SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Current Research in Earth Sciences”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2011

The story of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory -- A remarkable first 100 years of tracking eruptions and earthquakes

The year 2012 marks the centennial of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO). With the support and cooperation of visionaries, financiers, scientists, and other individuals and organizations, HVO has successfully achieved 100 years of continuous monitoring of Hawaiian volcanoes. As we celebrate this milestone anniversary, we express our sincere mahalo—thanks—to the people who have contributed to and participated in HVO’s mission during this past century. First and foremost, we owe a debt of gratitude to the late Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., the geologist whose vision and efforts led to the founding of HVO. We also acknowledge the pioneering contributions of the late Frank A. Perret, who began the continuous monitoring of Kīlauea in 1911, setting the stage for Jaggar, who took over the work in 1912. Initial support for HVO was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory, which financed the initial cache of volcano monitoring instruments and Perret’s work in 1911. The Hawaiian Volcano Research Association, a group of Honolulu businessmen organized by Lorrin A. Thurston, also provided essential funding for HVO’s daily operations starting in mid-1912 and continuing for several decades. Since HVO’s beginning, the University of Hawaiʻi (UH), called the College of Hawaii until 1920, has been an advocate of HVO’s scientific studies. We have benefited from collaborations with UH scientists at both the Hilo and Mänoa campuses and look forward to future cooperative efforts to better understand how Hawaiian volcanoes work. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated HVO continuously since 1947. Before then, HVO was under the administration of various Federal agencies—the U.S. Weather Bureau, at the time part of the Department of Agriculture, from 1919 to 1924; the USGS, which first managed HVO from 1924 to 1935; and the National Park Service from 1935 to 1947. For 76 of its first 100 years, HVO has been part of the USGS, the Nation’s premier Earth science agency. It currently operates under the direction of the USGS Volcano Science Center, which now supports five volcano observatories covering six U.S. areas—Hawaiʻi (HVO), Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands (Alaska Volcano Observatory), Washington and Oregon (Cascades Volcano Observatory), California (California Volcano Observatory), and the Yellowstone region (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory). Although the National Park Service (NPS) managed HVO for only 12 years, HVO has enjoyed a close working relationship with Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (named Hawaii National Park until 1961) since the park’s founding in 1916. Today, as in past years, the USGS and NPS work together to ensure the safety and education of park visitors. We are grateful to all park employees, particularly Superintendent Cindy Orlando and Chief Ranger Talmadge Magno and their predecessors, for their continuing support of HVO’s mission. HVO also works closely with the Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense. During volcanic and earthquake crises, we have appreciated the support of civil defense staff, especially that of Harry Kim and Quince Mento, who administered the agency during highly stressful episodes of Kīlauea's ongoing eruption. Our work in remote areas on Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes is possible only with the able assistance of Hawaiʻi County and private pilots who have safely flown HVO staff to eruption sites through the decades. A special mahalo goes to David Okita, who has been HVO’s principal helicopter pilot for more than two decades. Many commercial and Civil Air Patrol pilots have also assisted HVO by reporting their observations during various eruptive events. Hawaiʻi’s news media—print, television, radio, and online sources—do an excellent job of distributing volcano and earthquake information to the public. Their assistance is invaluable to HVO, especially during times of crisis. HVO’s efforts to provide timely and accurate scientific information about Hawaiian volcanoes and earthquakes succeed only because of you, our receptive and keenly aware public. By following the activity of Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes through our daily eruption updates posted on the HVO website, viewing HVO webcam images, reading our weekly “Volcano Watch” articles, and attending our public lectures, you help us to ensure that you can live safely with Hawaiʻi’s dynamic volcanoes. To everyone who has shared in HVO’s reaching this milestone—100 years of continuous volcano monitoring—we extend our deepest gratitude. Mahalo nui loa!

