SEARCH · Search USGS
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.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is working closely with academic institutions and state and Federal agencies to assess the factors that affect the health of Hawaii's and our Nation's coral reefs. In order to establish a basis from which scientists can objectively detect changes in reef health, the USGS and its cooperators are applying many new techniques to the mapping and monitoring of coral reefs in Hawaii.
During the 2018 eruption of Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai'i, scientists relied heavily on a conceptual model of explosive eruptions triggered when lava‐lake levels drop below the water table. Numerical modeling of multiphase groundwater flow and heat transport revealed that, contrary to expectations, liquid water inflow to the drained magma conduit would likely be delayed by months to years, owing to the inability of liquid water to transit a zone of very hot rock. The summit of Kīlauea subsequently experienced an ∼2‐month period of consistent repeated collapses, and the crater now extends below the equilibrium position of the water table. Liquid water first emerged into the deepened crater in late July 2019. The timing of first appearance of liquid water (about 14 months postcollapse) and the rate of crater lake filling (currently ∼27 kg/s) were well‐predicted by the numerical modeling done in late spring 2018, which forecast liquid inflow after 3 to 24 months at rates of 10 to 100 kg/s. A second‐generation groundwater model, reflecting the current crater geometry, forecasts lake filling over the next several years. The successful 2018 to present forecasts with both models are based on unadjusted in situ permeability estimates (1 to 6 × 10 −14 m 2 ) and water‐table elevations (600 to 800 m) from a nearby research drillhole and geophysical surveys. Important unknowns that affect the reliability of longer‐term forecasts include the equilibrium water‐table geometry, the rate of evaporation from the hot and growing crater lake (currently ∼29,000 m 2 at 70‐80 °C), and heterogenous permeability changes caused by the 2018 collapse.
The catastrophic Christ Church Earthquake is a strong reminder to engineers and scientists of the hazards pose by fault lines, both mapped and unknown, near major cities. In February 2011, the relatively moderate earthquake that struck the cities of Christchurch and Lyttleton in the Canterbury region of New Zealand's South Island surprised many with its destructive power. The magnitude 6.2 temblor killed 181 people, 118 of whom were killed in the collapse of a single building in the city center. The quake damaged or destroyed more than 100,000 buildings. It was the deadliest quake to strike the nation in 80 years-since the 1931 earthquake that struck the Napier and Hastings area of the North Island. The Christchurch quake was part of the aftershock sequence following the September 2010 magnitude 7.1 earthquake near Darfield, 40 kilometers west of the city. The Darfield earthquake was in a sparsely populated area, causing to loss of life. By contrast, the Christchurch earthquake was generated on a fault in close proximity to the city.
A concerted effort is underway to prepare a substantially upgraded digital gravity anomaly database for the United States and to make this data set and associated usage tools available on the internet. This joint effort, spearheaded by the geophysics groups at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA), University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is an outgrowth of the new geoscientific community initiative called Geoinformatics (www.geoinformaticsnetwork.org). This dominantly geospatial initiative reflects the realization by Earth scientists that existing information systems and techniques are inadequate to address the many complex scientific and societal issues. Currently, inadequate standardization and chaotic distribution of geoscience data, inadequate accompanying documentation, and the lack of easy-to-use access tools and computer codes for analysis are major obstacles for scientists, government agencies, and educators. An example of the type of activities envisioned, within the context of Geoinformatics, is the construction, maintenance, and growth of a public domain gravity database and development of the software tools needed to access, implement, and expand it. This product is far more than a high quality database; it is a complete data system for a specific type of geophysical measurement that includes, for example, tools to manipulate the data and tutorials to understand and properly utilize the data. On August 9, 2002, twenty-one scientists from the federal, private and academic sectors met at a workshop to discuss the rationale for upgrading both the United States and North American gravity databases (including offshore regions) and, more importantly, to begin developing an operational plan to effectively create a new gravity data system. We encourage anyone interested in contributing data or participating in this effort to contact G.R. Keller or T.G. Hildenbrand. This workshop was the first step in building a web-based data system for sharing quality gravity data and methodology, and it builds on existing collaborative efforts. This compilation effort will result in significant additions to and major refinement of the U.S. database that is currently released publicly by NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Center and will also include an additional objective to substantially upgrade the North American database, released over 15 years ago (Committee for the Gravity Anomaly Map of North America, 1987).
During earthquake swarms on active volcanoes, one of the primary challenges facing scientists is determining the likelihood of an eruption. Here we present the relation between repose time and the cumulative moment magnitude (CMM) as a tool to aid in differentiating between an eruption and a period of unrest. In several case studies, the CMM is lower at shorter repose times than it is at longer repose times. The relationship between repose time and CMM may be linear in log-log space, particularly at Mount St. Helens. We suggest that the volume and competence of the plug within the conduit drives the strength of the precursory CMM.
