged alphabetically and thus is not readily summarized. This introduction cites about 500 entries, a third of them grouped under 24 morphometric topics, as a guide to the listing's contents. Continuing the practice of previous bibliographies in the series to provide more information on a few applications (see summary of past topics in Pike, 2000a), this report elaborates further on topographic data, putative new parameters, tectonic geomorphology/neo-orometry, biogeography, ice-cap morphometry, results from the Mars Global DEM, landslide-hazard mapping, terrain modeling as physics, Hack's law, and broad-scale computer visualization. The literature of some of these subjects is large, and none of the summaries is intended to more than introduce the topic and comment on some of the current contributions of terrain modeling. Closing the essay is a discussion of pre-1900 papers that trace the evolution of ridge-line and watercourse quantification by descriptive geometry, as well as comments on some new books and an on-line bulletin board.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

On-orbit calibration and performance of the EMIT imaging spectrometer

The Earth surface Mineral dust source InvesTigation (EMIT) is a remote visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectrometer that has been operating onboard the International Space Station since July 2022. This article describes EMIT's on-orbit spectroradiometric calibration and validation. Accurate spectroscopy is vital to achieve consistent mapping results with orbital imaging spectrometers. EMIT takes a unique approach to this challenge, with just six optical elements, no shutter, and no onboard calibration systems. Its simple design focuses on uniformity and stability to enable vicarious spectroradiometric calibration. Our experiments demonstrate that this approach is successful, approaching the fidelity of manual field spectroscopy in some cases, and enabling new and more accurate products across diverse Earth science disciplines. EMIT achieves several notable firsts for an instrument of its class. It demonstrates successful on-orbit adjustments of Focal Plane Array (FPA) alignment with sub-micron precision. It offers spectral uniformity better than 98%. Optical artifacts in the measurement channels are at least three orders of magnitude below the primary solar-reflected surface signals. Its noise performance enables percent-level discrimination in the depths of mineral absorption features. In these aspects, EMIT satisfies the stringent performance needs for the next generation of VSWIR imaging spectrometers to observe the Earth's ecosystems, geology , and water resources.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗
USGS1980

United States Geological Survey Yearbook, fiscal year 1979

In March 1979, the U.S. Geological Survey celebrated its 100th year of service to the Nation and 10 decades of stewardship of the land and its resources. During this year, as in the previous 99, the Survey discharged its national trust by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating earth science information and by continuing its somewhat more recent responsibilities of supervising the development of energy and mineral resources on Federal lands. The basic mission of the Survey has changed over the years, and the scope of its activities and the power of analytic tools have also increased by several orders of magnitude from the early surveys of then "remote" western areas of the United States to surveying and mapping the mountains of the Moon and the polar caps of Mars and from the use of surveyor's transits, picks, the travelling chemistry kits to interpretation of Earth imagery. These representative advances illustrate important and continuing trends for at no previous time have our earth resources been so precious or our consciousness of their finiteness so acute. The Yearbook reports a broad range of the Survey's accomplishments during the past fiscal year and offers an overview of its future. Many of the topics touched on below will continue to be important resource issues in the coming decade.

Yearbook↗
USGS2022

Ratification of Neogene subseries as formal units in international chronostratigraphy

The International Union of Geological Sciences Executive Committee (IUGS EC) voted on 13 October 2021 to ratify a proposal for the Neogene subseries/subepochs to have formal status. They are now incorporated into a sixtiered chronostratigraphic hierarchy within the International Chronostratigraphic Chart (ICC). The Lower/Early Miocene Subseries/Subepoch comprises the Aquitanian and Burdigalian stages/ages, the Middle Miocene Subseries/Subepoch comprises the Langhian and Serravallian stages/ages, the Upper/Late Miocene Subseries/Subepoch comprises the Tortonian and Messinian stages/ages, the Lower/Early Pliocene Subseries/Subepoch comprises the Zanclean Stage/Age and the Upper/Late Pliocene Subseries/Subepoch comprises the Piacenzian Stage/Age. This ratification is an important move towards both a common language in the wider Earth Sciences community and a step forward in the unification of Cenozoic chronostratigraphy, with Neogene and Quaternary subseries/subepochs now formalized.