Hawai'i↗

USGS2012

Natural hazards science strategy

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

Open-File Report↗

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

Expanding the role of reactive transport models in critical zone processes

Models test our understanding of processes and can reach beyond the spatial and temporal scales of measurements. Multi-component Reactive Transport Models (RTMs), initially developed more than three decades ago, have been used extensively to explore the interactions of geothermal, hydrologic, geochemical, and geobiological processes in subsurface systems. Driven by extensive data sets now available from intensive measurement efforts, there is a pressing need to couple RTMs with other community models to explore non-linear interactions among the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and geosphere. Here we briefly review the history of RTM development, summarize the current state of RTM approaches, and identify new research directions, opportunities, and infrastructure needs to broaden the use of RTMs. In particular, we envision the expanded use of RTMs in advancing process understanding in the Critical Zone, the veneer of the Earth that extends from the top of vegetation to the bottom of groundwater. We argue that, although parsimonious models are essential at larger scales, process-based models offer tools to explore the highly nonlinear coupling that characterizes natural systems. We present seven testable hypotheses that emphasize the unique capabilities of process-based RTMs for (1) elucidating chemical weathering and its physical and biogeochemical drivers; (2) understanding the interactions among roots, micro-organisms, carbon, water, and minerals in the rhizosphere; (3) assessing the effects of heterogeneity across spatial and temporal scales; and (4) integrating the vast quantity of novel data, including “omics” data (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics), elemental concentration and speciation data, and isotope data into our understanding of complex earth surface systems. With strong support from data-driven sciences, we are now in an exciting era where integration of RTM framework into other community models will facilitate process understanding across disciplines and across scales.

Earth-Science Reviews↗

USGS1978

On the development of strong-motion instrument networks in the United States

This report outlines a plan for the distribution of strong-motion instrumentation throughout the United States. The present "national" network of strong-motion instrumentation has evolved through the merger of several programs initiated by different agencies and organizations with objectives ranging from research to regulation. It is the result of the coordination of instrument maintenance and record archival currently provided by the Seismic Engineering Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey (formerly the Seismological Field Survey of the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, or the National Ocean Survey, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The USGS operates the program under funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies. NSF supports a data management function and the operation of a network of about 200 accelerographs and 300 seismoscopes utilized for studies of ground motion and building response. The State of California is developing its own strong-motion instrumentation program (CSMIP), which includes measurements of ground motion as well as the response of representative types of structures. The CSMIP network is the largest network operated by a single agency anywhere in the world. Eventually it will contain a total of about 1000 accelerographs. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is developing a program for monitoring the response of earth dams, which eventually will include as many as 400 instruments on over 100 dams. Other agencies and organizations are developing networks appropriate to their missions or objectives. At present the number of instruments owned by these other agencies is less than 100 in each case, although several agencies are still expanding their networks. The present distribution of accelerographs in the United States is indicated in Figure 1 (see: USGS, 1977, also). In 1964 the cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, California passed ordinances which required 3 accelerographs to be installed in all high-rise buildings. Initially, these instruments were installed and maintained as a part of the strong-motion program of the Seismological Field Survey (SFS). As the number of installations required by such codes increased, it became apparent that the maintenance of these instruments placed an inordinate burden on and created an imbalance in the SFS operated program (in 1972, 50 percent of the "national" program was concentrated in Los Angeles). With the transfer of the SFS program responsibility to the NSF and with the development of the CSMIP, the responsibility for maintenance of code required instruments has reverted to the city building officials and the building owners. As the coordinated network of strong-motion instruments has grown, the maintenance of the instruments has required a larger staff than the USGS could provide under existing personnel ceilings. This situation has been resolved by the agencies with the larger networks performing their own installation and maintenance. The USGS maintains an archive of first class copies of all records, whereas other agencies maintain archives of their own records, only. In addition, the USGS coordinates the routine processing of all of the significant records, although other agencies will process their own data if they consider it to have a higher priority than does the USGS. In response to a recent change in their legislated charter, the CSMIP is beginning to develop a capability to process the data collected under that program.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

Six decades of seismology at South Pole, Antarctica: Current limitations and future opportunities to facilitate new geophysical observations

