USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences”

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.

1,694 records · Page 32Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Pediment formation and subsequent erosion in Gale crater: Clues to the climate history of Mars

Evidence of paleo-rivers, fans, deltas, lakes, and channel networks across Mars has prompted much debate about what climate conditions would permit the formation of these surface water derived features. Pediments, gently sloping erosional surfaces of low relief developed in bedrock, have also been identified on Mars. On Earth, these erosional landforms, often thought to be created by overland flow and shallow channelized runoff, are typically capped by fluvial sediments, and thus in exceptionally arid regions, pediments are interpreted to record past wet periods. Here we document the Greenheugh pediment in Gale crater, exploiting the observational capability of the Curiosity rover. The absence of a fluvial cap suggests that the pediment was likely cut by wind erosion, not fluvial processes. The pediment was then buried by an aeolian deposit (Stimson sandstone) that mantled the lower footslopes of Aeolis Mons (informally known as Mt. Sharp). This burial terminated active wind erosion, preserving the pediment surface (as an angular unconformity). Groundwater was present prior-to, during, and shortly after Stimson deposition, perhaps contributing to lithification and certainly to early diagenesis. Post lithification, wind erosion first cut canyons in the northern most footslopes (north of Vera Rubin ridge). Unlithified gravels were deposited in these canyons, likely due to runoff from Mt. Sharp. Boulder-rich fluvial and debris flow deposits built a > 70 m thick sequence (Gediz Vallis ridge) on the southern Greenheugh pediment. Continued wind erosion left elevated patches of gravel on the northern footslopes, and exposure age dating shows that erosion essentially ceased before 1 Ga (but possibly much earlier). Erosion to the south led to emergence of Vera Rubin ridge, retreat of the Greenheugh pediment, and the formation of Glen Torridon valley. Hence, this footslope environment of Mt. Sharp records climate-driven periods of wind erosion, aeolian deposition (and groundwater activity), surface runoff and sediment deposition, followed by further significant wind erosion that declined to present very slow rates. This likely occurred during the late Hesperian and possibly into the Amazonian.

Icarus↗
USGS2024

Geologic map of the northwest flank of Mauna Loa volcano, Island of Hawai‘i, Hawaii

Mauna Loa, the largest active volcano on Earth, has erupted 34 times since written descriptions became available in A.D. 1832. The most recent eruption of Mauna Loa occurred on November 27, 2022, after a 38 year hiatus; it lasted for 12 days. Some eruptions began with only brief seismic unrest, whereas others followed several months to a year of increased seismicity. Once underway, Mauna Loa’s eruptions can produce lava flows that may reach the sea in less than 24 hours, severing roads and utilities. For example, lava flows that erupted from the Southwest Rift Zone in 1950 advanced at an average rate of 9.3 kilometers per hour (5.8 miles per hour); all three lobes reached the ocean within ~24 hours. Near the eruptive vents, the flows likely traveled even faster. In terms of eruption frequency, pre-eruption warning, and rapid flow emplacement, Mauna Loa has great volcanic-hazard potential for the Island of Hawai‘i. Volcanic hazards on Mauna Loa can be anticipated, and risk substantially mitigated, by documenting its past activity to refine our knowledge of the hazards, and by alerting the public and local government officials of our findings and their implications for hazards assessments and risk. The map of the north and west flanks of Mauna Loa shows the distribution and relation of volcanic and surficial sedimentary deposits. It incorporates previously reported work published as generalized small-scale maps and a more detailed map. Within the mapped area, lava has flowed from three different source regions: the Northeast Rift Zone (22 percent), the summit (64 percent), and radial vents (14 percent). All three have different points of origin which, in turn, affect the flow characteristics and periodicity of activity. The map area includes the uppermost part of the NERZ and extends from the highest elevation––13,040 feet at the south end of the Kokoolau quadrangle, just below the summit caldera––to the sea northwest and west of the summit. Lava that erupts from the north and west flanks typically flows to the west, northwest, or north, depending on the vent location. Both morphologic lava flow types—‘a‘ā and pāhoehoe—are present. Pāhoehoe units tend to spread out or widen in low-slope regions, such as in the saddle regions between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea or between Mauna Loa and Hualālai. In comparison, ʻaʻā flows generally produce narrower flow lobes that have higher relief. This map is the fifth in a series of five maps that will cover Mauna Loa volcano. NOTE: Map sheet 1 contains lines and type with overprint. This feature may be turned on or off in the Adobe Acrobat page display preferences.

