SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Communications Earth & Environment”

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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

USGS2012

Methods of practice and guidelines for using survey-grade global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) to establish vertical datum in the United States Geological Survey

Geodetic surveys have evolved through the years to the use of survey-grade (centimeter level) global positioning to perpetuate and post-process vertical datum. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) technology to monitor natural hazards, ensure geospatial control for climate and land use change, and gather data necessary for investigative studies related to water, the environment, energy, and ecosystems. Vertical datum is fundamental to a variety of these integrated earth sciences. Essentially GNSS surveys provide a three-dimensional position x, y, and z as a function of the North American Datum of 1983 ellipsoid and the most current hybrid geoid model. A GNSS survey may be approached with post-processed positioning for static observations related to a single point or network, or involve real-time corrections to provide positioning "on-the-fly." Field equipment required to facilitate GNSS surveys range from a single receiver, with a power source for static positioning, to an additional receiver or network communicated by radio or cellular for real-time positioning. A real-time approach in its most common form may be described as a roving receiver augmented by a single-base station receiver, known as a single-base real-time (RT) survey. More efficient real-time methods involving a Real-Time Network (RTN) permit the use of only one roving receiver that is augmented to a network of fixed receivers commonly known as Continually Operating Reference Stations (CORS). A post-processed approach in its most common form involves static data collection at a single point. Data are most commonly post-processed through a universally accepted utility maintained by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS), known as the Online Position User Service (OPUS). More complex post-processed methods involve static observations among a network of additional receivers collecting static data at known benchmarks. Both classifications provide users flexibility regarding efficiency and quality of data collection. Quality assurance of survey-grade global positioning is often overlooked or not understood and perceived uncertainties can be misleading. GNSS users can benefit from a blueprint of data collection standards used to ensure consistency among USGS mission areas. A classification of GNSS survey qualities provide the user with the ability to choose from the highest quality survey used to establish objective points with low uncertainties, identified as a Level I, to a GNSS survey for general topographic control without quality assurance, identified as a Level IV. A Level I survey is strictly limited to post-processed methods, whereas Level II, Level III, and Level IV surveys integrate variations of a RT approach. Among these classifications, techniques involving blunder checks and redundancy are important, and planning that involves the assessment of the overall satellite configuration, as well as terrestrial and space weather, are necessary to ensure an efficient and quality campaign. Although quality indicators and uncertainties are identified in post-processed methods using CORS, the accuracy of a GNSS survey is most effectively expressed as a comparison to a local benchmark that has a high degree of confidence. Real-time and post-processed methods should incorporate these "trusted" benchmarks as a check during any campaign. Global positioning surveys are expected to change rapidly in the future. The expansion of continuously operating reference stations, combined with newly available satellite signals, and enhancements to the conterminous geoid, are all sufficient indicators for substantial growth in real-time positioning and quality thereof.

