Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Park Science”

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
USGS2016

Influence of climate drivers on colonization and extinction dynamics of wetland-dependent species

Freshwater wetlands are particularly vulnerable to climate change. Specifically, changes in temperature, precipitation, and evapotranspiration (i.e., climate drivers) are likely to alter flooding regimes of wetlands and affect the vital rates, abundance, and distributions of wetland-dependent species. Amphibians may be among the most climate-sensitive wetland-dependent groups, as many species rely on shallow or intermittently flooded wetland habitats for breeding. Here, we integrated multiple years of high-resolution gridded climate and amphibian monitoring data from Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks to explicitly model how variations in climate drivers and habitat conditions affect the occurrence and breeding dynamics (i.e., annual extinction and colonization rates) of amphibians. Our results showed that models incorporating climate drivers outperformed models of amphibian breeding dynamics that were exclusively habitat based. Moreover, climate-driven variation in extinction rates, but not colonization rates, disproportionately influenced amphibian occupancy in monitored wetlands. Long-term monitoring from national parks coupled with high-resolution climate data sets will be crucial to describing population dynamics and characterizing the sensitivity of amphibians and other wetland-dependent species to climate change. Further, long-term monitoring of wetlands in national parks will help reduce uncertainty surrounding wetland resources and strengthen opportunities to make informed, science-based decisions that have far-reaching benefits.

Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone National Pa↗
USGS1987

The geologic story of Yosemite National Park

Within 150 years, Yosemite has moved from great obscurity to worldwide fame as one of the most visited of our national parks. As a remarkable place where people can enjoy unparalleled scenes of natural beauty and where many easily observed geologic features are concentrated, the park is rivaled by few other areas on the planet. The majesty and immense variety of these features have inspired artists and photographers, intrigued tourists, and stirred controversy among geologists. Field studies in the Yosemite area have contributed to the development of our ideas about geologic processes, including the different actions of streams and glaciers in the evolution of the landscape, and the formation of granite, the basic bedrock of much of the Earth's continents. The park's role as a natural laboratory for geologic research cannot be overemphasized, and its investigation has led to many landmark studies by U.S. Geological Survey geologists over the past 70 years. In 1913, the first detailed program of research on the geology of the park and the origin ofYosemite Valley was begun by Francois Matthes and Frank Calkins. Their work, along with that of later generations of Survey geologists, myself included, serves as the basis for our present understanding of the geologic history of Yosemite and of the processes that formed and continue to mold its landscape. This book, which makes available in one volume a comprehensive summary of the current geologic knowledge of Yosemite National Park, is an excellent example of the Survey's continuing effort to provide earth-science information in the public service.

California↗
USGS2005

Host Fish Identification and Early Life Thermal Requirements for the Federal Endangered Winged Mapleleaf Mussel

The winged mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa, WML) is a Federal endangered species historically inhabiting at least 34 river systems in 12 Midwestern states. Only four populations are currently known to exist, including one confirmed reproducing population in the St. Croix National Scenic Riverway (NSR) bordering Minnesota and Wisconsin. Recovery efforts are limited by a lack of life history information, particularly which species of fish serve as host to the mussel's parasitic larvae (glochidia). Since 1997, biologists at the University of Minnesota have tried to identify host fish for the WML. Department of the Interior colleagues working in western Wisconsin at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's La Crosse Fishery Resources Office and Genoa National Fish Hatchery, the National Park Service's St. Croix NSR, and the U.S. Geological Survey's Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences Center (UMESC) in La Crosse joined the team in 2001 to expand and accelerate the laboratory host fish identification program by making use of the well-equipped aquatic research facilities at UMESC. We report on several WML early life history investigations conducted at UMESC since autumn 2003 to identify suitable host fish species and evaluate thermal requisites for the development of glochidia into free-living juvenile mussels.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2022

Looking ahead, guided by the past: The role of U.S. national parks in amphibian research and conservation