Hawaii↗
USGS2025

Melt generation sources and conditions in the wake of a migrating slab window: Geochemistry and petrology of the million-year history of primitive volcanism at Clear Lake volcanic field, California

Clear Lake volcanic field (CLVF) is the northernmost and youngest (~2.2 Ma to 8 ka) of the volcanic centers distributed along the San Andreas transform fault in western California. The initial phase of CLVF volcanism (interval one) occurred between ~2.2 and 1.3 Ma and extends ~35 km southeast of Clear Lake, forming a semi-continuous upland plateau capped by lava flows, with isolated volcanic remnants on the periphery. This volcanism is broadly characterized by geochemically primitive compositions that reflect three source compositions and conditions of melt generation. (1) Partial melting of upwelling asthenospheric mantle lherzolite at moderate pressures (1.2–1.4 GPa) and temperatures (1297–1329 °C) produced high-CaO (9.8–11.3 wt %) basalts with high Al 2 O 3 (16.8–17.6 wt %), Mg#s (66–70), MgO (8–10 wt %), Ni (103–262 μg/g), and Cr (284–609 μg/g). These high-CaO basalts contain olivine (Fo 87–91 ) phenocrysts with Cr-spinel inclusions ± subordinate plagioclase and crop out only in the southern part of the CLVF. (2) Partial melting of depleted sub-continental lithospheric mantle harzburgite at variable pressures (0.7–1.5 GPa) and temperatures (1097–1299 °C) produced a compositional continuum of med-K 2 O, calc-alkaline, high-MgO basalts through high-MgO andesites with high Mg#s (67–77), MgO (8–14 wt %) and high Ni and Cr abundances (154–439 and 340–1124 μg/g, respectively). Mineral assemblages are olivine (Fo 88–93 ) with Cr-spinel inclusions ± subordinate clinopyroxene, orthopyroxene and plagioclase. Small (<2.5 cm) mantle harzburgite xenoliths and mantle olivine xenocrysts are also found in several of these samples. These high-MgO basalts through andesites represent the largest volume of primitive compositions and have erupted predominantly along the main, fault-controlled northwest-southeast trending axis of volcanism with peripheral outcrops to the north, west, and east. (3) Partial melting of the Gorda eclogite slab edge produced adakitic silicic slab melts with strong depletion in the heavy rare earth elements (Yb = 0.6 μg/g). Subsequent reaction of those melts with depleted ultramafic rocks during ascent imprinted the adakitic dacites with high Mg#s (65–78) and elevated Ni (117–210 μg/g) and Cr (191–283 μg/g). Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene (En 87–94 ) with spinel inclusions (Cr# = 80–88) and extremely Ni-rich (9483 μg/g) olivine cores (Fo 84–93 ) record those reactions. Small-volume outcrops of the adakites on the eastern periphery of the CLVF track the passing slab edge. The trio of melting sources recorded by early CLVF magmatism reflect the tectonically complex environment and the hot (1097–1329 °C), shallow (0.7–1.5 GPa) melting conditions for these primitive compositions and provide estimates of the heat delivered to the crust. Over time, this flux led to maturation of the CLVF magmatic system toward the more voluminous and silicic volcanism that characterizes the balance of its subsequent volcanic history and maintains the present-day anomalously high heat flow in the region. The current interval (interval four) of volcanic activity at CLVF is characterized by low-volume, fault-controlled eruptions of basaltic andesite and andesite suggestive of mantle magma and heat delivery to the crust, similar to interval one. This analogous activity provides motivation for the current study and begs the question of whether the system is undergoing thermal priming for renewed silicic volcanism.