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2022

National strategy for landslide loss reduction

Executive Summary Landslide hazards are present in all 50 States and most U.S. territories, and they affect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Landslides are the downslope movement of earth materials under the force of gravity. They can occur without any obvious trigger. Widespread or severe landslide events are often driven by such hazards as hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, heavy rain events, flooding, and wildfires. Landslides can also cause their own cascading consequences, such as the spread of hazardous materials or the creation of devastating local tsunamis. This strategy document describes goals and strategic actions of a comprehensive strategy to meet key challenges to reducing the Nation’s risk from landslide hazards equitably and effectively. The document follows the direction of the National Landslide Preparedness Act (Public Law 116–323) by presenting a strategy for addressing landslide hazards, including risk reduction and response. The act directs the Department of the Interior to establish a program that will work with State, Tribal, and local governments as well as with academia, the private sector, community-based groups, and nonprofit organizations to identify landslide hazards and risk and improve communication, coordination, and emergency preparedness, with the objective of reducing landslide losses. As the only Federal program dedicated to landslide hazard science, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program will lead and coordinate many of the efforts described in this strategy document. Landslide hazard risk reduction must be undertaken collectively and collaboratively across the Federal Government. This strategy document will provide a framework for the creation of an interagency management plan that describes the programs, projects, workforce, and budgets required to carry out the national strategy. The strategy outlined in this document presents a vision of how to equitably produce, communicate, and apply landslide data and science to support a broad range of land management, infrastructure, planning, and emergency response decisions. These decisions are made by a variety of actors, including private and nonprofit landholders; State, Tribal, territorial, city, and county planners; emergency managers; engineers; infrastructure managers; Federal agencies and their partners; and community leaders and individuals. Supporting those decisions and reducing the Nation’s vulnerability to landslides requires overcoming three main challenges: (1) gaps in basic information needed to describe and understand landslide occurrence and societal risk, (2) difficulty in accurately mapping and forecasting landslide hazards, and (3) communication and coordination among the many jurisdictions and sectors that have responsibility for and interest in reducing landslide losses. To address those challenges, this strategy document puts forward a series of strategic actions to achieve four goals: Assess: Decision makers have access to detailed, nationwide, and contextually relevant information on landslide hazard and risk. Coordinate: Landslide hazard mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery efforts are coordinated across Federal, State, Tribal, territorial, and local levels. Plan: Communities and land managers are prepared and able to plan for landslide hazards. Respond: Landslide surveillance, warnings, and responses to events are effective, efficient, equitable, cooperative, and data-driven to protect lives, property, infrastructure, and the environment. These strategic actions focus on expanding the knowledge of societal risk posed by landslides as well as better understanding of where, when, and why they occur. They focus on applying that knowledge to support landslide risk reduction efforts and decisions, including the establishment of new advisory, coordination, and working groups focused on landslide hazard and risk. They take into account that supporting landslide loss reduction decisions also requires new guidance, tools, and training codeveloped with the entities, organizations, and individuals faced with making those decisions. Finally, they address actions needed to support and expand landslide warning information and improve the technical response to landslide emergencies.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) imaging spectrometer for lunar science: Instrument description, calibration, on‐orbit measurements, science data calibration and on‐orbit validation

The NASA Discovery Moon Mineralogy Mapper imaging spectrometer was selected to pursue a wide range of science objectives requiring measurement of composition at fine spatial scales over the full lunar surface. To pursue these objectives, a broad spectral range imaging spectrometer with high uniformity and high signal-to-noise ratio capable of measuring compositionally diagnostic spectral absorption features from a wide variety of known and possible lunar materials was required. For this purpose the Moon Mineralogy Mapper imaging spectrometer was designed and developed that measures the spectral range from 430 to 3000 nm with 10 nm spectral sampling through a 24 degree field of view with 0.7 milliradian spatial sampling. The instrument has a signal-to-noise ratio of greater than 400 for the specified equatorial reference radiance and greater than 100 for the polar reference radiance. The spectral cross-track uniformity is >90% and spectral instantaneous field-of-view uniformity is >90%. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper was launched on Chandrayaan-1 on the 22nd of October. On the 18th of November 2008 the Moon Mineralogy Mapper was turned on and collected a first light data set within 24 h. During this early checkout period and throughout the mission the spacecraft thermal environment and orbital parameters varied more than expected and placed operational and data quality constraints on the measurements. On the 29th of August 2009, spacecraft communication was lost. Over the course of the flight mission 1542 downlinked data sets were acquired that provide coverage of more than 95% of the lunar surface. An end-to-end science data calibration system was developed and all measurements have been passed through this system and delivered to the Planetary Data System (PDS.NASA.GOV). An extensive effort has been undertaken by the science team to validate the Moon Mineralogy Mapper science measurements in the context of the mission objectives. A focused spectral, radiometric, spatial, and uniformity validation effort has been pursued with selected data sets including an Earth-view data set. With this effort an initial validation of the on-orbit performance of the imaging spectrometer has been achieved, including validation of the cross-track spectral uniformity and spectral instantaneous field of view uniformity. The Moon Mineralogy Mapper is the first imaging spectrometer to measure a data set of this kind at the Moon. These calibrated science measurements are being used to address the full set of science goals and objectives for this mission.

