Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Reviews in Engineering Geology”

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.

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2012

Evaluation of long-term gas hydrate production testing locations on the Alaska North Slope

The results of short-duration formation tests in northern Alaska and Canada have further documented the energy-resource potential of gas hydrates and have justified the need for long-term gas-hydrate-production testing. Additional data acquisition and long-term production testing could improve the understanding of the response of naturally occurring gas hydrate to depressurization-induced or thermal-, chemical-, or mechanical-stimulated dissociation of gas hydrate into producible gas. The Eileen gashydrate accumulation located in the Greater Prudhoe Bay area in northern Alaska has become a focal point for gas-hydrate geologic and production studies. BP Exploration (Alaska) Incorporated and ConocoPhillips have each established research partnerships with the US Department of Energy to assess the production potential of gas hydrates in northern Alaska. A critical goal of these efforts is to identify the most suitable site for production testing. A total of seven potential locations in the Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River, and Milne Point production units were identified and assessed relative to their suitability as a long-term gas-hydrate-production test sites. The test-site-assessment criteria included the analysis of the geologic risk associated with encountering reservoirs for gas-hydrate testing. The site-selection process also dealt with the assessment of the operational/logistical risk associated with each of the potential test sites. From this review, a site in the Prudhoe Bay production unit was determined to be the best location for extended gas-hydrate-production testing. The work presented in this report identifies the key features of the potential test site in the Greater Prudhoe Bay area and provides new information on the nature of gas-hydrate occurrence and the potential impact of production testing on existing infrastructure at the most favorable sites. These data were obtained from well-log analysis, geological correlation and mapping, and numerical simulation.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

A synoptic examination of causes of land loss in southern Louisiana as related to the exploitation of subsurface geologic resources

During the last 80 years, Louisiana has been losing wetlands at an average rate of 62 km 2 /y (24 mi 2 /y) for an accumulated loss of approximately 4900 km 2 (1900 mi 2 ). The loss seems to be the combined result of natural and anthropogenic causes that are behind primarily land subsidence averaging about 10 mm/y (0.4 in/y) coinciding with a sea level rise now at 3 mm/y (0.1 in/y), both contributing to coastal inundation. Upon completing extensive review of often controversial and conflicting views only synoptically reported here, conclusions reached by applying Monte Carlo simulation include: (1) geodetic measurements are consistent with independently postulated causes of regional subsidence; (2) ranking of subsidence factors shows that the main contributor to the regional subsidence is adjustment to sediment load in the form of lithosphere flexure followed by normal faulting dipping basinward, which combined, account on average for 70% of the subsidence, with compaction accounting for another 23%; and (3) production of oil and gas plays a tertiary role. The literature supports the historical view that before experiencing engineering modifications across the catchment area, sedimentation from the Mississippi River system was able to build a prograding coastline by overcoming subsidence rates of similar magnitude with more generous sediment loads of coarser particle size. Sea level rise will become an increasingly dominant factor in land loss only if the acceleration predicted by simulation model scenarios materializes. Wetland losses most likely will continue for as long as there is no compensation to counterbalance the negative effects of land subsidence and sea level rise, with the latter determining the pace of future losses.

Louisiana↗
USGS2017

Synthesis of downstream fish passage information at projects owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) operates the Willamette Valley Project (Project) in northwestern Oregon, which includes a series of dams, reservoirs, revetments, and fish hatcheries. Project dams were constructed during the 1950s and 1960s on rivers that supported populations of spring Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), winter steelhead ( O. mykiss ), and other anadromous fish species in the Willamette River Basin. These dams, and the reservoirs they created, negatively affected anadromous fish populations. Efforts are currently underway to improve passage conditions within the Project and enhance populations of anadromous fish species. Research on downstream fish passage within the Project has occurred since 1960 and these efforts are documented in numerous reports and publications. These studies are important resources to managers in the Project, so the USACE requested a synthesis of existing literature that could serve as a resource for future decision-making processes. In 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an extensive literature review on downstream fish passage studies within the Project. We identified 116 documents that described studies conducted during 1960–2016. Each of these documents were obtained, reviewed, and organized by their content to describe the state-of-knowledge within four subbasins in the Project, which include the North Santiam, South Santiam, McKenzie, and Middle Fork Willamette Rivers. In this document, we summarize key findings from various studies on downstream fish passage in the Willamette Project. Readers are advised to review specific reports of interest to insure that study methods, results, and additional considerations are fully understood.