California↗
USGS2023

Prediction of the probability of elevated nitrate concentrations at groundwater depths used for drinking-water supply in the Puget Sound basin, Washington, 2004–19

The Puget Sound basin encompasses the 13,700-square-mile area that drains to the Puget Sound and the adjacent marine waters of Washington State. Well more than 4 million people live within the basin, with numbers continuing to increase, who rely on the basin’s natural resources including groundwater. The Puget Sound Partnership was created by a Washington State statute to implement a science-based recovery of the Puget Sound to help address impacts to these resources. As part of the recovery, the partnership developed the Puget Sound Vital Signs as measures of ecosystem health that guide the assessment of progress toward Puget Sound recovery goals. The Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council adopted a Drinking Water Vital Sign associated with human health and quality of life, recognizing certain indicators as integral to the sustainability of Puget Sound recovery efforts. One such Vital Sign indicator was the vulnerability of groundwater throughout the aquifers of the Puget Sound basin to elevated nitrate concentrations as defined by the probability of exceeding 2 milligrams/liter (mg/L) at a specific location and well depth. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) led the effort to characterize groundwater vulnerability. For this study, groundwater vulnerability refers to a probability with which a contaminant applied at or near the land surface can migrate to the aquifer of interest for a given set of land-use practices. Nitrate concentration data were selected for evaluation because elevated nitrate concentrations are typically caused by anthropogenic activities and have been associated with deleterious impacts on human health. To identify groundwater vulnerability to elevated nitrate concentrations, logistic regression was used to relate anthropogenic (human associated) and natural variables to the occurrence of elevated nitrate concentrations in untreated groundwater from large public water supply system wells found within the Washington State Department of Health Sentry database. Variables that were analyzed included well depth, soil hydraulic conductivity, precipitation, population density, fertilizer application amounts, and land-use types. Statistically significant models that predicted the probabilities of groundwater nitrate concentrations greater than 2 mg/L based on the predictor variables were created for the time periods 2000–04, 2005–09, 2010–14, and 2015–19. For all time periods, well depth and a measure of the abundance of urban and agricultural land over or near the well consistently helped explain the vulnerability of the well to elevated nitrate concentrations defined as a probability of exceeding 2 mg/L of nitrate. Precipitation and (or) soil hydraulic conductivity were also important predictor variables in the models. The models for each time period were used to create maps of groundwater vulnerability at 150- and 300-foot depths throughout the Puget Sound basin. As expected, the most vulnerable locations were associated with shallower well depths and increased agriculture and urban land cover. Across all four time periods, groundwater vulnerability throughout the Puget Sound was low, with probabilities of exceeding 2 mg/L concentrations of nitrate at depths at 150 and 300 feet typically less than 50 percent. Results also found a slight decrease in probabilities of elevated nitrate concentrations throughout the basin over time. More specifically, additional statistical tests found that groundwater with probabilities of less than about 60 percent declined from 2000 to 2019 and represented more than 75 percent of the modeled Puget Sound basin aquifer. Wells with greater than 60 percent probability increased over the same time period but represented only about 25 percent of the aquifer. The maps and statistical analysis presented in the study provide valuable and informative evaluation of the vulnerability of groundwater in the Puget Sound basin to elevated nitrate concentrations. The probability maps do not represent measured nitrate concentrations in groundwater, but rather they present the probability that nitrate concentrations exceed 2 mg/L. The models and predictions from this study are a viable indicator for the Puget Sound Partnership’s Healthy Human Population—Drinking Water Vital Sign. The logistic regression modeling approach presented here benefits water managers by allowing them to assess temporal trends in a range of probabilities, explore vulnerability changes as new regional land cover and anthropogenic data are generated, and distinguish vulnerabilities at different depths within the aquifer.

