USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Physical Review”

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.

403 records · Page 23Linked to original sources
USGS1997

The physics of debris flows

Recent advances in theory and experimentation motivate a thorough reassessment of the physics of debris flows. Analyses of flows of dry, granular solids and solid-fluid mixtures provide a foundation for a comprehensive debris flow theory, and experiments provide data that reveal the strengths and limitations of theoretical models. Both debris flow materials and dry granular materials can sustain shear stresses while remaining static; both can deform in a slow, tranquil mode characterized by enduring, frictional grain contacts; and both can flow in a more rapid, agitated mode characterized by brief, inelastic grain collisions. In debris flows, however, pore fluid that is highly viscous and nearly incompressible, composed of water with suspended silt and clay, can strongly mediate intergranular friction and collisions. Grain friction, grain collisions, and viscous fluid flow may transfer significant momentum simultaneously. Both the vibrational kinetic energy of solid grains (measured by a quantity termed the granular temperature) and the pressure of the intervening pore fluid facilitate motion of grains past one another, thereby enhancing debris flow mobility. Granular temperature arises from conversion of flow translational energy to grain vibrational energy, a process that depends on shear rates, grain properties, boundary conditions, and the ambient fluid viscosity and pressure. Pore fluid pressures that exceed static equilibrium pressures result from local or global debris contraction. Like larger, natural debris flows, experimental debris flows of ???10 m3 of poorly sorted, water-saturated sediment invariably move as an unsteady surge or series of surges. Measurements at the base of experimental flows show that coarse-grained surge fronts have little or no pore fluid pressure. In contrast, finer-grained, thoroughly saturated debris behind surge fronts is nearly liquefied by high pore pressure, which persists owing to the great compressibility and moderate permeability of the debris. Realistic models of debris flows therefore require equations that simulate inertial motion of surges in which high-resistance fronts dominated by solid forces impede the motion of low-resistance tails more strongly influenced by fluid forces. Furthermore, because debris flows characteristically originate as nearly rigid sediment masses, transform at least partly to liquefied flows, and then transform again to nearly rigid deposits, acceptable models must simulate an evolution of material behavior without invoking preternatural changes in material properties. A simple model that satisfies most of these criteria uses depth-averaged equations of motion patterned after those of the Savage-Hutter theory for gravity-driven flow of dry granular masses but generalized to include the effects of viscous pore fluid with varying pressure. These equations can describe a spectrum of debris flow behaviors intermediate between those of wet rock avalanches and sediment-laden water floods. With appropriate pore pressure distributions the equations yield numerical solutions that successfully predict unsteady, nonuniform motion of experimental debris flows.

Reviews of Geophysics↗
USGS2000

Late-kinematic timing of orogenic gold deposits and significance for computer-based exploration techniques with emphasis on the Yilgarn Block, Western Australia

