USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Environmental Challenges”

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.

1,157 records · Page 65Linked to original sources
USGS2021

Borehole analysis, single-well aquifer testing, and water quality for the Burnpit well, Mount Rushmore National Memorial, South Dakota

Mount Rushmore National Memorial (hereafter referred to as “the memorial”), in western South Dakota, is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) and includes 1,278 acres of land in the east-central part of the Black Hills. An ongoing challenge for NPS managers at the memorial is providing water from sustainable and reliable sources for operations, staff, and the increasing number of visitors. In 2020, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and NPS completed a hydrological study of the Burnpit well (well 5), a 580-foot-deep open hole groundwater well completed in metamorphic (crystalline) rock at the memorial. The purpose of this study was to estimate the geological and hydraulic properties of the aquifer supplying the well and to determine the water quality of the groundwater from the well. The study provides NPS staff and managers background information for assessing future uses for the well. Methods for data collection and analysis for the study included borehole and video camera analysis in 2020, aquifer testing by the NPS in 2009 and the USGS in 2020, and water-quality sampling in 2020. Borehole camera video generally matched the lithology recorded in the well log. Fractures recorded in the well log and observed with the borehole camera, including more than 20 less prominent fractures and rough sidewall areas, indicated a fractured aquifer. The fractures are the primary conduits for groundwater flow through the rock and into the well. Transmissivity was estimated for the upper and lower water-level drawdown zones at the Burnpit well with data from the NPS and USGS using the Theis and Cooper-Jacob methods. Transmissivity for the NPS test using the Theis method was 9.0 and 11 feet squared per day (ft 2 /d) for the upper and lower drawdown zones, respectively. Using the Cooper-Jacob method, the transmissivity was 22 and 14 ft 2 /d for the upper and lower drawdown zones of the aquifer, respectively. Transmissivity estimates from data from the USGS test were similar. The Theis method, applied to the upper and lower drawdown zones of the aquifer, produced transmissivity estimates of 7.7 and 10 ft 2 /d, and the Cooper-Jacob method produced estimates of 9.7 and 12 ft 2 /d, respectively. Storativity (specific yield) estimated using the Theis method for the NPS aquifer-test data was 0.85 and 0.92 for the upper and lower drawdown zones of the aquifer, respectively. The Cooper-Jacob method applied to the NPS aquifer-test data produced storativity estimates of 0.11 and 0.50 for the upper and lower drawdown zones, respectively. The Theis method applied to the USGS aquifer-test data estimated storativity values of 0.77 and 1.0 for the upper and lower drawdown zones, respectively. The Cooper-Jacob method estimated storativity of 0.50 and 0.60 for the upper and lower drawdown zones of the USGS aquifer test, respectively. The estimated storativity values from the NPS and USGS aquifer tests for the upper and lower drawdown zones were higher than expected for limestones and schists. The hypothetical equilibrium drawdown for the Burnpit well was estimated after the NPS test in 2009 at no more, and possibly less, than 35 gallons per minute. The NPS noted that the sustainable yield likely was overestimated because the water level did not stabilize during the NPS aquifer test. The specific capacity for the NPS aquifer test in 2009 was 0.16 gallon per minute per foot ([gal/min]/ft) of drawdown at 3 hours, and the specific capacity for the USGS aquifer test in 2020 was 0.13 (gal/min)/ft of drawdown at 3 hours. The rate of water-level recovery after pumping ceased was 0.017 and 0.013 (gal/min)/ft for the NPS and USGS aquifer tests, respectively. The water-level recovery rate was nearly an order of magnitude less than the specific capacity estimated during pumping, indicating that water levels in the Burnpit well may not recover quickly enough during pumping to provide for a continuous source of water. Water-quality samples were collected at the Burnpit well on June 24 and July 23, 2020, and analyzed for field-measured properties, major ions, metals, nutrients, and perchlorate. Iron, zinc, and lithium concentrations for unfiltered samples in the well were at least three times greater than the mean filtered sample concentrations reported for crystalline aquifers in the Black Hills. Manganese concentrations were less than the mean concentration for crystalline aquifers but exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) secondary drinking-water standards. The iron concentration from the June 24 sample was about 11 times greater than the EPA secondary drinking-water standards and mean concentrations from crystalline aquifers in the Black Hills. Arsenic concentrations in Burnpit well samples collected in 2020 were greater than the EPA primary drinking-water standard and the mean concentration for crystalline aquifers in the Black Hills. Arsenic occurs naturally in the rock of crystalline aquifers, and concentrations from samples in the Black Hills commonly exceed the EPA primary drinking-water standard of 10 micrograms per liter. High concentrations of arsenic, iron, and manganese metals in the Burnpit well make groundwater from the well in its natural state unusable as a drinking-water source, and water treatment would be necessary to reduce the trace element concentrations to less than the EPA primary and secondary drinking-water standards. However, if the memorial has immediate nonpotable water requirements, such as for construction and fire suppression, groundwater from the Burnpit well could provide water without causing additional stress to current (2021) drinking-water sources.