Washington↗
USGS2026

High-resolution transboundary vegetation community maps of the Sonoran and Mojave Desert ecoregion to support critical landscape conservation planning and habitat management needs

We produced a 30-m resolution binational land cover map of Bird Conservation Region 33 (BCR 33) for the U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The region covers large portions of the Sonoran and Mojave Deserts. The map can support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Migratory Bird Program’s recovery planning efforts and constitutes the first known binational land cover dataset spanning sections of the United States–Mexico border and using a consistent classification system for both countries. The mapped region includes 152 distinct land cover classes, covering a total area of 38,421,453 ha (148,345 mi 2 ), of which 13,148,345 ha (52,706 mi 2 ) are located in Mexico and 24,770,640 ha (95,639 mi 2 ) in the United States. We primarily used Landsat 8 (OLI) imagery, supplemented by limited ground surveys from two field campaigns, drone-based aerial data, and existing vegetation classification frameworks from both countries. The classification applied a data-fusion approach integrating 30-m Landsat 8 imagery, decadal phenology metrics from vegetation indices, and a random forest model trained mainly with datasets from a comprehensive national mapping project from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP Analysis Project (GAP) and federal wildland fire agencies’ Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) (GAP/LANDFIRE) [United States side] and the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) [Mexico side] as well as land cover maps and opportunistic open-access and field observations. Mapping of the full BCR 33 region was carried out in two phases: 1) Phase I, the prototype map, covered a smaller portion of the transboundary area and identified 31 land cover classes, and 2) Phase II, the full BCR 33 map (refer to Figure 1), which resulted in 152 land cover classes. Using a Random Forest classifier, we achieved an overall prediction accuracy of 92% for the Phase I map and 87% for the Phase II full region map. This slight decrease can be attributed to working on a larger, more complex area with a greater number of land cover classes. No formal validation was conducted, aside from using a subset of the collected field observations and training data to assess model performance during and after training. The training sites were further verified using Google Earth (Google, 2026) imagery. Two undergraduate students who worked for over a year visually inspected imagery and open access public images to confirm each training site during model training using in-house developed, online, visual tools. A portion of this field training data was reserved for model validation, and the corresponding results are to be presented in later sections. The project developed an end-to-end, medium- and fine-resolution remote sensing–based data fusion mapping approach. This effort produced a map (Nagler et al., 2025) and the online tools to support a dynamic, live, online map for visualizing the transboundary vegetation communities in BCR 33. The toolset is currently hosted by the University of Arizona (UofA) Vegetation Index and Phenology (VIP) Lab to support FWS partners (https://vip.arizona.edu/viplab_data_explorer?LCM_BCR33). The online map is designed to allow rapid updates using new training, validation, or correction data, making it dynamic and maintainable. The approach we took established a framework for rapid updating and correction of land cover maps, as the model can be quickly retrained with new field observations, updated training data, or other sources. This enables dynamic mapping and change detection of the region’s vegetation. This framework is an advance in data fusion and crowdsourced mapping of complex, vulnerable regions, providing support to regional stakeholders and the wider user community. This transboundary map can inform the protection, conservation, and restoration of vegetation, habitat, and ecosystems, particularly for threatened and endangered species across the two nations using consistent and harmonized binational mapping systems. Beyond supporting land management decisions and stakeholders in the transboundary desert ecoregions, this BCR 33 mapping effort establishes a foundation for future rapid, low-cost, cross-border land cover mapping that can benefit and advance ecosystem management.

