SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Applied Sciences”

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 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

USGS2023

The benefits of big-team science for conservation: Lessons learned from trinational monarch butterfly collaborations

Many pressing conservation issues are complex problems caused by multiple social and environmental drivers; their resolution is aided by interdisciplinary teams of scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders working together. In these situations, how do we generate science to effectively guide conservation (resource management and policy) decisions? This paper describes elements of successful big-team science in conservation, as well as shortcomings and lessons learned, based on our work with the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ) in North America. We summarize literature on effective science teams, extracting information about elements of success, effective implementation approaches, and barriers or pitfalls. We then describe recent and ongoing conservation science for the monarch butterfly in North America. We focus primarily on the activities of the Monarch Conservation Science Partnership–an international collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists, policy experts and natural resource managers spanning government, non-governmental and academic institutions—which developed science to inform imperilment status, recovery options, and monitoring strategies. We couch these science efforts in the adaptative management framework of Strategic Habitat Conservation, the business model for conservation employed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to inform decision-making needs identified by stakeholders from Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We conclude with elements critical to effective big-team conservation science, discuss why science teams focused on applied conservation problems are unique relative to science teams focusing on traditional or theoretical research, and list benefits of big team science in conservation.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗

USGS2022

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.

Conservation Biology↗

USGS2014

Landscape and climate science and scenarios for Florida

The Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative (PFLCC) is part of a network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that extend from Alaska to the Caribbean. LCCs are regional-applied conservation-science partnerships among Federal agencies, regional organizations, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private stakeholders, universities, and other entities within a geographic area. The goal of these conservation-science partnerships is to help inform managers and decision makers at a landscape scale to further the principles of adaptive management and strategic habitat conservation. A major focus for LCCs is to help conservation managers and decision makers respond to large-scale ecosystem and habitat stressors, such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and water scarcity. The purpose of the PFLCC is to facilitate planning, design, and implementation of conservation strategies for fish and wildlife species at the landscape level using the adaptive management framework of strategic habitat conservation—integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation. Florida faces a set of unique challenges when responding to regional and global stressors because of its unique ecosystems and assemblages of species, its geographic location at the crossroads of temperate and tropical climates, and its exposure to both rapid urbanization and rising sea levels as the climate warms. In response to these challenges, several landscape-scale science projects were initiated with the goal of informing decision makers about how potential changes in climate and the built environment could impact habitats and ecosystems of concern in Florida and the Southeast United States. In June 2012, the PFLCC, North Carolina State University, convened a workshop at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Science Center in St. Petersburg to assess the results of these integrated assessments and to foster an open dialogue about science gaps and future research needs.

Florida↗

USGS2011

Fort Collins Science Center fiscal year 2010 science accomplishments

The scientists and technical professionals at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center (FORT), apply their diverse ecological, socioeconomic, and technological expertise to investigate complicated ecological problems confronting managers of the Nation's biological resources. FORT works closely with U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) agency scientists, the academic community, other USGS science centers, and many other partners to provide critical information needed to help answer complex natural-resource management questions. In Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10), FORT's scientific and technical professionals conducted ongoing, expanded, and new research vital to the science needs and management goals of DOI, other Federal and State agencies, and nongovernmental organizations in the areas of aquatic systems and fisheries, climate change, data and information integration and management, invasive species, science support, security and technology, status and trends of biological resources (including the socioeconomic aspects), terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, and wildlife resources, including threatened and endangered species. This report presents selected FORT science accomplishments for FY10 by the specific USGS mission area or science program with which each task is most closely associated, though there is considerable overlap. The report also includes all FORT publications and other products published in FY10, as well as staff accomplishments, appointments, committee assignments, and invited presentations.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2021

Leveraging risk communication science across US federal agencies

Many US federal agencies apply principles from risk communication science across a wide variety of hazards. In so doing, they identify key research and practice gaps that, if addressed, could help better serve the nation’s communities and greatly enhance practice, research, and policy development.