South Dakota↗
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↗
USGS2020

Population and habitat analyses for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in the bi-state distinct population segment—2018 update

Executive Summary The Bi-State Distinct Population Segment (Bi-State DPS) of greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus , hereinafter “sage-grouse”) represents a genetically distinct and geographically isolated population that straddles the border between Nevada and California. The primary threat to these sage-grouse populations is the expansion of single-leaf pinyon ( Pinus monophylla ) and Utah juniper ( Juniperus osteosperma ) into sagebrush ecosystems, which fragments and reduces population connectivity and survival. Other important threats include low water availability during brood-rearing, particularly during drought, and increased predation by common ravens ( Corvus corax ), a generalist predator often associated with anthropogenic resource subsidies. Although the Bi-State DPS occurs at high elevations relative to sage-grouse range-wide, changes in historical wildfire cycles and the conversion of native shrubs to invasive annual grasslands still threaten these populations. The Bi-State DPS has undergone multiple federal status assessments and associated litigation. For example, in October of 2013, the Bi-State DPS was proposed for listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), then withdrawn in April 2015. The withdrawal decision was challenged, and in May 2018, a Federal district court ordered the withdrawal decision to be vacated, and USFWS was required to re-open the October 2013 listing evaluation. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), with State and Federal collaborators, embarked on a multipronged analysis to provide current and best available science regarding population status of sage-grouse within the Bi-State DPS. Using data from a long-term monitoring program, we carried out four analytical study objectives, and here, we provide preliminary results of these analyses. First, we used integrated population modeling (IPM) to predict annual population abundance and annual finite rate of population change for the Bi-State DPS, as a whole, and for each subpopulation between 1995 and 2018. Because sage-grouse exhibit population cycles (periodic increases and decreases in abundance across approximately 6- to 10-year wavelengths), we estimated trends across three nested temporal scales that represent one (11 years), two (18 years), and three (24 years) complete population cycles. These estimates of relatively long-term averaged population change account for temporal (that is, interannual) variation. Our model predicted population abundance for the Bi-State DPS during 2018 at 3,305 individuals (2,247–4,683), with the majority occupying Bodie Hills and Long Valley. The model also predicted cyclic dynamics in abundance through time with evidence of 24-year population growth and slight trends of decline over the past 18 years. Specifically, across the Bi-State DPS as a whole, we estimated annual average at 0.99, 0.99, and 1.02 over the one, two, and three population cycles, which equated to a 10.5 percent, 16.6 percent decrease, and 60.0 percent increase in abundance over the 11-, 18-, and 24-year cycles. Estimated abundance in 2018 had not reached numbers lower than those predicted during 1995. However, we found spatial variation in population trends across the three cycles. Bodie Hills subpopulation comprised the greatest (1,521) and exhibited average annual greater than 1.0 across all periods resulting in average annual increases of 7 percent. This relatively large subpopulation has grown 5 times larger than what was predicted in 1995 while experiencing cyclical dynamics within that period. Conversely, other smaller subpopulations within the Bi-State DPS exhibited average annual equal to or less than 1.0 resulting in estimated 10-year risks of extirpation ranging from 2.0 to 76.1 percent. In general, evidence of decline among smaller subpopulations was greatest for the most recent period (2008–18) compared to a period that encompassed three full population cycles (24-year). This difference coincides with an intense period of drought that began in 2012. For comparative purposes as part of this first objective, we conducted a similar analysis for populations of sage-grouse within Nevada and California but outside the Bi-State DPS. We developed a region-wide and distance-weighted IPM using lek count from Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) databases and with telemetry data collected by USGS across 12 sage-grouse subpopulations. Our models predicted similar patterns in population cycling outside the Bi-State DPS but with much stronger evidence of long-term declines across 24 years. Specifically, median averaged across each year of the 11-, 18-, and 24-year periods resulted in average annual values of 0.94, 0.97, and 0.99, respectively. These values equate to 41.0 percent, 38.5 percent, and 21.3 percent declines over the corresponding periods. Second, we used lek count data in a state-space modeling framework to compare trends in population