Arizona, Baja California, California, Nevada, Sina↗
USGS2024

Monitoring marine eruptions

Introduction Submarine volcanoes produce much of the same seismicity and eruptive activity as subaerial volcanoes and can pose hazards to society. Although they can be monitored with similar techniques and methods as described in other chapters of this volume, their submerged location brings unique challenges. This chapter addresses these challenges and provides recommendations for monitoring volcanoes fully or partly in marine environments to meet the capabilities described in other chapters of this volume. The United States and its territories host dozens of submarine volcanoes with most (around 60) in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Approximately 20 of the Northern Mariana Islands submarine volcanoes are known to be hydrothermally active, and 10 have confirmed eruptions since the 1950s (for example, Baker and others, 2008; Tepp and others, 2019a). Nine of those volcanoes were considered by the National Volcanic Threat Assessment (Ewert and others, 2018) to have a combination of eruptive type and summit depth that poses a higher risk of hazardous eruptions, although only one was listed as a moderate (level 3) threat. Other notable submarine volcanoes of interest to the United States that have historically erupted are Axial Seamount off the Washington State coast, Kamaʻehuakanaloa in Hawaiʻi, and Vailuluʻu seamount in American Samoa. All of these, however, have a low risk of hazards because of their depth (greater than 600 meters below sea level) and eruptive type and so are not included in the National Volcanic Threat Assessment. In addition to submarine volcanoes, the submerged flanks of island volcanoes can also be a source of hazardous submarine eruptions—for example, the 1877 eruption of Mauna Loa, Hawai‘i, in Kealakekua Bay (Wanless and others, 2006). The most notable submarine eruption in recent times was the 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai in Tonga, which was one of the largest eruptions on Earth in the past 100 years. It created a massive volcanic plume, unprecedented shock waves, and far-reaching tsunami (Lynett and others, 2022). Other recent submarine eruptions in the Pacific Ocean Basin have produced subaerial plumes that reached aircraft heights (Carey and others, 2014) and large pumice rafts that can affect marine traffic and harbors (for example, Jutzeler and others, 2014; Kornei, 2019). These examples illustrate the potential hazards of major submarine eruptions. Yet, submarine volcanoes are largely unmonitored, and many eruptions occur that are unnoticed or only identified hours or days afterward. Within U.S. territory, submarine volcanoes in the Northern Mariana Islands have been known to produce eruptive activity that can affect society. Reports from fishermen and other marine vessels in the Northern Mariana Islands have noted underwater explosions, sea-surface discoloration, and bubbling water, all of which are known to be signs of submarine volcanic activity. South Sarigan seamount, located about 160 kilometers (km) north of Saipan, erupted in 2010 from greater than 150 meters below the sea surface, resulting in a gas and ash plume that reached more than 11.9 km into the atmosphere (for example, Searcy, 2013; Embley and others, 2014), high enough to affect international air traffic. Precursory and co-eruptive seismicity was detected on the regional Northern Mariana Islands seismic network (Searcy, 2013) and on global monitoring instruments (Green and others, 2013). Monitoring of submarine volcanoes is best accomplished with marine-based instrumentation, which is also useful for monitoring small island volcanoes that may not have the land area necessary for comprehensive subaerial monitoring. The primary marine-based instrumentation used for submarine volcanoes includes ocean-bottom pressure sensors to assess sea-floor deformation, ocean-bottom seismometers (OBSs) to detect seismicity, and both moored and ocean-bottom hydrophones to detect submarine explosions. Other sensors offer important monitoring data, such as turbidity, temperature, and chemistry of hydrothermal emissions. Marine-based instruments are typically deployed in campaign-style networks with no real-time telemetry owing to cost considerations and technical limitations. However, when necessary, marine instruments can be operated in real time using cables to transmit data to land-based facilities; other technologies for this purpose are in use or in development, such as acoustic transmission from the instrument to a moored buoy (Matsumoto and others, 2016) and a winch-based system with a satellite antenna that is part of the instrument mooring (Matsumoto and others, 2019). Emerging technologies for marine-based monitoring may be considered as part of a future monitoring plan. These technologies include ocean gliders and floats with on-board hydrophones that have been used to record earthquakes and submarine eruptions (for example, Matsumoto and others, 2013; Sukhovich and others, 2015) and fiber-optic cables that have been used as strainmeters to detect earthquakes (for example, Marra and others, 2018; Lindsey and others, 2019). Land-based instruments and satellites can also provide some capability for monitoring submarine volcanoes, but they provide more limited observations than marine-based instrumentation.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