Episodes↗
USGS2022

Measuring and attributing sedimentary and geomorphic responses to modern climate change: Challenges and opportunities

Today, climate change is affecting virtually all terrestrial and nearshore settings. This commentary discusses the challenges of measuring climate-driven physical landscape responses to modern global warming: short and incomplete data records, land use and seismicity masking climatic effects, biases in data availability and resolution, and signal attenuation in sedimentary systems. We identify opportunities to learn from historical and paleo data, select especially sensitive study sites, and report null results to better characterize the extent and nuances of climate-change effects. We then discuss efforts to improve attribution practices, which will lead to better predictive capabilities. We encourage the earth-science community to prioritize scientific research on climate-driven physical landscape changes so that societies will be better prepared to manage the effects on health and safety, infrastructure, water–food–energy security, economics, and ecosystems that follow from climate-driven physical landscape change.

Earth's Future↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey natural hazards science strategy— Promoting the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation

Executive Summary The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Circular↗
USGS2012

Natural hazards science strategy

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in natural hazards is to develop and apply hazard science to help protect the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Nation. The costs and consequences of natural hazards can be enormous, and each year more people and infrastructure are at risk. USGS scientific research—founded on detailed observations and improved understanding of the responsible physical processes—can help to understand and reduce natural hazard risks and to make and effectively communicate reliable statements about hazard characteristics, such as frequency, magnitude, extent, onset, consequences, and where possible, the time of future events. To accomplish its broad hazard mission, the USGS maintains an expert workforce of scientists and technicians in the earth sciences, hydrology, biology, geography, social and behavioral sciences, and other fields, and engages cooperatively with numerous agencies, research institutions, and organizations in the public and private sectors, across the Nation and around the world. The scientific expertise required to accomplish the USGS mission in natural hazards includes a wide range of disciplines that this report refers to, in aggregate, as hazard science. In October 2010, the Natural Hazards Science Strategy Planning Team (H–SSPT) was charged with developing a long-term (10-year) Science Strategy for the USGS mission in natural hazards. This report fulfills that charge, with a document hereinafter referred to as the Strategy, to provide scientific observations, analyses, and research that are critical for the Nation to become more resilient to natural hazards. Science provides the information that decisionmakers need to determine whether risk management activities are worthwhile. Moreover, as the agency with the perspective of geologic time, the USGS is uniquely positioned to extend the collective experience of society to prepare for events outside current memory. The USGS has critical statutory and nonstatutory roles regarding floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, coastal erosion, volcanic eruptions, wildfires, and magnetic storms—the hazards considered in this plan. There are numerous other hazards of societal importance that are considered either only peripherally or not at all in this Strategy because they are either in another of the USGS strategic science plans (such as drought) or not in the overall mission of the USGS (such as tornados).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

International collaboration: The cornerstone of satellite land remote sensing in the 21st century

Satellite land remotely sensed data are used by scientists and resource managers world-wide to study similar multidisciplinary earth science problems. Most of their information requirements can be met by a small number of satellite sensor types. Moderate-resolution resource satellites and low-resolution environmental satellites are the most prominent of these, and they are the focus of this paper. Building, launching, and operating satellite systems are very expensive endeavors. Consequently, nations should change the current pattern of independently launching and operating similar, largely redundant resource and environmental satellite systems in favor of true and full collaboration in developing, launching, operating, and sharing the data from such systems of the future. The past decade has seen encouraging signs of increasing international collaboration in earth remote sensing, but full collaboration has not yet been attempted. A general strategy to achieve such international collaboration is presented here, including discussion of potential obstacles, ideas for organizing and overseeing the long-term process toward collaboration, and short-term objectives whereby early successes critical to accomplishing long-term goals can be achieved.

Space Policy↗
USGS2015

Coastal landforms and processes at the Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts—A primer

