Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Data Series”

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.

887 records · Page 8Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Phase 1 technical implementation plan for the expansion of the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system to Alaska

Executive Summary The conference report accompanying the fiscal year (FY) 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117–103) for the U.S. Department of the Interior and related agencies directed the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to “work with the State of Alaska to develop an implementation plan to be completed within two years in order to put ShakeAlert/Earthquake Early Warning in Alaska” (p. 29). Congress included $1 million in the FY 2022 appropriation to conduct this effort. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, along with partner organizations, has developed the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system for the West Coast, which currently operates in California, Oregon, and Washington. The purpose of the system and its alert delivery partners is to reduce the impact of earthquakes and save lives and property by delivering ShakeAlert-powered alerts that are transmitted to the public via mass notification technologies, and by providing more detailed data streams to institutional users and commercial service providers to trigger automated, user-specific, protective actions. ShakeAlert was designed in such a way that it could be expanded to other U.S. regions with high earthquake risk, after the build-out of seismic and geodetic networks to support ShakeAlert in a specified region is completed and the necessary funding is secured for long-term operation and maintenance. When an earthquake occurs, seismic waves radiate from the rupturing fault like waves on a pond. It is these waves that people feel as earthquake shaking and that can cause damage to structures. Using networks of ground-motion sensors and sophisticated computer algorithms, ShakeAlert can detect an earthquake seconds after it begins, calculate its location and magnitude, and estimate the resulting intensity of shaking. Early warnings of impending shaking are then sent to people and systems that may experience damaging shaking, allowing them to take appropriate protective actions. Depending on the user’s distance from the earthquake, alerts may be delivered before, during, or after the arrival of strong shaking. There will almost always be a region near the earthquake epicenter where alerts arrive after damaging shaking has begun. The ShakeAlert system updates its ground-motion estimates as an earthquake grows larger. In response to the FY 2022 congressional direction, the USGS worked with the State of Alaska to devise this implementation plan for ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) and the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS). A cooperative agreement was awarded to the Alaska Earthquake Center (AEC) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) for their contributions to the plan and their work coordinating with other networks in Alaska. The USGS engaged with the Alaska Seismic Hazards Safety Commission (ASHSC) throughout the process. The USGS also held a series of Alaska stakeholder engagements. The process of developing the implementation plan was facilitated by contracted staff from Corner Alliance, which is a government consulting firm. This implementation plan describes the details and estimates the costs for a Phase 1 expansion of the ShakeAlert system to Alaska. A geographically limited Phase 1 goal was chosen that covers the highest risk and most populated areas of Alaska. The areas proposed encompass the State’s main population centers and 90 percent of the State’s population. This Phase 1 design is considered very challenging and ambitious from the viewpoint of network operators. The lessons learned if this plan is implemented could be used to consider subsequent phases to expand EEW beyond Phase 1 in Alaska in the future. ShakeAlert is built on the foundation of the sensor networks and data processing infrastructure of the USGS-led Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). This implementation plan calls for a total of 450 high-quality, real-time EEW-capable ANSS seismic stations in Alaska: 270 new stations, 160 upgraded stations, and 20 existing stations. These seismic station numbers are based on a station spacing of 10 kilometers (km) in urban areas, 20 km in seismic source areas that endanger population centers, and 40 km in other areas. The associated costs also include support for some EEW-capable global navigation satellite system (GNSS) stations, with a focus on improving warnings for large subduction zone earthquakes. For effective EEW, ShakeAlert requires low-latency, high-availability, robust telemetry links to deliver continuous, real-time data from field stations to the data centers. The Alaska data processing hardware infrastructure would follow the general design for fail-safe operation that is used for the ShakeAlert system on the West Coast. The ShakeAlert architecture uses two independent layers: the production layer for earthquake processing and the alert layer to make alerting decisions and serve alerts to users. This implementation plan includes two geographically separated data centers in Alaska, each with two fully independent production and alert layers using the same system design developed for the West Coast. As of March 2024, the ShakeAlert system is at version 3.0.1, with more advanced versions in the development and testing pipeline. ShakeAlert originally used two algorithms to determine the location and magnitude of earthquakes using seismic data. A third algorithm that can calculate very large magnitudes of very large earthquakes with geodetic data was added in March 2024. ShakeAlert publishes several data and alert products to meet the needs of different users. All messages include the location of the earthquake, either as a point or a line, and its magnitude. Ground-shaking estimates are published in two forms, as ground-motion contours and a map grid. Providing adequate warning time for strong shaking (the “target threshold”) requires sending alerts at a threshold lower than that strong shaking level (the “alert threshold”). The thresholds for public alerting in Alaska would be a joint USGS and State decision. To have the greatest benefit, ShakeAlert-powered alerts would be delivered to institutional users and individuals by all practical pathways. The USGS alert layer can support thousands of institutional users and alert redistributors, but the USGS does not have the mission nor the infrastructure and expertise to perform mass notifications to the public or implement automatic actions for end users of the alerts. To meet this need, ShakeAlert recruits private sector “technology enablers” that have the necessary expertise to develop end-user implementations using EEW alerts with the goal of stimulating an EEW industry. Earthquake early warning alerts are useless if people do not know how to respond to them. Although the alert messages include instructions about what to do (drop, cover, and hold on), alerts are more effective if people have been trained in advance. Messages about ShakeAlert’s capabilities, limitations, and benefits could be integrated with existing earthquake education programs, including State-run programs. Therefore, ShakeAlert would coordinate with both public and private partners and stakeholders through various partnerships and agreements to accomplish consistent and ongoing public earthquake hazard education. The estimated capital cost of completing the computing infrastructure and sensor networks for the Phase 1 ShakeAlert expansion to Alaska is approximately $66 million in 2024 dollars. The annual operation and maintenance cost of the completed system is estimated to be $12 million per year in 2024 dollars when fully built out.