Orogenic gold deposits are a widespread coherent group of epigenetic ore deposits that are sited in accretionary or collisional orogens. They formed over a large crustal-depth range from deep-seated low-salinity H 2 O–CO 2 ±CH 4 ±N 2 ore fluids and with Au transported as thio-complexes. Regional structures provide the main control on deposit distribution. In many terranes, first-order faults or shear zones appear to have controlled regional fluid flow, with greatest ore-fluid fluxes in, and adjacent to, lower-order faults, shear zones and/or large folds. Highly competent and/or chemically reactive rocks are the most common hosts to the larger deposits. Focusing of supralithostatic ore fluids into dilatant zones appears to occur late during the evolutionary history of the host terranes, normally within D 3 or D 4 in a D 1 –D 4 deformation sequence. Reactivation of suitably oriented pre-existing structures during a change in far-field stress orientation is a factor common to many deposits, and repeated reactivation may account for multiple mineralization episodes in some larger deposits. Absolute robust ages of mineralization support their late-kinematic timing, and, in general, suggest that deposits formed diachronously towards the end of the 100 to 200 m.y. long evolutionary history of hosting orogens. For example, in the Yilgarn Block, a region specifically emphasised in this study, orogenic gold deposits formed in the time interval between 40 and 90 m.y., with most about 60 to 70 m.y., after the youngest widespread basic-ultrabasic volcanism and towards the end of felsic magmatism. The late timing of orogenic gold deposits is pivotal to geologically-based exploration methodologies. This is because the present structural geometries of: (i) the deposits, (ii) the hosting goldfields, and (iii) the enclosing terranes are all essentially similar to those during gold mineralization, at least in their relative position to each other. Thus, interpretation of geological maps and cross-sections and three-dimensional models can be used to accurately simulate the physical conditions that existed at the time of ore deposition. It is particularly significant that the deposits are commonly related to repetitive and predictable geometries, such as structural heterogeneities within or adjacent to first-order structures, around rigid granitoid bodies, or in specific “locked-up” fold-thrust structures. Importantly, the two giant greenstone-hosted goldfields, Kalgoorlie and Timmins, show a remarkably similar geometry at the regional scale. Computer-based stress mapping and GIS-based prospectivity mapping are two computer-based quantitative methodologies that can utilize and take advantage of the late timing aspect of this deposit type to provide important geological aids in exploration, both in broad regions and more localized goldfields. Both require an accurate and consistent solid geology map, stress mapping requires knowledge of the far-field stresses during mineralization, and the empirical prospectivity mapping requires data from a significant number of known deposits in the terrane. The Kalgoorlie Terrane, in the Yilgarn Block, meets these criteria, and illustrates the potential of these methodologies in the exploration for orogenic gold deposits. Low minimum stress anomalies, interpreted to represent dilational zones during gold-related deformation, coincide well with the positions of known goldfields rather than individual gold deposits in the terrane, and there are additional as-yet unexplained anomalies. The prospectivity analysis confirms that predictable and repetitive factors controlling the siting of deposits are: (i) proximity to, and orientation and curvature of, granitoid-greenstone contacts, (ii) proximity to segments of crustal faults which strike in a preferred direction, (iii) proximity to specific lithological contacts which have similar preferred strike, (iv) proximity to anticlinal structures, and (v) the presence of preferred reactive host rocks (e.g., dolerite). The prospectivity map defines a series of anomalous areas, which broadly conform to those of the stress map (>78% correspondence). The most prospective category on this map covers less than 0.3% of the greenstone belts and yet hosts 16% of the known deposits, which have produced>80% of known gold. Thus, it discriminates in favour of the larger economically more-attractive deposits in the terrane. The successful application of stress mapping and prospectivity mapping to geology-based exploration for orogenic gold deposits indicates that more quantitative analysis of geological map data is a profitable line of research. The computer-based nature of these methodologies is ideal for the production of an ultimate, integrated, deposit target map, which can be compared to other, more conventional, targeting parameters such as geophysical and geochemical anomalies. Such an integrated strategy appears the way forward in the increasingly difficult task of cost-effective global exploration for orogenic gold deposits in poorly exposed terranes.

Western Australia↗
USGS2019

Managed aquifer recharge in snow-fed river basins: What, why and how?