Oregon↗
USGS1966

Geological Survey Research 1966, Chapter A

'Geological Survey Research 1966' is the seventh annual review of the econamic and scientific work of the U.S. Geological Survey. As in previous years the purpose of the volume is to make available promptly to the public the highlights of Survey investigations. This year the volume consists of 4 chapters (A through D) of Professional Paper 550. Chapter A contains a summary of significant results, and the remaining chapters are made up of collections of short technical papers. Many of the results summarized in chapter A are discussed in greater detail in the short papers or in reports listed in 'Publications in Fiscal Year 1966,' beginning on page A265. The tables of contents for chapters B through D are listed on pages A259-A264. Numerous Federal, State, county, and municipal agencies listed on pages A211-A215 cooperated financially with the Geological Survey during fiscal 1966 and have contributed significantly to the results reported here. They are identified where appropriate in the short technical papers that have appeared in Geological Survey Research and in papers published cooperatively, but generally are not identified in the brief statements in chapter A. Many individuals on the staff of the Geological Survey have contributed to 'Geological Survey Research 1966.' Reference is made to only a few. Frank W. Trainer, Water Resources Division, was responsible for organizing and assembling chapter A and for critical review of papers in chapters B-D, assisted by Louis Pavlides, Geologic Division. Marston S. Chase, Publications Division, was in charge of production aspects of the series, assisted by Jesse R. Upperco in technical editing, and William H. Elliott and James R. Hamilton in planning and preparing illustrations. The volume for next year, 'Geological Survey Research 1967,' will be published as chapters af Professional Paper 5715. Previous volumes are listed below, with their series designations. Gealagical Survey Research 1960-Prof. Paper 400 Gealagical Survey Research 1961-Prof. Paper 424 Gealagical Survey Research 1962-Prof. Paper 450 Gealagical Survey Research 1963-Prof. Paper 475 Gealagical Survey Research 1964-Prof. Paper 501 Gealagical Survey Research 1965-Prof. Paper 525

Professional Paper↗
USGS2025

Developing a probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment framework for Pacific sources: USGS Powell Center meeting summary

Multi-organizational principal investigators formed a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Powell Center Working Group (WG), Tsunami Source Standardization for Hazards Mitigation in the United States, to develop a comprehensive series of sources capable of generating tsunamis that could impact U.S. state and territory coastal areas using probabilistic tsunami hazard analysis (PTHA). PTHA results are commonly used to provide consistent tsunami hazard information for use in engineering and risk assessment and, to a lesser extent, hazard response planning. Following an initial weeklong planning meeting in April 2018, designed to establish the WG’s scope, a series of weeklong meetings devoted to aspects of tsunami hazards placed emphasis on assessment of various tsunami sources, including subduction zones in Alaska, the Atlantic and Caribbean, Cascadia, and the Pacific Basin, as well as landslides in Alaska, the Atlantic, and the Caribbean. The final meeting in the series discussed tsunami sources from crustal faults. These meetings, each with a regional geographic focus, were designed to incorporate reviews and feedback from subject matter experts (SMEs) in academia, private industry, and federal, state, and local governmental organizations. Incorporating consensus from SMEs is important because the results derived from the tsunami source models will be used to inform the public about potential hazards from tsunamis related to safety concerns. This paper describes the USGS Powell Center meeting in March 2023, devoted specifically to developing a PTHA for tsunami sources in the Pacific Ocean Basin other than the Alaska–Aleutian and Cascadia subduction zones that were addressed during previous WG meetings.

