Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “The Earth Scientist”

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 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Toward co-designed Earth System Models: Reflecting end-user priorities in local applications from a modeler's perspective

Earth System Models (ESM) are crucial for quantifying climate impacts across Earth's interconnected systems and supporting science-based adaptation and mitigation. However, not including end-users, especially decision-makers representing communities vulnerable to climate change, can limit model utility, increase epistemic risks, and lead to information misuse in decision-making. While the ESM community increasingly values broad community engagement, end-users may not initially perceive models as useful for local planning. Co-designing models with end-users fosters two-way learning: users better understand models and their outputs, while modelers gain insights into fine-scale local processes like monitoring practices and management priorities. Higher-level co-design can lead to more customized, priority-driven, and useful modeling products. Despite these benefits, modelers often struggle to initiate meaningful partnerships with local communities. Therefore, this paper explores model co-design from the perspective of modelers. This study presents two case studies where modelers and social scientists collaborated with Indigenous communities' decision-makers to reflect their priorities in model design and application. In the Arctic Rivers Project, high-resolution climate and hydrology data sets for Alaska were developed with guidance from an Indigenous Advisory Council, using optimized, coupled land-atmosphere models. In the Mid-Klamath Project, we partnered with the Karuk Tribe's Department of Natural Resources to assess climate change and prescribed burning impacts on terrestrial hydrology in the Klamath River Basin. Drawing from these studies, we introduce a four-level framework: (a) Co-design Configuration; (b) Model Tuning; (c) Incorporate Contextual Knowledge; (d) Co-develop New Model Functions. We aim to help researchers consider and compare co-design across diverse modeling projects systematically and coherently.

Alaska, California, Oregon↗
USGS2011

Diel biogeochemical processes in terrestrial waters

Many biogeochemical processes in rivers and lakes respond to the solar photocycle and produce persistent patterns of measureable phenomena that exhibit a day–night, or 24-h, cycle. Despite a large body of recent literature, the mechanisms responsible for these diel fluctuations are widely debated, with a growing consensus that combinations of physical, chemical, and biological processes are involved. These processes include streamflow variation, photosynthesis and respiration, plant assimilation, and reactions involving photochemistry, adsorption and desorption, and mineral precipitation and dissolution. Diel changes in streamflow and water properties such as temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen concentration have been widely recognized, and recently, diel studies have focused more widely by considering other constituents such as dissolved and particulate trace metals, metalloids, rare earth elements, mercury, organic matter, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), and nutrients. The details of many diel processes are being studied using stable isotopes, which also can exhibit diel cycles in response to microbial metabolism, photosynthesis and respiration, or changes in phase, speciation, or redox state. In addition, secondary effects that diel cycles might have, for example, on biota or in the hyporheic zone are beginning to be considered. This special issue is composed primarily of papers presented at the topical session “Diurnal Biogeochemical Processes in Rivers, Lakes, and Shallow Groundwater” held at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America in October 2009 in Portland, Oregon. This session was organized because many of the growing number of diel studies have addressed just a small part of the full range of diel cycling phenomena found in rivers and lakes. This limited focus is understandable because (1) fundamental aspects of many diel processes are poorly understood and require detailed study, (2) the interests and expertise of individual scientists typically do not encompass the wide diversity and range of processes that produce diel cycles, and (3) the logistics of making field measurements for 24-h periods has limited recognition and understanding of these important cycles. Thus, the topical session brought together hydrologists, biologists, geochemists, and ecologists to discuss field studies, laboratory experiments, theoretical modeling, and measurement techniques related to diel cycling. Hopefully with the cross-disciplinary synergy developed at the session as well as by this special issue, a more comprehensive understanding of the interrelationships between the diel processes will be developed. Needless to say, understanding diel processes is critical for regulatory agencies and the greater scientific community. And perhaps more importantly, expanded knowledge of biogeochemical cycling may lead to better predictions of how aquatic ecosystems might react to changing conditions of contaminant loading, eutrophication, climate change, drought, industrialization, development, and other variables.