Protected areas like national parks are essential elements of conservation because they limit human influence on the landscape, which protects biodiversity and ecosystem function. The role of national parks in conservation, however, often goes far beyond limiting human influence. The U.S. National Park Service and its system of land units contribute substantively to conservation by providing protected lands where researchers can document trends in species distributions and abundances, examine characteristics important for generating these trends, and identify and implement conservation strategies to preserve biodiversity. We reviewed the contribution of U.S. national parks to amphibian research and conservation and highlight important challenges and findings in several key areas. First, U.S. national parks were instrumental in providing strong support that amphibian declines were real and unlikely to be simply a consequence of habitat loss. Second, research in U.S. national parks provided evidence against certain hypothesized causes of decline, like UV-B radiation, and evidence for others, such as introduced species and disease. However, describing declines and identifying causes contributes to conservation only if it leads to management; importantly, U.S. national parks have implemented many conservation strategies and evaluated their effectiveness in recovering robust amphibian populations. Among these, removal of invasive species, especially fishes; conservation translocations; and habitat creation and enhancement stand out as examples of successful conservation strategies with broad applicability. Successful management for amphibians is additionally complicated by competing mandates and stakeholder interests; for example, past emphasis on increasing visitor enjoyment by introducing fish to formerly fishless lakes had devastating consequences for many amphibians. Other potential conflicts with amphibian conservation include increasing development, increased risk of introductions of disease and exotic species with increased visitation, and road mortality. Decision science and leveraging partnerships have proven to be key components of effective conservation under conflicting mandates in national parks. As resource managers grapple with large-scale drivers that are outside local control, public-private partnerships and adaptive strategies are increasing in importance. U.S. national parks have played an important role in many aspects of identifying and ameliorating the amphibian decline crisis and will continue to be essential for the conservation of amphibians in the future.

Ecological Indicators↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey environmental health science strategy — Providing environmental health science for a changing world

Executive Summary 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 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, quality of life, and economic prosperity lead to environmental change. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will compound the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, synthetic chemicals and substances, natural earth materials, toxins, and other biogenic compounds. 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. 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. 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 decisionmaking. 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; World Health Organization, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA; American Veterinary Medical Association, 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.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Applying recreation ecology science to sustainably manage camping impacts: A classification of camping management strategies

Wilderness and other protected natural areas such as national forests, parks, and refuges are managed to provide high-quality recreational opportunities while preserving natural resource conditions. In managing recreation visitation, land managers could allow visitors to create their own infrastructure of trails and campsites, or they could choose to apply an impact management strategy to provide an infrastructure that includes sustainably designed trails and campsites. Recreation ecology studies have repeatedly demonstrated that informal “visitor-created” trails and campsites are generally not sustainably designed or located (Cole 1981, 1982a, 2013; Marion 2016; Wimpey and Marion 2011). For example, informal trails frequently occur in flat terrain where trail widening and muddiness can be chronic problems, or are fall-aligned (perpendicular to contour lines) in sloping terrain, where they are considerably more vulnerable to soil loss and widening (Marion et al. 2016; Marion and Wimpey 2017). Similarly, visitors are highly attracted to flat terrain near water for camping, where they frequently create substantial numbers of large and unnecessary campsites at densities that threaten visitor solitude, experiential qualities, and natural resources.

International Journal of Wilderness↗
USGS2022

Supplemental vegetation monitoring plots at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument to accelerate learning of the Annual Brome Adaptive Management (ABAM) model

The Annual Brome Adaptive Management (ABAM) project is a consortium of seven parks in the Northern Great Plains (NGP) working together to better understand how to control invasive annual grasses (including Bromus species) through an adaptive management approach. This approach is supported by a quantitative model that uses current data from standardized vegetation monitoring plots in all seven parks to annually update the model’s parameters and predictions regarding the effects of different management actions on invasive annual grasses and other components of the mixed-grass prairie plant community. This updating of the model is called “learning.” The original ABAM model has little information about the effects of the herbicide indaziflam (Esplanade or Rejuvra, Bayer Environmental Sciences) on target invasive annual grasses and other components of the vegetation in conditions like those that frequently occur in ABAM parks (i.e., ungrazed). The purpose of this study is to provide some of that information in order to accelerate the rate of learning accomplished in the adaptive management cycle. This annual report to the partner provides that information as collected in 2022 in 3 plots at Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument.