Environmental & Engineering Geoscience↗
USGS1968

Alaska Railroad Terminal Reserve, Anchorage, soil-stability study: Stability in the vicinity of boring lines 1 and 2

This report has been prepared in response to a request dated April 22, 1966, from the General Manager of The Alaska Railroad to the Director, U.S. Geological Survey, for an evaluation of the propriety of continued industrial expansion on land contained within The Alaska Railroad Terminal Reserve and nearby. It is based on field examination June 8-12, 1966, in company with Messrs. E. B. Eckel and E. G. Dobrovolny, field work September 19-October 3, 1966, and May 1-June 4, 1967, on discussions with the staff of The Alaska Railroad, my colleagues, and Professor H. B. Seed of the University of California, and on review of published and unpublished material pertinent to the area and its problems. During the fall of 1966 a detailed topographic map of the port area was prepared for The Alaska Railroad by Jay Whiteford and Associates. During late 1966 and early 1967 a drilling, sampling and soils testing program in an area of immediate interest along Boring Lines 1 and 2 was made by Adams, Corthell, Lee, Wince, and Associates (ACLW), a consultant engineering firm, under contract to The Alaska Railroad. Most of the basic data used in this report for stability analyses, such as the geometry of the ground surface and the physical properties of the materials, was derived from the Whiteford map and the ACLW investigations.

Alaska↗
USGS2012

US nonfuel mineral exploration: Selected findings for 1995-2009 from the USGS

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has been systematically monitoring global nonfuel mineral exploration activities to anticipate the location and quantity of future nonfuel minerals supply for about 100 commodities, with an emphasis on precious and base metals. Since 1995, the USGS has developed an annual list of 100 noteworthy prospects that were considered to have a high level of potential for near-term development based on such criteria as intensity of drilling, level of capital investment, and size of resource. This study reviews the status of the U.S. sites included on these lists as of July 2011 and addresses domestic prospects not included on the lists that have come into production since 1995.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2017

Annual review 2016: Exploration review

This summary of international mineral exploration activities for the year 2016 draws upon information from industry sources, published literature, SNL Metals & Mining (SNL), an offering of S&P Global Market Intelligence (New York, NY), and specialists in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Minerals Information Center. Three types of information are reported and analyzed in this annual review of international exploration: 1) budgetary statistics expressed in U.S. dollars provided by SNL; 2) regional and site-specific exploration activities that took place in 2016 as compiled by the USGS and 3) regional events and legislation that affected exploration activities including economic, social and political conditions, which were derived from published sources and discussions with USGS and industry specialists. Commodity and regional compilations are presented in this summary. Because multiple sources were used to develop commodity and regional compilations, statistics may vary depending on the source and type of data that are being reported.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2021

Characterization of historical and stochastically generated climate and streamflow conditions in the Souris River Basin, United States and Canada

The Souris River Basin is a 61,000-square-kilometer basin in the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Canada and the State of North Dakota in the United States. Greater than average snowpack during the winter of 2010–11, along with record-setting rains in May and June 2011, resulted in historically unprecedented flooding in the Souris River Basin. The severity of the 2011 flood led the United States and Canada to request a review of the operating plan for any improvements of reservoir operations and flood control measures in the basin, and the Souris River Basin Task Force was formed. The International Souris River Study Board was then formed in 2017 to carry out the recommendations of the Souris River Basin Task Force laid out in a plan of study. To support the International Souris River Study Board, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the North Dakota State Water Commission and the International Joint Commission, used the previously developed unregulated and regulated streamflow models and data for stochastic streamflow in the Souris River Basin to characterize climate and streamflow and support selection of streamflow traces based on their characterization. Components of the original stochastic hydrology models and their outputs were used in this phase of the study to (1) characterize historical and stochastic climate and streamflow for the Souris River Basin, (2) disaggregate monthly stochastic streamflow spatially and temporally to meet the needs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Reservoir System Simulation model for the Souris River Basin, and (3) discuss selection of disaggregated streamflow traces (simulations) using the characteristics of climate and streamflow. A trace is a time series of a stochastic variable such as streamflow, potential evapotranspiration, or precipitation. To characterize climate conditions, precipitation, potential evapotranspiration (PET), and moisture deficit for the Souris River Basin and individual points at Rafferty, Grant Devine, and Lake Darling Reservoirs were determined annually and seasonally. The annual basin (November 1–October 31) precipitation for the 50-percent nonexceedance probability is 452 millimeters (mm). Spring (March–May) is the wettest season, followed by summer (June–August), fall (September–November), and winter (December–February). Annual moisture deficit was largest at Lake Darling Reservoir, followed by Rafferty Reservoir, and then Grant Devine Reservoir. Annual maximum monthly mean streamflow was determined for the Souris River below Rafferty Reservoir, Saskatchewan (Canadian streamgage 05NB036); Long Creek near Noonan (above Boundary Reservoir), North Dakota (USGS streamgage 05113600); Moose Mountain Creek near Oxbow, Saskatchewan (Canadian streamgage 05ND004); the Souris River near Sherwood, N. Dak. (USGS streamgage 05114000); the Des Lacs River at Foxholm, N. Dak. (USGS streamgage 05116500); and the Souris River above Minot, N. Dak. (USGS streamgage 05117500). When the seasonal maximum monthly mean streamflows are evaluated in contrast to annual maximum monthly mean streamflows separated by their seasonal occurrence, summer months of annual maximum monthly mean streamflows have a higher 50-percent exceedance probability of streamflow compared to annual maximum monthly mean streamflows that occur in spring, seasonal maximum monthly mean streamflows that occur in spring, and seasonal maximum monthly mean streamflows that occur in summer. When annual maximum monthly mean streamflows in summer are compared to annual maximum monthly mean streamflows in spring, they are consistently higher in streamflow but occur in less than 4.2 percent of years. Evaluation of whether the annual maximum monthly mean streamflows that occur in summer can be described as a separate population from annual maximum monthly mean streamflows that occur in spring was outside the scope of this study, and the summer and spring annual maximum monthly mean streamflows were not tested for statistical differences in mean or variance. Further investigation of seasonal weather patterns that induce flooding could lead to a better understanding of the seasonal differences in flooding. Long-term hydrologic drought was characterized by evaluating multiyear mean streamflow. Shorter averaging periods have greater streamflow variability than longer periods and hence have a wider range of values. As the averaging period is extended to a longer period, the variability of mean streamflow decreases, and the more extreme streamflow volumes seen in shorter averaging periods cannot be sustained. Stochastic streamflow time series were disaggregated spatially and temporally for use in a HEC–ResSim model. The combination of monthly and daily stochastic streamflow data was used to select traces with qualities that could be used to test alternatives focused on water supply, summer flooding, and apportionment.