Technology is changing how scientists and natural resource managers describe and study streams and rivers. A new generation of airborne aquatic-terrestrial lidars is being developed that can penetrate water and map the submerged topography inside a stream as well as the adjacent subaerial terrain and vegetation in one integrated mission. A leading example of these new cross-environment instruments is the Experimental Advanced Airborne Research Lidar (EAARL), a NASAbuilt sensor now operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [Wright and Brock, 2002].
Identifying materials by measuring and analyzing their reflectance spectra has been an important method in analytical chemistry for decades. Airborne and space-based imaging spectrometers allow scientists to detect materials and map their distributions across the landscape. With new satellite-borne hyperspectral sensors planned for the future, for example, HYSPIRI (HYPerspectral InfraRed Imager), robust methods are needed to fully exploit the information content of hyperspectral remote sensing data. A method of identifying and mapping materials using spectral feature based analysis of reflectance data in an expert-system framework called MICA (Material Identification and Characterization Algorithm) is described in this paper. The core concepts and calculations of MICA are presented. A MICA command file has been developed and applied to map minerals in the full-country coverage of the 2007 Afghanistan HyMap hyperspectral data.
Mount St. Helens seized the world’s attention in 1980 when the largest historical landslide on Earth and a powerful explosive eruption reshaped the volcano, created its distinctive crater, and dramatically modified the surrounding landscape. An enormous lava dome grew episodically in the crater until 1986, when the volcano became relatively quiet. A new glacier grew in the crater, wrapping around and partly burying the lava dome. From 1987 to 2003, sporadic earthquake swarms and small steam explosions indicated that magma (molten rock) was being replenished deep underground. In 2004, steam-and-ash explosions heralded the start of another eruption. A quieter phase of continuous lava extrusion followed and lasted until 2008, building a new dome and doubling the volume of lava on the crater floor. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Washington’s Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network maintain constant watch for signs of renewed activity at Mount St. Helens and other Cascade volcanoes. Now is an ideal time for both actual and virtual visitors to Mount St. Helens to learn more about dramatic changes taking place on and beneath this active volcano.
The collection of eight papers that follow continue the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. The series presents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. Reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State (fig. 1), serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for earth-science information in Alaska. The papers in this volume are organized under the topics Geologic Framework, Resources, and Environment and Climate. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of current USGS geologic programs in Alaska. In particular, Geologic Framework studies provide background information that is the scientific basis for present and future earth-science investigations.
The collection of 14 studies that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series presents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska.The chapters in this volume are organized under the topics Geologic Framework, Environment and Climate, and Hazards. This organization is intended to reflect the scope and objectives of current USGS programs in Alaska.
The collection of six papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is the first 'online only' version of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
Summary The collection of papers that follows continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of “online only” versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of 'online only' versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of 'online only' versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska, reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
The collection of papers that follows continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation’s needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of “online only” versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
The collection of papers that follow continues the series of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) investigative reports in Alaska under the broad umbrella of the geologic sciences. This series represents new and sometimes-preliminary findings that are of interest to Earth scientists in academia, government, and industry; to land and resource managers; and to the general public. The reports presented in Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska cover a broad spectrum of topics from various parts of the State, serving to emphasize the diversity of USGS efforts to meet the Nation's needs for Earth-science information in Alaska. This professional paper is one of a series of "online only" versions of Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey in Alaska , reflecting the current trend toward disseminating research results on the World Wide Web with rapid posting of completed reports.
Resource and experiential impacts associated with visitation to wilderness and other similar backcountry settings have long been addressed by land managers under the context of “carrying capacity” decisionmaking. Determining a maximum level of allowable use, below which high-quality resource and experiential conditions would be sustained, was an early focus in the 1960s and 1970s. However, decades of recreation ecology research have shown that the severity and areal extent of visitor impact problems are influenced by an interrelated array of use-related, environmental, and managerial factors. This complexity, with similar findings from social science research, prompted scientists and managers to develop more comprehensive carrying capacity frameworks, including a new Visitor Use Management framework. These frameworks rely on a diverse array of management strategies and actions, often termed a “management toolbox,” for resolving visitor impact problems. This article reviews the most recent and relevant recreation ecology studies that have been applied in wildland settings to avoid or minimize resource impacts. The key findings and their management implications are highlighted to support the professional management of common trail, recreation site, and wildlife impact problems. These studies illustrate the need to select from a more diverse array of impact management strategies and actions based on an evaluation of problems to identify the most influential factors that can be manipulated.
Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.