Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences”

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

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

79 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Toward co-designed Earth System Models: Reflecting end-user priorities in local applications from a modeler's perspective

Earth System Models (ESM) are crucial for quantifying climate impacts across Earth's interconnected systems and supporting science-based adaptation and mitigation. However, not including end-users, especially decision-makers representing communities vulnerable to climate change, can limit model utility, increase epistemic risks, and lead to information misuse in decision-making. While the ESM community increasingly values broad community engagement, end-users may not initially perceive models as useful for local planning. Co-designing models with end-users fosters two-way learning: users better understand models and their outputs, while modelers gain insights into fine-scale local processes like monitoring practices and management priorities. Higher-level co-design can lead to more customized, priority-driven, and useful modeling products. Despite these benefits, modelers often struggle to initiate meaningful partnerships with local communities. Therefore, this paper explores model co-design from the perspective of modelers. This study presents two case studies where modelers and social scientists collaborated with Indigenous communities' decision-makers to reflect their priorities in model design and application. In the Arctic Rivers Project, high-resolution climate and hydrology data sets for Alaska were developed with guidance from an Indigenous Advisory Council, using optimized, coupled land-atmosphere models. In the Mid-Klamath Project, we partnered with the Karuk Tribe's Department of Natural Resources to assess climate change and prescribed burning impacts on terrestrial hydrology in the Klamath River Basin. Drawing from these studies, we introduce a four-level framework: (a) Co-design Configuration; (b) Model Tuning; (c) Incorporate Contextual Knowledge; (d) Co-develop New Model Functions. We aim to help researchers consider and compare co-design across diverse modeling projects systematically and coherently.

Alaska, California, Oregon↗
USGS2025

USGS—An Unparalleled Scientific Asset

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) delivers information critical to powering our economy, managing our natural resources, and keeping Americans safe and healthy. 1 Mapping the Nation $21B Geologic maps save users an estimated 15% in annual costs: a value of between $14B and $21B. $25.6B in annual value to users of imagery from Landsat satellites, which were codeveloped by NASA and the USGS and operated through their lifespans by the USGS. $13.5B in annual benefits is generated by the USGS's 3D Elevation Program. Securing America’s Energy Independence 44% USGS-identified undiscovered geothermal energy is equal to 44% of current U.S. electricity generation. 29.4B barrels of oil and 391.6 trillion cubic feet of gas in recoverable resources are available on U.S. public lands based on USGS assessments. Protecting Americans’ Health and Safety $424B in recent wildland fire damages highlight the need for USGS fire science, which supports efforts to protect communities and reduce risk. USGS earthquake, volcano, landslide, and coastal hazard monitoring and information save lives and minimize costs; for example, $2.8M can be saved because of USGS enhanced information about a Mauna Loa eruption. $4.5B is the estimated cost of annual flooding. Through a network of over 11,885 streamgages, the USGS supports public safety and enables forecasts, early warning systems, and management actions that protect lives and property. Supporting National Security $3.1B The USGS identified a $3.1B risk to the American economy if China restricts gallium imports. This is one example underscoring the importance of the USGS mapping critical minerals, investigating supply chains, and producing the Nation’s critical minerals list. Enhancing Our Lands and Waters $21B in estimated annual costs results from invasive species. The USGS’s invasive species research informs approaches used to reduce their effects on agriculture, water infrastructure, disease transmission, fisheries, and outdoor recreation. USGS innovations support early warnings for harmful algal blooms—over $2M in yearly benefits are provided to Kansas alone. $45B USGS science informs the management of big game (such as deer and elk). The big-game hunting industry contributes $45B to the U.S. economy. Fostering American Prosperity $4.1T Mineral commodities are necessary for the $4.1T in value added to the GDP by major industries that consume processed mineral materials and employ 1 million workers. Because of this, USGS data on mineral supply, demand, and trade are highly valued. 45,000 metric tons Rare earths power the growing technology economy, including cell phones, electric vehicles, and medical devices. For over 70 years, USGS work has supported the discovery of rare earth resources in California’s Mountain Pass area, which produced 45,000 metric tons of rare earth concentrates in 2024—over 11% of the global supply. Guarding American Food Security $70.2B USGS science informs early warning systems and management strategies to mitigate disease outbreaks in agriculture—critical research on highly pathogenic avian influenza, for example, helps safeguard the $70B value in poultry and egg production. $11.8B USGS groundwater tools are vital for agriculture; for example, in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain, 65% of farming relies on groundwater to support its $11.8B annual industry. 1 Values throughout are given in billions (B), millions (M), and trillions (T) of U.S. dollars. GDP is “Gross Domestic Product.” Percentages are shown as %.

General Information Product↗
USGS2014

Annual flood sensitivities to El Niño-Southern Oscillation at the global scale

Floods are amongst the most dangerous natural hazards in terms of economic damage. Whilst a growing number of studies have examined how river floods are influenced by climate change, the role of natural modes of interannual climate variability remains poorly understood. We present the first global assessment of the influence of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on annual river floods, defined here as the peak daily discharge in a given year. The analysis was carried out by simulating daily gridded discharges using the WaterGAP model (Water – a Global Assessment and Prognosis), and examining statistical relationships between these discharges and ENSO indices. We found that, over the period 1958–2000, ENSO exerted a significant influence on annual floods in river basins covering over a third of the world's land surface, and that its influence on annual floods has been much greater than its influence on average flows. We show that there are more areas in which annual floods intensify with La Niña and decline with El Niño than vice versa. However, we also found that in many regions the strength of the relationships between ENSO and annual floods have been non-stationary, with either strengthening or weakening trends during the study period. We discuss the implications of these findings for science and management. Given the strong relationships between ENSO and annual floods, we suggest that more research is needed to assess relationships between ENSO and flood impacts (e.g. loss of lives or economic damage). Moreover, we suggest that in those regions where useful relationships exist, this information could be combined with ongoing advances in ENSO prediction research, in order to provide year-to-year probabilistic flood risk forecasts.