Journal of Geophysical Research E: Planets↗

USGS2017

Best practices for virtual participation in meetings: Experiences from synthesis centers

The earth environment is a complex system, in which collaborative scientific approaches can provide major benefits by bringing together diverse perspectives, methods, and data, to achieve robust, synthetic understanding (Fig. 1). Face-to-face scientific meetings remain extremely valuable because of the opportunity to build deep mutual trust and understanding, and develop new collaborations and sometimes even lifelong friendships (Alberts 2013, Cooke and Hilton 2015). However, it has been argued that ecologists should be particularly sensitive to the environmental footprint of travel (Fox et al. 2009); such concerns, along with the time demands for travel, particularly for multi-national working groups, provide strong motivation for exploring virtual attendance. While not replacing the richness of face-to-face interactions entirely, it is now feasible to virtually participate in meetings through services that allow video, audio, and file sharing, as well as other Web-enabled communication.

Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America↗

USGS2022

Astrochronology of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum on the Atlantic Coastal Plain

The chronology of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, ~56 Ma) remains disputed, hampering complete understanding of the possible trigger mechanisms of this event. Here we present an astrochronology for the PETM carbon isotope excursion from Howards Tract, Maryland a paleoshelf environment, on the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain. Statistical evaluation of variations in calcium content and magnetic susceptibility indicates astronomical forcing was involved and the PETM onset lasted about 6 kyr. The astrochronology and Earth system modeling suggest that the PETM onset occurred at an extreme in precession during a maximum in eccentricity, thus favoring high temperatures, indicating that astronomical forcing could have played a role in triggering the event. Ca content data on the paleo-shelf, along with other marine records, support the notion that a carbonate saturation overshoot followed global ocean acidification during the PETM.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia↗

USGS2020

Landsat 9: Empowering open science and applications through continuity

The history of Earth observation from space is well reflected through the Landsat program. With data collection beginning with Landsat-1 in 1972, the program has evolved technical capabilities while maintaining continuity of land observations. In so doing, Landsat has provided a critical reference for assessing long-term changes to Earth's land environment due to both natural and human forcing. Poised for launch in mid-2021, the joint NASA-USGS Landsat 9 mission will continue this important data record. In many respects Landsat 9 is a clone of Landsat-8. The Operational Land Imager-2 (OLI-2) is largely identical to Landsat 8 OLI, providing calibrated imagery covering the solar reflected wavelengths. The Thermal Infrared Sensor-2 (TIRS-2) improves upon Landsat 8 TIRS, addressing known issues including stray light incursion and a malfunction of the instrument scene select mirror. In addition, Landsat 9 adds redundancy to TIRS-2, thus upgrading the instrument to a 5-year design life commensurate with other elements of the mission. Initial performance testing of OLI-2 and TIRS-2 indicate that the instruments are of excellent quality and expected to match or improve on Landsat 8 data quality. Landsat-9 will maintain the current data acquisition rate of up to 740 scenes per day, with these scenes available from the Landsat archive at no cost to users. In this communication, we provide background and rationale for the Landsat 9 mission, describe the instrument payloads and ground system, and discuss data products available from the Landsat 9 mission through USGS.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

USGS1994

Worldwide Assessment of the Status of Seismic Zonation, Fourth International Forum on Seismic Zonation, Proceedings