Manitoba, North Dakota, Saskatchewan↗
USGS1996

Quality-assurance plan for water-resources activities of the U.S. Geological Survey in Idaho

To ensure continued confidence in its products, the Water Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey implemented a policy that all its scientific work be performed in accordance with a centrally managed quality-assurance program. This report establishes and documents a formal policy for current (1995) quality assurance within the Idaho District of the U.S. Geological Survey. Quality assurance is formalized by describing district organization and operational responsibilities, documenting the district quality-assurance policies, and describing district functions. The districts conducts its work through offices in Boise, Idaho Falls, Twin Falls, Sandpoint, and at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. Data-collection programs and interpretive studies are conducted by two operating units, and operational and technical assistance is provided by three support units: (1) Administrative Services advisors provide guidance on various personnel issues and budget functions, (2) computer and reports advisors provide guidance in their fields, and (3) discipline specialists provide technical advice and assistance to the district and to chiefs of various projects. The district's quality-assurance plan is based on an overall policy that provides a framework for defining the precision and accuracy of collected data. The plan is supported by a series of quality-assurance policy statements that describe responsibilities for specific operations in the district's program. The operations are program planning; project planning; project implementation; review and remediation; data collection; equipment calibration and maintenance; data processing and storage; data analysis, synthesis, and interpretation; report preparation and processing; and training. Activities of the district are systematically conducted under a hierarchy of supervision an management that is designed to ensure conformance with Water Resources Division goals quality assurance. The district quality-assurance plan does not describe detailed technical activities that are commonly termed "quality-control procedures." Instead, it focuses on current policies, operations, and responsibilities that are implemented at the management level. Contents of the plan will be reviewed annually and updated as programs and operations change.