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences↗
USGS2024

Influence of inherited structure on flexural extension in foreland basin systems: Evidence from the northern Arkoma basin and southern Ozark dome, USA

Extensional faults are key components of foreland basin systems. They form within the upper crust in response to flexure of the lithosphere and accommodate subsidence within the foredeep and forebulge depozones. Such faults are excellent proxies for orogenic system evolution and control the distribution of natural resources and hazards. However, the spatiotemporal evolution of flexural extension has not been documented previously at a regional scale, thereby limiting our understanding of underlying geodynamic controls. Here, we resolve late Paleozoic flexural extension in the northern Arkoma basin and southern Ozark dome, USA. We synthesize a large database of previous mapping, existing research, subsurface data, and geophysical data into 3D geologic and 2D kinematic models. Mesh surfaces representing several key horizons from the Carboniferous Period (ca. 335-306 Ma) were constructed. These surfaces were built from oil and gas well tops (n = ∼10,000) and surface geologic map contacts using an advanced kriging method. The mesh surfaces are offset by a complex 3D fault network, allowing detailed analysis of along-strike and down-dip variations in fault displacement. Analysis of the 3D model reveals a regular and repeated fault segmentation pattern wherein E -W striking, left- and foreland-stepping en échelon normal faults are segmented by inherited NE striking basement faults. Maximum vertical separation along the E -W normal faults is generally focused between the inherited NE-trending faults. This suggests that the inherited basement faults delocalized extensional strain during late Paleozoic normal faulting. Maximum vertical separation and fault localization may correlate to areas with high-amplitude positive magnetic anomalies interpreted as Mesoproterozoic granitic rocks. Speculative covariance of magnetic anomalies and fault displacements implies that the relatively strong basement granite concentrated stress, leading to localized faulting within the relatively thin sedimentary cover. Lastly, we show that flexural extension migrated southeast to northwest from the Chesterian-Morrowan (ca. 335-319 Ma) to the Desmoinesian (ca. 306 Ma). The migratory flexural extension may be explained by diachronous loading during Pangean assembly, or by synchronous loading but variable load compensation due to inherent factors.

Arkansas, Oklahoma↗
USGS2008

EAARL coastal topography - Northern Gulf of Mexico

These remotely sensed, geographically referenced elevation measurements of Lidar-derived coastal topography were produced as a collaborative effort between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Florida Integrated Science Center (FISC), St. Petersburg, FL and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Wallops Flight Facility, VA. One objective of this research is to create techniques to survey areas for the purposes of geomorphic change studies following major storm events. The USGS Coastal and Marine Geology Program's National Assessment of Coastal Change Hazards project is a multi-year undertaking to identify and quantify the vulnerability of U.S. shorelines to coastal change hazards such as effects of severe storms, sea-level rise, and shoreline erosion and retreat. Airborne Lidar surveys conducted during periods of calm weather are compared to surveys collected following extreme storms in order to quantify the resulting coastal change. Other applications of high-resolution topography include habitat mapping, ecological monitoring, volumetric change detection, and event assessment. The purpose of this project is to provide highly detailed and accurate datasets of the northern Gulf of Mexico coastal areas, acquired on September 19, 2004, immediately following Hurricane Ivan. The datasets are made available for use as a management tool to research scientists and natural resource managers. An innovative airborne Lidar instrument originally developed at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, and known as the Experimental Airborne Advanced Research Lidar (EAARL), was used during data acquisition. The EAARL system is a raster-scanning, waveform-resolving, green-wavelength (532 nanometer) Lidar designed to map near-shore bathymetry, topography, and vegetation structure simultaneously. The EAARL sensor suite includes the raster-scanning, water-penetrating full-waveform adaptive Lidar, a down-looking RGB (red-green-blue) digital camera, a high-resolution multi-spectral color infrared (CIR) camera, two precision dual-frequency kinematic carrier-phase GPS receivers and an integrated miniature digital inertial measurement unit which provide for sub-meter georeferencing of each laser sample. The nominal EAARL platform is a twin-engine Cessna 310 aircraft, but the instrument may be deployed on a range of light aircraft. A single pilot, a Lidar operator, and a data analyst constitute the crew for most survey operations. This sensor has the potential to make significant contributions in measuring sub-aerial and submarine coastal topography within cross-environmental surveys. Elevation measurements were collected over the survey area using the EAARL system on September 19, 2004. The survey resulted in the acquisition of 3.2 gigabytes of data. The data were processed using the Airborne Lidar Processing System (ALPS), a custom-built processing system developed in a NASA-USGS collaboration. ALPS supports the exploration and processing of Lidar data in an interactive or batch mode. Modules for pre-survey flight line definition, flight path plotting, Lidar raster and waveform investigation, and digital camera image playback have been developed. Processing algorithms have been developed to extract the range to the first and last significant return within each waveform. ALPS is routinely used to create maps that represent submerged or sub-aerial topography. Specialized filtering algorithms have been implemented to determine the 'bare earth' under vegetation from a point cloud of 'last return' elevations.

Alabama, Florida, Mississippi↗
USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