SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Nature Reviews Earth & Environment”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

44 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2012

Microbial colonization and controls in dryland systems

Drylands constitute the most extensive terrestrial biome, covering more than one-third of the Earth's continental surface. In these environments, stress limits animal and plant life, so life forms that can survive desiccation and then resume growth following subsequent wetting assume the foremost role in ecosystem processes. In this Review, we describe how these organisms assemble in unique soil- and rock-surface communities to form a thin veneer of mostly microbial biomass across hot and cold deserts. These communities mediate inputs and outputs of gases, nutrients and water from desert surfaces, as well as regulating weathering, soil stability, and hydrological and nutrient cycles. The magnitude of regional and global desert-related environmental impacts is affected by these surface communities; here, we also discuss the challenges for incorporating the consideration of these communities and their effects into the management of dryland resources.

Nature Reviews Microbiology↗

USGS2002

Abstracts of the annual Planetary Geologic Mappers Meeting, June 18-19, 2001, Albuquerque, New Mexico

The annual Planetary Geologic Mappers Meeting serves two purposes. In addition to giving mappers the opportunity to exchange ideas, experiences, victories, and problems with others, presentations are reviewed by the Geologic Mapping Subcommittee (GeMS) to provide input to the Planetary Geology and Geophysics Mapping Program review panel’s consideration of new proposals and progress reports that include mapping tasks. Funded mappers bring both oral presentation materials (slides or viewgraphs) and map products to post for review by GeMS and fellow mappers. Additionally, the annual meetings typically feature optional field trips offering earth analogs and parallels to planetary mapping problems. The 2001 Mappers Meeting, June 18-19, was convened by Tim Parker, Dave Senske, and Ken Tanaka and was hosted by Larry Crumpler and Jayne Aubele of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Oral presentations were given in the Museum’s Honeywell Auditorium, and maps were posted in the Sandia Room. In addition to active mappers, guests included local science teachers who had successfully competed for the right to attend and listen to the reports. It was a unique pleasure for mappers to have the opportunity to interact with and provide information to teachers responding so enthusiastically to the meeting presentation. On Sunday, June 17, Larry and Jayne conducted an optional pre-meeting field trip. The flanks of Rio Grande Rift, east and west of Albuquerque and Valles Caldera north of town presented tectonic, volcanic, and sedimentary examples of the Rift and adjoining areas analogous to observed features on Mars and Venus. The arid but volcanically and tectonically active environment of New Mexico’s rift valley enables focus on features that appear morphologically young and spectacular in satellite images and digital relief models. The theme of the trip was to see what, at orbiter resolution, "obvious" geologic features look like at lander (outcrop) scales. Trips to the top of the rift-flanking mountains (Sandia Peak, 10,600 ft) and the Valles Caldera, as well as various active spring deposits highlighted the day. After welcoming remarks from the host, Larry Crumpler, opening remarks by Tim Parker and Dave Senske and a report on mapping program status by Ken Tanaka, the mappers’ oral presentations began the morning of June 18, with a session on Venus Geologic Mapping. The afternoon continued with an exciting USGS Planetary GIS on the Web (PIGWAD) demonstration and ended with an open discussion of issues in planetary mapping. Posted maps of Venus quadrangles were viewed during the morning break. Tuesday’s Mars Geologic Mapping session began with a pep talk from Tim Parker encouraging mapping community input to the MER landing site selection committee and continued with Steve Saunders describing the potential contribution of Odyssey Mission data to the geologic mapping of Mars. A Mars map poster session was held during the morning break, and the meeting was adjourned mid-afternoon. After the mappers meeting on Tuesday, attendants were treated to a "Field trip to Mars." The Institute of Meteoritics at the University of New Mexico houses an outstanding collection of meteorites, including those that have been identified as originating from Mars. The Institute tour featured examples of most of the different lithologies exhibited by martian meteorites identified to date, as well as some of the analytical tests (scanning electron microscope) they are conducting on specimens from ALH84001. Wednesday, June 20, featured an optional post-meeting field trip to see a travertine quarry and nearby sites of travertine deposition, the Very Large Array near Socorro, and other volcanic features within the Rio Grande Rift.