Chemical Geology↗
USGS2011

Developing climate data records and essential climate variables from landsat data

The series of Landsat missions has compiled the longest record of satellite observation of the Earth’s land surface, extending for more than 38 years for most areas of the globe. Landsat data are particularly important as long term climate data records because the scale of observation is sufficient to differentiate between natural and human drivers of land cover change. The USGS has established consistent radiometric calibration across the Landsat TM and ETM+ sensors, and have extended the calibration back to the earlier MSS sensors. The USGS is developing capabilities to create fundamental climate data records (FCDRs), thematic climate data records (TCDRs), and essential climate variables (ECVs) from the Landsat data archive. Two high priority TCDRs were identified: surface reflectance and land surface temperature because they have direct application or are required as input to the generation of ECVs. We will focus development on a few of the terrestrial ECVs that have a high potential for being derived from Landsat data, that include land cover, albedo, fire disturbance, surface water, snow and ice, and leaf area index (LAI). We are collaborating with scientists who have demonstrated successful algorithm development and application of these science products to develop a framework of processing capabilities to support research projects and land management applications, along with an independent strategy for product validation. Our goal is to scale the creation and validation of these products from specific sites in the conterminous U.S. and Alaska, for extension to continental and global scales.

Conference Paper↗
USGS1976

Man against volcano: The eruption on Heimaey, Vestmann Islands, Iceland

The U.S. Geological Survey carries out scientific studies in the geological, hydrological, and cartographic sciences generally within the 50 states, but also in cooperation with scientific organizations in many foreign countries for the investigation of unusual earth science phenomena throughout the world. The following material discusses the impact of the 1973 volcanic eruption of Eldfell on the fishing port of Vestmannaeyjar on the island of Heimaey, Iceland. Before the eruption was over, approximately one-third of the town of Vestmannaeyjar had been obliterated but, more importantly, the potential damage had been reduced markedly by the spraying of seawater onto the advancing lava flows, causing them to be slowed, stopped, or diverted from the undamaged portion of the town. The Survey's interest and involvement in the Heimaey eruption in Iceland was occasioned by the possibility that the procedures used to control the course of the flowing lava and to reduce the damage in a modern town may some day be needed in Hawaii and possibly even in the continental United States. This publication is based on the observations of two USGS geologists, Richard S. Williams, Jr. and James G. Moore, as well as on information from the Icelandic Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Icelandic scientists' reports through the Center for Short-Lived Phenomena, and other published scientific reports. A number of Icelandic scientists studied the scientific aspects of the eruption and the engineering aspects of the control of lava flows, in particular, Professors Thorbjb'rn Sigurgeirsson and Sigurdur Thorarinsson of the University of Iceland Science Institute. Also, Icelandic governmental officials provided logistical and other support, in particular, Mr. Steingnmur Hermannsson, Director, Icelandic National Research Council and Professor Magnus Magnusson, Director, University of Iceland Science Institute.

