SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Activities”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 253 records · Page 14Linked to original sources

USGS2012

Dealing with incomplete and variable detectability in multi-year, multi-site monitoring of ecological populations

An ecological monitoring program should be viewed as a component of a larger framework designed to advance science and/or management, rather than as a stand-alone activity. Monitoring targets (the ecological variables of interest; e.g. abundance or occurrence of a species) should be set based on the needs of that framework (Nichols and Williams 2006; e.g. Chapters 2–4). Once such monitoring targets are set, the subsequent step in monitoring design involves consideration of the field and analytical methods that will be used to measure monitoring targets with adequate accuracy and precision. Long-term monitoring programs will involve replication of measurements over time, and possibly over space; that is, one location or each of multiple locations will be monitored multiple times, producing a collection of site visits (replicates). Clearly this replication is important for addressing spatial and temporal variability in the ecological resources of interest (Chapters 7–10), but it is worth considering how this replication can further be exploited to increase the effectiveness of monitoring. In particular, defensible monitoring of the majority of animal, and to a lesser degree plant, populations and communities will generally require investigators to account for imperfect detection (Chapters 4, 18). Raw indices of population state variables, such as abundance or occupancy (sensu MacKenzie et al. 2002), are rarely defensible when detection probabilities are < 1, because in those cases detection may vary over time and space in unpredictable ways. Myriad authors have discussed the risks inherent in making inference from monitoring data while failing to correct for differences in detection, resulting in indices that have an unknown relationship to the parameters of interest (e.g. Nichols 1992, Anderson 2001, MacKenzie et al. 2002, Williams et al. 2002, Anderson 2003, White 2005, Kéry and Schmidt 2008). While others have argued that indices may be preferable in some cases due to the challenges associated with estimating detection probabilities (e.g. McKelvey and Pearson 2001, Johnson 2008), we do not attempt to resolve this debate here. Rather, we are more apt to agree with MacKenzie and Kendall (2002) that the burden of proof ought to be on the assertion that detection probabilities are constant. Furthermore, given the wide variety of field methods available for estimating detection probabilities and the inability for an investigator to know, a priori, if detection probabilities will be constant over time and space, we believe that development of monitoring programs ought to include field and analytical methods to account for the imperfect detection of organisms.

Book chapter↗

USGS2017

Synthesis centers as critical research infrastructure

Demand for the opportunity to participate in a synthesis-center activity has increased in the years since the US National Science Foundation (NSF)–funded National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) opened its doors in 1995 and as more scientists across a diversity of scientific disciplines have become aware of what synthesis centers provide. The NSF has funded four synthesis centers, and more than a dozen new synthesis centers have been established around the world, some following the NSF model and others following different models suited to their national funding environment ( http://synthesis-consortium.org ). Scientific synthesis integrates diverse data and knowledge to increase the scope and applicability of results and yield novel insights or explanations within and across disciplines (Pickett et al. 2007 , Carpenter et al. 2009 ). The demand for synthesis comes from the pressing societal need to address grand challenges related to global change and other issues that cut across multiple societal sectors and disciplines and from recognition that substantial added scientific value can be achieved through the synthesis-based analysis of existing data. Demand also comes from groups of scientists who see exciting opportunities to generate new knowledge from interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, often capitalizing on the increasingly large volume and variety of available data (Kelling et al. 2009 , Bishop et al. 2014 , Specht et al. 2015b ). The ever-changing nature of societal challenges and the availability of data with which to address them suggest there will be an expanding need for synthesis. However, we are now entering a phase in which government support for some existing synthesis centers has ended or will be ending soon, forcing those centers to close or develop new operational models, approaches, and funding streams. We argue here that synthesis centers play such a unique role in science that continued long-term public investment to maximize benefits to science and society is justified. In particular, we argue that synthesis centers represent community infrastructure more akin to research vessels than to term-funded centers of science and technology (e.g., NSF Science and Technology Centers). Through our experience running synthesis centers and, in some cases, developing postfederal funding models, we offer our perspective on the purpose and value of synthesis centers. We present case studies of different outcomes of transition plans and argue for a fundamental shift in the conception of synthesis science and the strategic funding of these centers by government funding agencies.

