Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Physical Review (Series I)”

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.

27 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2006

User's Guide, software for reduction and analysis of daily weather and surface-water data: Tools for time series analysis of precipitation, temperature, and streamflow data

The software described here is used to process and analyze daily weather and surface-water data. The programs are refinements of earlier versions that include minor corrections and routines to calculate frequencies above a threshold on an annual or seasonal basis. Earlier versions of this software were used successfully to analyze historical precipitation patterns of the Mojave Desert and the southern Colorado Plateau regions, ecosystem response to climate variation, and variation of sediment-runoff frequency related to climate (Hereford and others, 2003; 2004; in press; Griffiths and others, 2006). The main program described here (Day_Cli_Ann_v5.3) uses daily data to develop a time series of various statistics for a user specified accounting period such as a year or season. The statistics include averages and totals, but the emphasis is on the frequency of occurrence in days of relatively rare weather or runoff events. These statistics are indices of climate variation; for a discussion of climate indices, see the Climate Research Unit website of the University of East Anglia (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/projects/stardex/) and the Climate Change Indices web site (http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDMI/indices.html). Specifically, the indices computed with this software are the frequency of high intensity 24-hour rainfall, unusually warm temperature, and unusually high runoff. These rare, or extreme events, are those greater than the 90th percentile of precipitation, streamflow, or temperature computed for the period of record of weather or gaging stations. If they cluster in time over several decades, extreme events may produce detectable change in the physical landscape and ecosystem of a given region. Although the software has been tested on a variety of data, as with any software, the user should carefully evaluate the results with their data. The programs were designed for the range of precipitation, temperature, and streamflow measurements expected in the semiarid Southwest United States. The user is encouraged to review the examples provided with the software. The software is written in Fortran 90 with Fortran 95 extensions and was compiled with the Digital Visual Fortran compiler version 6.6. The executables run on Windows 2000 and XP, and they operate in a MS-DOS console window that has only very simple graphical options such as font size and color, background color, and size of the window. Error trapping was not written into the programs. Typically, when an error occurs, the console window closes without a message.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Water isotope systematics: Improving our palaeoclimate interpretations

The stable isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen, measured in a variety of archives, are widely used proxies in Quaternary Science. Understanding the processes that control δ18O change have long been a focus of research (e.g. Shackleton and Opdyke, 1973; Talbot, 1990 ; Leng, 2006). Both the dynamics of water isotope cycling and the appropriate interpretation of geological water-isotope proxy time series remain subjects of active research and debate. It is clear that achieving a complete understanding of the isotope systematics for any given archive type, and ideally each individual archive, is vital if these palaeo-data are to be used to their full potential, including comparison with climate model experiments of the past. Combining information from modern monitoring and process studies, climate models, and proxy data is crucial for improving our statistical constraints on reconstructions of past climate variability. As climate models increasingly incorporate stable water isotope physics, this common language should aid quantitative comparisons between proxy data and climate model output. Water-isotope palaeoclimate data provide crucial metrics for validating GCMs, whereas GCMs provide a tool for exploring the climate variability dominating signals in the proxy data. Several of the studies in this set of papers highlight how collaborations between palaeoclimate experimentalists and modelers may serve to expand the usefulness of palaeoclimate data for climate prediction in future work. This collection of papers follows the session on Water Isotope Systematics held at the 2013 AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. Papers in that session, the breadth of which are represented here, discussed such issues as; understanding sub-GNIP scale (Global Network for Isotopes in Precipitation, (IAEA/WMO, 2006)) variability in isotopes in precipitation from different regions, detailed examination of the transfer of isotope signals from precipitation to geological archives, and the implications of advances in understanding in these areas for the interpretation of palaeo records and proxy data – climate model comparison. Here, we briefly review these areas of research, and discuss challenges for the water isotope community in improving our ability to partition climate vs. auxiliary signals in palaeoclimate data.

Quaternary Science Reviews↗
USGS2023

Achieving water quality goals in the Chesapeake Bay: A comprehensive evaluation of system response

A Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Chesapeake Bay: A Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) includes an evaluation of why progress toward meeting the TMDL and water quality standards has been slower than expected and offers options for how progress can be accelerated. This report is a summation of a three year investigation into the 40 year effort to reduce nutrient loads to Chesapeake Bay. History The effort began as a STAC independent initiative in March 2019, after Kurt Stephenson, Zach Easton, and Brian Benham proposed the idea of a report that would identify gaps and uncertainties in system response—physical, chemical, biological, and socioeconomic—that impact efforts designed to attain water quality standards in Chesapeake Bay. As STAC Chair at the time, Benham facilitated the development of a collaborative process that would engage the entire committee. As a first step in approaching the long causal chain that links management actions to their eventual impact on water quality and living resources, workgroups were formed around the subsystems of this chain: nutrient and sediment reductions (watershed), water quality response to nutrient and sediment reductions (estuary) and living resource response to water quality (living resources). Each of these workgroups generated an independent document with a self-determined scope (i.e., workgroups were afforded flexibility to address issues beyond the original objectives). Because the content of each document was both unique and substantial, STAC chose to publish them as stand-alone documents with authorship attribution. In the second step, a steering committee developed a series of framing questions to guide the preparation of this report that would meet the objective of identifying gaps and uncertainties in achieving the Bay TMDL and water quality standards. Coeditors Stephenson and Wardrop, supported to great extent by a subgroup of the Steering Committee (Leonard Shabman, Zach Easton, Jeremy Testa, William Dennison, Kenny Rose, and Mark Monaco) were tasked with assembling ideas and contributions to write a single draft text, drawing material from the aforementioned resource documents, STAC and Chesapeake Bay Program reports, the scientific literature, and a limited amount of additional analyses performed in collaboration with Bay Program scientists. The resulting report was then submitted for several reviews by both steering committee members and the membership at-large to produce a consensus report.

Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2002

Sociocultural and institutional drivers and constraints to mineral supply; the meaning of scarcity in the 21st century: drivers and constraints to the supply of minerals using regional, national and global perspectives

The sociocultural dimensions of mineral supply at the outset of the 21st century are making the supply process increasingly complex. The dimensions encompass legal, financial, environmental, cultural, and global implications of mining, and are driving unprecedented change in the way minerals supply will be accomplished in the future. Minerals scarcity on a global scale is subordinate to other societal issues about mineral resources and reserves estimated to meet society's demands for decades to centuries in the future. This report reviews historical and present-day sociocultural drivers of change, and reactions of the minerals industry to these drivers. It is reflective primarily of conditions in the United States, but also uses examples from other countries. It expresses viewpoints on sociocultural drivers as seen by constituents of the minerals industry and several other communities of interest including Aboriginal peoples, non-government organizations; labor; mining-dependent communities; mining-affected communities; researchers; and government (federal, state/provincial, and local). It provides overviews of the demand for minerals in the United States, and the status of land available for mining. The report uses a case study of a metals mining project in Wisconsin to illustrate specific sociocultural drivers and constraints to minerals supply, and how these influence the minerals industry. Over the past 150 years, a progression of sociocultural movements under the headings of conservationism, environmentalism, and sustainable development have nurtured societal values that have come to influence the mineral supply process in important ways. These movements reflect a continuing tension between the demand for minerals and other resources, and the simultaneous demand for aesthetic, spiritual, ecological, cultural, and other attributes of the land. The tension is an important element in current international debates about the meaning and future of sustainable development. This report focuses on some of the social challenges to the minerals industry to supply minerals, while at the same time providing environmental protection, economic growth, and sociocultural acceptance. All these issues fall under the rubric of sustainable development. It also describes current industry responses to sustainability, including the Global Mining Initiative (2001a), an attempt to introduce major changes in global industry practices to begin the 21st century. This report complements other documents in the series on physical supply, technological advancement, and economic and policy drivers (Wilburn and others, 2001).

Open-File Report↗
USGS1997

The physics of debris flows

Recent advances in theory and experimentation motivate a thorough reassessment of the physics of debris flows. Analyses of flows of dry, granular solids and solid-fluid mixtures provide a foundation for a comprehensive debris flow theory, and experiments provide data that reveal the strengths and limitations of theoretical models. Both debris flow materials and dry granular materials can sustain shear stresses while remaining static; both can deform in a slow, tranquil mode characterized by enduring, frictional grain contacts; and both can flow in a more rapid, agitated mode characterized by brief, inelastic grain collisions. In debris flows, however, pore fluid that is highly viscous and nearly incompressible, composed of water with suspended silt and clay, can strongly mediate intergranular friction and collisions. Grain friction, grain collisions, and viscous fluid flow may transfer significant momentum simultaneously. Both the vibrational kinetic energy of solid grains (measured by a quantity termed the granular temperature) and the pressure of the intervening pore fluid facilitate motion of grains past one another, thereby enhancing debris flow mobility. Granular temperature arises from conversion of flow translational energy to grain vibrational energy, a process that depends on shear rates, grain properties, boundary conditions, and the ambient fluid viscosity and pressure. Pore fluid pressures that exceed static equilibrium pressures result from local or global debris contraction. Like larger, natural debris flows, experimental debris flows of ???10 m3 of poorly sorted, water-saturated sediment invariably move as an unsteady surge or series of surges. Measurements at the base of experimental flows show that coarse-grained surge fronts have little or no pore fluid pressure. In contrast, finer-grained, thoroughly saturated debris behind surge fronts is nearly liquefied by high pore pressure, which persists owing to the great compressibility and moderate permeability of the debris. Realistic models of debris flows therefore require equations that simulate inertial motion of surges in which high-resistance fronts dominated by solid forces impede the motion of low-resistance tails more strongly influenced by fluid forces. Furthermore, because debris flows characteristically originate as nearly rigid sediment masses, transform at least partly to liquefied flows, and then transform again to nearly rigid deposits, acceptable models must simulate an evolution of material behavior without invoking preternatural changes in material properties. A simple model that satisfies most of these criteria uses depth-averaged equations of motion patterned after those of the Savage-Hutter theory for gravity-driven flow of dry granular masses but generalized to include the effects of viscous pore fluid with varying pressure. These equations can describe a spectrum of debris flow behaviors intermediate between those of wet rock avalanches and sediment-laden water floods. With appropriate pore pressure distributions the equations yield numerical solutions that successfully predict unsteady, nonuniform motion of experimental debris flows.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS2000