ShakeAlert®—Communication, education, outreach and technical engagement strategic vision

Executive Summary In 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) began directly supporting ShakeAlert ® research and in 2012 the ShakeAlert demonstration system began testing ( Given and others, 2018 ). The ShakeAlert earthquake early warning (EEW) system is a partnership between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the three West Coast States (Washington, Oregon, and California) served by the ShakeAlert System, which is part of the larger Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). With more than 143 million people exposed to potentially damaging shaking in the United States ( Jaiswal and others, 2015 ), earthquakes are a national hazard. Most of our Nation’s earthquake risk is concentrated in the highly populated areas on the active plate tectonic boundaries on the West Coast of the conterminous United States. ShakeAlert is the first public alert system in the United States to provide rapid mass notification of earthquake detection, potentially offering seconds of warning before strong shaking arrives. A few seconds may not seem like much time, but the information in ShakeAlert Messages can be used to trigger automated actions that can prevent injury or death, reduce immediate damage, and speed recovery from earthquakes. The information product issued by the ShakeAlert system is called a ShakeAlert Message and is one of the information products and tools of the ANSS. The ShakeAlert System includes the USGS component, plus the pathways by which ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services are delivered to end users. Alerts can be delivered to cell phones or be used to trigger automated systems to protect equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, such as slowing or stopping a train. ShakeAlert-powered automated actions can include fire house doors that can be opened to prevent jamming, heavy equipment (for example, trains, elevators, and cranes) that can be automatically stopped or parked in safe positions, and pipeline valves that can be closed to prevent surges and spills. A few seconds of warning also may be sufficient for people to take protective actions, such as drop, cover, and hold on or modified protective actions for a broad range of populations. Advance training may increase the benefit of a speedy response to an alert. Outreach and education about EEW may raise awareness of the overall earthquake threat and how people can best react when they receive an alert or feel shaking. ShakeAlert communication, education, outreach, and technical engagement (CEO&TE) efforts are highly collaborative and essential for the success of the ShakeAlert System. This strategic vision informs how the vast ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community operates and works together. The CEO&TE Community delineates a strategic framework that is intended to set the path for a long-term, sustainable approach to CEO&TE through three focus areas and five priorities. Focus Areas Technical engagement.— The objective of this focus area is to expand and broaden ShakeAlert technical engagement and implementation. External engagement.— This focus area targets engagement in long-term communication, education, and outreach planning, implementation, and evaluation. Internal engagement.— The purpose of this focus area is to build and sustain a robust infrastructure to optimize collaboration, information sharing, and project planning among the community of stakeholders charged with implementing ShakeAlert CEO&TE. Priorities The enumeration of the five priorities listed below does not suggest priority ranking. Public safety, preparedness, and resilience; Technical implementation and engagement; Consistent messaging and communication; Integration with other Federal and State earthquake hazards products; and Educational resources development and dissemination. This strategic vision is a tangible outcome of collaboration among many stakeholders beginning in July 2016. Since then, the work of the ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community has grown into an international effort. The USGS has developed, tested, and implemented a broad spectrum of communication, education, and outreach tools and resources—all of which recognize that seconds matter when it comes to safety and mitigating harm from earthquake hazards. The CEO&TE social science research effort has provided invaluable insights into the ShakeAlert System’s human interface. USGS-licensed technical partners develop, test, and implement real-world applications using ShakeAlert Messages. The success of ShakeAlert CEO&TE efforts is predicated on robust collaboration across numerous agencies, organizations, and groups. As such, this strategic vision outlines a “partnership model” that delineates roles and responsibilities to ensure alignment with focus areas and priorities. The partnership model includes the CEO&TE lead agency (USGS); its principal partners (State agencies and university partners); its implementation partners (for example, technical partners who build systems to deliver ShakeAlert-powered products and (or) services [focus area one]), earthquake education partners who work to increase public preparedness for seismic events (focus area two); and other organizations that work together to enhance the adoption and effectiveness of the ShakeAlert System. These partners collaborate and convene through a variety of working groups and forums, which are also described in this strategic vision and align with focus area three (internal engagement). The CEO&TE Community collaboratively developed its operating principles and a consensus-based, decision-making strategic framework to guide its collective work. Performance metrics are used to continually measure success. Ultimately, the USGS and ShakeAlert CEO&TE Community are advancing the ShakeAlert System that as of the publication of this strategic vision to “provide earthquake early warning for all” serves more than 50 million people.