BioScience↗

USGS2022

Fishway Entrance Palisade

This technical report summarizes the work that was conducted by the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), along with other project partners, on the Fishway Entrance Palisade (EP), a projected funded through the Department of Energy’s (DOE) funding opportunity titled ‘Innovative Solutions for Fish Passage at Hydropower Dams’ (DE‐FOA‐0001662). The period of performance ranged from September 1, 2018 through September 30, 2021. The EP is a novel fish passage engineering technology designed to provide more favorable entry conditions for fish and to reduce costs relative to conventional fishway auxiliary water systems (AWS). The EP project has four primary components. First, the Northeast United States Auxiliary Water Systems Database was created (Northeast Fishway Auxiliary Water Systems Database Section). The database, developed with material provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, contains information on fishway type (e.g., lift, Denil, pool and weir) and Auxiliary Water System (AWS) details (e.g., water conveyance method, diffuser type) for 60 hydroelectric sites in the region. Findings indicate that nearly 4 out of every 10 fishway in the region is a fish lift and approximately 1 out of every 4 is a Denil ladder. The remainder are a mix of vertical slot fishways, pool and weirs, and Ice Harbor fishways. Furthermore, over half of all AWS systems use floor diffusers to discharge the auxiliary (or attraction) water into the entrance of a fishway, whereas only 14% use wall diffusers. Second, limited experiments on a conventional AWS with live, actively migrating fish were conducted at the USGS Easter Ecological Science Center (EESC) S.O. Conte Research Laboratory (Conventional Auxiliary Water System Experiments Section). This study determined how water velocity through a wall diffuser, without turning vanes or timber baffles to distribute the flow, affects the behavior and passage of adult American shad, a conservative surrogate species for migratory fish on the East Coast. Two gross diffuser velocity treatments were examined, 0.5 ft/s and 1.0 ft/s. These wall diffuser velocities represented current (0.5 ft/s) and past (1.0 ft/s) design criteria guidelines set forth by the USFWS North Atlantic-Appalachian Region (Rojas 2020; USFWS 2019). Six trials with a total of 151 American Shad were conducted in June of 2019 for the two treatments. No differences in American shad passage efficiency were discovered between the two treatments, while approximately 3 in every 4 attempts were successful at passing the diffuser. While these results may appear to indicate that the generally accepted gross wall diffuser velocity criteria for American shad of 0.5 ft/s could be safely increased to 1.0 ft/s, further analysis is warranted. Furthermore, it is unknown how other migratory and resident fish species that traverse these structures would be impacted by such a change. Studying the wall diffuser hydraulics led to an important AWS observation. Without turning vanes or timber baffles in this study, doubling the diffuser area was insufficient at producing the type of flow field change one may expect by halving the gross diffuser velocity. Instead, the flow fields throughout each treatments study area were similar, which led to similar results in shad performance. This not only highlights the importance of installing flow guidance devices like turning vanes, but also to the importance of properly maintaining them, which can be costly. Third, more expansive experiments on the novel EP were conducted in the spring of 2019 and 2021 (Fishway Entrance Palisade Experiments). The goal of this study was to determine how adult American shad responded to a variety of conditions at a full-scale EP. A total of six treatments were examined by changing the average auxiliary channel velocity between 1.0 and 5.0 ft/s in intervals of 1.0 ft/s and by inserting/removing an entrance gate at the opening of the fishway. Thirty trials with a total of 1,273 shad were conducted over the two years. In all treatments, at least ~7 out of every 10 fish successfully passed the EP diffuser and swam into the entrance channel within the 3.5-hour long trial, highlighting the general effectiveness of the novel AWS technology. In both study years, lower velocities through the EP diffuser led to increased shad performance, though performance peaked for the 2 ft/s velocity treatment. This treatment condition represents an approximate six-fold increase in gross diffuser velocity relative to conventional auxiliary water systems, which in turn presents opportunities for cost savings (e.g., reduction in diffuser size). Shad performance, in general, was worse in 2019 than in 2021, potentially due to the different run timing when our trials were conducted (2019 trials occurred near the end of the migration season, unlike in 2021). Treatments in 2019 had approximately a 20% reduction in entrance efficiency by the trial end, including a 16.7% drop for the 3 ft/s velocity treatment in 2019 relative to 2021 (the only carryover treatment between years). Lastly, adding an entrance gate caused a significant delay to entry. The time to 25% entry raised ~20 minutes from the near instantaneous 25% entry that was reported for the other treatments conducted in the same year (2021). Though by the end of the 3.5-hour trial, the overall entrance efficiency nearly matched those of the other 2021 treatments. The fourth and final component of the EP project was an economic analysis that focused on the cost of attraction and environmental flows (Modeling Power Generation Losses Due to Environmental and Fish Passage Attraction Flows at a Run-Of-River Hydroelectric Operation in the Northeast). The study assessed the economic impact of meeting environmental flow requirements at a representative hydroelectric facility and fish lift in the Northeast. An initial finding of the study was that there is a paucity of published data on the costs of meeting attraction and environmental flows. This is due, in part, to the proprietary nature of this data. To explore the costs associated with these flows, three types of environmental flows were assessed: upstream fishway attraction flows, downstream fishway attraction flows, and habitat maintenance minimum flows. A physics-based model was developed and calibrated with three years of hourly generation and flow data as inputs. Gage flow inputs were adjusted and used to calculate power generated. To address hydrologic variability, the model was executed to simulate 30 years of historical flows. Results indicate that both interannual and seasonal climatic factors impact the costs of meeting environmental flow requirements. Generation potential is most strongly curtailed during dry years in terms of maximizing the capacity factor (the percent of time a plant generates at capacity). Dry years, and especially dry summers, have the most significant costs associated with mitigation flows. Of the three types of flows, habitat flows are most costly in terms of power production, followed by upstream attraction flows. Downstream attraction flows are least costly. This finding is the likely result of differences in both flow rates and duration of the seasonal requirement for each flow. Overall, environmental flows represented a 2-12% loss in annual generation, but losses during a dry summer can reach over 20%.