Late-kinematic timing of orogenic gold deposits and significance for computer-based exploration techniques with emphasis on the Yilgarn Block, Western Australia

Orogenic gold deposits are a widespread coherent group of epigenetic ore deposits that are sited in accretionary or collisional orogens. They formed over a large crustal-depth range from deep-seated low-salinity H 2 O–CO 2 ±CH 4 ±N 2 ore fluids and with Au transported as thio-complexes. Regional structures provide the main control on deposit distribution. In many terranes, first-order faults or shear zones appear to have controlled regional fluid flow, with greatest ore-fluid fluxes in, and adjacent to, lower-order faults, shear zones and/or large folds. Highly competent and/or chemically reactive rocks are the most common hosts to the larger deposits. Focusing of supralithostatic ore fluids into dilatant zones appears to occur late during the evolutionary history of the host terranes, normally within D 3 or D 4 in a D 1 –D 4 deformation sequence. Reactivation of suitably oriented pre-existing structures during a change in far-field stress orientation is a factor common to many deposits, and repeated reactivation may account for multiple mineralization episodes in some larger deposits. Absolute robust ages of mineralization support their late-kinematic timing, and, in general, suggest that deposits formed diachronously towards the end of the 100 to 200 m.y. long evolutionary history of hosting orogens. For example, in the Yilgarn Block, a region specifically emphasised in this study, orogenic gold deposits formed in the time interval between 40 and 90 m.y., with most about 60 to 70 m.y., after the youngest widespread basic-ultrabasic volcanism and towards the end of felsic magmatism. The late timing of orogenic gold deposits is pivotal to geologically-based exploration methodologies. This is because the present structural geometries of: (i) the deposits, (ii) the hosting goldfields, and (iii) the enclosing terranes are all essentially similar to those during gold mineralization, at least in their relative position to each other. Thus, interpretation of geological maps and cross-sections and three-dimensional models can be used to accurately simulate the physical conditions that existed at the time of ore deposition. It is particularly significant that the deposits are commonly related to repetitive and predictable geometries, such as structural heterogeneities within or adjacent to first-order structures, around rigid granitoid bodies, or in specific “locked-up” fold-thrust structures. Importantly, the two giant greenstone-hosted goldfields, Kalgoorlie and Timmins, show a remarkably similar geometry at the regional scale. Computer-based stress mapping and GIS-based prospectivity mapping are two computer-based quantitative methodologies that can utilize and take advantage of the late timing aspect of this deposit type to provide important geological aids in exploration, both in broad regions and more localized goldfields. Both require an accurate and consistent solid geology map, stress mapping requires knowledge of the far-field stresses during mineralization, and the empirical prospectivity mapping requires data from a significant number of known deposits in the terrane. The Kalgoorlie Terrane, in the Yilgarn Block, meets these criteria, and illustrates the potential of these methodologies in the exploration for orogenic gold deposits. Low minimum stress anomalies, interpreted to represent dilational zones during gold-related deformation, coincide well with the positions of known goldfields rather than individual gold deposits in the terrane, and there are additional as-yet unexplained anomalies. The prospectivity analysis confirms that predictable and repetitive factors controlling the siting of deposits are: (i) proximity to, and orientation and curvature of, granitoid-greenstone contacts, (ii) proximity to segments of crustal faults which strike in a preferred direction, (iii) proximity to specific lithological contacts which have similar preferred strike, (iv) proximity to anticlinal structures, and (v) the presence of preferred reactive host rocks (e.g., dolerite). The prospectivity map defines a series of anomalous areas, which broadly conform to those of the stress map (>78% correspondence). The most prospective category on this map covers less than 0.3% of the greenstone belts and yet hosts 16% of the known deposits, which have produced>80% of known gold. Thus, it discriminates in favour of the larger economically more-attractive deposits in the terrane. The successful application of stress mapping and prospectivity mapping to geology-based exploration for orogenic gold deposits indicates that more quantitative analysis of geological map data is a profitable line of research. The computer-based nature of these methodologies is ideal for the production of an ultimate, integrated, deposit target map, which can be compared to other, more conventional, targeting parameters such as geophysical and geochemical anomalies. Such an integrated strategy appears the way forward in the increasingly difficult task of cost-effective global exploration for orogenic gold deposits in poorly exposed terranes.