Seismograms from the South Pole have been important for seismological observations for over six decades by providing (until 2007) the only continuous seismic records from the interior of the Antarctic continent. The South Pole, Antarctica station has undergone many updates over the years, including conversion to a digital recording station as part of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN) in 1991 and being relocated to multiple deep ( ⁠ > 250    m "> > 250 m >250 m ⁠ ) boreholes 8 km away from the station in 2003 (and renamed to Quiet South Pole, Antarctica [QSPA]). Notably, QSPA is the second most used GSN station by the National Earthquake Information Center to pick phases used to rapidly detect and locate earthquakes globally, and has been used for a variety of glaciological and oceanography studies. In addition, it is the only seismic station on the Earth where low‐frequency ( ⁠ < 5    mHz "> < 5 mHz <5 mHz ⁠ ), normal‐mode oscillations of the planet excited by large earthquakes can be recorded without influence from Earth’s rotation, and most of the direct effects of the solid Earth tide vanish. However, the current sensors are largely 1980s vintage, and, while able to make some lower‐frequency observations from earthquakes, the borehole sensors appear unable to resolve ambient ground motions at frequencies lower than 25 mHz due to instrument noise and contamination from magnetic field variations. Recently developed borehole sensors offer the potential to extend background noise observations to below 3 mHz, which would substantially improve the fidelity and scientific value of seismic observations at South Pole. Through collaboration with the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, the opportunity exists to emplace a modern very broadband seismometer near the base ( ⁠ > 2    km "> > 2 km >2 km depth) of the Antarctic ice cap, which could lead to unprecedented seismic observations at long periods and facilitate a broad spectrum of Earth science studies.

Seismological Research Letters↗

USGS2013

Users, uses, and value of Landsat satellite imagery: results from the 2012 survey of users

Landsat satellites have been operating since 1972, providing a continuous global record of the Earth’s land surface. The imagery is currently available at no cost through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Social scientists at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center conducted an extensive survey in early 2012 to explore who uses Landsat imagery, how they use the imagery, and what the value of the imagery is to them. The survey was sent to all users registered with USGS who had accessed Landsat imagery in the year prior to the survey and over 11,000 current Landsat imagery users responded. The results of the survey revealed that respondents from many sectors use Landsat imagery in myriad project locations and scales, as well as application areas. The value of Landsat imagery to these users was demonstrated by the high importance of and dependence on the imagery, the numerous environmental and societal benefits observed from projects using Landsat imagery, the potential negative impacts on users’ work if Landsat imagery was no longer available, and the substantial aggregated annual economic benefit from the imagery. These results represent only the value of Landsat to users registered with USGS; further research would help to determine what the value of the imagery is to a greater segment of the population, such as downstream users of the imagery and imagery-derived products.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Extreme coastal water level in Washington state: Guidance to support sea level rise planning

This document provides guidelines for assessing exposure to future coastal flooding during extreme coastal water level events – whether these are due to tides, surge, wave run-up, or, more likely, a combination of the three. These guidelines provide information about the current and future magnitude of extreme coastal water levels across Washington State and the underlying processes that influence them. This information is intended to be combined with sea level projections to assess future exposure to coastal flooding along Washington’s coastline. Although the results of our analyses can be combined with any available sea level projections, this report is intended as a companion to the localized sea level rise projections (Miller et al., 2018) developed as part of the Washington Coastal Resilience Project. The Washington Coastal Resilience Project was a three-year effort to rapidly increase the state’s capacity to prepare for sea level rise. The project aimed to improve risk projections, provide better guidelines for land use planners and strengthen capital investment programs for coastal restoration and infrastructure. Partners in the Washington Coastal Resilience Project included Washington Sea Grant, Washington Department of Ecology, Island County, King County, NOAA Office for Coastal Management, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Padilla Bay National Estuary Research Reserve, The City of Tacoma, The Nature Conservancy, U.S. Geological Survey, University of Oregon, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington University. The 2018 sea level projections are described in an accompanying technical report, along with a review of the science related to sea level rise (Miller et al., 2018). The report and all associated supporting information are available on the Washington Coastal Hazards Resilience Network website (http://www.wacoastalnetwork.com/).

Washington↗

USGS1999

The EOS land validation core sites: background information and current status

The EOS Land Validation Core Sites1 will provide the user community with timely ground, aircraft, and satellite data for EOS science and validation investigations. The sites, currently 24 distributed worldwide, represent a consensus among the instrument teams and validation investigators and represent a range of global biome types (see Figure 1 and Table 1; Privette et al., 1999; Justice et al., 1998). The sites typically have a history of in situ and remote observations and can expect continued monitoring and land cover research activities. In many cases, a Core Site will have a tower equipped with above-canopy instrumentation for nearcontinuous sampling of landscape radiometric, energy and CO2 flux, meteorological variables, and atmospheric aerosol and water vapor data. These will be complemented by intensive field measurement campaigns. The data collected at these sites will provide an important resource for the broader science community. These sites can also provide a foundation for a validation network supported and used by all international space agencies.