We are pleased to provide you with information developed for the Fourth International Forum on Seismic Zonation which will be convened in two locations year in conjunction two major international meetings. The objectives are: 1) to assess the status of seismic zonation in every country of the world, 2) to evaluate the reasons for advances and new initiatives, and 3) to foster continued cooperation. Seismic zonation is the process that leads to risk reduction and sustainability of new development. It is based on the division of a geographic region into smaller areas or zones on the basis of an integrated assessment of the hazard, built, and policy environments of the region. Seismic zonation depends on hazard mapping performed on national/regional, subregional, and urban (i.e., microzonation) scales depending on the particular application. We gratefully acknowledge the written communications of many professionals who responded to our request for information. Also, we acknowledge the use of information contained in five valuable reports (see directories in the Appendices for information on where to obtain copies of the reports): 1. United Nations, 1990, Cooperative Project for Seismic Risk Reduction in the Mediterranean Region (SEISMED), proceedings, Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Coordinator, Geneva, Switzerland, 3 vols. (Franco Maranzana - Italy/Appendix D). 2. United States Geological Survey, 1992, The Worldwide Earthquake Risk Management (WWERM) Program, Reston, Virginia, 19 p (Paul Thenhaus or S.T. Algermissen - USA/ Appendix D). 3. Instituto Panamericano de Geografia Historia, 1992, Revista Geofisica, Lima, Peru, No. 37, July-December, 234 p (Alberto Giesecke- Peru/Appendix D). 4. Annali di Geofisica, 1992, Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) (Special Issue), International Lithosphere Program, Publication 209, Bologna, Italy, 257 p (Domenico Giardini-Italy/Appendix F). 5. International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth's Interior and European Seismological Commission, 1993, The Practice of Hazard Assessment, Golden, Colorado, 284 p (Write Bob Engdahl, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver Federal Center, Mail Stop 967, Denver, Colorado 80225, USA).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Linking fire and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals

Fire is a ubiquitous natural disturbance that affects 3–4% of the Earth's surface each year. It is a tool used by humans for land clearing and burning of agricultural wastes. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) do not explicitly mention fire, though many of the Goals are affected by the beneficial and adverse consequences of fires on ecosystem services. There are at least three compelling reasons to include a fire perspective in the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The first reason relates to the stated vision of the United Nations 2030 Agenda to protect the environment. In order to achieve environmental protection during sustainable development activities, it is necessary to understand and plan for the effects of disturbances, in this case fire, on ecosystem services. The second reason is that fires produce emissions with regional and global impacts on air quality and rainfall patterns. Fires contribute to global warming though the release greenhouse gases, primarily CO 2 , and black carbon, identified as a SLCP (short-lived climate pollutant). The third reason is that fire is one of several complex processes that lead to land degradation across the globe. Opportunities exist to incorporate a fire perspective into sustainable development projects or approaches. Two examples are highlighted here. Transdisciplinary communication and collaboration are needed to address the complex issues related to fire, and to climate and land use change.

Science of the Total Environment↗

USGS2021

The contribution of water radiolysis to marine sedimentary life

Water radiolysis continuously produces H 2 and oxidized chemicals in wet sediment and rock. Radiolytic H 2 has been identified as the primary electron donor (food) for microorganisms in continental aquifers kilometers below Earth’s surface. Radiolytic products may also be significant for sustaining life in subseafloor sediment and subsurface environments of other planets. However, the extent to which most subsurface ecosystems rely on radiolytic products has been poorly constrained, due to incomplete understanding of radiolytic chemical yields in natural environments. Here we show that all common marine sediment types catalyse radiolytic H 2 production, amplifying yields by up to 27X relative to pure water. In electron equivalents, the global rate of radiolytic H 2 production in marine sediment appears to be 1-2% of the global organic flux to the seafloor. However, most organic matter is consumed at or near the seafloor, whereas radiolytic H 2 is produced at all sediment depths. Comparison of radiolytic H 2 consumption rates to organic oxidation rates suggests that water radiolysis is the principal source of biologically accessible energy for microbial communities in marine sediment older than a few million years. Where water permeates similarly catalytic material on other worlds, life may also be sustained by water radiolysis.