Idaho↗
USGS2016

A software tool for rapid flood inundation mapping

The GIS Flood Tool (GFT) was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey with support from the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance to provide a means for production of reconnaissance-level flood inundation mapping for data-sparse and resource-limited areas of the world. The GFT has also attracted interest as a tool for rapid assessment flood inundation mapping for the Flood Inundation Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey. The GFT can fill an important gap for communities that lack flood inundation mapping by providing a first-estimate of inundation zones, pending availability of resources to complete an engineering study. The tool can also help identify priority areas for application of scarce flood inundation mapping resources. The technical basis of the GFT is an application of the Manning equation for steady flow in an open channel, operating on specially processed digital elevation data. The GFT is implemented as a software extension in ArcGIS. Output maps from the GFT were validated at 11 sites with inundation maps produced previously by the Flood Inundation Mapping Program using standard one-dimensional hydraulic modeling techniques. In 80 percent of the cases, the GFT inundation patterns matched 75 percent or more of the one-dimensional hydraulic model inundation patterns. Lower rates of pattern agreement were seen at sites with low relief and subtle surface water divides. Although the GFT is simple to use, it should be applied with the oversight or review of a qualified hydraulic engineer who understands the simplifying assumptions of the approach.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Exploration Review

This summary of international mineral exploration activities for 2012 draws upon information from industry sources, published literature and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) specialists. The summary provides data on exploration budgets by region and mineral commodity, identifies significant mineral discoveries and areas of mineral exploration, discusses government programs affecting the mineral exploration industry and presents analyses of exploration activities performed by the mineral industry. Three sources of information are reported and analyzed in this annual review of international exploration for 2012: 1) budgetary statistics expressed in U.S. nominal dollars provided by SNL Metals Economics Group (MEG) of Halifax, Nova Scotia; 2) regional and site-specific exploration activities that took place in 2012 as compiled by the USGS and 3) regional events including economic, social and political conditions that affected exploration activities, which were derived from published sources and unpublished discussions with USGS and industry specialists.

Mining Engineering↗
USGS2024

Developing and implementing an International Macroseismic Scale (IMS) for earthquake engineering, earthquake science, and rapid damage assessment

Executive Summary Macroseismic observations and analysis connect our collective seismological past with the present and the present to the future by facilitating hazard estimates and communicating the effects of ground shaking to a wide variety of audiences across the ages. Invaluable ground shaking and building damage information is gained through standardized, systematic approaches for assigning intensities and, importantly, sharing and archiving those assignments in a reproducible form. The applications for these assignments are far reaching. Traditional macroseismic surveys provide vital constraints on critical aspects of earthquakes and their effects on society, whereas internet-based macroseismic datasets are extremely valuable for real-time earthquake situational awareness, and they contribute to later engineering loss and risk analyses. These important applications of macroseismic observations would be helped by revisiting traditional macroseismic surveys for modern environments, standardizing internet-based collection strategies, and ensuring compatibility between traditional and internet-based approaches of macroseismic data collection. Even with best practices, we have identified several limitations with modern macroseismic data collection approaches, particularly from the U.S. Geological Survey's perspective. First, whereas crowdsourced, internet-based intensities such as “Did You Feel It?” are robust and definitive for lower intensities, they are poorly defined above intensity VII, where damage observations may require expert knowledge of each building’s structural system. Second, in the United States, we use the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, which is consistent with—yet inferior to—the more recently developed European Macroseismic Scale (EMS–98; Grünthal and others, 1998). Similarly, New Zealand uses the New Zealand MMI Scale (Dowrick and others, 2008), which lacks detail on how to assign intensities above MMI VIII. The EMS–98 fundamentally advanced the science of macroseismic intensity assignment by requiring quantitative assessments at each location through consistent application on statistical ranges of well-defined damage grades to building-specific vulnerability classes. Lastly, the United States and New Zealand no longer have professionals dedicated to conducting traditional macroseismic field surveys, so a strategy is needed for allowing postearthquake building inspectors and insurance loss assessors to contribute to intensity assignments. The goals of our International Macroseismic Scale workshop were thus twofold. First, harmonize the MMI Scale with EMS–98 for the United States and New Zealand—which share several similar building types—by considering those structures and associated damage grades that are not well represented in the current EMS–98 building vulnerability class table. Second, begin to formalize the process of augmenting EMS–98 with new regional building classes and damage grades toward the development of a macroseismic scale that can be used globally, beyond the United States and New Zealand. Such an effort necessarily requires reviewing and expanding the original EMS–98 explanatory documents and consideration of any required revisions. We can build on the shoulders of giants in that a few of the original EMS–98 developers and experts participated in and were integral to our workshop. Their background and guidance were key in moving forward toward an international scale. We agreed that additional building vulnerability classes, damage grades, and written and pictorial descriptions are necessary and ideally accompanied by a detailed paper trail for other nations to follow. If we can improve the macroseismic assignment process in both nations, we can also aim to refine the process of collecting postearthquake impact data, a boon to many engineering and financial concerns. The benefits of a truly International Macroseismic Scale are considerable for both the engineering and seismology communities. A modern macroseismic scale requires more deliberate archival damage data collection, motivating more consistent and accessible postevent datasets that would have applications beyond the specific event. Applying field-collected building damage data toward macroseismic assignments would allow for increased coordination between engineering reconnaissance teams and local inspectors in collecting such data for official purposes. In addition, rapid and consistent intensity assignments globally would enable more accurate ShakeMaps—and thus improved earthquake engineering and geotechnical forensics, loss and risk estimates, and correlations between macroseismic intensity and ground motion parameters. A brief summary of the Powell Center IMS workshop was published by Wald and others (2023) in the magazine Eos. This Open-File Report describes the workshop, its discussions, and its outcomes in detail. In summarizing the workshop, we have added important background material and reflections for proper context.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1969