The Earth Observer↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2013 Annual Report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conducts earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups. However by 2009, it became apparent that many members of the council had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal grassroots perspective, thus transforming the “Council” into a “Community” for Data Integration (CDI). Today, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas as well as learn new skills and techniques, and grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the Community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical 2 challenges, including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. Today the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that create data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Community for Data Integration 2014 annual report

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researches Earth science to help address complex issues affecting society and the environment. In 2006, the USGS held the first Scientific Information Management Workshop to bring together staff from across the organization to discuss the data and information management issues affecting the integration and delivery of Earth science research and investigate the use of “communities of practice” as mechanisms to share expertise about these issues. Out of this effort emerged the Council for Data Integration, which was conceived as an official organizational function that would help guide data integration activities and formalize communities of practice into working groups; however, by 2009 it became evident that many members of the Council for Data Integration had an interest in developing data integration solutions and sharing expertise in a less formal, grassroots manner, which transformed the Council into a Community for Data Integration (CDI). As of 2014, the CDI represents a dynamic community of practice focused on advancing science data and information management and integration capabilities across the USGS and the CDI community. The CDI fosters an environment for collaboration and sharing by bringing together expertise from external partners and representatives across the USGS who are involved in research, data management, and information technology. Membership is voluntary and open to USGS employees and other individuals and organizations willing to contribute to the community (if interested, contact cdi@usgs.gov). The purpose of the CDI is to do the following: • advance understanding of Earth systems through enhanced use of data and information including associated tools and techniques, • provide a forum for people doing work with data integration to come together to share ideas and learn new skills and techniques, and • grow overall USGS capabilities with data and information by increasing visibility of the work of many people throughout the USGS and the CDI community. To achieve these goals, the CDI operates within four applied areas: monthly forums, annual workshop/webinar series, working groups, and projects. The monthly forums, also known as the Opportunity/Challenge of the Month, provide an open dialogue to share and learn about data integration efforts or to present problems that invite the community to offer solutions, advice, and support. Since 2010, the CDI has also sponsored annual workshops/webinar series to encourage the exchange of ideas, sharing of activities, presentations of current projects, and networking among members. Stemming from common interests, the working groups are focused on efforts to address data management and technical challenges including the development of standards and tools, improving interoperability and information infrastructure, and data preservation within USGS and its partners. The growing support for the activities of the working groups led to the CDI’s first formal request for proposals (RFP) process in 2013 to fund projects that produced tangible products. As of 2014, the CDI continues to hold an annual RFP that creates data management tools and practices, collaboration tools, and training in support of data integration and delivery.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

The National Elevation Dataset

The National Elevation Dataset (NED) is a primary elevation data product that has been produced and distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Since its inception, the USGS has compiled and published topographic information in many forms, and the NED is a significant development in this long line of products that describe the land surface. The NED provides seamless raster elevation data of the conterminous United States (CONUS), Alaska, Hawaii, U.S. island territories, Mexico, and Canada. The NED is derived from diverse source datasets that are processed to a specification with consistent resolutions, coordinate system, elevation units, and horizontal and vertical datums. The NED was developed as the logical result of the maturation of the long-standing USGS elevation program, which for many years concentrated on production of quadrangle-based digital elevation models (DEM). The NED contributes to the elevation layer of The National Map, and it provides basic elevation information for earth science studies and mapping applications in the U.S. and most of North America. For over 15 years (1999–2014), the NED served as the flagship elevation product of the USGS. In 2015, the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) was initiated. When the 3DEP initiative became operational, the name “National Elevation Dataset” (and the abbreviation “NED”) were retired as the USGS elevation activities and data were rebranded under the 3DEP banner. However, elevation data produced and distributed as part of the NED are still widely used (and distributed by other entities), so there is a continuing need for detailed documentation, including how it was produced, its accuracy, and how it is used. This chapter directly addresses that need for detailed information about the NED. The most recent detailed description of the NED appeared in the 2nd edition of the DEM Users Manual (2007), and because NED production continued through 2014, the details reported herein provide valuable information for data accessed by the user community from 2007 through 2014. The NED has been widely used in operational applications and research studies and is extensively cited in reports on those activities, so it is important for the user community to have access to information about the NED to better judge how its qualities and characteristics might affect results derived from its use as the elevation data source. Additionally, the NED seamless layers serve as one of the input data sources for the current 3DEP elevation production system, so, as with any input data source, an understanding of the data characteristics is critical.