Nature Communications↗

USGS2009

Comparative endocrinology in the 21st century

Hormones coordinate developmental, physiological, and behavioral processes within and between all living organisms. They orchestrate and shape organogenesis from early in development, regulate the acquisition, assimilation, and utilization of nutrients to support growth and metabolism, control gamete production and sexual behavior, mediate organismal responses to environmental change, and allow for communication of information between organisms. Genes that code for hormones; the enzymes that synthesize, metabolize, and transport hormones; and hormone receptors are important targets for natural selection, and variation in their expression and function is a major driving force for the evolution of morphology and life history. Hormones coordinate physiology and behavior of populations of organisms, and thus play key roles in determining the structure of populations, communities, and ecosystems. The field of endocrinology is concerned with the study of hormones and their actions. This field is rooted in the comparative study of hormones in diverse species, which has provided the foundation for the modern fields of evolutionary, environmental, and biomedical endocrinology. Comparative endocrinologists work at the cutting edge of the life sciences. They identify new hormones, hormone receptors and mechanisms of hormone action applicable to diverse species, including humans; study the impact of habitat destruction, pollution, and climatic change on populations of organisms; establish novel model systems for studying hormones and their functions; and develop new genetic strains and husbandry practices for efficient production of animal protein. While the model system approach has dominated biomedical research in recent years, and has provided extraordinary insight into many basic cellular and molecular processes, this approach is limited to investigating a small minority of organisms. Animals exhibit tremendous diversity in form and function, life-history strategies, and responses to the environment. A major challenge for life scientists in the 21st century is to understand how a changing environment impacts all life on earth. A full understanding of the capabilities of organisms to respond to environmental variation, and the resilience of organisms challenged by environmental changes and extremes, is necessary for understanding the impact of pollution and climatic change on the viability of populations. Comparative endocrinologists have a key role to play in these efforts.

Integrative and Comparative Biology↗

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↗

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↗

USGS2007

New ecological knowledge and practices for society and sustainability

As attributes of the Earth's ecosystems shift in the face of human impact and sustainability of ecosystem services becomes less certain, one important tool at the disposal of the scientific community and other groups is a blueprint for understanding, evaluating, and communicating the value of ecological services. The blueprint presented here is based on (1) an examination of the ecological and societal trade-offs accompanying any given action, (2) revised methods of communication, and (3) coordination of actions at many different scales. The Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) is a good example of a demand-driven “bridging institution” between academia, government, and civil society, and it works to collect and convert scientific information into information for policy, management, and conservation. Intergovernmental organizations like the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) are well placed to facilitate such coordination at the international level, through their work with member states. Through collaboration with the constituencies of such organizations as the Ecological Society of America, the blueprint described below has the potential to become an important tool for assessing and managing threats to ecosystem services that are essential to life.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗

USGS2000

2nd interface between ecology and land development in California

The 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development Conference was held in association with Earth Day 1997, five years after the first Interface Conference. Rapid population growth in California has intensified the inevitable conflict between land development and preservation of natural ecosystems. Sustainable development requires wise use of diminishing natural resources and, where possible, restoration of damaged landscapes. These Earth Week Celebrations brought together resource managers, scientists, politicians, environmental consultants, and concerned citizens in an effort to improve the communication necessary to maintain our natural biodiversity, ecosystem processes and general quality of life. As discussed by our keynote speaker, Michael Soule, the best predictor of habitat loss is population growth and nowhere is this better illustrated than in California. As urban perimeters expand, the interface between wildlands and urban areas increases. Few problems are more vexing than how to manage the fire prone ecosystems indigenous to California at this urban interface. Today resource managers face increasing challenges of dealing with this problem and the lead-off section of the proceedings considers both the theoretical basis for making decisions related to prescribed burning and the practical application. Habitat fragmentation is an inevitable consequence of development patterns with significant impacts on animal and plant populations. Managers must be increasingly resourceful in dealing with problems of fragmentation and the often inevitable consequences, including susceptibility to invasive oganisms. One approach to dealing with fragmentation problems is through careful landplanning. California is the national leader in the integration of conservation and economics. On Earth Day 1991, Governor Pete Wilson presented an environmental agenda that promised to create between land owners and environmentalists, agreements that would guarantee the protection of -endangered species and out of this grew the pioneering initiative, known as the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) program. California's vast expanse of seemingly endless resources has traditionally been viewed as justification for abusive land use practices. The modem day recognition that resources are finite has led to greater concern, not only for conserving what is left, but for restoring abused landscapes. Ecological restoration is a new science devoted to returning disturbed environments to a semblance of their 'pristine' state. Based on principles of 'revegetation,' restoration goes far beyond simple replanting, rather the ambition of ecological restoration is to return landscapes to functioning ecosystems and is the focus of the last section.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Landsat continuity: Issues and opportunities for land cover monitoring