Alaska↗
USGS2024

Simulation of groundwater flow and brine discharge to the Dolores River in the Paradox Valley, Montrose County, Colorado

Salinity, or total dissolved solids (TDS), of the Colorado River affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users and is an important concern in the Western United States. In the Paradox Valley of southwestern Colorado, natural discharge of sodium-chloride brine to the Dolores River from the underlying core of a salt-valley anticline accounts for about 6 percent of the salinity load to the Colorado River. Formation of the Paradox Valley began during the Miocene, and subsequent erosion exposed the Pennsylvania Paradox Formation in the core of the anticline where a cap rock, collapse features, breccia, and sodium-chloride saturated brine developed at the top of the exposed salt diapir. The discharge of brine to the Dolores River is affected by these dissolution features, along with seasonal hydrologic conditions and density-dependent flow between older dense brine and the younger fresh groundwater in the overlying alluvial aquifer. To reduce TDS concentrations in the Dolores River through the Paradox Valley, the Bureau of Reclamation has pumped brine from a series of shallow wells adjacent to the river since July 1996. The pumped brine is collected and piped to a deep disposal well where it is injected into the Mississippian Leadville Limestone at a depth of about 4,570-meters below land surface. The pumping and injection operation is collectively known as the Paradox Valley Unit (PVU), and by 2015, the PVU had substantially reduced TDS concentrations in the Dolores River by about 70 percent. Since 2019, injection-pressure limits and related seismic activity have constrained deep-well injection and thus brine pumping at the PVU. In cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey developed a MODFLOW-6 three-dimensional, variable-density groundwater flow and TDS transport model of the Paradox Valley to evaluate the effects of PVU pumping operations on brine discharge to the Dolores River and to guide additional research. The finite-difference model grid consists of 76 rows and 48 columns oriented from northwest to southeast in alignment with valley topography and groundwater-flow directions in the near-surface freshwater alluvial aquifer. A 7-layer hydrogeologic framework was developed from existing datasets to represent the alluvial aquifer, cap rock, collapse breccia, and groundwater flow and TDS transport from the underlying Paradox Formation salt to the Dolores River. The model represents a 33-year transient calibration period from 1987 through 2020 that includes pre-PVU conditions from 1987 through June 1996 and post-PVU conditions from July 1996 through 2020. A 1,000-year simulation of groundwater flow and coupled TDS transport computed the initial conditions for the subsequent 33-year transient simulation. Observations of precipitation, streamflow, evaporation, agricultural land use, and PVU brine pumping rates were used to specify appropriate boundary conditions to the model representing time-varying recharge, tributary streamflow, groundwater underflow, evapotranspiration (ET), and PVU pumping. Values for average monthly streamflow and TDS concentration at the upstream streamgage, the Dolores River at Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09169500), were specified as model input where the Dolores River enters Paradox Valley. Observed pumping from the PVU, water levels and TDS concentrations in groundwater, and streamflow and estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage, the Dolores River near Bedrock (USGS streamgage 09171100), were calibration targets that constrained the manual calibration of model parameters representing aquifer hydraulic conductivity, storage, streambed conductance, recharge, and (ET). Two primary model-calibration targets were the match between observed and simulated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and the match between estimated and simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River. The simulated TDS mass withdrawn by pumping wells is calculated by the model as the product of the assigned pumping rate and simulated groundwater TDS concentrations. Because actual pumping rates were assigned as simulated values, the total simulated PVU pumping for the 33-year calibration is within 0.5 percent of the observed values. However, simulated concentrations and thus mass flux of TDS withdrawn by the PVU pumping wells were consistently about 26 percent less than observed