Final Technical Report↗

USGS2026

Landsat 8–9 geometric and radiometric calibration and characterization

The U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val (Calibration and Validation) Center of Excellence is a global leader in improving the accuracy, precision, and quality of remote-sensing data. Calibration is the process of quantitatively defining a system’s response to known and controlled signal inputs. Validation is the process of assessing, by independent means, the quality of the calibrated data products derived from system outputs. The Landsat Cal/Val team, comanaged by the Earth Resources Observation and Science Cal/Val Center of Excellence and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Landsat Science Project, continually monitors the geometric and radiometric performance of active Landsat missions and makes calibration adjustments, as needed, to maintain data quality at the highest level, ensuring its reliability for scientific research. Landsat data quality is often referred to as the “gold standard” and gives other civil and commercial satellite programs a trusted reference point for measuring their own data quality. The Landsat program started more than 50 years ago. Since then, Landsat missions have gone through multiple technological advances, which, together with improved calibration and validation techniques, have led to higher data quality over time. The Cal/Val team also maintains consistency in data calibration across the multiple generations of sensors, which is vital to many scientists for time-series analysis.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2020

U.S. Geological Survey 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption response in Hawai'i—After-action review

The 2018 Kīlauea Volcano eruption lasted 107 days, and now ranks as the most destructive event at Kilauea since 1790, and as one of the most costly volcanic disasters in U.S. history. Multiple simultaneous hazard events unfolded, including sustained seismic activity leading to collapse at the summit of Halema'uma'u crater and severe damage to the HVO facility, with additional eruption of lava in the Kīlauea Lower East Rift Zone that progressively grew to a total of 24 fissure openings. In response to the complex and uncertain nature of the eruption, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) team activities tended to coalesce around several interrelated core functional areas: science operations, emergency management and administration, and external communications. Upon cessation of the eruption, the USGS Hazard Response Executive Committee charged the Alaska Regional Office to lead an After-Action Review team, which focused on two basic questions: (1) what went well, and why?; and (2) what can be improved, and how? The purpose of the After-Action Review is to identify priorities for programmatic or policy improvements that the USGS can feasibly implement to advance strategic preparation for future disasters, and thereby reduce public vulnerabilities. Specifically, the review is intended to help USGS respond even better to the next eruption in Hawai'i or elsewhere by advancing any of the following goals: Design better planning scenarios; Enhance response team effectiveness; Assist local decision makers; Promote new areas of strategic research; and Streamline administrative, finance, and Incident Management Team support functions during a crisis to secure continuity of operations and essential records management.

Hawaii↗

USGS2019

Santa Barbara area coastal ecosystem vulnerability assessment

The Santa Barbara Area Coastal Ecosystem Vulnerability Assessment (SBA CEVA) is a multidisciplinary research project that investigates future changes to southern Santa Barbara County climate, beaches, watersheds, wetland habitats and beach ecosystems. The target audience is local land use planners and decision makers. The main objective is to provide information that assists the Cities of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria, and Goleta, the County of Santa Barbara, and UC Santa Barbara in climate adaptation planning with a clear focus on coastal ecosystems. Led by California Sea Grant, SBA CEVA was developed from the work of three of the state’s leading ecological and climatological research programs: UCSB’s Santa Barbara Coastal Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Program, the UCSD Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) and their activities within the California and Nevada Applications Program Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (CNAP RISA), the California 4th Climate Assessment and the Southwest Climate Science Center Program, and USGS Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS)