What does climate change mean for snow-fed river basins? Climate change poses unique challenges in snow-fed river basins across the western United States because the majority of water supply originates as snow (Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015). In the Sierra Nevada, recent observations include changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt, and shifts in peak streamflow timing (Barnhart et al., 2016; Hatchett et al., 2017; Kim & Jain, 2010; McCabe, Wolock, & Valentin, 2018; Mote, Li, Lettenmaier, Xiao, & Engel, 2018). Such changes upstream alter surface water deliveries downstream, as well as groundwater recharge utilized as both primary and supplemental water supply (Godsey et al., 2014; Harpold, 2016; Jasechko et al., 2014). basin where snowmelt runoff produces substantial water supply to meet diverse agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the Carson Valley, a rich agricultural region (40,000 acres) that grows primarily alfalfa hay. The majority of irrigators rely on surface water delivered through a network of earthen ditches constructed in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Flow through these earthen networks and the practice of flood irrigation contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Because no upstream surface water reservoirs exist, snowpack that accumulates through winter and melts slowly through spring has acted as a “natural” reservoir, providing ample supply through the summer irrigati agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the season. Some irrigators have permitted access to supplemental groundwater that is useful during periods of drought for augmenting shortfalls in surface water delivery. Groundwater is the primary source of municipal and industrial water supply for surrounding communities (e.g., Carson City, Minden, Gardnerville, Dayton). Across the basin, water use is highly regulated through federal, tribal, state and local water-sharing agreements based on prior appropriation doctrine (Wilds, 2014). Carson River surface water allocations follow the Alpine Decree, initiated by the United States Department of Interior in 1925 and signed into law in 1980, following 55 years of litigation, to adjudicate surface water rights to individual parties (NDWP, 1999). The Alpine Decree acknowledges return flows to lower river segments, and thus each river segment is distributed autonomously. This means that the most junior water right on an upper segment can be fulfilled before considering the most senior water right on a lower segment. Ultimately, the ruling is at the discretion of the Federal Water Master to satisfy the needs of each water right Downstream of Carson Valley, surface water flows are stored in Lahontan Reservoir, the nation’s first desert reclamation project (est. 1906), where releases are managed to meet the Newland’s Project irrigation water demand and for environmental use on the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Flows from the Carson River are supplemented through diversions from the Truckee River via the Truckee Canal, resulting in a trans-basin water supply system. How is the Water for the Seasons research program informing snow-fed river basin communities? In the Truckee-Carson River System, researchers and local water managers are working together to assess climate change impacts to water supply and explore how model simulations can produce useful information to support local climate adaptation. Twelve key water managers represent agricultural, environmental, urban and regulatory water-use communities, and bring to the table diverse input and perspectives on how to adapt to climate change. Hydrologists use this input to craft scenarios and simulations that meet the information needs of local water managers. Biannual workshops provide an opportunity for information exchange, where researchers and key water managers generate new knowledge of river system function. That is, researchers share results of models that examine the physical potential, and managers validate the on-the-ground potential, further informing the research process. Coincident to this research program, the region faced a prolonged drought period (2012-2016) with historically low snowpack, followed by a historic wet year (2017) that brought winter and spring flooding as a result of atmospheric river storm events (Sterle et al., 2019). For the Carson River, an important observation made by managers was that peak streamflow that had traditionally coincided with peak irrigation demands, had shifted to earlier in the spring, with summer baseflow also decreasing (Sterle & Singletary, 2017). Managers shared with researchers concerns over potential future impacts that changing snowpack will have on surface water deliveries and reliance on groundwater, as the region’s population and economy continue to grow. During workshops that occurred over this period, local water managers and researchers discussed ways to evaluate water distribution and use that honors the existing legal framework and accounts for changing snowpack regimes (amount, rain versus snow, timing). In response to managers growing interest, researchers introduced the concept of managed aquifer recharge as one potential strategy to adapt and enhance regional water sustainability. What is managed aquifer recharge? Simply stated, managed aquifer recharge is the intentional recharge of structures to spread water over agricultural lands, allowing water to naturally infiltrate into the groundwater system (Bouwer, 1999; Niswonger et al., 2017). The latter may occur during the irrigation season by applying excess water, or during the nonirrigation season when evapotranspiration losses are low. Figure 2 illustrates managed aquifer recharge in a snow-fed river basin, where streamflow generated from snowmelt runoff is diverted to agricultural lands to recharge the aquifer. Such flood irrigation practices, including water delivery through earthen ditch networks, provide incidental but significant aquifer recharge through seepage and deep drainage beneath fields (Niswonger, Allander, & Jeton, 2014). The effects of managed aquifer recharge can vary depending on the location and intensity of practice. For example, implementing managed aquifer recharge water into the groundwater system (Dillon, 2009). This differs from the incidental recharge that may occur as part of normal irrigation practices. Managed recharge may occur by injection into the aquifer through existingwells, or by using existing conveyance adjacent to/along the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance late-season instream flows due to increased return flows, resulting in greater downstream deliveries as well as improving ecological conditions (Niswonger et al., 2017). Implementing managed aquifer recharge away from the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance groundwater supply which is increasingly relied upon during surface water shortage (Green et al., 2011), by storing water in available aquifer space in the deep aquifer. At the basin scale, managed aquifer recharge may lead to regional groundwater sustainability. Is the Carson River Basin a candidate for managed aquifer recharge? The physical limitations to implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin hinges on three key factors. The first factor relates to the physical connectivity between rivers and streams, and the irrigation delivery network of canals and ditches that divert water to agricultural lands (Niswonger et al., 2017). In the Carson River Basin the mechanisms for getting water to fields is already in place. Thus, intentionally routing high flows that occur in wet years through this system during the nonirrigation season would mimic what occurs naturally during the irrigation season. The second factor relates to the occurrence of atmospheric river storm events that deliver large amounts of precipitation to the region, much greater than average (Dettinger et al., 2015). With increased frequency and intensity projected under a warmer climate, such events have the potential to produce excess water over short periods of time that could be stored through mechanisms such as managed aquifer recharge (Niswonger et al., 2017). The third factor relates to the change in snowpack accumulation and shifts in snowmelt timing observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Godsey et al., 2014; Mote et al., 2018). Having a mechanism in place to maximize use of earlier snowmelt and shifts in streamflow timing could be advantageous and enhance regional groundwater sustainability. As part of the Water for the Seasons study, a hypothetical scenario was developed to determine the feasibility of managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin, assuming no legal constraints. During “wet” or above-average water years, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley would divert high flows and spread water over agricultural lands during the nonirrigation season. Assuming flows are abundant and “early,” diversions would begin prior to the growing season, when water would otherwise flow downstream to the Lahontan Reservoir. During “dry” years or drought periods, when surface water availability is less, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley could augment surface water shortages with groundwater, allowing available surface water flows to flow downstream. Researchers hypothesize the amount of water has the potential to boost baseflow to support environmental instream flows, for example. What concerns have local water managers expressed? The hypothetical managed aquifer recharge scenario was presented to water managers in a workshop setting. Presentations included an overview of the hydrologic and operations modeling tools used to evaluate managed aquifer recharge by simulating the timing and distribution of water in the upper watershed. Specifically, in the Upper Carson Valley, a hydrologic model (GSFLOW) simulates streamflow driven by snowmelt, and surface and groundwater interactions, while a river basin operations model (MODSIM) allocates water according to the prior appropriation doctrine in the basin (see Figure 1) (Morway, Niswonger, & Triana, 2016; Niswonger et al., 2017). Integrating these two modeling tools advances the evaluation of climate impacts on water availability in agricultural communities and the resulting impacts of alternative management strategies (Morway et al., 2016). When asked about the viability of managed aquifer recharge, the perspectives of 11 managers varied (Figure 3). Regardless of rating, all managers questioned, “How would thisreally work?” Several managers questioned whether models could simulate the connectivity between surface and groundwater to accurately quantify changes to instream flow. Others raised concerns that managed aquifer recharge violates the Alpine Decree and Nevada Water Law. Still others requested researchers consider alternatives that could work within the confines of current (2019) water law. Managers posed specific questions that should be considered when evaluating the potential for managed aquifer recharge. For example: What triggers implementation of managed aquifer recharge?How “high” or “low” must annual flows be to initiate managed aquifer recharge? When in the water year is this determined? Where exactly in the Carson Valley is managed aquiferre charge possible? For example, what areas away from the floodplain could ensure long-term storage? Can model simulations quantify potential benefits and consequences system-wide?Would this information support decision-making, such as permitting of additional supplemental groundwater rights? How are researchers going to address managers’ research questions? Managers’ perspectives help to validate the on-the-ground potential of particular strategies and further refine alternative management scenarios. For example, understanding that managers are concerned with oversaturated fields helps researchers to define conditions in the model, such as what defines a wet versus “too” wet type of year and where to focus irrigation for managed aquifer recharge. Incorporating these nuances provides more accurate quantification of the potential benefits and consequences for users across the basin. Modeling is underway to simulate managed aquifer recharge scenarios and explore basin-wide implications. Researchers and local water managers will convene to collaboratively review results and further assess whether this or other strategies could work under the confines of existing water law. Subsequent fact sheets will present these findings.