values for all the simulated time periods (33-year simulation, pre-PVU, and post-PVU). The representation of brine inflow was explored through additional modeling to evaluate the effect of the simulated brine source on groundwater TDS concentrations. Results indicated that a saturated-salt constant-flux brine source best replicated the magnitude and transient pattern observed for TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells. The simulated TDS mass flux to the Dolores River is compared to estimates based on observed streamflow and specific conductance (SC) data for the downstream streamgage. The calibrated model provided a close fit of simulated to measured streamflow at the downstream streamgage, and the calibrated model fit to estimated TDS concentrations at the downstream streamgage was reasonable. The greatest differences between simulated and estimated values occurred during drought periods from June 2000 to March 2003, May 2012 to June 2013, and October 2013 to October 2014, when simulated TDS concentrations in the river were greater than estimated concentrations. In general, simulated TDS mass flux to the river for the pre-PVU period is in good agreement with estimated values (2-percent difference), but the model overestimated TDS mass flux to the river by about 41 percent during the post-PVU period. The model uncertainty with respect to TDS mass flux to the river indicates other processes or model parameters not well represented by the model are affecting the system, especially during drought. During model calibration, the most sensitive parameters were identified as vertical hydraulic conductivity of the alluvial aquifer, conductance of the Dolores River streambed, ET extinction depth and rate, and recharge rate. Five 5-year scenarios of conditions for 2021–25 were simulated to assist evaluation of alternative strategies to manage the discharge of brine into the Dolores River. The first scenario simulates no PVU pumping and serves as a base case for comparison to the other scenarios. Two scenarios simulate the effects of varying withdrawal timing at an annual rate about one-third less than during 2010 through 2018. During high-flow spring snowmelt runoff periods when brine discharge is naturally minimized, PVU pumping does not substantially affect salinity in the Dolores River, and comparison of these two scenarios indicates that scheduling brine withdrawals during times of low river stage is nearly as effective at reducing TDS mass flux to the river as pumping brine year-round. Cessation of pumping during periods of high river stage may be advantageous for system maintenance, brine injection, and seismic-risk reduction. The fourth scenario tested the effect of reducing irrigation-return flow on brine discharge and predicted a slight reduction of TDS mass flux to the Dolores River, but not as great a reduction as that of using the PVU to remove brine. The fifth scenario simulated 5 years of drought conditions without PVU pumping and indicates brine discharge during drought about 15 percent greater than during average hydrologic conditions. Results from scenario 5 are consistent with the calibrated model results and indicate that aquifer properties and ET processes and parameters may be affecting simulation results during drought. The Paradox Valley groundwater model provides a reasonable overall match to observed conditions in the Dolores River. The model is useful for evaluating relative differences between brine management scenarios to inform PVU operational decisions and to identify gaps in data and process understanding. Representation of the brine source, hydraulic-conductivity parameters, and recharge and ET processes were identified as potential areas for additional field and modeling research. Additional research in the Paradox Valley might include field-data collection that provides additional information on the hydrogeologic framework, groundwater levels, groundwater TDS concentrations, stream characteristics, and aquifer properties. Additional modeling efforts could benefit from applying advanced tools for model development, calibration, and visualization including parameter-estimation and sensitivity analysis. Statistical evaluation of known model uncertainties such as hydraulic conductivity, streambed conductance, representations of the brine source, recharge, and ET could improve the match between simulated and estimated TDS mass flux from PVU pumping wells and to the Dolores River further informing model predictions and system understanding for the Paradox Valley.

