USGS Science⌕ Search

FIND YOUR NEXT DISCOVERY

Results for “Final Technical Report”

Original records, connected by a shared subject.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

534 recordsLinked to original sources
USGS2025

Gulf Coast Basin CORE-CM initiative final report

The Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin (UT-BEG) is leading the Gulf Coast Carbon Ore, Rare Earth, and Critical Minerals (CORE-CM) Initiative to assess the potential to produce critical minerals (CMs), including rare earth elements (REEs) from coal, coal ash, and produced water related to oil and gas production, and related materials (alumina processing waste [red mud], heavy mineral sands, graphite, and zeolite) within the Gulf Coast Basin. This project represents the first phase in a long-term program and provides reconnaissance data that will be foundational for future work by assessing resources and suggesting plans to be conducted in future work and expanding stakeholder engagement. The project includes several tasks designed to identify, characterize, and assess several necessary aspects for development of CMs and REEs in the Gulf Coast Basin.

Gulf Coast basin↗
USGS2025

Evolution of permeability and strength recovery of shear fracture under hydrothermal conditions

Geothermal energy is a clean and renewable resource that depends on the ability to move water through hot rock. In many locations, the ability to move water through rock requires the presence of extensive natural or human-made systems of fractures. However, these fracture systems are influenced by a variety of complex processes that occur at the temperature and pressure conditions found in geothermal reservoirs. To make geothermal systems more efficient, it is important to understand how these fractures evolve over time in response to these processes. This study explored how fractures in rock change under high-temperature and pressure conditions, like those found in geothermal reservoirs, through laboratory experiments and numerical simulations. In general fractures, tend to close due to pressure from the surrounding rock preventing the flow of water. One set of laboratory experiments revealed that fractures in granitic rock can weaken over time at elevated temperatures. These weak fractures can then slip slowly potentially keeping the fracture open for a longer period. This study also showed that at the highest temperature examined (250 °C) large differences between the chemical composition of the rock and the fluid moving through it could improve water flow temporarily likely due to the water dissolving parts of the rock. Flow rate predicted by models shows overall good agreement with the flow rate measured in our experiments but with some long time-scale variations that may be due to mechanical wear of the fracture surface. A second set of experiments found that, over the temperature range examined, the closure of fractures was caused by brittle failure driven by high stresses at points where fracture surfaces were in contact. This result suggests that fracture closure in geothermal reservoirs could be counteracted by maintaining high pore pressures. Additionally, we also tested a new method using electrical resistance to measure fracture closure in controlled systems with high precision.

Final Technical Report↗
USGS2026

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

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

Data Report↗
USGS2025

Methodology and technical input for the 2025 U.S. List of Critical Minerals—Assessing the potential effects of mineral commodity supply chain disruptions on the U.S. economy

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, is tasked by section 7002 (“Mineral Security”) of title VII (“Critical Minerals”) of the Energy Act of 2020 (Public Law 116–260, December 27, 2020, 116th Congress) with reviewing and revising the methodology used to evaluate mineral commodity supply risk and the U.S. List of Critical Minerals (LCM) no less than every 3 years. Following two previous LCM assessments, this analysis represents the latest technical input for evaluating each mineral commodity’s supply risk and determining their recommended status on the LCM. We evaluated mineral commodity supply risk using two criteria: (1) an economic effects assessment that quantified the potential effects of various trade disruption scenarios on the U.S. economy, and (2) an examination of whether the mineral commodity’s U.S. supply chain relied on a sole domestic producer that represented a single point of failure. For the first criterion, postdisruption equilibrium quantities and prices for each mineral commodity were calculated based on their price elasticities of supply and demand and the availability of excess production capacity for each yearlong foreign trade disruption scenario. Subsequently, a nonlinear optimization routine was used with detailed economic input-output tables to estimate the potential economic effects on the U.S. economy of over 1,200 scenarios for 84 mineral commodities. After accounting for the probability of each scenario’s occurrence, the overall results are presented in terms of changes in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) by individual industry and the economy overall. The results, which ranged from a net decrease in U.S. GDP of nearly $4.5 billion to a net increase of $33 million, largely reflect U.S. import dependency and world production concentration. Using the Jenks natural breaks optimization method, a statistical classification technique, we categorized the mineral commodities into several classes based on this overall risk quantification. Mineral commodities with annualized probability-weighted net decreases in U.S. GDP greater than $2 million were recommended for inclusion on the LCM. If a mineral commodity did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the LCM under the first criterion, its domestic supply chain was examined under the second criterion, which recommended a mineral commodity for inclusion on the LCM if there was only a single domestic producer. Ultimately, the two criteria resulted in the recommendation of the addition of six mineral commodities (in descending risk order, potash, silicon, copper, silver, rhenium, and lead) to and the removal of two mineral commodities (arsenic and tellurium) from the LCM. By using an economic effects assessment, the results of this analysis provide a prioritization that can also be compared directly against other risk analyses and the cost of various risk mitigation strategies.