California↗

USGS2009

Archive of digital boomer seismic reflection data collected offshore east-central Florida during USGS cruise 00FGS01, July 14-22, 2000

In July of 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS), conducted a geophysical survey of the Atlantic Ocean offshore Florida's east coast from Brevard County to northern Martin County. This report serves as an archive of unprocessed digital boomer seismic reflection data, trackline maps, navigation files, Geographic Information System (GIS) information, digital and handwritten Field Activity Collection System (FACS) logs, and Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata. A filtered and gained (a relative increase in signal amplitude) digital image of each seismic profile is also provided. Refer to the Acronyms page for expansions of all acronyms and abbreviations used in this report. The archived trace data are in standard Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) SEG-Y format (Barry and others, 1975) and may be downloaded and processed with commercial or public domain software such as Seismic Unix (SU) (Cohen and Stockwell, 2005). Example SU processing scripts and USGS Software for viewing the SEG-Y files (Zihlman, 1992) are also provided. The USGS St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center assigns a unique identifier to each cruise or field activity. For example, 00FGS01 tells us the data were collected in 2000 for cooperative work with the Florida Geological Survey (FGS) and the data were collected during the first field activity for that study in that calendar year. Refer to http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/definition/activity.html for a detailed description of the method used to assign the field activity ID. The boomer plate is an acoustic energy source that consists of capacitors charged to a high voltage and discharged through a transducer in the water. The transducer is towed on a sled floating on the water surface and when discharged, emits a short acoustic pulse, or shot, which propagates through the water, sediment column, or rock beneath. The acoustic energy is reflected at density boundaries (such as the seafloor, sediment, or rock layers beneath the seafloor), detected by the receiver, and recorded by a PC-based seismic acquisition system. This process is repeated at timed intervals (for example, 0.5 s) and recorded for specific intervals of time (for example, 100 ms). In this way, a two-dimensional (2D) vertical profile of the shallow geologic structure beneath the ship track is produced. Figure 1 displays the acquisition geometry. Refer to table 1 for a summary of acquisition parameters. The unprocessed seismic data are stored in SEG-Y format (Barry and others, 1975). For a detailed description of the data format, refer to the SEG-Y Format page. See the How To Download SEG-Y Data page for download instructions. The printable profiles provided are GIF images that were filtered and gained using Seismic Unix software. Refer to the Software page for details about the processing and examples of the processing scripts. The printable profiles can be viewed from the Profiles page or from links located on the trackline maps. To view the trackline maps and navigation files, and for more information about these items, see the Navigation page. Detailed information about the navigation system used can be found in table 1. Of a total record length of 200 ms, only the upper 100 ms of each profile are displayed because no useful information was observed deeper in the sections. A 10 ms deep water delay appears on lines b57-b63 and sl2-sl28. No digital data were collected for line sl6. However, line sl6r is a second attempt to collect digital data for this line. Digital data and 500-shot-interval location navigation are not available for the last 1,161 shots of line sl26 due to an equipment malfunction.