New Mexico↗

USGS1984

Geologic and hydrologic characterization and evaluation of the Basin and Range Province relative to the disposal of high-level radioactive waste: Part I, Introduction and guidelines

The U.S. Geological Survey's program for geologic and hydrologic evaluation of physiographic provinces to identify areas potentially suitable for locating repository sites for disposal of high-level nuclear wastes was announced to the Governors of the eight States in the Basin and Range Province on May 5, 1981. Representatives of Arizona, California, Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, and Utah, were invited to cooperate with the Federal Government in the evaluation process. Each Governor was requested to nominate an Earth scientist to represent the State in a province working group composed of State and U.S. Geological Survey representatives. This report, Part I of a three-part report, provides the background, introduction and scope of the study. This part also includes a discussion of geologic and hydrologic guidelines that will be used in the evaluation process and illustrates geohydrologic environments and the effect of individual factors in providing multiple natural barriers to radionuclide migration. Part II is a reconnaissance characterization of the geologic and hydrologic factors to be used in the initial screening of the Basin and Range Province. Part III will be the initial evaluation of the Province and will identify regions that appear suitable for further study. The plan for study of the Province includes a stepwise screening process by which successively smaller land units are considered in increasing detail. Each step involves characterization of the geology and hydrology and selection of subunits for more intensive characterization. Selection of subunits for further study is by evaluation of geologic and hydrologic conditions following a set of guidelines. By representation on the Province Working Group, the States participate in a consultation and review role in: (1) Establishing geologic and hydrologic guidelines, and (2) characterizing and evaluating the Province. The States also participate in compilation of geologic and hydrologic data used in characterizing the Province. The current (1983) needs for a high-level radioactive waste repository include: (1) Disposal in a mined repository; (2) retrievability of the waste for as much as 50 years; and (3) confidence of isolation of the waste from the accessible environment. Isolation of the waste needs to be assured using geologic and hydrologic conditions that: (1) Minimize risk of inadvertent future intrusions by man; (2) minimize the possibility of disturbance by processes that would expose the waste or increase its mobility; and (3) provide a system of natural barriers to the migration of waste by ground water. The guidelines adopted by the Province Working Group are designed to provide a standard with which these conditions can be compared. The guidelines can be grouped into four principal categories: (1) Potential host media, (2) ground-water conditions, (3) tectonic conditions, and. (4) occurrence of natural resources. Ideally the host medium constitutes the first natural barrier to migration of radionculides. The host medium ideally should be a rock type that prevents or retards dissolution and transport of radionuclides. Rocks in both the saturated and unsaturated zones may have desirable characteristics for host media. Rocks-other than the host-in the ground-water flow path from the repository ideally should be major barriers to radionuclide migration. Confining beds of low permeability might be present to retard the rate of flow between more permeable beds. Additionally, sorption of radionuclides by materials such as clays and zeolites in the flow path can further retard the flow of radionuclides by several orders of magnitude. Tectonic conditions in an area should not present a probable cause for exhumation or increased mobility of radioactive waste. Natural resources are a factor for consideration because of the problem of future human intrusion and exposure to radioactivity in the quest for minerals, oil, gas, water, and geothermal resources. The ultimate evaluation of the suitability of a geohydrologic environment for developing a mined repository needs to assess all geologic and hydrologic characteristics and their interaction in providing confidence that a geohydrologic environment will effectively isolate radionuclides from human access. Several hypothetical settings with typical geohydrologic conditions in the Basin and Range Province are used to illustrate the effect of multiple barriers in the isolation of radionuclides.

Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Or↗

USGS2012

Mercury and halogens in coal--Their role in determining mercury emissions from coal combustion

Mercury is a toxic pollutant. In its elemental form, gaseous mercury has a long residence time in the atmosphere, up to a year, allowing it to be transported long distances from emission sources. Mercury can be emitted from natural sources such as volcanoes, or from anthropogenic sources, such as coal-fired powerplants. In addition, all sources of mercury on the Earth's surface can re-emit it from land and sea back to the atmosphere, from which it is then redeposited. Mercury in the atmosphere is present in such low concentrations that it is not considered harmful. Once mercury enters the aquatic environment, however, it can undergo a series of biochemical transformations that convert a portion of the mercury originally present to methylmercury, a highly toxic organic form of mercury that accumulates in fish and birds. Many factors contribute to creation of methylmercury in aquatic ecosystems, including mercury availability, sediment and nutrient load, bacterial influence, and chemical conditions. In the United States, consumption of fish with high levels of methylmercury is the most common pathway for human exposure to mercury, leading the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue fish consumption advisories in every State. The EPA estimates that 50 percent of the mercury entering the atmosphere in the United States is emitted from coal-burning utility powerplants. An EPA rule, known as MATS (for Mercury and Air Toxics Standards), to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from powerplants, was signed in December 2011. The rule, which is currently under review, specifies limits for mercury and other toxic elements, such as arsenic, chromium, and nickel. MATS also places limits on emission of harmful acid gases, such as hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid. These standards are the result of a 2010 detailed nationwide program by the EPA to sample stack emissions and thousands of shipments of coal to coal-burning powerplants. The United States is the only nation to have collected such detailed information for mercury in both its coal and its utility emissions.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2014