Colorado↗
USGS2024

Streams, springs, and volcanic lakes for volcano monitoring

Introduction Volcanic unrest can trigger appreciable change to surface waters such as streams, springs, and volcanic lakes. Magma degassing produces gases and soluble salts that are absorbed into groundwater that feeds streams and lakes. As magma ascends, the amount of heat and degassing will increase, and so will any related geochemical and thermal signal. Subsurface magma movement can cause pressurization that alters hydrostatic head and may induce groundwater discharge. Fluid-pressure changes have been linked to distal volcano-tectonic earthquakes (White and McCausland, 2016; Coulon and others, 2017) and phreatic eruptions (for example, Yamaoka and others, 2016). Clearly, changes in groundwater and surface waters are both indicators of unrest and clues to how and where magma is rising toward the surface. Where possible, it is prudent to incorporate real-time hydrologic data into multiparameter monitoring of restless volcanoes. Hydrologic dynamics can also be tracked by changes in groundwater levels that are commonly measured in shallow boreholes (see of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume, on boreholes; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024). Although inferred to be common, relatively few volcano-hydrology anomalies are well documented, and many are essentially anecdotal (Newhall and others, 2001), reflecting the fact that high-resolution time series remain rare. Extreme examples include the 2008 eruption of Nevado del Huila, Colombia, where relatively minor phreatomagmatic eruptions were accompanied by expulsion of as much as 300 million cubic meters of groundwater from fissures high on the volcano (Worni and others, 2011), generating large lahars. Substantial decreases in flow rate from springs about 8 kilometers from the summit of Mayon Volcano, Philippines, have been noted before most eruptions in the 20th century (Newhall and others, 2001). Stream monitoring at Redoubt Volcano in 2009 allowed Werner and others (2012) to recognize that groundwater was unable to absorb (or scrub) the high flux of volcanic gas and that a high CO 2 /SO 2 precursor signal had been evident for 5 months prior to the eruption. A key to better interpreting hydrologic anomalies—or even identifying them—is therefore obtaining adequate baseline data. Most hydrologic monitoring at U.S. volcanoes has been accomplished by intermittent sampling surveys with annual or less frequent sampling (for example, https://hotspringchem.wr.usgs.gov/index.php ). More frequent sampling, however, generally is needed to establish reliable baselines. A recent hydrologic and hydrothermal monitoring experiment at 25 sites and 10 of the 12 level 4 (very high threat) volcanoes in the U.S. portion of the Cascade Range demonstrated that there is sufficient temporal variability in hydrothermal fluxes, even during quiescent periods, that one-time measurements will commonly have limited interpretive value (Crankshaw and others, 2018). Thus, surveys are best augmented with data from streamgages (for example, Evans and others, 2004; Bergfeld and others, 2008). Streamflow (water discharge) data allow measured temperature and specific conductance to be converted to heat and solute mass fluxes, which could be insightful parameters for detecting anomalous activity (McCleskey and others, 2012). At the Yellowstone Caldera, long-term monitoring of river solutes has allowed calculation of the chloride flux, a proxy for heat discharge (Hurwitz and others, 2007; McCleskey and others, 2016) from the subsurface magma. This is readily accomplished because data from streamgages are continuously recorded and archived by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS) (USGS, 2024). Similar studies on stratovolcanoes or shield volcanoes would be scientifically useful, and yet are logistically challenging, requiring streamgages on numerous radial drainages complemented by either frequent manual sampling or numerous deployments of equipment to measure water temperature and specific conductance as a proxy for water chemistry. Another challenge is that some volcanic areas, especially shield volcanoes, are characterized by near-surface porous rocks and soils, such that surface streams are rare and replaced by distant, dilute large-volume springs with only a trace of any original volcanically sourced water (Manga, 2001; Hurwitz and others, 2021). Volcanic lakes are worthy of special attention for monitoring efforts, as their temperature and composition can provide evidence of increased flux of volatile-rich fluids from below. Quantifying changes in volatile and heat release from magma can be simpler in lakes than for volcanoes with radial drainages and no major lakes. Moreover, volcanic lakes pose a range of hazards themselves, including phreatomagmatic eruptions, debris flows, flank collapse, tsunamis, and toxic gas release (Mastin and Witter, 2000; Delmelle and others, 2015; Manville, 2015; Rouwet and others, 2015)—hazards that have historically been responsible for substantial loss of life at many volcanoes worldwide (Manville, 2015). Catastrophic CO 2 release at Lake Nyos, Cameroon, in 1986 suffocated about 1,750 people and about 3,500 livestock and was probably triggered by a large landslide into the gas-saturated lake (Kling and others, 1987; Evans and others, 1993). Gas-charged springs in Soda Bay within Clear Lake (California) have caused almost a dozen deaths to bathers in the past hundred