Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Proceedings”

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 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
USGS2007

Proceedings of the First All-USGS Modeling Conference, November 14-17, 2005

Preface: The First All-USGS Modeling Conference was held November 14-17, 2005, in Port Angeles, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) participants at the conference came from USGS headquarters and all USGS regions and represented all four science disciplines-Biology, Geography, Geology, and Water. The conference centered on selected oral case study presentations and posters on current USGS scientific modeling capabilities and activities. Abstracts for these case study presentations and posters are presented here. On behalf of all the participants of the First All-USGS Modeling Conference, we appreciate the support of Dee Ann Nelson and the staff of the Olympic Park Institute in providing the conference facilities; Dr. Jerry Freilich and Dr. Brian Winter of the National Park Service, Olympic National Park, for organizing and leading the conference field trip; and Debra Becker and Amy Newman, USGS Western Fisheries Research Center, Seattle, Washington, and Tammy Hansel, USGS Geospatial Information Office, Reston, Virginia, for providing technical support for the conference. The organizing committee for the conference included Jenifer Bracewell, Jacoby Carter, Jeff Duda, Anne Frondorf, Linda Gundersen, Tom Gunther, Pat Jellison, Rama Kotra, George Leavesley, and Doug Muchoney.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Proceedings of the first U.S. Geological Survey scientific information management workshop, March 21-23, 2006

In March 2006, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held the first Scientific Information Management (SIM) Workshop in Reston, Virginia. The workshop brought together more than 150 SIM professionals from across the organization to discuss the range and importance of SIM problems, identify common challenges and solutions, and investigate the use and value of “communities of practice” (CoP) as mechanisms to address these issues. The 3-day workshop began with presentations of SIM challenges faced by the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) network and two USGS programs from geology and hydrology. These presentations were followed by a keynote address and discussion of CoP by Dr. Etienne Wenger, a pioneer and leading expert in CoP, who defined them as "groups of people who share a passion for something that they know how to do and who interact regularly to learn how to do it better." Wenger addressed the roles and characteristics of CoP, how they complement formal organizational structures, and how they can be fostered. Following this motivating overview, five panelists (including Dr. Wenger) with CoP experience in different institutional settings provided their perspectives and lessons learned. The first day closed with an open discussion on the potential intersection of SIM at the USGS with SIM challenges and the potential for CoP. The second session began the process of developing a common vocabulary for both scientific data management and CoP, and a list of eight guiding principles for information management were proposed for discussion and constructive criticism. Following this discussion, 20 live demonstrations and posters of SIM tools developed by various USGS programs and projects were presented. Two community-building sessions were held to explore the next steps in 12 specific areas: Archiving of Scientific Data and Information; Database Networks; Digital Libraries; Emerging Workforce; Field Data for Small Research Projects; Knowledge Capture; Knowledge Organization Systems and Controlled Vocabularies; Large Time Series Data Sets; Metadata; Portals and Frameworks; Preservation of Physical Collections; and Scientific Data from Monitoring Programs. In about two-thirds of these areas, initial steps to forming CoP are now underway. The final afternoon included a panel in which information professionals, managers, program coordinators, and associate directors shared their perspectives on the workshop, on ways in which the USGS could better manage its scientific information, and on the use of CoP as informal mechanisms to complement formal organizational structures. The final session focused on developing the next steps, an action plan, and a communication strategy to ensure continued development.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2007

Earth science and public health: Proceedings of the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is to serve the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life. As the Nation?s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the USGS can play a significant role in providing scientific knowledge and information that will improve our understanding of the relations of environment and wildlife to human health and disease. USGS human health-related research is unique in the Federal government because it brings together a broad spectrum of natural science expertise and information, including extensive data collection and monitoring on varied landscapes and ecosystems across the Nation. USGS can provide a great service to the public health community by synthesizing the scientific information and knowledge on our natural and living resources that influence human health, and by bringing this science to the public health community in a manner that is most useful. Partnerships with health scientists and managers are essential to the success of these efforts. USGS scientists already are working closely with the public health community to pursue rigorous inquiries into the connections between natural science and public health. Partnering agencies include the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Mine Safety and Health Administration, National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Public Health Service, and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Collaborations between public health scientists and earth scientists can lead to improved solutions for existing and emerging environmental health problems. This report summarizes the presentations and discussions held at the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research, held at the USGS national headquarters in Reston, Virginia. The report presents 68 abstracts of technical presentations made at the conference and summaries of six topical breakout sessions. The abstracts cover a broad range of issues and demonstrate connections between human health and the quality and condition of our environment and wildlife. The summaries of the topical breakout sessions present ideas for advancing interdisciplinary science in areas of earth science and human health.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2009

Proceedings of the Second All-USGS Modeling Conference, February 11-14, 2008: Painting the Big Picture