Initiated in 1972, the Landsat program has provided a continuous record of earth observation for 35 years. The assemblage of Landsat spatial, spectral, and temporal resolutions, over a reasonably sized image extent, results in imagery that can be processed to represent land cover over large areas with an amount of spatial detail that is absolutely unique and indispensable for monitoring, management, and scientific activities. Recent technical problems with the two existing Landsat satellites, and delays in the development and launch of a successor, increase the likelihood that a gap in Landsat continuity may occur. In this communication, we identify the key features of the Landsat program that have resulted in the extensive use of Landsat data for large area land cover mapping and monitoring. We then augment this list of key features by examining the data needs of existing large area land cover monitoring programs. Subsequently, we use this list as a basis for reviewing the current constellation of earth observation satellites to identify potential alternative data sources for large area land cover applications. Notions of a virtual constellation of satellites to meet large area land cover mapping and monitoring needs are also presented. Finally, research priorities that would facilitate the integration of these alternative data sources into existing large area land cover monitoring programs are identified. Continuity of the Landsat program and the measurements provided are critical for scientific, environmental, economic, and social purposes. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Landsat; there are no other systems in orbit, or planned for launch in the short-term, that can duplicate or approach replication, of the measurements and information conferred by Landsat. While technical and political options are being pursued, there is no satellite image data stream poised to enter the National Satellite Land Remote Sensing Data Archive should system failures occur to Landsat-5 and -7.

Remote Sensing of Environment↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and responding to global change

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a nonregulatory Federal science agency with national scope and responsibilities, is uniquely positioned to serve the Nation’s needs in understanding and responding to global change, including changes in climate, water availability, sea level, land use and land cover, ecosystems, and global biogeochemical cycles. Global change is among the most challenging and formidable issues confronting our Nation and society. Scientists agree that global environmental changes during this century will have far-reaching societal implications (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the face of these challenges, the Nation can benefit greatly by using natural science information in decisionmaking. Since the passage of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the USGS has made substantial scientific contributions to understanding the interactive living and nonliving components of the Earth system. USGS natural science activities have led to fundamental advances in observing and understanding climate and land-cover change and the effects these changes have on ecosystems, natural-resource availability, and societal sustainability. Most of these major advances were pursued in partnership with other organizations within and outside the Department of the Interior. The inherent value of partnerships with other U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies and natural-resource managers is emphasized in all aspects of the planning and implementation of this Science Strategy for the coming decade. Over the next 10 years, the USGS will make substantial contributions to understanding how Earth systems interact, respond to, and cause global change. The USGS will work with science partners, decisionmakers, and resource managers at local to international levels (including Native American tribes) to improve understanding of past and present change; develop relevant forecasts; and identify those lands, resources, and communities most vulnerable to global change processes. Science will play an essential role in helping communities and land and resource managers understand local to global implications, anticipate effects, prepare for changes, and reduce the risks associated with decisionmaking in a changing environment. USGS partners and stakeholders will benefit from the data, predictive models, and decision-support products and services resulting from the implementation of this strategy. This Science Strategy recognizes core USGS strengths that are applied to key societal problems. It establishes seven goals for USGS global change science and strategic actions that may be implemented in the short term (1–5 years) and the longer term (5–10 years) to improve our understanding of the following areas of inquiry: Rates, causes, and impacts of past global changes; The global carbon cycle; Biogeochemical cycles and their coupled interactions; Land-use and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; Droughts, floods, and water availability under changing land-use and climatic conditions; Coastal response to sea-level rise, climatic change, and human development; and Biological responses to global change. In addition to the seven thematic goals, we address the central role of monitoring in accordance with the USGS Science Strategy recommendation that global change research should rely on existing “…decades of observational data and long-term records to interpret consequences of climate variability and change to the Nation’s biological populations, ecosystems, and land and water resources” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 19). We also briefly describe specific needs and opportunities for coordinating USGS global change science among USGS Mission Areas and address the need for a comprehensive and sustained communications strategy.