Florida↗

USGS2018

Recent advances in environmental flows science and water management—Innovation in the Anthropocene

The implementation of environmental flow regimes offers a promising means to protect and restore riverine, wetland and estuarine ecosystems, their critical environmental services and cultural/societal values. This Special Issue expands the scope of environmental flows and water science in theory and practice, offering 20 papers from academics, agency researchers and non‐governmental organisations, each with fresh perspectives on the science and management of environmental water allocations. Contributions confront the grand challenge for environmental flows and water management in the Anthropocene—the urgent need for innovations that will help to sustain the innate resilience of social–ecological systems under dynamic and uncertain environmental and societal futures. Basin‐scale and regional assessments of flow requirements mark a necessary advance in environmental water science in the face of rapid changes in water‐resource management activities worldwide (e.g. increases in dams, diversions, retention and reuse). Techniques for regional‐scale hydrological and ecohydrological modelling support ecological risk assessment and identification of priority flow management and river restoration actions. Changing flood–drought cycles, long‐term climatic shifts and associated effects on hydrological, thermal and water quality regimes add enormous uncertainty to the prediction of future ecological outcomes, regardless of environmental water allocations. An improved capacity to predict the trajectories of ecological change in rivers degraded by legacies of past impact interacting with current conditions and future climate change is essential. Otherwise, we risk unrealistic expectations from restoration of river and estuarine flow regimes. A more robust, dynamic and predictive approach to environmental water science is emerging. It encourages the measurement of process rates (e.g. birth rate, colonisation rate) and species traits (e.g. physiological requirements, morphological adaptations) as well as ecosystem states (e.g. species richness, assemblage structure), as the variables representing ecological responses to flow variability and environmental water allocations. Another necessary development is the incorporation of other environmental variables such as water temperature and sedimentary processes in flow–ecological response models. Based on contributions to this Special Issue, several recent compilations and the wider literature, we identify six major scientific challenges for further exploration, and seven themes for advancing the management of environmental water. We see the emerging frontier of environmental flows and water science as urgent and challenging, with numerous opportunities for reinvigorated science and methodological innovation in the expanding enterprise of environmental water linked to ecological sustainability and social well‐being.

Freshwater Biology↗

USGS2011

Illuminating Northern California’s Active Faults

Newly acquired light detection and ranging (lidar) topographic data provide a powerful community resource for the study of landforms associated with the plate boundary faults of northern California (Figure 1). In the spring of 2007, GeoEarthScope, a component of the EarthScope Facility construction project funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, acquired approximately 2000 square kilometers of airborne lidar topographic data along major active fault zones of northern California. These data are now freely available in point cloud (x, y, z coordinate data for every laser return), digital elevation model (DEM), and KMZ (zipped Keyhole Markup Language, for use in Google EarthTM and other similar software) formats through the GEON OpenTopography Portal (http://www.OpenTopography.org/data). Importantly, vegetation can be digitally removed from lidar data, producing high-resolution images (0.5- or 1.0-meter DEMs) of the ground surface beneath forested regions that reveal landforms typically obscured by vegetation canopy (Figure 2)

California↗

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↗

USGS2024

NASA Champions 2024: Data strategies for when to use cloud, coding strategies for parallelization, & first examples of big science in the Cloud