Vestmannaeyjar↗
USGS2024

The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy

President Biden has been clear that the ocean is central to life on Earth. As he has proclaimed, “the ocean powers millions of jobs; feeds and sustains us; and is a rejuvenating source of inspiration, exploration, and recreation.” The Biden-Harris Administration has worked hard to fulfill the President’s goal to protect and conserve at least 30% of U.S. waters by 2030. The ocean faces increased threats from warming, overfishing, increased acidity, and loss of biodiversity. It is now more important than ever to sustain the many benefits that the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes provide, including food, a favorable climate, recreation, physical and mental health, and for many, a sense of cultural identity. Ocean life represents an irreplaceable heritage, the foundation of a habitable planet, and a vast trove of resources. Keeping our ocean healthy requires reliable information on the changing status of these living organisms, the drivers of biodiversity change, and options for effectively addressing those drivers. Over 2 million species are estimated to live in the ocean, yet only about 240,000 species have been described by scientists. Most of the ocean’s benefits result from those diverse species interacting with one another and the environment they create. To protect and conserve the ocean, we as a nation need to make better use of existing knowledge and prioritize acquiring new biodiversity knowledge to enable better policy and management decisions. The ability to monitor ocean species and habitats has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with innovations in technology, genomics, taxonomy, big data management and sharing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Yet large fractions of the U.S. ocean remain almost unknown. The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (strategy) reflects the urgent need to leverage these advances. The goals of this strategy must be guided by the nation’s diverse voices and ways of knowing, in order to maximize effective and equitable stewardship of the ocean’s diverse life and its benefits to people. The strategy is intended as a guiding document for government to advance three overarching goals: ● Goal 1: Drive delivery of ocean biodiversity knowledge at the national scale. Objectives include developing an Implementation Plan for achieving the strategy’s three goals; establishing a coordination mechanism to manage the implementation; and documenting gaps in biodiversity knowledge and the benefits of ocean biodiversity to people and economies. ● Goal 2: Strengthen tools and institutions to deliver ocean biodiversity knowledge. Objectives include establishing a robust information pipeline to support indicators and dynamic maps of ocean biodiversity, from the coasts to the deep sea. This pipeline should include expanded observing systems and comprehensive data management; science and technology solutions to accelerate the availability of biodiversity information; and plans to leverage previous investments to rebuild and expand the nation’s human capital and infrastructure to sustain foundational taxonomy and biodiversity science. ● Goal 3: Protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably use ocean biodiversity. Objectives include expanding the collection, delivery, and use of biodiversity knowledge to inform actions that advance ocean protection, conservation, restoration, and sustainable development. Government should lead in establishing and incentivizing diverse partnerships across scales and sectors to implement those actions and should educate and involve the public to discover and value the nation’s diverse ocean life. Achieving these goals will require commitments across society: new federal and private investments, coordination across sectors to address climate and equity challenges, and engagement of Indigenous Knowledge holders and frontline communities as full partners throughout planning and implementation. The Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) IWG-Biodiversity will begin developing an Implementation Plan to describe and direct specific actions to implement the strategy. Successful implementation of the strategy will harmonize and expand collection and delivery of timely knowledge on ocean life to all of society. The strategy will also enable evidence-based management and protection of the ocean. Advancing the strategy will build human and institutional capital and partnerships that support both existing mandates and new needs to rebuild and sustain biodiversity, achieve healthy ocean ecosystems, and manage living resources. Implementing the strategy will deliver knowledge for monitoring, modeling, forecasting, and assessments that support food security, public health, and cultural values, and that more effectively protect, conserve, and restore nature.

Report↗
USGS2026

Geologic map of the Sierra Nevada, California and western Nevada

THE GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE SIERRA NEVADA is a core component of the Sierra Nevada Earth Science Atlas, which also includes geophysical, neotectonic, economic, and geochronologic data. The map illustrates the distribution of geologic units across the Sierra Nevada and related adjacent areas. Geologic units are grouped by type and age into three categories: Principally Paleozoic and Mesozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic wall rocks, most of which are grouped into terranes; Paleozoic and Mesozoic plutons and intrusive suites, which intrude the wall rocks and form the core batholith of the range; and Late Cretaceous and Cenozoic sedimentary and volcanic rocks and surficial deposits that unconformably overlap the older units. Related rock units were combined and simplified for presentation at a scale of 1:400,000, as shown in the list of map units and associated correlation of map units (Plate 1B) and description of map units (Appendix A). Tectonic faulting, folding and uplift have overprinted the rocks and have strongly influenced the spatial distribution of units and the distinct morphology of the Sierra Nevada as we see it today. The Atlas is the result of collaborative work by scientists and mapmakers from the California Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey. The Atlas was originally envisioned by the late geologist Warren Nokleberg (1939-2021), who contributed much to the initial geologic map compilation