Montana↗
USGS2011

The story of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory -- A remarkable first 100 years of tracking eruptions and earthquakes

The year 2012 marks the centennial of the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO). With the support and cooperation of visionaries, financiers, scientists, and other individuals and organizations, HVO has successfully achieved 100 years of continuous monitoring of Hawaiian volcanoes. As we celebrate this milestone anniversary, we express our sincere mahalo—thanks—to the people who have contributed to and participated in HVO’s mission during this past century. First and foremost, we owe a debt of gratitude to the late Thomas A. Jaggar, Jr., the geologist whose vision and efforts led to the founding of HVO. We also acknowledge the pioneering contributions of the late Frank A. Perret, who began the continuous monitoring of Kīlauea in 1911, setting the stage for Jaggar, who took over the work in 1912. Initial support for HVO was provided by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the Carnegie Geophysical Laboratory, which financed the initial cache of volcano monitoring instruments and Perret’s work in 1911. The Hawaiian Volcano Research Association, a group of Honolulu businessmen organized by Lorrin A. Thurston, also provided essential funding for HVO’s daily operations starting in mid-1912 and continuing for several decades. Since HVO’s beginning, the University of Hawaiʻi (UH), called the College of Hawaii until 1920, has been an advocate of HVO’s scientific studies. We have benefited from collaborations with UH scientists at both the Hilo and Mänoa campuses and look forward to future cooperative efforts to better understand how Hawaiian volcanoes work. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated HVO continuously since 1947. Before then, HVO was under the administration of various Federal agencies—the U.S. Weather Bureau, at the time part of the Department of Agriculture, from 1919 to 1924; the USGS, which first managed HVO from 1924 to 1935; and the National Park Service from 1935 to 1947. For 76 of its first 100 years, HVO has been part of the USGS, the Nation’s premier Earth science agency. It currently operates under the direction of the USGS Volcano Science Center, which now supports five volcano observatories covering six U.S. areas—Hawaiʻi (HVO), Alaska and the Northern Mariana Islands (Alaska Volcano Observatory), Washington and Oregon (Cascades Volcano Observatory), California (California Volcano Observatory), and the Yellowstone region (Yellowstone Volcano Observatory). Although the National Park Service (NPS) managed HVO for only 12 years, HVO has enjoyed a close working relationship with Hawaiʻi Volcanoes National Park (named Hawaii National Park until 1961) since the park’s founding in 1916. Today, as in past years, the USGS and NPS work together to ensure the safety and education of park visitors. We are grateful to all park employees, particularly Superintendent Cindy Orlando and Chief Ranger Talmadge Magno and their predecessors, for their continuing support of HVO’s mission. HVO also works closely with the Hawaiʻi County Civil Defense. During volcanic and earthquake crises, we have appreciated the support of civil defense staff, especially that of Harry Kim and Quince Mento, who administered the agency during highly stressful episodes of Kīlauea's ongoing eruption. Our work in remote areas on Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes is possible only with the able assistance of Hawaiʻi County and private pilots who have safely flown HVO staff to eruption sites through the decades. A special mahalo goes to David Okita, who has been HVO’s principal helicopter pilot for more than two decades. Many commercial and Civil Air Patrol pilots have also assisted HVO by reporting their observations during various eruptive events. Hawaiʻi’s news media—print, television, radio, and online sources—do an excellent job of distributing volcano and earthquake information to the public. Their assistance is invaluable to HVO, especially during times of crisis. HVO’s efforts to provide timely and accurate scientific information about Hawaiian volcanoes and earthquakes succeed only because of you, our receptive and keenly aware public. By following the activity of Hawaiʻi’s active volcanoes through our daily eruption updates posted on the HVO website, viewing HVO webcam images, reading our weekly “Volcano Watch” articles, and attending our public lectures, you help us to ensure that you can live safely with Hawaiʻi’s dynamic volcanoes. To everyone who has shared in HVO’s reaching this milestone—100 years of continuous volcano monitoring—we extend our deepest gratitude. Mahalo nui loa!