The Second USGS Modeling Conference was held February 11-14, 2008, in Orange Beach, Ala. Participants at the conference came from all U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regions and represented all four science discipline - Biology, Geography, Geology, and Water. Representatives from other Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies and partners from the academic community also participated. The conference, which was focused on 'painting the big picture', emphasized the following themes: Integrated Landscape Monitoring, Global Climate Change, Ecosystem Modeling, and Hazards and Risks. The conference centered on providing a forum for modelers to meet, exchange information on current approaches, identify specific opportunities to share existing models and develop more linked and integrated models to address complex science questions, and increase collaboration across disciplines and with other organizations. Abstracts for the 31 oral presentations and more than 60 posters presented at the conference are included here. The conference also featured a field trip to review scientific modeling issues along the Gulf of Mexico. The field trip included visits to Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge, Grand Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, the 5 Rivers Delta Resource Center, and Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge. On behalf of all the participants of the Second All-USGS Modeling Conference, the conference organizing committee expresses our sincere appreciation for the support of field trip oganizers and leaders, including the managers from the various Reserves and Refuges. The organizing committee for the conference included Jenifer Bracewell, Sally Brady, Jacoby Carter, Thomas Casadevall, Linda Gundersen, Tom Gunther, Heather Henkel, Lauren Hay, Pat Jellison, K. Bruce Jones, Kenneth Odom, and Mark Wildhaber.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Proceedings of the Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, November 18-20, 2008, Scottsdale, Arizona

Since the 1980s, four major science and restoration programs have been developed for the Colorado River Basin to address primarily the conservation of native fish and other wildlife pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA): (1) Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin (commonly called the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program) (1988); (2) San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (1992); (3) Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (1997); and (4) Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (2005). Today, these four programs, the efforts of which span the length of the Colorado River, have an increasingly important influence on water management and resource conservation in the basin. The four efforts involve scores of State, Federal, and local agencies; Native American Tribes; and diverse stakeholder representatives. The programs have many commonalities, including similar and overlapping goals and objectives; comparable resources and threats to those resources; and common monitoring, research, and restoration strategies. In spite of their commonalities, until recently there had been no formal opportunity for information exchange among the programs. To address this situation, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) worked in coordination with the four programs and numerous Federal and State agencies to organize the first Colorado River Basin Science and Resource Management Symposium, which took place in Scottsdale, AZ, in November 2008. The symposium's primary purpose was to promote an exchange of information on research and management activities related to the restoration and conservation of the Colorado River and its major tributaries. A total of 283 managers, scientists, and stakeholders attended the 3-day symposium, which included 87 presentations and 27 posters. The symposium featured plenary talks by experts on a variety of topics, including overviews of the four restoration programs, water-management actions aimed at restoring native fish habitat, climate change, assessments of the status of native and nonnative fish populations, and Native American perspectives. Intermixed with plenary talks were four concurrent technical sessions that addressed the following important topics: (1) effects of dam and reservoir operations on downstream physical and biological resources; (2) native fish propagation and genetic management and associated challenges in co-managing native and nonnative fish in the Colorado River; (3) monitoring program design, case studies, and links to management; and (4) riparian system restoration, monitoring, and exotic species control efforts.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Proceedings of the U.S. Geological Survey Interdisciplinary Microbiology Workshop, Estes Park, Colorado, October 15-17, 2008

Preface A U.S. Geological Survey Interdisciplinary Microbiology Workshop was held in Estes Park, Colorado, on October 15-17, 2008. Participants came from all USGS regions and disciplines. This report contains abstracts from 36 presentations and 35 poster sessions and notes from 5 breakout sessions. The seven presentation topics follow: Ecology of wildlife and fish disease Mechanisms of fish and wildlife disease Microbial ecology Geographic patterns/visualization Public health and water quality Geomicrobiology Ecosystem function The six poster session topics follow: Wildlife disease Disease detection methods Water quality Microbial ecology Metabolic processes Tools and techniques Five working groups met in breakout sessions on October 16, 2008. The highlights for each working group are summarized in this report, and their goals are listed below: Working Group I: to plan a Fact Sheet on interdisciplinary microbiology in the USGS Working Group II: to plan a USGS interdisciplinary microbiology Web site Working Group III: to suggest ways to broadcast and publicize the types of microbiology conducted at the USGS Working Group IV: to identify emerging issues in USGS interdisciplinary microbiology research Working Group V: to identify potential opportunities for interdisciplinary microbiology work at the USGS After the workshop, the USGS interdisciplinary microbiology Web site was activated in June 2009 at http://microbiology.usgs.gov/.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Proceedings of preparing for a significant central United States earthquake: Science needs of the response and recovery community