California, Nevada↗
USGS2012

Volcanic hazards and public response

Although scientific understanding of volcanoes is advancing, eruptions continue to take a substantial toll of life and property. Some of these losses could be reduced by better advance preparation, more effective flow of information between scientists and public officials, and better understanding of volcanic behavior by all segments of the public. The greatest losses generally occur at volcanoes that erupt infrequently where people are not accustomed to dealing with them. Scientists sometimes tend to feel that the blame for poor decisions in emergency management lies chiefly with officials or journalists because of their failure to understand the threat. However, the underlying problem embraces a set of more complex issues comprising three pervasive factors. The first factor is the volcano: signals given by restless volcanoes are often ambiguous and difficult to interpret, especially at long-quiescent volcanoes. The second factor is people: people confront hazardous volcanoes in widely divergent ways, and many have difficulty in dealing with the uncertainties inherent in volcanic unrest. The third factor is the scientists: volcanologists correctly place their highest priority on monitoring and hazard assessment, but they sometimes fail to explain clearly their conclusions to responsible officials and the public, which may lead to inadequate public response. Of all groups in society, volcanologists have the clearest understanding of the hazards and vagaries of volcanic activity; they thereby assume an ethical obligation to convey effectively their knowledge to benefit all of society. If society resists, their obligation nevertheless remains. They must use the same ingenuity and creativity in dealing with information for the public that they use in solving scientific problems. When this falls short, even excellent scientific results may be nullified.

Journal of Geophysical Research Solid Earth↗
USGS2011

Recent directions taken in water, energy, and biogeochemical budgets research

Understanding and predicting global change is a major scientific focus of the late 20th century. Although atmospheric scientists have made substantial progress in developing models that account for many components of the climate system, significant progress is needed in understanding processes associated with the exchange of water, energy, and carbon between terrestrial systems and the atmosphere. To strengthen terrestrial process research, especially research associated with the interactions of water, energy, gases, nutrients, and vegetation, the U.S. Geological Survey initiated an intensive study of Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB). WEBB is aimed at improving understanding of processes controlling terrestrial water, energy, and biogeochemical fluxes, their interactions, and their relations to climatic variables; and the ability to predict continental water, energy, and biogeochemical budgets over a range of spatial and temporal scales.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS1996

Data base for a national mineral-resource assessment of undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc in the conterminous United States

For this assessment, the conterminous United States was divided into 12 regions Adirondack Mountains, Central and Southern Rocky Mountains, Colorado Plateau, East Central, Great Basin, Great Plains, Lake Superior, Northern Appalachians, Northern Rocky Mountains, Pacific Coast, Southern Appalachians, and Southern Basin and Range. The assessment, which was conducted by regional assessment teams of scientists from the USGS, was based on the concepts of permissive tracts and deposit models. Permissive tracts are discrete areas of the United States for which estimates of numbers of undiscovered deposits of a particular deposit type were made. A permissive tract is defined by its geographic boundaries such that the probability of deposits of the type delineated occurring outside the boundary is neglible. Deposit models, which are based on a compilation of worldwide literature and on observation, are sets of data in a convenient form that describe a group of deposits which have similar characteristics and that contain information on the common geologic attributes of the deposits and the environments in which they are found. Within each region, the assessment teams delineated permissive tracts for those deposit models that were judged to be appropriate and, when the amount of information warranted, estimated the number of undiscovered deposits. A total of 46 deposit models were used to assess 236 separate permissive tracts. Estimates of undiscovered deposits were limited to a depth of 1 km beneath the surface of the Earth. The estimates of the number of undiscovered deposits of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc were expressed in the form of a probability distribution. Commonly, the number of undiscovered deposits was estimated at the 90th, 50th, and 10th percentiles. A Monte Carlo simulation computer program was used to combine the probability distribution of the number of undiscovered deposits with the grade and tonnage data sets associated with each deposit model to obtain the probability distribution for undiscovered metal.