Anyone who spends more than a few days on Cape Cod (the Cape) quickly becomes a coastal geologist, quickly learning the rhythms of daily tides and the seasonal cycles of beaches growing and being swept away by storms; swimmers and surfers track how the breakers appear, and dog-walkers notice the hard-packed sand blanketed overnight by an airy layer that leaves deep labored tracks. Careful observers whose paths wander to the ocean’s edge will observe many of the landforms and coastal processes described in this book and if we have done our job well, the stories told here will seem familiar. Watchful experience brings insights; indeed, this is how scientists and perhaps how artists work, describing patterns that explain and predict. When is the next high tide? What will the winter bring? Where do we build, fish, swim? How do wind and waves offshore in the North Atlantic help arrange the plants and dunes and hollows on the beach? And most of all, as human animals drawn to live and play on the edge of the ocean, how do we get the benefits of this complex natural system of geology and biology? How do we affect coastal processes; how is the coast changing now and how is the coast likely to change in years ahead with climate warming and climate change? This book is about the highly dynamic coastal landforms of Cape Cod—the beaches, bluffs, spits, dunes, barrier beaches, estuaries, and salt marshes. What they are, why they are where they are, how they behave with respect to the greater Cape Cod coastal system—how the landforms respond to day-to-day and long-term geologic processes, such as waves and currents, change in sediment transport, relative sea-level rise, and meteorological processes such as hurricanes, nor’easters, and cold front passages. It is also about how the landforms got to be where they are and the way they are and where they are headed in the near future with the predicted effects of global climate warming and change. Our objective is to provide a single source of understandable and readable scientific information for those who live, play, and work on outer Cape Cod and at the Cape Cod National Seashore, as well as to provide an introduction to Cape Cod’s coastal landforms for anyone with an interest in Earth science and nature who wants a better understanding of coastal systems and processes. Basic to an understanding of coastal landforms is the fact that they work together—they interact—as elements of many systems, and therefore our ultimate concern is not the individual landform itself but rather the geologic systems that make up Cape Cod and the Cape Cod National Seashore. Much of this discussion can be applied as well to Nantucket, Martha’s Vineyard, and other coastal regions. The coast of outer Cape Cod, about 15,000 years old and about 30 miles (mi; 50 kilometers [km]) long, is but a tiny piece of the global Earth system that operates within a much larger realm of space and time. Cape Cod’s coastal landforms are temporary holding patterns within a continual interplay of land, sea, atmosphere, climate, ice, and life, including a variety of human activities that both affect and are affected by these processes. These interactions produce the landforms, and the landforms alter the interactions. The resulting landforms provide habitats for a wide variety of coastal plants and animals. The habitats along with their inhabitants and the interacting environmental factors controlling them constitute the Cape’s complex and varied ecosystems. But for now, we are here to enjoy it. We welcome you to delight and wonder at the perpetually changing handshake between the ocean and shore at New England’s Great Beach.

Massachusetts↗
USGS2011

Building transparent data access for ocean observatories: Coordination of U.S. IOOS DMAC with NSF's OOI Cyberinfrastructure

The NOAA-led U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) and the National Science Foundation's Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) have been collaborating since 2007 on advanced tools and technologies that ensure open access to ocean observations and models. Initial collaboration focused on serving ocean data via cloud computing-a key component of the OOI cyberinfrastructure (CI) architecture. As the OOI transitioned from planning to execution in the Fall of 2009, an OOI/IOOS team developed a customer-based "use case" to align more closely with the emerging objectives of OOI-CI team's first software release scheduled for Summer 2011 and provide a quantitative capacity for stress-testing these tools and protocols. A requirements process was initiated with coastal modelers, focusing on improved workflows to deliver ocean observation data. Accomplishments to date include the documentation and assessment of scientific workflows for two "early adopter" modeling teams from IOOS Regional partners (Rutgers-the State University of New Jersey and University of Hawaii's School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology) to enable full understanding of data sources and needs; generation of all-inclusive lists of the data sets required and those obtainable through IOOS; a more complete understanding of areas where IOOS can expand data access capabilities to better serve the needs of the modeling community; and development of "data set agents" (software) to facilitate data acquisition from numerous data providers and conversions of the data format to the OOI-CI canonical form. ?? 2011 MTS.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2005

The life cycle of a mineral deposit: a teacher's guide for hands-on mineral education activities

This teacher's guide defines what a mineral deposit is and how a mineral deposit is identified and measured, how the mineral resources are extracted, and how the mining site is reclaimed; how minerals and mineral resources are processed; and how we use mineral resources in our every day lives. Included are 10 activitybased learning exercises that educate students on basic geologic concepts; the processes of finding, identifying, and extracting the resources from a mineral deposit; and the uses of minerals. The guide is intended for K through 12 Earth science teachers and students and is designed to meet the National Science Content Standards as defined by the National Research Council (1996). To assist in the understanding of some of the geology and mineral terms, see the Glossary (appendix 1) and Minerals and Their Uses (appendix 2). The process of finding or exploring for a mineral deposit, extracting or mining the resource, recovering the resource, also known as beneficiation, and reclaiming the land mined can be described as the “life cycle” of a mineral deposit. The complete process is time consuming and expensive, requiring the use of modern technology and equipment, and may take many years to complete. Sometimes one entity or company completes the entire process from discovery to reclamation, but often it requires multiple groups with specialized experience working together. Mineral deposits are the source of many important commodities, such as copper and gold, used by our society, but it is important to realize that mineral deposits are a nonrenewable resource. Once mined, they are exhausted, and another source must be found. New mineral deposits are being continuously created by the Earth but may take millions of years to form. Mineral deposits differ from renewable resources, such as agricultural and timber products, which may be replenished within a few months to several years.