From April-May 2024, the NASA Mentors who span eleven Distributed Active Archive Centers (DAACs) co-led the third Champions Cohort with the NASA Openscapes project team, this year focusing on, teaching lessons they adapted for geospatial and cloud analysis. The Cohort included nine international research teams from academia and government that were curious about working with NASA Earthdata in the Cloud. Many teams were interested in using data from multiple DAACs. User cloud adaption takes time, given the new conceptual mindsets and technical skillsets it requires. During the ten weeks we worked together, NASA Mentors refined and extended previous lessons to focus on thinking through and planning the transition to using the Cloud for science research and applications, and initial experiments using the Cloud through our 2i2c JupyterHub. Below are these updates and YouTube clips! There were also recurring themes/questions that we have heard before, some of which remain as open questions and continue to remain a challenge. Importantly, Amazon Web Services (AWS) Cloud onboarding, when to use what resources, how to set them up, and how to discuss needs with organizational leadership and IT staff, which often falls outside the scope of NASA DAACs, yet it’s a key element of helping users adopt the Cloud and use NASA data in the Cloud. It is encouraging to hear some of the champions starting to have conversations with their institutions, IT departments, and making their needs known, which is likely a big part of the solution, too. We are thankful to NASA Openscapes Champions for informing and nudging these conversations! All of this work is underpinned by Openscapes and NASA’s commitment to open science practices and a kinder collaborative culture. This cohort is funded by NASA and is part of our NASA Openscapes Framework project.

Report↗

USGS1976

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

An inventory of the use of USGS products in selected planning studies, plans, ordinances, and other planning activities was made for eight counties in the San Francisco Bay region--a region of almost five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of the 87 earth-science information products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all eight counties had planning staffs who were very familiar with SFBRS products and had made frequent use of such products; (2) all eight counties had prepared planning documents which cite SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were: geologic hazards studies, seismic safety and public safety plan elements, general reference, and the preparation and review of environmental impact reports and statements; (4) over 90 percent of the 87 SFBRS products were used at least once, and nine of the products were used over 30 times each for various county planning activities; and (5) at least 85 other USGS products were also used for various county planning activities. After the inventory, selected county officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked--among other things--to indicate any problems in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any needed or desired earth-science information. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for working maps were 1:62,500 or larger and for plan implementation were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) only one county had a geologist on its planning staff, although six others had the benefit of geotechnical services from private consulting firms, county engineering staffs, or the State Division of Mines and Geology; (3) seven of the eight counties expressed some problems in using the products, primarily because of their small scale or lack of detail; (4) all eight counties expected to continue to use the products and expressed a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other information; (5) all eight counties suggested specific improvements to future products, primarily larger scale or more detail and fewer technical or more interpretive products; and (6) all eight counties received educational, advisory, and review services from USGS personnel. Seventeen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various county planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include four planning studies, seven plans, and two ordinances. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the counties in the Bay region are very familiar with, have made frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of county planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring emerging critical issues and analyzing new state and federal laws and regulations so as to better anticipate and respond to county earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and user needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development so as to husband staff resources; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by counties; (6) releasing earth-science information earlier and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Science to support the understanding of Ohio's water resources

Ohio’s water resources support a complex web of human activities and nature—clean and abundant water is needed for drinking, recreation, farming, and industry, as well as for fish and wildlife needs. The distribution of rainfall can cause floods and droughts, which affects streamflow, groundwater, water availability, water quality, recreation, and aquatic habitats. Ohio is bordered by the Ohio River and Lake Erie and has over 44,000 miles of streams and more than 60,000 lakes and ponds (State of Ohio, 1994). Nearly all the rural population obtain drinking water from groundwater sources. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) works in cooperation with local, State, and other Federal agencies, as well as universities, to furnish decisionmakers, policymakers, USGS scientists, and the general public with reliable scientific information and tools to assist them in management, stewardship, and use of Ohio’s natural resources. The diversity of scientific expertise among USGS personnel enables them to carry out large- and small-scale multidisciplinary studies. The USGS is unique among government organizations because it has neither regulatory nor developmental authority—its sole product is reliable, impartial, credible, relevant, and timely scientific information, equally accessible and available to everyone. The USGS Ohio Water Science Center provides reliable hydrologic and water-related ecological information to aid in the understanding of use and management of the Nation’s water resources, in general, and Ohio’s water resources, in particular. This fact sheet provides an overview of current (2012) or recently completed USGS studies and data activities pertaining to water resources in Ohio. More information regarding projects of the USGS Ohio Water Science Center is available at http://oh.water.usgs.gov/.