The environmental geochemistry of Arsenic – An overview

Arsenic is one of the most prevalent toxic elements in the environment. The toxicity, mobility, and fate of arsenic in the environment are determined by a complex series of controls dependent on mineralogy, chemical speciation, and biological processes. The element was first described by Theophrastus in 300 B.C. and named arsenikon (also arrhenicon; Caley and Richards 1956 ) referring to its “potent” nature, although it was originally considered an alternative form of sulfur ( Boyle and Jonasson 1973 ). Arsenikon is believed to be derived from the earlier Persian, zarnik (online etymology dictionary, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=arsenic ). It was not until the thirteenth century that an alchemist, Albertus Magnus, was able to isolate the element from orpiment, an arsenic sulfide (As 2 S 3 ). The complex chemistry required to do this led to arsenic being considered a “bastard metal” or what we now call a “metalloid,” having properties of both metals and non-metals. As a chemical element, arsenic is widely distributed in nature and can be concentrated in many different ways. In the Earth’s crust, arsenic is concentrated by magmatic and hydrothermal processes and has been used as a “pathfinder” for metallic ore deposits, particularly gold, tin, copper, and tungsten ( Boyle and Jonasson 1973 ; Cohen and Bowell 2014 ). It has for centuries been considered a potent toxin, is a common poison in actual and fictional crimes, and has led to significant impacts on human health in many areas of the world ( Cullen 2008 ; Wharton 2010 ).

Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry↗

USGS2013

Historical methane hydrate project review

In 1995, U.S. Geological Survey made the first systematic assessment of the volume of natural gas stored in the hydrate accumulations of the United States. That study, along with numerous other studies, has shown that the amount of gas stored as methane hydrates in the world greatly exceeds the volume of known conventional gas resources. However, gas hydrates represent both a scientific and technical challenge and much remains to be learned about their characteristics and occurrence in nature. Methane hydrate research in recent years has mostly focused on: (1) documenting the geologic parameters that control the occurrence and stability of gas hydrates in nature, (2) assessing the volume of natural gas stored within various gas hydrate accumulations, (3) analyzing the production response and characteristics of methane hydrates, (4) identifying and predicting natural and induced environmental and climate impacts of natural gas hydrates, and (5) analyzing the effects of methane hydrate on drilling safety. Methane hydrates are naturally occurring crystalline substances composed of water and gas, in which a solid water-‐lattice holds gas molecules in a cage-‐like structure. The gas and water becomes a solid under specific temperature and pressure conditions within the Earth, called the hydrate stability zone. Other factors that control the presence of methane hydrate in nature include the source of the gas included within the hydrates, the physical and chemical controls on the migration of gas with a sedimentary basin containing methane hydrates, the availability of the water also included in the hydrate structure, and the presence of a suitable host sediment or “reservoir”. The geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrates have become collectively known as the “methane hydrate petroleum system”, which has become the focus of numerous hydrate research programs. Recognizing the importance of methane hydrate research and the need for a coordinated effort, the U.S. Congress enacted Public Law 106-‐193, the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 2000. This Act called for the Secretary of Energy to begin a methane hydrate research and development program in consultation with other U.S. federal agencies. At the same time a new methane hydrate research program had been launched in Japan by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry to develop plans for a methane hydrate exploratory drilling project in the Nankai Trough. Since this early start we have seen other countries including India, China, Canada, and the Republic of Korea establish large gas hydrate research and development programs. These national led efforts have also included the investment in a long list of important scientific research drilling expeditions and production test studies that have provided a wealth of information on the occurrence of methane hydrate in nature. The most notable expeditions and projects have including the following: -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 164 (1995) -‐Japan Nankai Trough Project (1999-‐2000) -‐Ocean Drilling Program Leg 204 (2004) -‐Japan Tokai-‐oki to Kumano-‐nada Project (2004) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg I (2005) -‐Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition 311 (2005) -‐Malaysia Gumusut-‐Kakap Project (2006) -‐India NGHP Expedition 01 (2006) -‐China GMGS Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 01 (2007) -‐Gulf of Mexico JIP Leg II (2009) -‐Republic of Korea UBGH Expedition 02 (2010) -‐MH-‐21 Nankai Trough Pre-‐Production Expedition (2012-‐2013) -‐Mallik Gas Hydrate Testing Projects (1998/2002/2007-‐2008) -‐Alaska Mount Elbert Stratigraphic Test Well (2007) -‐Alaska Iġnik Sikumi Methane Hydrate Production Test Well (2011-‐2012) Research coring and seismic programs carried out by the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP), starting with the ODP Leg 164 drilling of the Blake Ridge in the Atlantic Ocean in 1995, have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the geologic controls on the formation, occurrence, and stability of gas hydrates in marine environments. For the most part methane hydrate research expeditions carried out by the ODP and IODP provided the foundation for our scientific understanding of gas hydrates. The methane hydrate research efforts under ODP-‐IODP have mostly dealt with the assessment of the geologic controls on the occurrence of gas hydrate, with a specific goal to study the role methane hydrates may play in the global carbon cycle. Over the last 10 years, national led methane hydrate research programs, along with industry interest have led to the development and execution of major methane hydrate production field test programs. Two of the most important production field testing programs have been conducted at the Mallik site in the Mackenzie River Delta of Canada and in the Eileen methane hydrate accumulation on the North Slope of Alaska. Most recently we have also seen the completion of the world’s first marine methane hydrate production test in the Nankai Trough in the offshore of Japan. Industry interest in gas hydrates has also included important projects that have dealt with the assessment of geologic hazards associated with the presence of hydrates. The scientific drilling and associated coring, logging, and borehole monitoring technologies developed in the long list of methane hydrate related field studies are one of the most important developments and contributions associated with methane hydrate research and development activities. Methane hydrate drilling has been conducted from advanced scientific drilling platforms like the JOIDES Resolution and the D/V Chikyu, which feature highly advanced integrated core laboratories and borehole logging capabilities. Hydrate research drilling has also included the use of a wide array of industry, geotechnical and multi-‐service ships. All of which have been effectively used to collect invaluable geologic and engineering data on the occurrence of methane hydrates throughout the world. Technologies designed specifically for the collection and analysis of undisturbed methane hydrate samples have included the development of a host of pressure core systems and associated specialty laboratory apparatus. The study and use of both wireline conveyed and logging-‐while-‐drilling technologies have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the in-‐situ nature of hydrate-‐bearing sediments. Recent developments in borehole instrumentation specifically designed to monitor changes associated with hydrates in nature through time or to evaluate the response of hydrate accumulations to production have also contributed greatly to our understanding of the complex nature and evolution of methane hydrate systems. Our understanding of how methane hydrates occur and behave in nature is still growing and evolving – we do not yet know if methane hydrates can be economically produced, nor do we know fully the role of hydrates as an agent of climate change or as a geologic hazard. But it is known for certain that scientific drilling has contributed greatly to our understanding of hydrates in nature and will continue to be a critical source of the information to advance our understanding of methane hydrates.

Report↗

USGS2014

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Carlsbad, New Mexico, April 29-May 2, 2014

Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex, and involve biological, chemical, and physical changes. These factors, combined with the diverse climatic regimes under which karst development in these rocks has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs has resulted in the most exceptional karst areas of the United States being designated as national or state parks; commercial caverns and known privately owned caves number in the tens of thousands. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ. Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and as unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas can impact the ecosystem and water quality of these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Ground-Water Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. The KIG also encourages younger scientists by participation of students in the poster and oral sessions. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that are held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2014) six KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst features. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/karst/kig . The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, February 13–16, 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held August 20–22, 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held September 12–15, 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, nearby to karst features in evaporites and limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota, including Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument. The workshop also included a featured presentation by Thomas Casadevall, Central Region Director, USGS, on the status of earth science at the USGS and evening trips to Jewel Cave led by Mike Wiles, National Park Service (NPS) and Wind Cave led by Rod Horrocks, NPS. The fourth KIG workshop was held May 27–29, 2008, and hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave with Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, NPS. The fifth workshop was held April 26–29, 2011, and was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River of the southern Ozarks and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States by Art and Peggy Palmer. This sixth and current 2014 KIG workshop is hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in Carlsbad, New Mexico, with Director of NCKRI, George Veni, serving as co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky, USGS. The session planning committee for this sixth workshop includes Van Brahana, USGS retired and University of Arkansas Professor Emeritus; Tom Byl, USGS and Tennessee State University; Zelda Bailey, former Director of NCKRI and retired Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Laboratory, Colorado; Patrick Tucci, USGS retired; and Mike Bradley, Allan Clark, Geoff Delin, Daniel Doctor, James Kaufmann, Eve Kuniansky, Randy Orndorff, Larry Spangler, and Dave Weary of the USGS. The karst hydrology field trip on Thursday will be led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist) and the optional Friday field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park will be led by George Veni. The keynote speaker is Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at NCKRI, who will address the future of karst research. Additionally, there is a featured presentation “Irish karst and its management,” by Caoimhe Hickey, The Geological Survey of Ireland, preceding a panel discussion on “Collaboration During Times of Limited Resources.” The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Geological Survey. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to our editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature and is not research conducted or data collected by the USGS. However, all articles had at a minimum of two peer reviews, and all articles were edited for consistency of appearance in the published Proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names in any article is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS, Office of Groundwater, provides technical support for the Karst Interest Group website and public availability of the Proceedings from these workshops, and the USGS Groundwater Resources Program funds the publication costs. Finally, the cover illustration is the work of Ann Tihansky, USGS, used since the first KIG workshop in 2000.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2017