General Information Product↗
USGS2021

Implementation plan for the southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces

Introduction The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP) is publishing a strategic plan titled Renewing the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program as the Nation’s Authoritative Source for Modern Geologic Knowledge (Brock and others, in press). The plan provides a vision, mission, and goals for the program during the years 2020–2030, which are: Vision .—Create an integrated, three-dimensional, digital geologic map of the United States. Mission .—Characterize, interpret, and disseminate a national geologic framework model of the Earth through geologic mapping. Goal .—Focus on geologic mapping as a core function of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) within the long-term vision of adequately mapping the Nation’s geologic framework in three dimensions. In order to achieve the goals outlined in the strategic plan, the NCGMP has developed an implementation plan. This plan will guide the annual review of projects carried out by USGS staff (FEDMAP) described in the plan and the development of the annual FEDMAP prospectus that will ensure the effective application of the NCGMP strategy. This publication describes the implementation plan of the NCGMP strategy for the southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces, as defined by Fenneman (1917, 1928, and 1946). This implementation plan focuses on the geology of California and a sliver of Nevada surrounding Lake Tahoe. The southern Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces encompass the varied landscapes of the high Sierra Nevada, the Central Valley, and Coast Ranges in northern and central California and the Peninsular Ranges, Continental Borderland, Los Angeles Basin-San Gabriel-San Bernardino valleys, western and central Transverse Ranges, and northernmost Salton Trough in southern California. Societal demands create a need for earth-science data in each of these landscapes. The broader San Francisco Bay area, Central Valley, Los Angeles-San Gabriel-San Bernardino lowlands, and the coastal lowlands that border the Peninsular Ranges are densely populated (about 30 million people) areas at high risk of natural hazards. The mountains of the Sierra Nevada, Peninsular Ranges, and Transverse Ranges, and the coast all provide numerous recreational opportunities that attract visitors from around the world, whereas previously these ranges attracted people to mine their resources. The agricultural capacity of the Central Valley is a critical resource for the Nation that is increasingly water limited. The southern. Pacific Border and Sierra-Cascade Mountains provinces, at the edge of the North American continent, were profoundly influenced by subduction zone tectonics during the Mesozoic and early Cenozoic (ongoing in northernmost California) and subsequently by the inception, development, and present activity of the San Andreas transform margin system. Although the geology of this region is the poster child of fundamental conceptual models of subduction zone complexes, forearc basins, ophiolite obductions, magmatic arcs, and suspect terranes, as well as hosting one of Earth’s most notorious continental transform faults—the San Andreas Fault—important questions that have important societal consequences remain to be answered. Most of California’s population reside in these provinces and live within 30 miles of an active fault (according to www.earthquakeauthority.com ) yet new faults continue to be discovered, highlighting the importance of deformation off the main San Andreas Fault. Bedrock, surficial, and three-dimensional (3D) geologic maps depicting stratigraphic structure and depth to crystalline basement rocks provide critical context and information for understanding fault rupture, distributed deformation, fault connectivity, and history in addition to providing crucial data that enable forecasting of shaking amplitude and length from hypothetical earthquake scenarios. The tectonic evolution of California produced not only stunning mountains, with associated hazards from landslides and active volcanoes, but also fertile valleys that make California the top agricultural producer in the country in terms of cash receipts (according to www.ers.usda.gov/faqs ). These valleys lie atop large basins that not only store groundwater but, in many cases, host oil and gas fields, contributing to the fourth highest hydrocarbon production by State in the country in 2016 (according to https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/animated-chart-of-us-oil-production-by-state-1981-2017 ). Water is a key resource increasingly stressed by growing agricultural, industrial, and residential needs. Warmer and drier conditions have led to an increased reliance on extracting groundwater resources, whose availability and quality are dictated at the first order by the 3D spatial distribution of bedrock and Quaternary surficial deposits. Thus, assessment of this critical resource is inextricably tied to knowledge of the surficial and subsurface geologic structure and material types.