Geologic Settings of Subsidence

This paper reviews the role of geologic processes that contribute to subsidence in order to aid those starting investigations of ground-surface subsidence. Subsidence occurs, or at least is discovered, only infrequently, and little organized information has been available. In order to assess our present state of knowledge, the author gathered fragmentary bits of information from many sources widely scattered in the literature of geology and other earth sciences. The author cites examples for each geologic process that is a potential contributor to ground-surface subsidence together with geologic evidence for diagnosing their causes. The geologic processes involved are: (1) solution of gypsum and salt and redistribution of transient fill materials through solution cavities in calcareous rocks; (2) underground erosion of uncemented or lightly cemented silt and sand through temporary underground passageways; (3) lateral plastic flow of salt, gypsum and anhydrite, shale, and clay under loading; (4) compaction of sediments by loading, drainage, vibration, and hydrocompaction; (5) tectonic movements including primary and secondary effects of earthquakes, folding, and warping; and (6) volcanic activity. Because the first four processes may be accelerated by various engineering activities, examples have been selected to illustrate subsidence both under natural conditions and under conditions modified by man's activities. Although this extensive search for existing information on the role of geologic factors in subsidence indicates that much detailed work remains to be done, the future prospects for advancing our geologic knowledge are excellent. Methods of measuring ground-surface displacements are improving rapidly. Also, broadly based investigations of known areas of major subsidence throughout the world are developing new methods of diagnosis and treatment and are yielding quantitative data that will aid our evaluation of the rates and magnitude of present-day geologic processes.

Book chapter↗
USGS2015

Updating the USGS seismic hazard maps for Alaska

The U.S. Geological Survey makes probabilistic seismic hazard maps and engineering design maps for building codes, emergency planning, risk management, and many other applications. The methodology considers all known earthquake sources with their associated magnitude and rate distributions. Specific faults can be modeled if slip-rate or recurrence information is available. Otherwise, areal sources are developed from earthquake catalogs or GPS data. Sources are combined with ground-motion estimates to compute the hazard. The current maps for Alaska were developed in 2007, and included modeled sources for the Alaska-Aleutian megathrust, a few crustal faults, and areal seismicity sources. The megathrust was modeled as a segmented dipping plane with segmentation largely derived from the slip patches of past earthquakes. Some megathrust deformation is aseismic, so recurrence was estimated from seismic history rather than plate rates. Crustal faults included the Fairweather-Queen Charlotte system, the Denali–Totschunda system, the Castle Mountain fault, two faults on Kodiak Island, and the Transition fault, with recurrence estimated from geologic data. Areal seismicity sources were developed for Benioff-zone earthquakes and for crustal earthquakes not associated with modeled faults. We review the current state of knowledge in Alaska from a seismic-hazard perspective, in anticipation of future updates of the maps. Updated source models will consider revised seismicity catalogs, new information on crustal faults, new GPS data, and new thinking on megathrust recurrence, segmentation, and geometry. Revised ground-motion models will provide up-to-date shaking estimates for crustal earthquakes and subduction earthquakes in Alaska.