Circular↗
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↗
USGS2026

Preliminary geologic map of the Sparta East, Sparta West, and parts of the Glade Valley and Whitehead 7.5-minute quadrangles, North Carolina and Virginia, and the epicentral area of the August 9, 2020, Mw 5.1 earthquake near Sparta, North Carolina

Introduction New bedrock and surficial geologic mapping in the Sparta East, Sparta West, and parts of the Glade Valley and Whitehead 7.5-minute quadrangles, North Carolina and Virginia, investigates the geologic framework and causative mechanisms of the August 9, 2020, Mw 5.1 earthquake near Sparta, North Carolina. The mapping documents (1) the coseismic surface rupture from the 2020 earthquake and related brittle structures in the bedrock; (2) the fault contact between the western Blue Ridge and eastern Blue Ridge; (3) lithostratigraphy in the Lynchburg Group, Ashe Metamorphic Suite, and Alligator Back Metamorphic Suite; (4) the nature of the contact between the Lynchburg Group, Ashe Metamorphic Suite, and Alligator Back Metamorphic Suite; and (5) surficial deposits.

North Carolina, Virginia↗
USGS2026

Capitalization of positional (Lower/Middle/Upper) and temporal (Early/Middle/Late) adjectives in the names of formal chronostratigraphic and geochronologic units of the Phanerozoic

Many authors are understandably confused about the capitalization of the words “lower,” “middle,” “upper,” “early,” and “late.” Where these words are used simply as descriptive adjectives, they should be in lowercase; where they form the first word of a formal chronostratigraphic or geochronologic unit name, they should be in uppercase.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2025

Hydrogeologic framework and considerations for drilling and grouting of closed-loop geothermal bores in the Erie-Ontario Lowlands and Allegheny Plateau of New York State

The hydrogeologic framework at closed-loop geothermal sites in the Erie-Ontario Lowlands and Allegheny Plateau of central and western New York is the result of the complex interaction of bedrock geology, glacial geology, and groundwater hydrology, and the occurrence of petroleum and gas. Considerations for closed-loop geothermal bore installation include the thickness and character of glacial deposits, bedrock solubility and depth to competent rock, karst development, the distribution of highly permeable zones and their hydraulic heads, and the presence of saline water, gas, and oil. The hydrogeology of the Erie-Ontario Lowlands and Allegheny Plateau poses challenges to closed-loop geothermal bore drilling and casing; managing drill cuttings, discharge water, and gas; and grouting. The potential to encounter severe challenges typically increases with bore depth. This report highlights hydrogeologic considerations for closed-loop geothermal bore installation in New York’s Erie-Ontario Lowlands and Allegheny Plateau to help guide the efficient and safe development of geothermal resources in the regions.

New York↗
USGS2023

Active volcanism on the Arabian Shield—Geology, volcanology, and geophysics of northern Harrat Rahat and vicinity, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Active volcanic systems pose serious hazards to people and property including inundation and incineration by lava, blanketing by tephra (volcanic ash), exposure to noxious volcanic gases, and damage from shallow earthquakes triggered by ascending molten material (magma). To improve understanding of volcanism and associated seismicity on the western Arabia Plate, the Saudi Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey conducted a multi-year investigation of the northern Harrat Rahat volcanic field adjacent to the city of Al Madīnah al Munawwarah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Project components included creation of a high-resolution digital topographic base; interpretation of eruptive history supported by detailed geologic mapping, paleomagnetism, and abundant high-precision geochronology of volcanic deposits; assessments of eruptive styles and volcanic hazards by physical volcanology; investigation of the origins of magmas in the mantle and of their differentiation in the crust revealed by chemical and isotopic petrology; gravity and magnetotelluric surveys to reveal crustal structures and to search for magma reservoirs; and regional and local seismic tomography and analyses of seismic hazards. Project results are presented in this Professional Paper as chapters written for technical scientific audiences.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2025