Open-File 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↗
USGS2026

Final project peport for “Mapping riparian vegetation response to climate change on the San Carlos Apache Reservation and Upper Gila River watershed to inform restoration priorities: 1935 to present – Phase 2: Focus on tamarisk vegetation”

Riparian ecosystems play a critical role in supporting wildlife habitats, maintaining water quality, and sustaining ecological resilience in arid landscapes. In the Upper Gila River level-4 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC-4; Identification Number – 1504) watershed of Arizona and New Mexico, and across areas of the San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Apache Reservation (hereafter, Tribe/Tribal – entity; or Reservation - place), riparian ecosystems have been substantially altered by the widespread expansion of tamarisk ( Tamarix spp.), an invasive and non-native riparian species. Tamarisk has high water use and increased flammability, making it a growing concern as droughts intensify across the southwestern United States (U.S.). Recent research indicates that tamarisk is increasingly stressed under prolonged drought conditions, which can elevate wildfire risk and further degrade riparian habitat. In response, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Western Geographic Science Center, in collaboration with the Tribe, developed remote sensing–based tools to map riparian vegetation composition and monitor vegetation condition over time. These tools enable accurate identification of tamarisk extent, detection of vegetation stress, and comparison with native species such as cottonwood and willow. This information directly supports restoration and management actions, including targeted tamarisk removal, protection of endangered species habitat, and prioritization of areas for native vegetation recovery. The tools also provide insight into how riparian vegetation responds to changing climate and hydrologic conditions, strengthening long-term planning for riparian forest management. Findings from this work demonstrate that riparian vegetation responses vary across river systems, indicating differences in plant composition and hydro-climatic conditions. Tamarisk on both the Gila and San Carlos Rivers generally exhibit greater declines in greenness in response to higher temperature as well as lower precipitation and river flow, while cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ) and willow (Salix spp.) are particularly sensitive to changes in discharge along the San Carlos River and respond more directly to both high and low flows, with more moderate responses to precipitation and temperature. By providing actionable, science-based information, this research supports climate adaptation planning, wildfire risk reduction, and improved riparian ecosystem health, with benefits that extend beyond the Reservation to regional water and wildlife conservation efforts.

Arizona, New Mexico↗
USGS2024

Getting to the surface of the problem: A dynamic rupture benchmark for shallowly dipping faults near Earth’s surface

The Statewide California Earthquake Center (SCEC) Dynamic Rupture Group workshop “Getting to the Surface of the Problem: A Dynamic Rupture Benchmark for Shallowly-Dipping Faults Near Earth’s Surface” was convened virtually, in an online meeting on November 4, 2024. 52 people participated, including two who sent pre-recorded lightning talks earlier, but were unable to join us that day due to the international time-zone difference. One-half of our participants were students or postdocs, and the group included scientists from 11 countries (USA, Canada, China, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland).