Book chapter↗

USGS2023

Ammonia and aquatic ecosystems – A review of global sources, biogeochemical cycling, and effects on fish

The purpose of this review is to better understand the full life cycle and influence of ammonia from an aquatic biology perspective. While ammonia has toxic properties in water and air, it also plays a central role in the biogeochemical nitrogen (N) cycle and regulates mechanisms of normal and abnormal fish physiology. Additionally, as the second most synthesized chemical on Earth, ammonia contributes economic value to many sectors, particularly fertilizers, energy storage, explosives, refrigerants, and plastics. But, with so many uses, industrial N 2 -fixation effectively doubles natural reactive N concentrations in the environment. The consequence is global, with excess fixed nitrogen driving degradation of soils, water, and air; intensifying eutrophication, biodiversity loss, and climate change; and creating health risks for humans, wildlife, and fisheries. Thus, the need for ammonia research in aquatic systems is growing. In response, we prepared this review to better understand the complexities and connectedness of environmental ammonia. Even the term “ammonia” has multiple meanings. So, we have clarified the nomenclature, identified units of measurement, and summarized methods to measure ammonia in water. We then discuss ammonia in the context of the N-cycle, review its role in fish physiology and mechanisms of toxicity, and integrate the effects of human N-fixation, which continuously expands ammonia's sources and uses. Ammonia is being developed as a carbon-free energy carrier with potential to increase reactive nitrogen in the environment. With this in mind, we review the global impacts of excess reactive nitrogen and consider the current monitoring and regulatory frameworks for ammonia. The presented synthesis illustrates the complex and interactive dynamics of ammonia as a plant nutrient, energy molecule, feedstock, waste product, contaminant, N-cycle participant, regulator of animal physiology, toxicant, and agent of environmental change. Few molecules are as influential as ammonia in the management and resilience of Earth's resources.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2020

Aeolian remobilisation of volcanic ash: Outcomes of a workshop in the Argentinian Patagonia

During explosive volcanic eruptions, large quantities of tephra can be dispersed and deposited over wide areas. Following deposition, subsequent aeolian remobilisation of ash can potentially exacerbate primary impacts on timescales of months to millennia. Recent ash remobilisation events (e.g., following eruptions of Cordón Caulle 2011; Chile, and Eyjafjallajökull 2010, Iceland) have highlighted this to be a recurring phenomenon with consequences for human health, economic sectors, and critical infrastructure. Consequently, scientists from observatories and Volcanic Ash Advisory Centers (VAACs), as well as researchers from fields including volcanology, aeolian processes and soil sciences, convened at the San Carlos de Bariloche headquarters of the Argentinian National Institute of Agricultural Technology to discuss the “state of the art” for field studies of remobilised deposits as well as monitoring, modeling and understanding ash remobilisation. In this article, we identify practices for field characterisation of deposits and active processes, including mapping, particle characterisation and sediment traps. Furthermore, since forecast models currently rely on poorly-constrained dust emission schemes, we call for laboratory and field measurements to better parameterise the flux of volcanic ash as a function of friction velocity. While source area location and extent are currently the primary inputs for dispersion models, once emission schemes become more sophisticated and better constrained, other parameters will also become important (e.g., source material volume and properties, effective precipitation, type and distribution of vegetation cover, friction velocity). Thus, aeolian ash remobilisation hazard and associated impact assessment require systematic monitoring, including the development of a regularly-updated spatial database of resuspension source areas.