Ohio↗

USGS2018

Artelle et al. (2018) miss the science underlying North American wildlife management

Artelle et al . (2018) conclude that “hallmarks of science” are largely missing from North American wildlife management based on a desk review of selected hunting management plans and related documents found through Internet searches and email requests to state and provincial wildlife agencies. We highlight three fundamental problems that compromise the validity of the conclusions posited: missing information to support selection of “hallmarks of science,” confusion about the roles and nature of science and management, and failure to engage effectively with the scientists and managers actively managing wildlife populations in North America.

Science Advances↗

USGS2013

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗

USGS2015

Social and Economic Analysis Branch: integrating policy, social, economic, and natural science

The Fort Collins Science Center's Social and Economic Analysis Branch provides unique capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey by leading projects that integrate social, behavioral, economic, and natural science in the context of human–natural resource interactions. Our research provides scientific understanding and support for the management and conservation of our natural resources in support of multiple agency missions. We focus on meeting the scientific needs of the Department of the Interior natural resource management bureaus in addition to fostering partnerships with other Federal and State managers to protect, restore, and enhance our environment. The Social and Economic Analysis Branch has an interdisciplinary group of scientists whose primary functions are to conduct both theoretical and applied social science research, provide technical assistance, and offer training to support the development of skills in natural resource management activities. Management and research issues associated with human-resource interactions typically occur in a unique context and require knowledge of both natural and social sciences, along with the skill to integrate multiple science disciplines. In response to these challenging contexts, Social and Economic Analysis Branch researchers apply a wide variety of social science concepts and methods which complement our rangeland/agricultural, wildlife, ecology, and biology capabilities. The goal of the Social and Economic Analysis Branch's research is to enhance natural-resource management, agency functions, policies, and decisionmaking.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2006

Assessing massive flank collapse at stratovolcanoes using 3-D slope stability analysis

Massive rock failures pose one of the greatest hazards at stratovolcanoes; more than 20,000 fatalities have resulted worldwide from historical volcano edifice collapses. Although numerous processes can destabilize an edifice, gravitational instability is strongly influenced by the interplay of topography, variable potential failure surfaces, and the three-dimensional (3-D) distributions of rock strength and pore-fluid pressure. We have developed a 3-D slope stability analysis that can search digital topography and determine the locations of minimum stability and the volumes of potential failures. We use this 3-D method to conduct preliminary stability analyses of three stratovolcanoes that have had large rock failures: Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier in the USA and Volcan Casita in Nicaragua. For the relatively uniform Mount St. Helens edifice, a 3-D analysis using topography alone provides a good predictor of the location and volume of the catastrophic 1980 collapse. At Mount Rainier, both topography and a 3-D distribution of weaker, hydrothermally altered rocks are needed to adequately characterize future hazard. For Casita, the location of the smaller, yet devastating, 1998 failure is predicted using topography and a reconnaissance interpretation of strength based on the distribution of fumarolic activity.

NATO Science Series↗

USGS2013

Global change and mercury

More than 140 nations recently agreed to a legally binding treaty on reductions in human uses and releases of mercury that will be signed in October of this year. This follows the 2011 rule in the United States that for the first time regulates mercury emissions from electricity-generating utilities. Several decades of scientific research preceded these important regulations. However, the impacts of global change on environmental mercury concentrations and human exposures remain a major uncertainty affecting the potential effectiveness of regulatory activities.

Science↗