years (ABC News, 2000). A 2005 example of lake overturn and abundant gas release was documented at Mount Chiginagak in Alaska (Schaefer and others, 2008) but did not result in any human casualties. Although thermally stratified lakes, which promote trapping of exsolved magmatic gas, tend to develop in tropical regions, the phenomenon can also arise where salinity creates meromixis (a condition in which a lake does not mix completely), as occurs in Mono Lake, California (Jellison and Melack, 1993; Jellison and others, 1998). If magma erupts or flows into a lake, the interaction between hot magma and cold water can be explosive (Mastin and others, 2004; Zimanowski and others, 2015) and substantially expand the area affected by the eruption. Another hazard is the breaching of crater rims by landslides triggered by volcanic and (or) seismic activity. Under some circumstances, substantial volumes of water can be displaced, leading to large floods and lahars. Late Holocene lake flooding from Aniakchak Crater in the Alaska Peninsula (Waythomas, 2022) and from Paulina Lake in Newberry Crater, Oregon (Chitwood and Jensen, 2000), caused by the failure of outlet sills, testify to the substantial hazards at lake-filled calderas. Several volcanic systems in the United States host lakes known to receive heat and gas from underlying magma. These lakes vary widely in area, depth, and chemical composition. Lakes are present at level 4 volcanoes, including Crater Lake and Newberry Volcano in Oregon; Yellowstone Caldera in Wyoming; Long Valley Caldera, Clear Lake volcanic field, Medicine Lake, and Salton Buttes in California; and Aniakchak Crater, Mount Katmai, Fisher Caldera, Mount Okmok, and Kaguyak Crater, among others, in Alaska. A water lake was present in Halemaʻumaʻu, the crater of Kīlauea, Hawai‘i (fig. F1), from October 2019 to December 2020. Level 3 volcanoes with lakes include Mono Lake volcanic field (Calif.), Mount Bachelor (Ore.), Ukinrek Maars and Mount Chiginagak (Alaska), and Soda Lake (Nevada). In addition, there are lakes at many levels 1 and 2 volcanoes. In the United States, there are no strongly acidic lakes that receive abundant input of magmatic gas, such as those found at Mount Ruapehu (New Zealand), Ijen and Kelud (Indonesia), and Poás (Costa Rica). Nevertheless, many contain fluids that provide clues to magmatic processes below. Since publication of a previous report on recommended instrumentation for volcano monitoring (Moran and others, 2008), continuous hydrologic monitoring has become increasingly feasible. However, changes in water pressure, temperature, and chemistry remain, in general, poorly studied phenomena at volcanoes (Sparks, 2003; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Recent efforts by the USGS have included the temporary study of Cascade Range volcanoes, which included frequent (15 minute to hourly) temporal sampling of temperature, depth, and conductivity (Crankshaw and others, 2018; Ingebritsen and Evans, 2019). At Yellowstone Caldera, many streamgages have now added thermistors and specific conductance sensors, allowing estimation of time-dependent chloride flux as a proxy for variations in subsurface heat flux (McCleskey and others, 2012, 2016). Efforts to better understand lakes have also accelerated, with bathymetric mapping and sampling carried out at several locations in the United States. Especially thorough work was done at Yellowstone Lake thanks to the Hydrothermal Dynamics of Yellowstone Lake (HD-YLAKE, https://hdylake.org ) project, funded primarily by the National Science Foundation. In addition to geophysical surveys and recovery of cores and other samples, HD-YLAKE investigations included remotely operated vehicle (ROV) investigations of hydrothermal vents on the lake floor (fig. F2). Data collected by the ROV provided a better understanding of the thermal and chemical influx from lake-bottom hydrothermal systems (Sohn and others, 2017). In this chapter, we focus on detecting changes in the chemistry, temperature, discharge, or water levels of streams, springs, and lakes that can be caused by seismicity, volumetric strains, or increases in gas flux associated with ascending magma. There is unavoidable overlap with other chapters of this report. Samples of water and gas can also be obtained in boreholes ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–K, 5 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062k. ">chapter K , this volume; Hurwitz and Lowenstern, 2024), both shallow and deep. Gas monitoring ( of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–E, 11 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062e.">chapter E , this volume; Lewicki and others, 2024) relies in part on samples from springs and wells, particularly where measurable gas plumes are absent. Water acts as a trigger and lubricant for landslides and sediment-rich floods, and so hydrology has obvious relevance for lahar monitoring, as discussed in of Flinders, A.F., Lowenstern, J.B., Coombs, M.L., and Poland, M.P., eds., Recommended capabilities and instrumentation for volcano monitoring in the United States: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2024–5062–H, 6 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20245062h. ">chapter H (this volume; Thelen and others, 2024). Shared situational awareness among scientists engaged in geophysical, gas, and hydrologic monitoring will improve overall understanding of the volcanic hazard.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