conterminous United States↗
USGS2006

User's Guide for MapIMG 2: Map Image Re-projection Software Package

BACKGROUND Scientists routinely accomplish small-scale geospatial modeling in the raster domain, using high-resolution datasets for large parts of continents and low-resolution to high-resolution datasets for the entire globe. Direct implementation of point-to-point transformation with appropriate functions yields the variety of projections available in commercial software packages, but implementation with data other than points requires specific adaptation of the transformation equations or prior preparation of the data to allow the transformation to succeed. It seems that some of these packages use the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) General Cartographic Transformation Package (GCTP) or similar point transformations without adaptation to the specific characteristics of raster data (Usery and others, 2003a). Usery and others (2003b) compiled and tabulated the accuracy of categorical areas in projected raster datasets of global extent. Based on the shortcomings identified in these studies, geographers and applications programmers at the USGS expanded and evolved a USGS software package, MapIMG, for raster map projection transformation (Finn and Trent, 2004). Daniel R. Steinwand of Science Applications International Corporation, National Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science, originally developed MapIMG for the USGS, basing it on GCTP. Through previous and continuing efforts at the USGS' National Geospatial Technical Operations Center, this program has been transformed from an application based on command line input into a software package based on a graphical user interface for Windows, Linux, and other UNIX machines.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Appalachian region integrated science workshop proceedings, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, October 22-26, 2001

Some of nature's most magnificent creations on Earth are the picturesque landscape and the terrestrial and aquatic inhabitants of the Appalachian Mountains of the Eastern United States. Mother Nature has been kind to the region but man, often, has not. The Appalachian mountains and valleys have been home to a variety of human cultures, dating back approximately 12,000 years. A series of Native American peoples, including most recently the Cherokee Nation, inhabited the region prior to European settlement which began in the 1600's. All of these peoples have had the desire to reap the benefits of the land. Current and historic use of the land ranges from mineral extraction to agricultural development to timber production to industrial and residential development, all of which have now threatened the landscape. Many individuals and organizations desire to save the awe and beauty of the Appalachians for the generations to come, in a way that is environmentally and economically sustainable. They have tried for years to raise alarms that this area is threatened and worth the attention of all who are interested in an effort of restitution and preservation. Residents, environmental groups, land managers, scientists, business groups, and the multitude of visitors who pass through the national parks and other public lands located within the Appalachians have raised these same alarms. There is a need to not only identify the issues resulting from anthropogenic pressures on the landscape, but also to collect the information and conduct the science that will allow land managers and policy makers to become better informed and better able to execute their responsibilities.

Appalachia↗
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↗
USGS1999

Environmental issues associated with fossil fuel resources; an evaluation of research opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey's Energy Resources Program

Fossil fuel consumption in the United States has nearly tripled within the last 50 years (fig. 1), and is expected to continue increasing. As our knowledge and awareness of environmental consequences related to fossil fuel extraction and use grow, we as a nation, face the challenge of balancing our energy requirements with a desire for environmentally cleaner fuel. To help meet this challenge, the Energy Resources Program (ERP) of the Geologic Division (GD), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) sponsored three internal workshops and a World Wide Web (WWW) workshop. The primary goal of these workshops was to identify those environmental issues that are related to fossil fuels, are national in scope, and are within the purview of the USGS as an earth-science government agency. Those issues so identified will be prioritized according to ERP's future research plan and according to the extent they provide an environmental framework for ERP's petroleum and coal assessments. The purpose of this paper is to provide the results of the internal and WWW workshops as proposed topics of research for future ERP work, delineate studies to answer the questions related to each proposed research area, and link the studies to the seven science goals of the Geologic Division. The information provided herein will be used in preparing the USGS Geologic Division's FY2000 prospectus and ERP's next five-year strategic plan. Acknowledgements. The authors wish to acknowledge information on ERP environmental projects provided by Les Magoon, Paul Lillis, Keith Kvenvolden, Tom Lorenson, and Bob Rosenbauer. Peter Schweitzer was instrumental in providing the software for the WWW workshop, Cheryl Adkisson for constructing the workshop web pages, and Laura Friedrich for constructing the web pages summarizing the internal workshops. Stan Mroczkowski, Jim Otton, Donna Read, and Dorothy Tanti provided notes of or logistical assistance for the internal workshops. This report reflects the collective input of numerous USGS managers and scientists their participation in the workshops is greatly appreciated.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Partly cloudy with a chance of migration: Weather, radars, and aeroecology