Nevada↗
USGS2018

Revised groundwater-flow model of the glacial aquifer system north of Aberdeen, South Dakota, through water year 2015

The city of Aberdeen, in northeastern South Dakota, requires an expanded and sustainable supply of water to meet current and future demands. Conceptual and numerical models of the glacial aquifer system in the area north of Aberdeen were developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the City of Aberdeen in 2012. The U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the City of Aberdeen, completed a study to revise the original numerical groundwater-flow model using data through water year (WY) 2015 to aid the City of Aberdeen in their development of plans and strategies for a sustainable water supply and to increase understanding of the glacial aquifer system and groundwater-flow system near Aberdeen. The original model was revised to improve the fit between model-simulated values and observed (measured or estimated) data, provide greater insight into surface-water interactions, and improve the usefulness of the model for water-supply planning. The revised groundwater-flow model (hereafter referred to as the “revised model”) presented in this report supersedes the original model. The purpose of this report is to describe a revised groundwater-flow model including data collection, model calibration, and model results for the glacial aquifer system including the Elm, Middle James, and Deep James aquifers north of Aberdeen, South Dakota, using updated hydrologic data through WY 2015. The original numerical model was revised in several ways. The model was modified by adding four new layers, which included a surficial layer, two intervening confining layers, and a shale bedrock layer. The revised model provides an improved understanding of the groundwater-flow system in comparison to the original model. The principal aquifers of the model area include portions of the Elm, Middle James, and Deep James aquifers. The lithologic information used to define and describe the aquifers in the model area was unaltered; however, aquifer properties and boundary conditions were reviewed and updated using geological information reported by the South Dakota Department of Environmental and Natural Resources and information obtained from geophysical investigations for this study. The horizontal extent of the Elm, Middle James, and Deep James aquifers was unaltered from the original model. The thickness of the Deep James aquifer was modified based on interpretations from the geophysical investigations. In general, groundwater in the Elm aquifer flowed from northwest to southeast and locally towards rivers and streams. Similarly, in the Middle James and Deep James aquifers, groundwater also typically flowed southeast. The revisions made to the original model include use of the following MODFLOW stress packages: Recharge, Evapotranspiration, Time-Variant Specified Head, Wells, Drains, and Stream Flow Routing, all of which were updated from the original model except for the Stream Flow Routing Package, which replaced the River Package used in the original model. Model calibration is the process of estimating model parameters to minimize the differences, or residuals, between observed data and simulated values; therefore, Parameter ESTimation (PEST) software was used to optimize model input parameters by matching model-simulated values to observed data. Calibration parameters included horizontal hydraulic conductivity, vertical hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, specific storage, and vertical streambed conductance for stream and drain cells. Multipliers were used to calibrate the recharge and evapotranspiration stresses. Evapotranspiration extinction depth also was adjusted during model calibration. Comparisons to the original model are described to highlight the changes made in the revised model. In general, the revised model adequately simulates the natural system and compares favorably with observed hydrologic data. Simulated water levels were evaluated by comparing them to single water-level observations at selected well locations. The selected wells were the same wells used in the original model. The coefficient of determination value between simulated and observed water levels for the revised model was 0.89 and included simulated and observed values from October 1, 1974 (WY 1975), through September 30, 2015 (WY 2015). The coefficient of determination value for the original model was 0.94 and included simulated and observed values from October 1, 1974, through September 30, 2009. The difference may indicate that the original model could have been overfit to hydraulic head observations because base flow was not simulated. The additional data used in the revised model included some climatically wetter, more extreme periods, such as 2011, in which annual precipitation was 30.9 inches. Average annual precipitation for the original model timeframe, which included data from WYs 1975–2009, was 20.26 inches. Additional precipitation data for WYs 2010–15, included in the revised model timeframe, resulted in an average annual precipitation for WYs 1975–2015 in the model area of 20.6 inches. The larger variability in climate data coupled with the additional water-level data could explain the lower coefficient of determination for water levels in the revised model. The revised model was used to calculate various groundwater-budget components for steady-state and transient conditions for WYs 1975–2015. The time-variant specified-head cells in the revised model had the largest change when compared to the original steady-state model for inflows and outflows. Comparing the transient budget components between the original and the revised models indicated that inflow from recharge and time-variant specified-head cells had the greatest effect on groundwater inflows, and outflow from storage had the greatest effect on groundwater outflows. The simulated potentiometric contours from the revised model were compared with (1) the observed (interpreted) potentiometric surface (layer 2) and the hydraulic head values (layers 4 and 6) and (2) the simulated contours from the original model. The simulated hydraulic gradients and general direction of groundwater flow in the Elm aquifer in the revised model generally matched the observed potentiometric contours, the simulated potentiometric contours from the original model, and general flow directions interpreted to be perpendicular to the contours. Minor discrepancies between simulated potentiometric contours from the revised model and the observed potentiometric contours may be due to the lack of observed data in the model area. The revised model was designed to reduce the limitations of the original model. The revisions were validated by comparing the results of the original model with the revised model. A primary benefit of the revised model is the inclusion of the surficial deposits and the confining units as explicit layers in the model. The addition of the surficial layer was beneficial for three primary reasons: (1) more accurate representation of recharge from precipitation, (2) more accurate representation of groundwater evapotranspiration, and (3) more accurate representation of groundwater and surface-water interactions. The groundwater model is a numeric approximation of a complex physical hydrologic system, and the revised model data were interpolated in regions with sparse data. Additionally, model discretization included averaged and interpolated values for water use, withdrawal rates, and hydraulic conductivity. The revised model provides a useful estimate for hydraulic gradients, groundwater-flow directions, and aquifer response to groundwater withdrawals.

