Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental & Engineering Geoscience”

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.

60 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Development of industrial minerals in Colorado

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

Colorado↗
USGS2002

Identification of lithofacies using Kohonen self-organizing maps

Lithofacies identification is a primary task in reservoir characterization. Traditional techniques of lithofacies identification from core data are costly, and it is difficult to extrapolate to non-cored wells. We present a low-cost automated technique using Kohonen self-organizing maps (SOMs) to identify systematically and objectively lithofacies from well log data. SOMs are unsupervised artificial neural networks that map the input space into clusters in a topological form whose organization is related to trends in the input data. A case study used five wells located in Appleton Field, Escambia County, Alabama (Smackover Formation, limestone and dolomite, Oxfordian, Jurassic). A five-input, one-dimensional output approach is employed, assuming the lithofacies are in ascending/descending order with respect to paleoenvironmental energy levels. To consider the possible appearance of new logfacies not seen in training mode, which may potentially appear in test wells, the maximum number of outputs is set to 20 instead of four, the designated number of lithosfacies in the study area. This study found eleven major clusters. The clusters were compared to depositional lithofacies identified by manual core examination. The clusters were ordered by the SOM in a pattern consistent with environmental gradients inferred from core examination: bind/boundstone, grainstone, packstone, and wackestone. This new approach predicted lithofacies identity from well log data with 78.8% accuracy which is more accurate than using a backpropagation neural network (57.3%). The clusters produced by the SOM are ordered with respect to paleoenvironmental energy levels. This energy-related clustering provides geologists and petroleum engineers with valuable geologic information about the logfacies and their interrelationships. This advantage is not obtained in backpropagation neural networks and adaptive resonance theory neural networks. ?? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Computers & Geosciences↗
USGS2001

Coastal-zone hazard maps and recommendations: Eastern Puerto Rico

A series of coastal zone hazard maps cover the area impacted by Hurricane Hugo (1989) in eastern Puerto Rico. The mapping strategy was to develop a tool for quick visualization of multiple hazards for use by coastal planners, managers, property owners, and potential property owners. The Puerto Rico shoreline is heavily developed in places and also highly compartmentalized in terms of shoreline types, geology, and adjacent shelf conditions. Hazards such as coastal erosion, storm surge, riverine flooding, landsliding, and seismic impact also may be compartmentalized. From a management perspective, resources therefore can be allocated on a compartment-by-compartment basis. Six types of hazards were considered in this investigation: (1) shoreline-setting hazards (long-term coastal problems), (2) marine hazards (short-term impacts of coastal storms), (3) earthquake and slope hazards (ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction), (4) riverine hazards (historical floods), (5) development hazards (high-density development at risk or lowdensity development in extreme-hazard settings), and (6) engineering hazards (special cases in which shoreline engineering projects such as breakwaters or sand mining have significant detrimental effects on portions of the shoreline). Shoreline segments were ranked as being at extreme, high, moderate, or low risk, depending on the number of hazards present within that segment. These rankings are likely to change, gradually over decades with natural coastal evolution, more rapidly as human development infringes on the coastal zone, or in an instant during a severe storm. The hazard maps provide a basis for hazard mitigation and management recommendations.

Puerto Rico↗
USGS1995

Environmental probabilistic quantitative assessment methodologies

In this paper, four petroleum resource assessment methodologies are presented as possible pollution assessment methodologies, even though petroleum as a resource is desirable, whereas pollution is undesirable. A methodology is defined in this paper to consist of a probability model and a probabilistic method, where the method is used to solve the model. The following four basic types of probability models are considered: 1) direct assessment, 2) accumulation size, 3) volumetric yield, and 4) reservoir engineering. Three of the four petroleum resource assessment methodologies were written as microcomputer systems, viz. TRIAGG for direct assessment, APRAS for accumulation size, and FASPU for reservoir engineering. A fourth microcomputer system termed PROBDIST supports the three assessment systems. The three assessment systems have different probability models but the same type of probabilistic method. The type of advantages of the analytic method are in computational speed and flexibility, making it ideal for a microcomputer. -from Author

Computers & Geosciences↗
USGS2018

An on-campus well field for hydrogeophysics education and undergraduate research

The emerging subdiscipline of hydrogeophysics is underdeveloped in undergraduate curricula relative to its importance in professional engineering/environmental practice. In 2001, the Bucknell Department of Geology initiated efforts to refocus an undergraduate geophysics course on near-surface geophysical methods for hydrologic, environmental, and engineering problems. In addition to offering students practical experience, treatment of hydrogeophysics provides important pedagogical opportunities. Field-based hydrogeophysics labs challenge students to integrate concepts from other geology courses, as well as from physics, math, and chemistry. We faced two challenges in revising our geophysics course: (1) access to wells for field exercises on borehole geophysics; and (2) the costs of acquiring and maintaining equipment. We pursued two strategies to solve these problems. First, we established an on-campus well field, which serves as a field laboratory for downhole and cross-hole experiments. Second, we incorporated field demonstrations and lectures by professional geoscientists, including alumni, into our courses. By adding field exercises to our syllabi and promoting undergraduate research, we are building a cutting-edge dataset that includes televiewer and standard wellbore logging, cross-hole tomography, and hydraulic-test data. Student-led analysis of these data has already provided valuable insights into the control of fractures on aquifer properties, and these observations are being combined with outcrop studies to place our results in a more regional context.

Pennsylvania↗
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↗