Frontiers in Earth Science↗

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↗

USGS2008

Surface temperatures of the Mid-Pliocene North Atlantic Ocean: Implications for future climate

The Mid-Pliocene is the most recent interval in the Earth's history to have experienced warming of the magnitude predicted for the second half of the twenty-first century and is, therefore, a possible analogue for future climate conditions. With continents basically in their current positions and atmospheric CO 2 similar to early twenty-first century values, the cause of Mid-Pliocene warmth remains elusive. Understanding the behaviour of the North Atlantic Ocean during the Mid-Pliocene is integral to evaluating future climate scenarios owing to its role in deep water formation and its sensitivity to climate change. Under the framework of the Pliocene Research, Interpretation and Synoptic Mapping (PRISM) sea surface reconstruction, we synthesize Mid-Pliocene North Atlantic studies by PRISM members and others, describing each region of the North Atlantic in terms of palaeoceanography. We then relate Mid-Pliocene sea surface conditions to expectations of future warming. The results of the data and climate model comparisons suggest that the North Atlantic is more sensitive to climate change than is suggested by climate model simulations, raising the concern that estimates of future climate change are conservative.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:↗

USGS2010

U.S. Geological Survey activities related to American Indians and Alaska Natives: Fiscal years 2007 and 2008

In the late 1800s, John Wesley Powell, the second director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), followed his interest in the tribes of the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau and studied their cultures, languages, and surroundings. From that early time, the USGS has recognized the importance of Native knowledge and living in harmony with nature as complements to the USGS mission to better understand the Earth. Combining traditional ecological knowledge with empirical studies allows the USGS and Native American governments, organizations, and people to increase their mutual understanding and respect for this land. The USGS is the earth and natural science bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and is not responsible for regulations or land management. Climate change is a major current issue affecting Native lives and traditions throughout the United States. Climate projections for the coming century indicate an increasing probability for more frequent and more severe droughts in the Southwest, including the Navajo Nation. Erosion has claimed Native homes in Alaska. Fish have become inedible due to diseases that turn their flesh mushy. Native people who rely on or who are culturally sustained by hunting, fishing, and using local plants are living with climate change now. The traditional knowledge of Native peoples enriches and confirms the work of USGS scientists. The results are truly synergistic-greater than the sum of their parts. Traditional ecological knowledge is respected and increasingly used in USGS studies-when the holders of that knowledge choose to share it. The USGS respects the rights of Native people to maintain their patrimony of traditional ecological knowledge. The USGS studies can help Tribes, Native organizations, and natural resource professionals manage Native lands and resources with the best available unbiased data and information that can be added to their traditional knowledge. Wise Native leaders have noted that traditional ecological knowledge includes the connections between Earth and her denizens. From this perspective, it is the connections among these ?relatives? that needs to be nurtured. This perspective on nature is finding new adherents among Natives and non-Natives as understanding of climate change and other environmental conditions deepens. Although this report uses the term ?resources,? the USGS, through its interdisciplinary research, acknowledges the interconnectedness of the Earth and the things that live upon it.

Circular↗

USGS2019

Wildfire as a catalyst for hydrologic and geomorphic change

Wildfire has been a constant presence on the Earth since at least the Silurian period, and is a landscape-scale catalyst that results in a step-change perturbation for hydrologic systems, which ripples across burned terrain, shaping the geomorphic legacy of watersheds. Specifically, wildfire alters two key landscape properties: (1) overland flow, and (2) soil erodibility. Overland flow and soil erodibility have both been seen to increase after wildfires, resulting in order-of-magnitude increases in erosion rates during rainstorms with relatively frequent recurrence intervals. On short timescales, wildfire increases erosion and leads to natural hazards that are costly and threatening to society. Over longer timescales, wildfire-induced erosion can account for the majority of total denudation in certain settings with long- term implications for landscape evolution. There is a special focus on debris flows in this document because they are the most destructive geomorphic process that is observed to follow wildfires after high severity burns. In the past several decades researchers have investigated important aspects of post-wildfire debris flows, such as: the provenance of sediment that is moved in debris flows, the hydrologic and soil properties required to produce debris flows, and debris flow initiation mechanisms. Herein we highlight the relevant research articles showing the current state of progress in debris flow research as well as pointing to the fundamental research on post-wildfire hydrology and erosion that is necessary for understanding how water and sediment behave after wildfires.

Environmental Science↗