Aeroecology is an emerging scientific discipline that integrates atmospheric science, Earth science, geography, ecology, computer science, computational biology, and engineering to further the understanding of biological patterns and processes. The unifying concept underlying this new transdisciplinary field of study is a focus on the planetary boundary layer and lower free atmosphere (i.e., the aerosphere), and the diversity of airborne organisms that inhabit and depend on the aerosphere for their existence. Here, we focus on the role of radars and radar networks in aeroecological studies. Radar systems scanning the atmosphere are primarily used to monitor weather conditions and track the location and movements of aircraft. However, radar echoes regularly contain signals from other sources, such as airborne birds, bats, and arthropods. We briefly discuss how radar observations can be and have been used to study a variety of airborne organisms and examine some of the many potential benefits likely to arise from radar aeroecology for meteorological and biological research over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Radar systems are becoming increasingly sophisticated with the advent of innovative signal processing and dual-polarimetric capabilities. These capabilities should be better harnessed to promote both meteorological and aeroecological research and to explore the interface between these two broad disciplines. We strongly encourage close collaboration among meteorologists, radar scientists, biologists, and others toward developing radar products that will contribute to a better understanding of airborne fauna.

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society↗
USGS2020

Unfamiliar territory: Emerging themes for ecological drought research and management

Novel forms of drought are emerging globally, due to climate change, shifting teleconnection patterns, expanding human water use, and a history of human influence on the environment that increases the probability of transformational ecological impacts. These costly ecological impacts cascade to human communities, and understanding this changing drought landscape is one of today’s grand challenges. By using a modified horizon-scanning approach that integrated scientists, managers, and decision-makers, we identified the emerging issues in ecological drought that represent key challenges to timely and effective responses. Here we review the themes that most urgently need attention, including novel drought conditions, the potential for transformational drought impacts, and the need for anticipatory drought management. This horizon scan and review provides a roadmap to facilitate the research and management innovations that will support forward-looking, co-developed approaches to reduce the risk of drought to our socio-ecological systems during the 21 st century.

One Earth↗
USGS2015

Building sandbars in the Grand Canyon

In 1963, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation finished building Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in northern Arizona, 25 kilometers upstream from Grand Canyon National Park. The dam impounded 300 kilometers of the Colorado River, creating Lake Powell, the nation’s second largest reservoir. By 1974, scientists found that the downstream river’s alluvial sandbars were eroding because the reservoir trapped the fine sediment that replenished the deposits during annual floods. These sandbars are important structures for many kinds of life in and along the river. Now, by implementing a new strategy that calls for repeated releases of large volumes of water from the dam, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) seeks to increase the size and number of these sandbars. Three years into the "high-flow experiment" (HFE) protocol, the releases appear to be achieving the desired effect. Many sandbars have increased in size following each controlled flood, and the cumulative results of the first three releases suggest that sandbar declines may be reversed if controlled floods can be implemented frequently enough.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

Labeling poststorm coastal imagery for machine learning: Measurement of interrater agreement

Classifying images using supervised machine learning (ML) relies on labeled training data—classes or text descriptions, for example, associated with each image. Data-driven models are only as good as the data used for training, and this points to the importance of high-quality labeled data for developing a ML model that has predictive skill. Labeling data is typically a time-consuming, manual process. Here, we investigate the process of labeling data, with a specific focus on coastal aerial imagery captured in the wake of hurricanes that affected the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. The imagery data set is a rich observational record of storm impacts and coastal change, but the imagery requires labeling to render that information accessible. We created an online interface that served labelers a stream of images and a fixed set of questions. A total of 1,600 images were labeled by at least two or as many as seven coastal scientists. We used the resulting data set to investigate interrater agreement: the extent to which labelers labeled each image similarly. Interrater agreement scores, assessed with percent agreement and Krippendorff's alpha, are higher when the questions posed to labelers are relatively simple, when the labelers are provided with a user manual, and when images are smaller. Experiments in interrater agreement point toward the benefit of multiple labelers for understanding the uncertainty in labeling data for machine learning research.

Earth and Space Science↗