Western Australia↗
USGS2011

Groundwater quality of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, Houston, Texas, 2010

During March–December 2010, the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the city of Houston, collected source-water samples from 60 municipal supply wells in the Houston area. These data were collected as part of an ongoing study to determine concentrations, spatial extent, and associated geochemical conditions that might be conducive for mobility and transport of selected naturally occurring contaminants (selected trace elements and radionuclides) in the Gulf Coast aquifer system in the Houston area. In the summers of 2007 and 2008, a reconnaissance-level survey of these constituents in untreated water from 28 municipal supply wells was completed in the Houston area. Included in this report are the complete analytical results for 47 of the 60 samples collected in 2010—those results which were received from the laboratories and reviewed by the authors as of December 31, 2010. All of the wells sampled were screened in the Gulf Coast aquifer system; 22 were screened entirely in the Evangeline aquifer, and the remaining 25 wells contained screened intervals that intersected both Evangeline and Chicot aquifers. The data documented in this report were collected as part of an ongoing study to characterize source-water-quality conditions in untreated groundwater prior to drinking-water treatment. An evaluation of contaminant occurrence in source water provides background information regarding the presence of a contaminant in the environment. Because source-water samples were collected prior to any treatment or blending that potentially could alter contaminant concentrations, the water-quality results documented by this report represent the quality of the source water, not the quality of finished drinking water provided to the public. Samples were analyzed for major ions (calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bromide, chloride, fluoride, silica, and sulfate), residue on evaporation (dissolved solids), trace elements (arsenic, barium, boron, chromium, iron, lithium, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, strontium, and vanadium), and selected radionuclides (gross alpha- and beta-particle activity [at 72 hours and 30 days], carbon-14, radium-226, radon-222, and uranium). Field measurements were made of selected physicochemical (relating to both physical and chemical) properties (oxidation-reduction potential, turbidity, dissolved-oxygen concentration, pH, specific conductance, water temperature, and alkalinity) and unfiltered sulfides. Similar to the results from the reconnaissance survey, physicochemical properties, major ions, and trace elements varied considerably. The ranges of selected physicochemical properties were as follows: oxidation-reduction potential ranged from -173 to 466 millivolts, dissolved oxygen ranged from less than 0.1 to 4.4 milligrams per liter, pH ranged from 7.2 to 7.8, specific conductance ranged from 439 to 724 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius, and alkalinity ranged from 159 to 276 milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate. The largest ranges in concentration for filtered major ion constituents were obtained for cations sodium and calcium and for anions chloride and sulfate. Arsenic concentrations measured in samples from the 47 wells ranged from 1.6 to 23.5 micrograms per liter. The maximum concentration of arsenic (23.5 micrograms per liter) was measured in the source-water sample from well LJ-65-12-328. Quantifiable concentrations of barium, boron, lithium, molybdenum, and strontium were measured in all 47 filtered, source-water samples. Quantifiable concentrations of manganese were measured in 46 source-water samples, and an estimated concentration of manganese was measured in 1 sample. Chromium, iron, selenium, and vanadium were detected in 24 or more of the 47 source-water samples. Gross alpha-particle activities and beta-particle activities for all 47 samples were analyzed at 72 hours after sample collection and again at 30 days after sample collection, allowing for the measurement of the activity of short-lived isotopes. Gross alpha-particle activities reported in this report were not adjusted for activity contributions by radon or uranium and, therefore, are conservatively high estimates if compared to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for adjusted gross alpha-particle activity. The gross alpha-particle activities at 30 days in the samples ranged from R0.60 to 25.5 picocuries per liter and at 72 hours ranged from 2.58 to 39.7 picocuries per liter, and the "R" preceding the value of 0.60 picocuries per liter refers to a nondetected result less than the sample-specific critical level. Gross beta-particle activities measured at 30 days ranged from 1.17 to 14.4 picocuries per liter and at 72 hours ranged from 1.97 to 4.4 picocuries per liter. Filtered uranium was detected in quantifiable amounts in all of the 47 wells sampled. The uranium concentrations ranged from 0.03 to 42.7 micrograms per liter. One sample was analyzed for carbon-14, and the amount of modern atmospheric carbon was reported as 0.2 percent. Six source-water samples collected from municipal supply wells were analyzed for radium-226, and all of the concentrations were considered detectable concentrations (greater than their associated sample-specific critical level). Three source-water samples collected were analyzed for radon-222, and all of the concentrations were substantially greater than the associated sample-specific critical level.

Texas↗
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↗