Hawai'i↗
USGS2012

The Glen Canyon Dam adaptive management program: Progress and immediate challenges

Adaptive management emerged as an important resource management strategy for major river systems in the United States (US) in the early 1990s. The Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (‘the Program’) was formally established in 1997 to fulfill a statutory requirement in the 1992 Grand Canyon Protection Act (GCPA). The GCPA aimed to improve natural resource conditions in the Colorado River corridor in the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area and Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona that were affected by the Glen Canyon dam. The Program achieves this by using science and a variety of stakeholder perspectives to inform decisions about dam operations. Since the Program started the ecosystem is now much better understood and several biological and physical improvements have been achieved. These improvements include: (i) an estimated 50% increase in the adult population of endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) between 2001 and 2008, following previous decline; (ii) a 90% decrease in non-native rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), which are known to compete with and prey on native fish, as a result of removal experiments; and (iii) the widespread reappearance of sandbars in response to an experimental high-flow release of dam water in March 2008.Although substantial progress has been made, the Program faces several immediate challenges. These include: (i) defining specific, measurable objectives and desired future conditions for important natural, cultural and recreational attributes to inform science and management decisions; (ii) implementing structural and operational changes to improve collaboration among stakeholders; (iii) establishing a long-term experimental programme and management plan; and (iv) securing long-term funding for monitoring programmes to assess ecosystem and other responses to management actions. Addressing these challenges and building on recent progress will require strong and consistent leadership from the US Department of the Interior officials who guide the Program.

Arizona↗
USGS2021

Resilience to fire and resistance to annual grass invasion in sagebrush ecosystems of US National Parks

Western North American sagebrush shrublands and steppe face accelerating risks from fire-driven feedback loops that transition these ecosystems into self-reinforcing states dominated by invasive annual grasses. In response, sagebrush conservation decision-making is increasingly done through the lens of resilience to fire and annual grass invasion resistance. Operationalizing resilience and resistance concepts requires place-based understanding of resilience and resistance variation among landscapes over time. Place-based insights allow for landscape prioritization in targeted areas of significance such as protected-area sagebrush ecosystems that exhibit inherently low resilience and are therefore at high risk of loss. We used a multi-scale approach to evaluate sagebrush resiliency and strategic planning across 1) the US National Park system, 2) a regional suite of five parks, and 3) for two specific park case studies. First, we summarized broad patterns of relative resilience to fire and resistance to annual grass invasion across all parks with sagebrush ecosystems. We found that national parks represented ~11% of US protected-area sagebrush ecosystems and reflected a similar low-resilience bias that occurs across the biome, broadly. Climate change is likely to shift both low- and high-resilience park sagebrush ecosystems towards moderate resiliency, creating new opportunities and constraints for park conservation. Approximately seventy park units include at least some sagebrush shrublands or steppe, but we identified 40 parks with substantial amounts (>20% of park area) that can be included in an agency-wide conservation strategy. Second, we examined detailed patterns of resilience and resistance, fire history and fire risk, cheatgrass ( Bromus tectorum ) invasion, and sagebrush shrub ( Artemisia spp.) persistence in five national park units in Columbia Basin and Snake River Plain sagebrush steppe, contextualized by the broader summary. In these five parks, fire frequency and size increased in recent decades. Cheatgrass invasion and sagebrush persistence correlated strongly with resilience, burn frequency (0–3 fires since ~1940), and burn probability, but with important variation, in part mediated by local-scale topography. Third, we used these insights to assemble strategic sagebrush ecosystem fire protection mapping scenarios in two additional parks – Lava Beds National Monument and Great Basin National Park. Readily available and periodically updated geospatial data including soil surveys, fire histories, vegetation inventories, and long-term monitoring support resiliency-based adaptive management through tactical planning of pre-fire protection, post-fire restoration, and triage. Our assessment establishes the precarious importance of the US national park system to sagebrush ecosystem conservation and an operational strategy for place-based and science-supported conservation.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗
USGS2008

Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

Lava from Kilauea volcano flowing through a forest in the Royal Gardens subdivision, Hawai'i, in February 2008. The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory (HVO) monitors the volcanoes of Hawai'i and is located within Hawaiian Volcanoes National Park. HVO is one of five USGS Volcano Hazards Program observatories that monitor U.S. volcanoes for science and public safety. Learn more about Kilauea and HVO at http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov.

General Information Product↗
USGS2023

Burmese python size and reproduction: Fact vs fiction

We’ve probably all heard rumors about monster 25-foot snakes or baby pythons emerging from under neighbors houses year-round, but what is fact vs fiction? To help us sort truth from myth, invasive pythons that were removed from the Everglades and surrendered to the National Park Service (NPS) were scientifically investigated via a partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Science Center’s (USGS FORT) Invasive Species Science Branch. Other contributing partners were South Florida Water Management District and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Python Contractor and Agent programs. Over the past 25 years more than 4,000 wild Burmese pythons have been found and removed from southern Florida’s Greater Everglades Ecosystem.