International data gaps at the Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data

The Center for Engineering Strong Motion Data (CESMD) is utilized by seismologists, engineers, and disaster management professionals in the US and has historically achieved and distributed waveforms from across the globe for significant earthquakes. The increased access to the waveforms via Web API (Application Programming Interface) offers a unique opportunity to provide the community complete datasets, sampling a variety of tectonic environments and geologic conditions, increasing the number of available ground motion records for use in ground motion models (GMMs) and improving the accuracy of earthquake engineering evaluations. The objective of this study is to programmatically identify gaps in global event data from the past decade and backfill missing data gaps at CESMD. We first compare the CESMD catalog with the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) Comprehensive Earthquake Catalog identifying regions and time periods where strong-motion data is limited or inadequate. To backfill datasets at CESMD for significant events, we pinpoint regions and time intervals that lack information, creating a list of events for which we’d like to obtain data. An important facet of this work is identifying the source of data and metadata across earthquake repositories around the world and integrating these data repositories into our current strong-motion data processing workflow. In parallel with these newly processed datasets, we are developing a script to produce data origination citations to include provenance and attribution information to associate with respective datasets at CESMD. We showcase our methodology for identifying and filling data gaps at CESMD using three case studies (the 2018 Anchorage Alaska earthquake sequence, seismicity associated with the 2018 Hawaiian Kilauea volcano eruption, and several earthquakes in Turkey) and then outline our strategy to apply our data gap backfilling methods on an international scale.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2026

USGS Geochron—A database of geochronological and thermochronological dates and data—Technical documentation

Geochronological and thermochronological data are essential for constraining the timing and rates of geological processes, supporting geologic mapping, natural hazard assessment, and resource exploration. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geochron Database is a centralized, relational database that integrates USGS and State geological survey data in accordance with the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 and its reauthorizations. This report documents the structure and development of the database, including its standardized schema, controlled vocabularies, and protocols for compiling legacy and newly published data. The database is designed to adhere to FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) data principles and currently (2026) includes data from a wide range of geochronological and thermochronological methods. Public access is provided through the USGS Geochron Database Explorer, a browser-based geographic information system (GIS) interface, and through versioned data releases available on ScienceBase, which provide sample-level summary data and detailed analytical information. The USGS Geochron Database is structured to be extensible, supporting the inclusion of additional methods and data types as they are compiled. This format ensures long-term utility and aligns with the Mapping Act’s directive to create a national archive of geochronological information that adds interpretive value to geologic map data. Its design reflects a commitment to data transparency, scientific reproducibility, and national geoscience priorities.

Data Report↗
USGS2024

Identifying transportation data and system needs for a Federal lands transportation data platform

Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.

Open-File Report↗