Circular↗

USGS2026

Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) Research Programme—A transdisciplinary approach to address the challenge of distributed volcanism in an urban environment

The Determining Volcanic Risk in Auckland (DEVORA) Research Programme was launched in 2008 to address the challenges associated with monogenetic volcanism in an urban setting and to enhance volcanic risk management in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a multi-agency, increasingly transdisciplinary (defined here as research that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries by integrating diverse types of knowledge, perspectives, and methods from academic and non-academic participants to create novel solutions to complex problems), and collaborative research program jointly led by Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland and Earth Sciences New Zealand (ESNZ; formerly GNS Science), with core funding from Natural Hazards Commission Toka Tū Ake (NHC; formerly the Earthquake Commission, EQC) and Te Kaunihera o Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Council (AC). The primary research focus of DEVORA is to investigate the geologic history, volcanic hazards, and risk posed by the basaltic intraplate Auckland Volcanic Field. Disruption from ash fall and gas from other Aotearoa New Zealand volcanoes is also considered. DEVORA’s work to explore exposure and vulnerability in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland is also useful for assessing risks from other non-volcanic natural hazards, such as seismic and tsunami hazards. The greater Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland region has an ethnically and socio-economically diverse population of approximately 1.7 million, representing about one-third of the Aotearoa New Zealand population, and hosts critical infrastructure of national significance. The size and nature of the populace, consequential economic base, and important infrastructure within Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland mean that the effects of a volcanic eruption would be felt nationally, including through the disruption of air travel to Aotearoa New Zealand. The hazards from such an eruption could potentially affect hundreds of thousands of people, businesses, and lifelines (critical infrastructure). A considerable challenge for emergency and risk managers is the monogenetic nature of the volcanic field. It is not known where or when the next eruption will occur, how much warning we may get before an eruption, nor how an eruption and its effects might unfold. In this contribution, we highlight the concept and collaborative intent of the DEVORA Programme and show how it has evolved over the 16 years since its inception. We describe how DEVORA has unified more than 100 researchers (including more than 50 graduate students) and numerous stakeholders to address key issues facing Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland and describe how research findings are being implemented into policy and communicated to stakeholder agencies and the public. We also illustrate the broader influence of the DEVORA Programme and provide some learnings that might benefit others embarking on similar integrated projects, especially those focused on distributed volcanism in and near populated areas.

Auckland↗

USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group proceedings, Nashville, Tennessee, October 22-24, 2024

Karst hydrogeologic systems represent challenging and unique conditions to scientists studying groundwater flow and contaminant transport. Karst terrains are characterized by distinct and beautiful landscapes, caverns, and springs, and many of the exceptional karst areas are designated as national or state parks. The range and complexity of landforms and groundwater flow systems associated with karst terrains are enormous, perhaps more than any other aquifer type. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Karst Interest Group (KIG), formed in 2000, is a loosely knit, grassroots organization of USGS and non-USGS scientists and researchers devoted to fostering better communication among scientists working on, or interested in, karst aquifers. The primary mission of the KIG is to encourage and support interdisciplinary collaboration and technology transfer among scientists working in karst areas. To accomplish its mission, the KIG has organized a series of workshops. To date (2024), nine KIG workshops, including the workshop documented in this report, have been held. The abstracts and extended abstracts provide a snapshot in time of past and current karst related studies. The USGS Water Availability and Use Science Program funded the workshop and proceedings. The planning committee for the ninth workshop includes Thomas D. Byl (USGS and Tennessee State University), Allan K. Clark (USGS), Laura M. DeMott (USGS), Eve L. Kuniansky (USGS, Emeritus), Benjamin V. Miller (USGS), and Lawrence E. Spangler (USGS, Emeritus). The workshop proceedings are edited by Eve L. Kuniansky and Lawrence E. Spangler. The field trip guide was produced by Benjamin V. Miller and Brian Ham (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation) and included in the proceedings from the KIG’s 2021 virtual workshop to be used on the optional field trip held on Thursday, October 24, 2024.

Open-File Report↗