Imagine waking up at 2 o'clock in the morning by a violent rumbling that causes ceilings to fall, furniture to topple over, and windows to break. Your home is crumbling, it is dark, and by the time you realize what is going on the shaking stops. You quickly determine that your family members are okay, but you also realize your power is out, all the windows are broken, and there is substantial damage to your home possibly making it unsafe to remain inside. The temperature outside is in the 20s, there is a heavy snow on the ground, and the flu season is at its peak with two of your family members affected. Unfortunately your family is one of thousands in a similar circumstance and the response to your needs may not be immediate, if at all. Could an earthquake like this happen unannounced? It did in the Central United States during the great New Madrid earthquake of 1811-12. A resident of New Madrid, Missouri writes (Martin, 1848 ): 'On the 16th of December 1811, about 2 o'clock, AM, we were visited by a violent shock of an earthquake accompanied by a very awful noise resembling loud but distant thunder, but more hoarse and vibrating, which was followed in a few minutes by the complete saturation of the atmosphere with sulphurious vapor, causing total darkness. The screams of the affrighted inhabitants running to and fro, not knowing where to go, or what to do-the cries of the fowls and beasts of every species-the crackling of trees falling, and the roar of the Mississippi-the current of which was retrograde for a few minutes, owing as is supposed to an irruption in its bed-formed a scene truly horrible.' Eliza Bryan, March 22, 1816 The residents of the Central United States during the great New Madrid earthquake were accustomed to living rugged life styles. Electrical power was not a reality, water was drawn from shallow hand-dug wells or retrieved from streams, food was hunted or grown, and the homes typically were log structures with dirt floors. Though these inhabitants were primitive by today's standards, they could survive because they did not rely on the supporting infrastructure we rely on today. What would you do if such an event struck as you read this? As a society, are we prepared for a similar event? Could you live for an extended period without power, refrigeration, heat, air conditioning, or fresh water? Missouri and its adjacent states have experienced more than 450 recorded earthquakes greater than magnitude 3 since 1964 (Petersen and others, 2008); however, none of these Central United States earthquakes has been as severe as the 1811-12 event. The 1811-12 events actually were a series of three very large earthquakes followed by many smaller but significant aftershocks (Johnston and Schweig, 1984). Ground shaking was reported as far away as Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Charleston, South Carolina.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2010

Puget Sound shorelines and the impacts of armoring: Proceedings of a state of the science workshop, May 2009

The widespread extent and continued construction of seawalls and bulkheads on Puget Sound's beaches has emerged as a significant issue in shoreline management and coastal restoration in the region. Concerns about the impacts of shoreline armoring and managing the potential risks to coastal property are in many ways similar to those in other places, but Puget Sound also poses unique challenges related to its sheltered setting, glacially formed geology, rich estuarine ecology, and historical development pattern. The effects of armoring on shorelines are complex, involving both physical and biological science and requiring consideration of the cumulative impacts of small-scale activities over large scales of space and time. In addition, the issue is controversial, as it often places strongly held private interests in protecting shoreline property against broad public mandates to preserve shorelines for public uses and to protect environmental resources. Communities making difficult decisions about regulating shoreline activities and prioritizing restoration projects need to be informed by the best science available. To address these issues, a scientific workshop was convened in May 2009, specifically to bring local and national experts together to review the state of the science regarding the physical and biological impacts of armoring on sheltered shorelines such as those of Puget Sound.

Washington↗
USGS2011

Proceedings of the third USGS modeling conference, June 7-11, 2010, Broomfield, Colorado-Understanding and predicting for a changing world

The Third USGS Modeling Conference was held June 7th-11, 2010, in Broomfield, Colorado. The conference focused on the development and application of analytical and theoretical models and data availability that support managing the Nation's resources and help protect lives and property. Participants at the conference included scientists and managers from Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureaus; national and international Federal, State, and local agencies; academic institutions; and nongovernmental organizations. The conference was organized according to DOI priorities and the strategic directions of the USGS Science Strategy; the following themes were emphasized: (1) Understanding Ecosystems and Restoring America's Treasured Landscapes; (2) Climate Change and Impact; (3) New Energy Frontier and Minerals for America; (4) A National Hazards, Risk, and Resilience Assessment Program; (5) Role of Environment and Wildlife in Human Health; (6) A Water Census of the United States; and (7) New Methods of Investigation and Discovery. The conference theme-"Understanding and Predicting for a Changing World"-focused on the following goals: advance development and application of models; provide tools that address management issues; present state-of-the-art models ranging from individual phenomena to integrated systems; and foster a working community among scientists and managers.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2025

Assessing the potential for evaluation of wildland fire models using remotely sensed data—Summary proceedings from a U.S. Geological Survey workshop in 2024