Final Report↗
USGS2026

Critical minerals in zinc ore—An update on Earth Mapping Resources Initiative Research in the Boulder Batholith region, Montana

Plain Language Summary U.S. Geological Survey research, in collaboration with Montana Technical University and Montana Bureau of Geology and Mines, is providing key critical mineral information that may have potential for critical mineral production of several mining districts in the Boulder Batholith region, to better understand the abundance and distribution of natural resources within this region. Continued research can be used to show the potential for previously undiscovered critical mineral resources in southwestern Montana and in other parts of the United States.

Montana↗
USGS2026

Advancing outreach effectiveness to improve conservation practice adoption

Agricultural conservation practices are central to achieving Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration goals, yet long-term adoption remains challenging even when practices are technically effective and financial assistance is available. Adoption is not a single decision, but a staged and context-dependent process. Awareness and willingness to commitment, implementation, and persistence, are all important. Progress along this pathway is influenced by interacting factors such as knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, social norms, trust, perceived risk, farm characteristics, and practical constraints. Improving adoption requires outreach strategies that respond to the specific factors limiting progress at each stage rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗
USGS2025

System characterization report on the Environmental Mapping and Analysis Program (EnMAP)

This report addresses system characterization of the Environmental Mapping and Analysis Program hyperspectral sensor by the DLR (German Aerospace Center, ground segment project management), GFZ (Deutsches Geoforschungszentrum, science lead) and is part of a series of system characterization reports produced and delivered by the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence. These reports present and detail the methodology and procedures for characterization; present technical and operational information about the EnMAP hyperspectral sensor; and provide a summary of test measurements, data retention practices, data analysis results, and conclusions. The Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence system characterization team completed data analyses to characterize the geometric (interior and exterior), and radiometric performances of the EnMAP hyperspectral sensor. Results of these analyses indicate that the Environmental Mapping and Analysis Program has a band-to-band geometric performance in the range of −0.135 to 0.15 pixel, geometric performance relative to the Operational Land Imager in the range of −27.716 meters (−0.92 pixel) to 32.892 meters (1.09 pixels) offset in comparison to Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager, offset of a radiometric comparison in the range of −0.012 to 0.020, slope of a radiometric comparison in the range of 0.947 to 1.031.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Geologic models underpinning the 2024 U.S. Geological Survey assessment of undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Hosston and Travis Peak Formations of the onshore Gulf Coast region, U.S.A.

The Early Cretaceous (Berriasian–Hauterivian) Hosston Formation in Louisiana and eastward is time correlative to the Travis Peak Formation of Texas and southern Arkansas. The formation is a first-order clastic sequence with a regional carbonate transgressive surface as an upper contact. The Hosston and Travis Peak formations contain conventional natural gas and oil accumulations that have been produced for nearly a century. These mature reservoirs contain terrigenous fluvial-deltaic, shore-zone, and paralic deposits across the productive trend; organic-lean mudstone and siltstone lithologies are found outboard of the Lower Cretaceous shelf margin. Producing reservoirs exhibit normal pressure gradients from 0.43 to 0.55 psi/ft (9.7 to 12.4 kpa/m), depths from 4000 to over 20,000 ft (1220 to 6100 m), and temperatures from 150 to 385°F (65 to 196°C). Wells are primarily vertical completions. The number of new field wildcats has been declining since the late 1990s. This paper presents comprehensive geologic models, which include lithofacies maps, structure and isopach maps, burial history models, regional seismic interpretations, and events charts that underpin the recently completed U.S. Geological Survey assessment of undiscovered, technically recoverable hydrocarbons within the Hosston and Travis Peak formations. This study also provides geographic and stratigraphic distributions of Hosston–Travis Peak reservoir properties, including geopressure, reservoir temperature, porosity, permeability, API gravity, and gas-oil ratios. Results indicate estimated undiscovered, technically recoverable mean resources of 28 million barrels of oil and 35.8 trillion cubic ft of gas in conventional and continuous accumulations within the Lower Cretaceous Hosston and Travis Peak formations of the onshore U.S. Gulf Coast region. Quantitative assessment results are detailed in U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2025–3021 and associated Data Release.