abundance across different spatial scales (that is, leks versus Bi-State DPS). This hierarchical framework allowed us to disentangle declines associated with climate conditions as opposed to other local level factors that might signal the need for management intervention. Specifically, we identified 7 leks that were both declining and recently decoupled from larger spatial scale trends, typically governed by climatic conditions (referred to as soft or hard signals). The goal of this analysis was to provide an early warning system that might have implications for conservation actions at local scales. Third, we developed phenological (spring, summer–fall, and winter) and reproductive life stage (nesting, early brood-rearing, and late-brood rearing) based resource selection functions using various environmental covariates. We report rankings of variable importance for each season and life stage, developed maps of habitat selection indices (HSI), binned categories representing low, moderate, and high classes of quality (where any category greater than or equal to low indicated selected habitat) for each phenological season and life stage, and produced composite maps by selected phenological and reproductive stage to estimate annual habitat. Fourth, we used for each lek within the Bi-State DPS to carry out a spatial analysis that quantified substantial changes in the distribution of occupied habitat across long- (24-year) and short- (11-year) term periods. Owing to differences among available datasets, the long-term analysis primarily reflected spatial shifts among subpopulations comprising the majority of the Bi-State DPS (that is, Bodie Hills and Long Valley) while the short-term analysis also quantified changes among subpopulations along the periphery. Over long and short-term periods, the overall distribution of occupied habitat (as measured by 99 percent utilization distributions intersecting any quantified habitat) was reduced by 20,573 ha and 55,492 ha, respectively. Occupied core areas (as measured by 50 percent utilization distributions intersecting any quantified habitat) over long-term periods were solely located in Bodie Hills and Long Valley. Although nearly all subpopulations experienced contractions in occupied overall and core distribution, Bodie Hills experienced spatial expansion that occurred with concomitant spatial contraction at Long Valley over both periods. Subpopulations at the northern (Pine Nuts), central (Sagehen) and southern (White-Mountains) extents of the Bi-State DPS also experienced spatial contraction over the short-term period. These findings, coupled with those of population trends, indicate long-term patterns in redistribution of sage-grouse from Long Valley and peripheral subpopulations to Bodie Hills. That is, sage-grouse subpopulations at the periphery are declining while the largest population at the core is increasing, which could have meaningful impacts on overall metapopulation persistence. We provide evidence for loss of occupied habitat (reduced distribution) given local extirpation of subpopulations. Fifth, we calculated percentages of selected phenological, life stage, and annual habitat that each subpopulation contributed to the Bi-State DPS. We then intersected these maps with a composite estimate of occupied habitat from the fourth objective and calculated percentages of selected habitat likely occupied by sage-grouse that each subpopulation contributed to the Bi-State DPS. These values provide evidence for loss of occupied habitat and subsequent reductions in spatial distribution given reductions in abundance and, in some cases, extirpation of leks within subpopulations. Lastly, we carried out an initial in-depth analysis of selection for irrigated pastures and wet meadows during the brood-rearing stage for the Long Valley subpopulation. We chose this subpopulation because it represents a population core, representing 26.5 percent of total sage-grouse within the Bi-State DPS, and has exhibited long-term declines in abundance and distribution. This subpopulation is highly sensitive to precipitation and other factors that influence water availability. Models predicted higher use of the interior portions of irrigated pastures and wet meadows during late brood-rearing period, which represented a potentially risky use of habitat that was exacerbated during periods of low moisture (for example, drought, reduced water delivery, or both). Sage-grouse typically used edges of riparian areas and pastures, largely because the interior of these mesic areas consisted of considerably less overhead concealment cover (for example, shrubs) that likely resulted in a higher risk of mortality. We found that a lack of water delivery to pastures in the form of overwinter precipitation or diversion ditches increased the movements of sage-grouse to the interior of pastures. Although further investigation of water delivery impacts on chick survival are warrented, our initial findings regarding resource selection may explain recent declines in population growth at Long Valley.

California, Nevada↗
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↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