Everglades Cooperative Invasive Species Management↗
USGS2009

Three short videos by the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory

This is a collection of videos of unscripted interviews with Jake Lowenstern, who is the Scientist in Charge of the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory (YVO). YVO was created as a partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Yellowstone National Park, and University of Utah to strengthen the long-term monitoring of volcanic and earthquake unrest in the Yellowstone National Park region. Yellowstone is the site of the largest and most diverse collection of natural thermal features in the world and the first National Park. YVO is one of the five USGS Volcano Observatories that monitor volcanoes within the United States for science and public safety. These video presentations give insights about many topics of interest about this area. Title: Yes! Yellowstone is a Volcano An unscripted interview, January 2009, 7:00 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions to explain volcanic features at Yellowstone: 'How do we know Yellowstone is a volcano?', 'What is a Supervolcano?', 'What is a Caldera?','Why are there geysers at Yellowstone?', and 'What are the other geologic hazards in Yellowstone?' Title: Yellowstone Volcano Observatory An unscripted interview, January 2009, 7:15 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions about the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory: 'What is YVO?', 'How do you monitor volcanic activity at Yellowstone?', 'How are satellites used to study deformation?', 'Do you monitor geysers or any other aspect of the Park?', 'Are earthquakes and ground deformation common at Yellowstone?', 'Why is YVO a relatively small group?', and 'Where can I get more information?' Title: Yellowstone Eruptions An unscripted interview, January 2009, 6.45 Minutes Description: USGS Scientist-in-Charge of Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, Jake Lowenstern, answers the following questions to explain volcanic eruptions at Yellowstone: When was the last supereruption at Yellowstone?', 'Have any eruptions occurred since the last supereruption?', 'Is Yellowstone overdue for an eruption?', 'What does the magma below indicate about a possible eruption?', 'What else is possible?', and 'Why didn't you think the Yellowstone Lake earthquake swarm would lead to an eruption?'

Wyoming↗
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↗
USGS2026

Southeastern Utah Federal lands science needs survey

Evidence-based scientific information can help support defensible decision making in the management of public lands. This report sought to identify current (2024–25) Federal agency research needs in southeastern Utah and to synthesize common management challenges and questions across jurisdictional boundaries. We implemented a science needs assessment focused on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (FS), and National Park Service (NPS) in southeastern Utah—the area delineated by BLM’s Canyon Country District Office, portions of the FS Manti-La Sal National Forest, and Southeast Utah Group NPS units. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) researchers met with and surveyed BLM, NPS, and FS staff in 2024 and 2025 to understand their science needs and preferred modes of information delivery. The USGS’s approach may be unrepresentative in terms of which topic areas were addressed, but the responses nevertheless highlight challenges and high-priority research areas that could contribute positively to agency decision making. Common management challenges and areas where additional research could be beneficial to land managers include the effects of climate change, recreation effects and visitor behavior, hydrology and hydrologic changes due to anthropogenic pressures, and the capacity for inventory and monitoring across essentially all resource types. Research on site-specific restoration techniques and their outcomes was also a common theme. In this report we discuss ways in which researchers can increase the extent to which their work could be actionable for resource managers and provide suggestions for potential priority research areas for the study region.

Utah↗
USGS2014

Land-margin ecosystem hydrologic data for the coastal Everglades, Florida, water years 1996-2012