On September 19, 2024, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) held a virtual workshop titled “Potential for Evaluation of Fire Models with Remote Sensing Data Workshop” to assess the feasibility of using remotely sensed datasets to evaluate next-generation wildland fire behavior models. Remote sensing and fire modelling experts gathered to: (1) assess the suitability of a variety of classified, commercial, and publicly available remotely sensed datasets for advancing fire model evaluation; (2) develop ideas on how to integrate remotely sensed data products with fire model inputs and outputs; and (3) identify any barriers and limitations to performing an evaluation of next-generation fire models. The USGS National Civil Applications Center, USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science Center, and USGS Fort Collins Ecosystem Science Center presented information on remote sensing datasets for three Arizona wildfire case studies. The development teams of the Fire Dynamics Simulator and QUIC-Fire fire behavior models presented their models and current evaluation methodologies. Interspersed with these presentations were discussions regarding how to expand current wildfire remote sensing data collection efforts beyond operational needs to assist in future fire modeling. Workshop participants agreed that several of the remote sensing datasets have potential for wildfire model evaluation. However, participants also identified several barriers and complications to performing a model evaluation including key gaps in wildfire datasets; uncertainties related to model fire-atmosphere reinitiation; lack of ground truthing and atmospheric correction of remotely sensed datasets; and differences in spatial, geolocation, radiometric, and temporal resolutions between the datasets and models. Further, the absence of standardized methodologies for image interpretation, poor understanding of sensor capabilities and limitations, and a lack of automation also hinder model evaluation efforts. Based on feedback from this workshop, USGS fire modelers are considering a project to address the uncertainties related to fire model reinitiation and encouraging fire practitioners to collaborate with remote sensing experts on wildland fires to improve data collection for a broader community of practice. Additionally, multiagency efforts are in development for a comprehensive cross-sensor validation and ground-truth campaign to test spatial, spectral, and geolocation sensor capabilities, determine limitations, and identify observational gaps for future sensor development and acquisition.

Arizona↗
USGS2001

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group: proceedings, St Petersburg, Florida February 13-16, 2001

Karst and similar landscapes are found in a wide range of biogeographic classes. In the U.S. for example, Everglades, Mammoth Cave, and Hawaii Volcanoes National Parks have little in common - except karst or pseudokarst, and a cultural past (even though these are very different). This diversity of geologic settings makes karst difficult to categorize and work with when designing a national program such as the recent NPS-USGS Geo-Indicators effort. A GIS-based approach with multiple datalayers is the only sane way to understand and convey the many relationships, in X, Y, and Z axes, between component ecosystems and cultural resources within karst and pseudokarst landscapes. Obviously, karst and cultural landscapes cross modern political as well as biogeographic boundaries. Here again, three-dimensional data are the foundation for understanding similar to that in anatomy and physiology: structure and function. In understanding where the most vulnerable 'pressure points' exist within karst landscapes, we can target landscape-scale ecosystem management to greatest effect. USGS and the National Cave and Karst research Institute could play an extremely significant role in cave and karst management on a national scale beyond NPS or other agency boundaries via cooperative management of three-dimensional karst datasets analogous to programs in several states.

Florida↗
USGS1989

US Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program: Proceedings of the technical meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, September 26-30, 1988

Crude oil floating at the surface of a shallow aquifer of glacial outwash, near Bemidji, Minnesota, is altered by geochemical processes. Hydrocarbons from the oil are attenuated by several reactions that include aerobic and anaerobic microbial degradation. These degradation reactions result in the development of geochemical facies in the shallow groundwater system. Groundwater most affected by the presence of organic compounds is anoxic, and concentrations of methane, dissolved organic carbon, and total inorganic are high--0.76 millimole/L, 2.9 millimole/L, and 12.3 millimole/L, respectively. The concentrations of chemical species and delta-(13)C isotope values indicate that the plume near the oil lens has become progressively more reducing. Over a 4-year period (1984 through 1987), the concentrations of methane and iron have increased by a factor of > 25. The data suggest that sequential degradation occurs, as predicted by thermo-dynamics: manganese is reduced before iron is reduced, which occurs before methanogenesis. These data provide field evidence that reduction of iron and manganese is an important mechanism of decomposition of organic matter in aquifers. The delta-(13)C values of inorganic carbon of the native groundwater range from -12 ppt to -15 ppt as a result of mixing of soil CO2 with CO2 from the dissolution of carbonates. Non methanogenic biodegradation of oil constituents adds isotopically light CO2 to the groundwater because the oil has a delta-(13)C value of 28 ppt. The delta-(13)C value of inorganic carbon in the reducing zone have become progressively heavier from 1985 through 1987. The maximum change occurs 15 m downgradient from the oil lens, where the delta-(13)C values increased from -21.6 ppt to -5.35 ppt. This change indicates that the plume has become more reducing and methanogenic over time.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