Nature Human Behavior↗

USGS2016

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular↗

USGS2017

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2016 year in review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRU) Program had a productive year in 2016. Despite vacancies in our scientist ranks exceeding 20 percent, our research, training, and teaching portfolio was full and we graduated 93 students and published 398 manuscripts primarily focused on addressing the real conservation challenges of our cooperators. As I’ve stated before, our mission is our legacy: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our scientists and the manner in which they approach our mission continue to inspire me. The most rewarding part of my job is meeting and engaging with the students they recruit—the conservation professionals of the future. I cannot help but feel uplifted after discussions with and presentations by these young men and women. Personally, I owe my place in the profession today to the mentoring I received as a CRU student, and today’s CRU scientists have raised the bar. It gives me hope for the future of conservation, and added motivation to see our vacancies filled so that we can expand our portfolio. The National Cooperators’ Coalition has been active and is strategically working to build support on our behalf. Sincere thanks to the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Boone and Crockett Club, the National Association of University Fish and Wildlife Programs, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society for their efforts and those of their affiliated members. We co-sponsored a workshop at the 2016 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference along with the American Fisheries Society, the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and The Wildlife Society, titled “Barriers and Bridges in Reconnecting Natural Resources Science and Management.” The workshop was well received and we have been asked to continue the dialogue with a second workshop in 2017. It was evident during the workshop that the CRU is viewed by our cooperators as an important and essential linkage between academia and practitioners. This is testament to the legacy of the CRU Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of CRU projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matters.

Circular↗

USGS2010

Assessment and management of ecological integrity: Chapter 12

Assessing and understanding the impacts of human activities on aquatic ecosystems has long been a focus of ecologists, water resources managers, and fisheries scientists. While traditional fisheries management focused on single-species approaches to enhance fish stocks, there is a growing emphasis on management approaches at community and ecosystem levels. Of course, as fisheries managers shift their attention from narrow (e.g., populations) to broad organizational scales (e.g., communities or ecosystems), ecological processes and management objectives become more complex. At the community level, fisheries managers may strive for a fish assemblage that is complex, persistent, and resilient to disturbance. Aquatic ecosystem level objectives may focus on management for habitat quality and ecological processes, such as nutrient dynamics, productivity, or trophic interactions, but a long-term goal of ecosystem management may be to maintain ecological integrity. However, human users and social, economic, and political demands of fisheries management often result in a reduction of ecological integrity in managed systems, and this conflict presents a principal challenge for the modern fisheries manager. The concepts of biotic integrity and ecological integrity are being applied in fisheries science, natural resource management, and environmental legislation, but explicit definitions of these terms are elusive. Biotic integrity of an ecosystem may be defined as the capability of supporting and maintaining an integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to that of a natural habitat of the region (Karr and Dudley 1981). Following that, ecological integrity is the summation of chemical, physical, and biological integrity. Thus, the concept of ecological integrity extends beyond fish and represents a holistic approach for ecosystem management that is especially applicable to aquatic systems. The more general term, ecological condition, refers to the state of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the environment and the processes and interactions that connect them. While the concept of ecological integrity may appear unambiguous, its assessment and practice are much less clear. Ecological integrity made its debut in the USA with the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended through Public Law 107–303, November 27, 2002), which states only one objective, “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” This legislation compelled resource managers to focus on chemical pollution from point effluent sources, such as industrial and municipal outflows, as well as give attention to diffuse, chronic, and watershed effects on ecological integrity. Further, the CWA allowed pursuit of restoration programs in degraded water bodies and catalyzed the science and practice of restoration ecology. The term ecosystem health is often raised in discussions of ecological integrity. Perhaps it is natural to anthropomorphize our concern for personal health to ecosystems, so it becomes a useful metaphor for understanding the concept of ecological integrity. However, whether or not an ecosystem should be considered an entity, such as a superorganism, is a debate without end that began with early ecologists and continues today (Clements 1916; Suter 1993; Simon 1999a). Regardless, the ecosystem is indeed a natural unit with a level of organization and properties beyond the collection of those species that occupy it and presents the most appropriate spatial and organizational scale in which to assess and study ecological integrity. Streams and rivers serve as integrators of chemical, physical, and biological conditions across the landscape, and while the theory and practice associated with ecological integrity of aquatic systems is easily applied to flowing waters and is emphasized in this chapter, they are broadly applicable among all aquatic systems.