Mangrove forests and salt marshes dominate the landscape of the coastal Everglades (Odum and McIvor, 1990). However, the ecological effects from potential sea-level rise and increased water flows from planned freshwater Everglades restoration on these coastal systems are poorly understood. The National Park Service (NPS) proposed the South Florida Global Climate Change Project (SOFL-GCC) in 1990 to evaluate climate change and the effect from rising sea levels on the coastal Everglades, particularly at the marsh/mangrove interface or ecotone (Soukup and others, 1990). A primary objective of SOFL-GCC project was to monitor and synthesize the hydrodynamics of the coastal Everglades from the upstream freshwater marsh to the downstream estuary mangrove. Two related hypotheses were set forward (Nuttle and Cosby, 1993): 1. There exists hydrologic conditions (tide, local rainfall, and upstream water deliveries), which characterize the location of the marsh/mangrove ecotone along the marine and terrestrial hydrologic gradient; and 2. The marsh/mangrove ecotone is sensitive to fluctuations in sea level and freshwater inflow from inland areas. Hydrologic monitoring of the SOFL-GCC network began in 1995 after startup delays from Hurricane Andrew (August 1992) and organizational transfers from the NPS to the National Biological Survey (October 1993) and the merger with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Biological Research Division in 1996 (Smith, 2004). As the SOFL-GCC project progressed, concern by environmental scientists and land managers over how the diversion of water from Everglades National Park would affect the restoration of the greater Everglades ecosystem. Everglades restoration scenarios were based on hydrodynamic models, none of which included the coastal zone (Fennema and others, 1994). Modeling efforts were expanded to include the Everglades coastal zone (Schaffranek and others, 2001) with SOFL-GCC hydrologic data assisting the ecological modeling needs. In 2002, as a response for a more interdisciplinary science approach to understanding the coastal Everglades ecological system, the SOFL-GCC hydrology project was integrated into the “Dynamics of Land-Margin Ecosystems: Historical Change, Hydrology, Vegetation, Sediment, and Climate” study (Smith and others, 2002). Data from the ongoing study has been useful in providing an empirical hydrologic baseline for the greater Everglades ecosystem restoration science and management needs. The hydrology network consisted of 13 hydrologic gaging stations installed in the southwestern coastal region of Everglades National Park along three transects: Shark River (Shark or SH) transect, Lostmans River (Lostmans or LO) transect, and Chatham River (Chatham or CH) transect (fig. 1). There were five paired surface-water/groundwater gaging stations on the Shark transect (SH1, SH2, SH3, SH4, and SH5) and one stage gaging station (BSC) in the Big Sable Creek; four paired surface-water/groundwater gaging stations on the Lostmans transect (LO1, LO2, LO3, and LO4); and three paired surface-water/groundwater gaging stations on the Chatham transect (CH1, CH2, and CH3). Both surface-water and groundwater levels, salinities, and temperatures were monitored at the paired gaging stations. Rainfall was recorded at marsh and open canopy gaging stations. This report details the study introduction, method, and description of data collected, which are accessible through the final instantaneous hydrologic dataset stored in the USGS South Florida Information Access (SOFIA) South Florida Hydrology Database website, http://sofia.usgs.gov/exchange/sfl_hydro_data/location.html#brdlandmargin .

Florida↗
USGS2002

Comparing shear-wave velocity profiles inverted from multichannel surface wave with borehole measurements

Recent field tests illustrate the accuracy and consistency of calculating near-surface shear (S)-wave velocities using multichannel analysis of surface waves (MASW). S-wave velocity profiles (S-wave velocity vs. depth) derived from MASW compared favorably to direct borehole measurements at sites in Kansas, British Columbia, and Wyoming. Effects of changing the total number of recording channels, sampling interval, source offset, and receiver spacing on the inverted S-wave velocity were studied at a test site in Lawrence, Kansas. On the average, the difference between MASW calculated Vs and borehole measured Vs in eight wells along the Fraser River in Vancouver, Canada was less than 15%. One of the eight wells was a blind test well with the calculated overall difference between MASW and borehole measurements less than 9%. No systematic differences were observed in derived Vs values from any of the eight test sites. Surface wave analysis performed on surface data from Wyoming provided S-wave velocities in near-surface materials. Velocity profiles from MASW were confirmed by measurements based on suspension log analysis. ?? 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering↗
USGS2002

A pitfall in shallow shear-wave refraction surveying

The shallow shear-wave refraction method works successfully in an area with a series of horizontal layers. However, complex near-surface geology may not fit into the assumption of a series of horizontal layers. That a plane SH-wave undergoes wave-type conversion along an interface in an area of nonhorizontal layers is theoretically inevitable. One real example shows that the shallow shear-wave refraction method provides velocities of a converted wave rather than an SH- wave. Moreover, it is impossible to identify the converted wave by refraction data itself. As most geophysical engineering firms have limited resources, an additional P-wave refraction survey is necessary to verify if velocities calculated from a shear-wave refraction survey are velocities of converted waves. The alternative at this time may be the surface wave method, which can provide reliable S-wave velocities, even in an area of velocity inversion (a higher velocity layer underlain by a lower velocity layer). ?? 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Journal of Applied Geophysics↗