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, May 16–18, 2017

Introduction and Acknowledgments Karst aquifer systems are present throughout parts of the United States and some of its territories, and have developed in carbonate rocks (primarily limestone and dolomite) and evaporites (gypsum, anhydrite, and halite) that span an interval of time encompassing more than 550 million years. The depositional environments, diagenetic processes, post-depositional tectonic events, and geochemical weathering processes that form karst aquifers are varied and complex. These factors involve biological, chemical, and physical changes that when combined with the diverse climatic regimes in which karst development has taken place, result in the unique dual- or triple-porosity nature of karst aquifers. These complex hydrogeologic systems typically represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists attempting to study groundwater flow and contaminant transport in these terrains. The dissolution of carbonate rocks and the subsequent development of distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs have resulted in the most exceptional karst areas being designated as national or state parks. Tens of thousands of similar areas in the United States have been developed into commercial caverns and known privately owned caves. Both public and private properties provide access for scientists to study the flow of groundwater in situ . Likewise, the range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than for any other aquifer type. Karst aquifers and landscapes that form in tropical areas, such as the cockpit karst along the north coast of Puerto Rico, differ greatly from karst landforms in more arid climates, such as the Edwards Plateau in west-central Texas or the Guadalupe Mountains near Carlsbad, New Mexico, where hypogenic processes have played a major role in speleogenesis. Many of these public and private lands also contain unique flora and fauna associated with these karst hydrogeologic systems. As a result, numerous federal, state, and local agencies have a strong interest in the study of karst terrains. Many of the major springs and aquifers in the United States have developed in carbonate rocks, such as the Floridan aquifer system in Florida and parts of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina; the Ozark Plateaus aquifer system in parts of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma; and the Edwards-Trinity aquifer system in west-central Texas. These aquifers, and the springs that discharge from them, serve as major water-supply sources and form unique ecological habitats. Competition for the water resources of karst aquifers is common, and urban development and the lack of attenuation of contaminants in karst areas due to dissolution features that form direct pathways into karst aquifers can impact the ecosystem and water quality associated with these aquifers. The concept for developing a platform for interaction among scientists within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) working on karst-related studies evolved from the November 1999 National Groundwater Meeting of the USGS. As a result, the Karst Interest Group (KIG) was formed in 2000. The KIG is a loose-knit, grass-roots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst science. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. Additionally, the KIG encourages collaborative studies between the different mission areas of the USGS as well as with other federal and state agencies, and with researchers from academia and institutes. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops that have been held near nationally important karst areas. To date (2017) seven KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The workshops typically include oral and poster sessions on selected karst-related topics and research, as well as field trips to local karst areas. To increase non-USGS participation an effort was made for the workshops to be held at a university or institute beginning with the fourth workshop. Proceedings of the workshops are published by the USGS and are available online at the USGS publications warehouse https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/ by using the search term “karst interest group.” The first KIG workshop was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2001, in the vicinity of the large springs and other karst features of the Floridan aquifer system. The second KIG workshop was held in 2002, in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, in proximity to the carbonate aquifers of the northern Shenandoah Valley, and highlighted an invited presentation on karst literature by the late Barry F. Beck of P.E. LaMoreaux and Associates. The third KIG workshop was held in 2005, in Rapid City, South Dakota, near evaporite karst features in limestones of the Madison Group in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Rapid City KIG workshop included field trips to Wind Cave National Park and Jewel Cave National Monument, and featured a presentation by Thomas Casadevall, then USGS Central Region Director, on the status of Earth science at the USGS. The fourth KIG workshop in 2008 was hosted by the Hoffman Environmental Research Institute and Center for Cave and Karst Studies at Western Kentucky University in Bowling Green, Kentucky, near Mammoth Cave National Park and karst features of the Chester Upland and Pennyroyal Plateau. The workshop featured a late-night field trip into Mammoth Cave led by Rickard Toomey and Rick Olsen, National Park Service. The fifth KIG workshop in 2011 was a joint meeting of the USGS KIG and University of Arkansas HydroDays, hosted by the Department of Geosciences at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. The workshop featured an outstanding field trip to the unique karst terrain along the Buffalo National River in the southern Ozarks, and a keynote presentation on paleokarst in the United States was delivered by Art and Peggy Palmer. The sixth KIG workshop was hosted by the National Cave and Karst Research Institute (NCKRI) in 2014, in Carlsbad, New Mexico. George Veni, Director of the NCKRI, served as a co-chair of the workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The workshop featured speaker Dr. Penelope Boston, Director of Cave and Karst Studies at New Mexico Tech, Socorro, and Academic Director at the NCKRI, who addressed the future of karst research. The field trip on evaporite karst of the lower Pecos Valley was led by Lewis Land (NCKRI karst hydrologist), and the field trip on the geology of Carlsbad Caverns National Park was led by George Veni. This current seventh KIG workshop is being held in San Antonio at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA). This 2017 workshop is being hosted by the Department of Geological Sciences’ Student Geological Society (SGS), and student chapters of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) and Association of Engineering Geologists (AEG), with support by the UTSA Department of Geological Sciences and Center for Water Research. The UTSA student chapter presidents, Jose Silvestre (SGS), John Cooper (AAPG), and Tyler Mead (AEG) serve as co-chairs of the 2017 workshop with Eve Kuniansky of the USGS. The technical session committee is chaired by Eve Kuniansky, USGS, and includes Michael Bradley, Tom Byl, Rebecca Lambert, John Lane, and James Kaufmann, all USGS, and Patrick Tucci, retired USGS. The logistics committee includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Lance Lambert (Department Chair), UTSA Department of Geological Sciences; and Ryan Banta and Allan Clark, USGS, San Antonio, Texas. The field trip committee is chaired by Allan Clark and includes Amy Clark, Yongli Gao, and Keith Muehlestein, UTSA; Marcus Gary, Edwards Aquifer Authority and University of Texas at Austin; Ron Green, Southwest Research Institute; Geary Schindel, Edwards Aquifer Authority; and George Veni, NCKRI. Additionally, two organizations have assisted the UTSA student chapters in hosting the meeting by donating funds to the chapters: the Edwards Aquifer Authority, San Antonio, Texas, and the Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Authority, Austin, Texas. Additionally, Yongli Gao, Center for Water Research and Department of Geological Sciences, UTSA, helped develop sessions on cave and karst research in China for this workshop. These proceedings could not have been accomplished without the assistance of Lawrence E. Spangler as co-editor who not only has subject matter expertise, but also serves as an editor with the USGS Science Publishing Network. We sincerely hope that this workshop continues to promote future collaboration among scientists of varied and diverse backgrounds, and improves our understanding of karst aquifer systems in the United States and its territories. The extended abstracts of USGS authors were peer reviewed and approved for publication by the USGS. Articles submitted by university researchers and other federal and state agencies did not go through the formal USGS peer review and approval process, and therefore may not adhere to USGS editorial standards or stratigraphic nomenclature. However, all articles had a minimum of two peer reviews and were edited for consistency of appearance in the proceedings. The use of trade, firm or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the publication costs of the proceedings.

Scientific Investigations Report↗