The U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the U.S. Intelligence Community—100 years of mapping and remote sensing collaboration, 1879–1979

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—a Federal civilian agency—and U.S. military and intelligence agencies collaborate on mapping and remote sensing and have since the establishment of the USGS. The organizations exchange data and information and share technology to further their respective missions in service to the American people. Often referred to as examples of “good government” or “whole of government,” the collaboration avoids costly duplication and maximizes time and effort for the government sectors. Collaboration between these sectors started with the original mapping of the United States and evolved to include remote sensing after the advent of aerial photography and satellite imagery.

Circular↗
USGS2024

Geologic framework and hydrostratigraphy of the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within parts of Bandera and Kendall Counties, Texas

The karstic Edwards and Trinity aquifers are classified as major sources of water in south-central Texas by the Texas Water Development Board. During 2019–23 the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Edwards Aquifer Authority, mapped and described the geology and hydrostratigraphy of the rocks composing the Edwards and Trinity aquifers within parts of Bandera and Kendall Counties from field observations of the surficial expressions of the rocks. The thicknesses of the mapped lithostratigraphic and hydrostratigraphic units were also estimated from field observations in the study area. The Cretaceous rocks in the study area are part of the Trinity Group and Edwards Group. The groups, formations, and members are composed primarily of layers of marls, shales, and limestones. The limestones are composed of mudstone through grainstone, framestone and boundstone, dolomite, and argillaceous and evaporitic rocks. The principal structural feature in the study area is the Balcones fault zone. The Balcones fault zone is the result of late Oligocene and early Miocene extensional faulting and fracturing that was a result of the eastern Edwards Plateau uplift. In the Balcones fault zone, most of the faults in the study area are high-angle to vertical, en echelon, normal faults that are predominantly downthrown to the southeast. Hydrostratigraphically, the rocks exposed in the study area are those that contain the Edwards aquifer, the upper zone of the Trinity aquifer, and the middle zone of the Trinity aquifer. Descriptions of the hydrostratigraphic units, thicknesses, hydrologic function, porosity types, and field identification and observations are provided, including those for the informal Bandera and Love Creek hydrostratigraphic units of the Edwards aquifer, which were identified through the mapping for this study.

Texas↗
USGS2025

Hydrologic response of groundwater and streamflow to natural and anthropogenic drivers of change in headwaters of the upper Colorado River basin during recent wet (1982–1999) and drought (2000–2022) conditions

Study region: Headwaters of the upper Colorado River basin (UCOL), USA Study focus: Surface-water and groundwater numerical models incorporating water-use information were used to investigate changes in climate, water use, and simulated hydrologic responses of snow processes, evapotranspiration, groundwater, and streamflow during recent wet (1982–1999) and drought (2000–2022) periods in the headwater subregions of the upper Colorado River basin. New hydrologic insights for the region: Decreases in average streamflow between wet and drought periods ranged from 20 % in the Colorado River headwaters subregion to 23 % in the Gunnison River headwaters subregion. Like streamflow, average surface runoff was statistically less during the drought than the wet period, with decreases from 24–31 % in the headwaters. On a volume basis, runoff decreases were greater than streamflow decreases in both the Colorado River and Gunnison River headwaters. Although the amount of water-year groundwater discharge to streams remained nearly the same between the wet and drought periods, groundwater as a percentage of streamflow increased between the wet and drought periods, highlighting the importance of groundwater in sustaining streamflow during drought conditions. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed that snowmelt-only models were better than the best precipitation and temperature models at explaining streamflow variability from all headwater subregions for both the wet and drought periods.

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