Quaternary Science Reviews↗
USGS2020

The 3D Elevation Program and energy for the Nation

High-resolution light detection and ranging (lidar) data are used in energy infrastructure siting, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring to promote public safety through the reduction of risks. For example, lidar data are used to identify safe locations for energy infrastructure by analyzing terrain parameters and identifying and evaluating geologic hazards (for example, landslide and fault locations) and their potential public safety effects on the location or design of infrastructure. Increasingly, engineering companies and regulatory agencies are using lidar and other remote sensing techniques as an efficient method to collect accurate, comprehensive data while reducing risks to field personnel. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) is collecting lidar data nationwide (interferometric synthetic aperture radar [IfSAR] data in Alaska) to support a wide range of applications, including projects related to energy infrastructure construction and safety. Renewable energy resources, resource mining, and oil and gas resources were identified by the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment as business uses requiring three-dimensional (3D) elevation data. Elevation data are critical in assessing potential sites for energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, refineries and other facilities, to mitigate risks from natural hazards. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil, uses enhanced elevation data to conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance assessments. The acquisition of high-resolution lidar data by the USGS 3DEP initiative helps the FERC and NEPA permit applicants by providing accurate and consistent data for hazards analysis. The use of these data accelerates the application and review process and avoids the much higher costs of acquiring elevation data along proposed energy facility locations and pipeline corridors.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1975

Use of USGS earth science products by city planning agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, plan implementation devices, and other planning-related activities was completed for the ninety-one cities in the nine-county San Francisco Bay region. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 85 earth science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). This inventory showed that: (1) three-fourths of the cities had planning staffs who were familiar with SFBRS products, or had made use of such products; (2) over half of the cities had prepared planning documents which contained references to SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies; seismic safety, public safety, conservation, and open-space plan elements; general reference; and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) almost 90 percent of all 85 SFBRS products were used at least once for a city planning activity, and one product was used at least 67 times for various city planning activities; and (5) at least forty-five other other USGS products were also used for various city planning activities. All of the seven SFBRS products that were used 30 or more times for city planning activities were small-scale, large-areal-coverage, hazard-type products. Each product is interpretative and contains additional data which makes it more relevant or more interesting. The planning staffs of each city were also interviewed and asked to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to recommend improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth science data. The responses showed that: (1) the map scales commonly used by cities were much larger than 1:12,000; (2) few cities had planning staffs with training or experience in the earth sciences or engineering; (3) less than one-fourth of the cities failed to use SFBRS products-primarily because their staffs were unaware of the SFBRS, unfamiliar with its products, or lacked adequate capability; (4) almost two-thirds of the cities expressed some problems in using the products-primarily scale and detail; (5) over two-thirds of the cities expressed an interest in continuing to use, or planning to use, the SFBRS products in the future, and a need or desire for additional earth science, engineering or other data; and (6) over one-half of the cities suggested improvements-primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretative products. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the cities in the Bay region have considerable familiarity with, and have made substantial use of, SFBRS products. This use was made by many cities despite their small size, limited staff capability, and the design of the products which was intended primarily for regional planning at a regional scale. Suggestions are made to ensure more familiarity with, and more effective use of, earth science data in the future. These suggestions include: (1) providing engineering interpretations and land-use capability ratings to make earth science data more readily usable; (2) monitoring and analyzing new state laws and regulations to better anticipate and respond to local earth science data needs; (3) including technical assistance with any earth science data designed for planners and decision-makers; (4) providing larger scale and greater detail earth science data on a demonstration basis; (5) giving priority to urban and urbanizing areas so as to conserve limited staff resources; and (6) ensuring product distribution to all potential users.

California↗
USGS2005

Global Visualization (GloVis) Viewer

GloVis (http://glovis.usgs.gov) is a browse image-based search and order tool that can be used to quickly review the land remote sensing data inventories held at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS). GloVis was funded by the AmericaView project to reduce the difficulty of identifying and acquiring data for user-defined study areas. Updated daily with the most recent satellite acquisitions, GloVis displays data in a mosaic, allowing users to select any area of interest worldwide and immediately view all available browse images for the following Landsat data sets: Multispectral Scanner (MSS), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC), Orthorectified, Thematic Mapper (TM), Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+), and ETM+ Scan Line Corrector-off (SLC-off). Other data sets include Terra Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Aqua MODIS, and the Earth Observing-1 (EO-1) Advanced Land Imager (ALI) and Hyperion data.

Fact Sheet↗