South Dakota↗
USGS1979

Lunar magnetic anomalies detected by the Apollo substatellite magnetometers

Properties of lunar crustal magnetization thus far deduced from Apollo subsatellite magnetometer data are reviewed using two of the most accurate presently available magnetic anomaly maps - one covering a portion of the lunar near side and the other a part of the far side. The largest single anomaly found within the region of coverage on the near-side map correlates exactly with a conspicuous, light-colored marking in western Oceanus Procellarum called Reiner Gamma. This feature is interpreted as an unusual deposit of ejecta from secondary craters of the large nearby primary impact crater Cavalerius. An age for Cavalerius (and, by implication, for Reiner Gamma) of 3.2 ?? 0.2 ?? 109 y is estimated. The main (30 ?? 60 km) Reiner Gamma deposit is nearly uniformly magnetized in a single direction, with a minimum mean magnetization intensity of ???7 ?? 10-2 G cm3/g (assuming a density of 3 g/cm3), or about 700 times the stable magnetization component of the most magnetic returned samples. Additional medium-amplitude anomalies exist over the Fra Mauro Formation (Imbrium basin ejecta emplaced ???3.9 ?? 109 y ago) where it has not been flooded by mare basalt flows, but are nearly absent over the maria and over the craters Copernicus, Kepler, and Reiner and their encircling ejecta mantles. The mean altitude of the far-side anomaly gap is much higher than that of the near-side map and the surface geology is more complex, so individual anomaly sources have not yet been identified. However, it is clear that a concentration of especially strong sources exists in the vicinity of the craters Van de Graaff and Aitken. Numerical modeling of the associated fields reveals that the source locations do not correspond with the larger primary impact craters of the region and, by analogy with Reiner Gamma, may be less conspicuous secondary crater ejecta deposits. The reason for a special concentration of strong sources in the Van de Graaff-Aitken region is unknown, but may be indirectly related to the existence of strongly modified crustal terrain which also occurs in the same region. The inferred directions of magnetization for the several sources of the largest anomalies are highly inclined with respect to one another, but are generally depleted in the north-south direction. The north-south depletion of magnetization intensity appears to continue across the far-side within the region of coverage. The mechanism of magnetization and the origin of the magnetizing field remain unresolved, but the uniformity with which the Reiner Gamma deposit is apparently magnetized, and the north-south depletion of magnetization intensity across a substantial portion of the far side, seem to require the existence of an ambient field, perhaps of global or larger extent. The very different inferred directions of magnetization possessed by nearly adjacent sources of the Van de Graaff-Aitken anomalies, and the depletion in their north-south component of magnetization, do not favor an internally generated dipolar field oriented parallel to the present spin axis. A variably oriented interplanetary magnetizing field that was intrinsically strong or locally amplified by unknown surface processes is least inconsistent with the data. ?? 1979.

Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors↗
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

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↗