California, Nevada↗
USGS1981

The U.S. Earthquake Prediction Program

Following on from the concepts of plate tectonics, the earth sciences are now embarking on a challenging course- the time prediction of geologic phenomena. Earthquake prediction is an outstanding example of this. However, earthquake prediction is not the only scientific goal. The destructive power of a large earthquake requires that we also take mitigating actions; these include earthquake engineering research to design construction that will resist earthquake shaking. Nevertheless, earthquake prediction has a vital role to play not only in the saving of lives, but in the reduction of economic loss and social disruption from large earthquakes. There are two distinct motivations for earthquake prediction. The mechanistic approach aims to understand the processes leading to a large earthquake. The empirical approach is governed by the immediate need to protect lives and property. With our current lack of knowledge about the earthquake process, future progress cannot be made without gathering a large body of measurements. These are required not only for the empirical prediction of earthquakes, but also for the testing and development of hypotheses that further our understanding of the processes at work. The earthquake prediction program is basically a program of scientific inquiry, but one which is motivated by social, political, economic, and scientific reasons. It is a pursuit that cannot rely on empirical observations alone nor can it carried out solely on a blackboard or in a laboratory. Experiments must be carried out in the real Earth.

Earthquake Information Bulletin (USGS)↗
USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

Development of time series stacks of Landsat images for reconstructing forest disturbance history

Forest dynamics is highly relevant to a broad range of earth science studies, many of which have geographic coverage ranging from regional to global scales. While the temporally dense Landsat acquisitions available in many regions provide a unique opportunity for understanding forest disturbance history dating back to 1972, large quantities of Landsat images will need to be analysed for studies at regional to global scales. This will not only require effective change detection algorithms, but also highly automated, high level preprocessing capabilities to produce images with subpixel geolocation accuracies and best achievable radiometric consistency, a status called imagery-ready-to-use (IRU). This paper describes a streamlined approach for producing IRU quality Landsat time series stacks (LTSS). This approach consists of an image selection protocol, high level preprocessing algorithms and IRU quality verification procedures. The high level preprocessing algorithms include updated radiometric calibration and atmospheric correction for calculating surface reflectance and precision registration and orthorectification routines for improving geolocation accuracy. These automated routines have been implemented in the Landsat Ecosystem Disturbance Adaptive System (LEDAPS) designed for processing large quantities of Landsat images. Some characteristics of the LTSS developed using this approach are discussed.

International Journal of Digital Earth↗
USGS1996

Loess studies in central United States: Evolution of concepts

Few words in the realm of earth science have caused more debate than "loess". It is a common term that was first used as a name of a silt deposit before it was defined in a scientific sense. Because this "loose" deposit is easily distinguished from other more coherent deposits, it was recognized as a matter of practical concern and later became the object of much scientific scrutiny. Loess was first recognized along the Rhine Valley in Germany in the 1830s and was first noted in the United States in 1846 along the lower Mississippi River where it later became the center of attention. The use of the name eventually spread around the world, but its use has not been consistently applied. Over the years some interpretations and stratigraphic correlations have been validated, but others have been hotly contested on conceptual grounds and semantic issues. The concept of loess evolved into a complex issue as loess and loess-like deposits were discovered in different parts of the US. The evolution of concepts in the central US developed in four indefinite stages: the eras of (1) discovery and development of hypotheses, (2) conditional acceptance of the eolian origin of loess, (3) "bandwagon" popularity of loess research, and (4) analytical inquiry on the nature of loess. Toward the end of the first era around 1900, the popular opinion on the meaning of the term loess shifted from a lithological sense of loose silt to a lithogenetic sense of eolian silt. However, the dual use of the term fostered a lingering skepticism during the second era that ended in 1944 with an explosion of interest that lasted for more than a decade. In 1944, R.J. Russell proposed and H.N. Fisk defended a new non-eolian, property-based, concept of loess. The eolian advocates reacted with surprise and enthusiasm. Each side used constrained arguments to show their view of the problem, but did not examine the fundamental problem, which was not in the proofs of their hypothesis, but in the definition of the term. Between 1944 and about 1950, the debates about loess reached a maximum level of complexity. The main semantic problem was submersed in peripheral arguments about physical properties and genetic interpretations. The scholarly treatment of the subject by Fisk and Russell stimulated quality responses from a diversity of earth scientists interested in academic and applied studies, particularly geo-history, pedology, soil mechanics and stratigraphy. The long-lasting popularity of loess studies during the bandwagon era lasted to about 1970. By that time, the analytical and technical interests had attracted the mainstream into the fourth era with a focus beyond the old arguments. Although Fisk and Russell found themselves defending an unpopular theory, they stimulated a scientific interest in the late Quaternary history of the Mississippi Valley that may never be exceeded.

Engineering Geology↗