GCAGS Journal↗
USGS2025

Global maps of critical mineral production in 2023

Introduction The global production of many mineral commodities, especially critical minerals, is concentrated in a few countries that have mineral resources and the infrastructure necessary to mine and process those resources. For this reason, the type and amount of mineral production differ by country. For example, many countries produce such metallic ores as gold and silver, whereas only a few countries produce magnesium, niobium, platinum-group metals, and rare earths. The concentration of mining and processing in certain countries necessitates the existence of a global supply chain. A mineral supply chain is the sequence of mining and processing of minerals and manufacturing of products. Mineral supply chains are global in scale, complex, and dynamic. Supply chain data can be used to understand how a country’s mineral resources and various economic, technical, and environmental factors affect the complexity of global supply chains. This fact sheet summarizes the world’s leading countries (those accounting for 5 percent or more of a commodity’s global production in 2023) for production of select mineral commodities (mainly critical minerals) in the mining and processing stages. These countries and the minerals they produce are synthesized on global maps to communicate the status of, and potential risk to, mineral commodity supply chains from geographic production concentration. Trade data from United Nations Statistics Division (2025) is used to support assessments of the observed production data.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Four-band image mosaic of the Colorado River Corridor downstream of Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona, derived from the May 2021 airborne image acquisition

In May 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center acquired airborne multispectral high-resolution data for the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon, Arizona. The image data, which consist of four spectral bands (red, band 1; green, band 2; blue, band 3; and near infrared, band 4) with a ground resolution of 20 centimeters, are available as 16-bit unsigned-integer GeoTIFF files in Sankey and others (2024) (available online at https://doi.org/10.5066/P9BBGN6G ). The image files are projected in the State Plane Coordinate System, using the central Arizona zone (202) with the North American Datum of 1983 National Adjustment of 2011. The assessed spatial accuracy for these data is based on 47 ground-control points that were independent from the ground-control points used by the contractor for aerotriangulation and is reported at the 95-percent confidence level as 0.514 meter (m) and a root mean square error of 0.297 m. The intended uses of this dataset are primarily in support of scientific research and monitoring applications. Examples of these applications include high-resolution spatial and temporal change detection of the river channel, geomorphic landforms, riparian vegetation, and backwater and nearshore habitat, as well as other ecosystem-wide mapping. These imagery data also serve as reference material for field science mission planning, as base data for field data collection including community science activities, and as a highly detailed guide for technical boat operation during science activities such as reconnaissance for nighttime missions and navigating rapids during low flows.

Arizona, Nevada, Utah↗
USGS2023

WellSTIC: A cost-effective sensor for performing point dilution tests to measure groundwater velocity in shallow aquifers

Many individual measurement points are required to characterize groundwater velocity within an aquifer. Groundwater velocity is most commonly measured using a network of >5 cm diameter monitoring wells, which, if not already present at a site, are expensive and labor-intensive to install. Drive-point piezometers—simple, cost-effective wells that can be installed by hand—are a common tool for sampling groundwater in shallow, alluvial aquifers, but most groundwater velocity measurement techniques require equipment that is too large for these narrow (usually <2 cm inside diameter) piezometers. In this technical note, we introduce a low-cost sensor and well packer system (<$90 USD) for performing point dilution tests in narrow piezometers. Field data show that the magnitude of groundwater velocity measured with this technique agrees with velocities computed from natural gradient tracer tests. Additionally, with proper calibration, these sensors can be used to continuously monitor in-well specific conductance, either during inter-well tracer tests with saline tracers or for water quality monitoring. This system is a viable tool for rapid assessment of the magnitude of groundwater velocity in shallow aquifers.

Water Resources Research↗