Book chapter↗

USGS1971

Field and office instructions in stream gauging for the Hydrological Survey of Zambia

The importance of water to the basic needs of man is self- evident and needs no particular emphasis. The importance of water to a developing economy cannot be overemphasized. A few decades ago, hydrology was a division of hydraulic engineering and was a tool for project survey, plan, and design. Today hydrology still remains an important part of planning and management of water use projects, but it is imperative that surface and ground-water basic data networks be designed and operated from the standpoint of both present and future water needs. Water problems are ever increasing and ever changing and preparation for the future water demands of Zambia requires knowledge of the hydrology of the country instead of the examination of piecemeal samples for each water use project. The hydrologic survey of Zambia needs to be under the guidance of competent and imaginative hydrologists solidly trained in all elements of basic data collection and analysis and not in the hands of water project planners. Hydrology is a science which requires the highest order of teamwork and the hydrologist will need the help and advice of many employees within the organization to operate the network, provide adequate research, and examine the water needs of the country. It must be thoroughly understood that communication is essential between the hydrological survey and water project planners from both the government and private sectors. It is very important to define the aims and duties of the Hydrological Branch of the Water Affairs Department in a clear cut "Statement of Policy". Personal copies of the statement should be made available to all professional employees and technicians. The reasons for the existence of the Branch may be self-apparent to heads of the organization, but to all other employees the reasons may be vague and unknown. Every member of the technical and administrative staff would benefit by an understanding of the purpose of his work. Nebulous ideas of the function of a hydrological survey of Zambia serve little purpose to the employee making the plans or those who execute them. A dissemination and free flow of ideas in all directions is necessary in any scientific and creative organization. The primary functions of the Hydrological Branch of the Water Affairs Department of Zambia are twofold: Water resource appraisal which includes the inventory of all surface and ground waters; Research, both basic and applied, in the science of water. Possibly some function regarding water law is also conceivable, although attachment of a law enforcement function to water-resource investigations might weaken the position of the Branch as an unbiased scientific organization. As the collection of basic streamflow data is a primary function of the Branch the following instructions for the collection, analysis and computation of streamflow records have been written.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2005

Wildlife as valuable natural resources vs. intolerable pests: A suburban wildlife management model

Management of wildlife in suburban environments involves a complex set of interactions between both human and wildlife populations. Managers need additional tools, such as models, that can help them assess the status of wildlife populations, devise and apply management programs, and convey this information to other professionals and the public. We present a model that conceptualizes how some wildlife populations can fluctuate between extremely low (rare, threatened, or endangered status) and extremely high (overabundant) numbers over time. Changes in wildlife abundance can induce changes in human perceptions, which continually redefine species as a valuable resource to be protected versus a pest to be controlled. Management programs thatincorporate a number of approaches and promote more stable populations of wildlife avoid the problems of the resource versus pest transformation, are less costly to society, and encourage more positive and less negative interactions between humans and wildlife. We presenta case example of the beaver Castor canadensis in Massachusetts to illustrate how this model functions and can be applied. ?? 2005 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.

Urban Ecosystems↗

USGS2003

Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: Current knowledge and key questions

Understanding of the effects of wildland fire and fire management on aquatic and riparian ecosystems is an evolving field, with many questions still to be resolved. Limitations of current knowledge, and the certainty that fire management will continue, underscore the need to summarize available information. Integrating fire and fuels management with aquatic ecosystem conservation begins with recognizing that terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are linked and dynamic, and that fire can play a critical role in maintaining aquatic ecological diversity. To protect aquatic ecosystems we argue that it will be important to: (1) accommodate fire-related and other ecological processes that maintain aquatic habitats and biodiversity, and not simply control fires or fuels; (2) prioritize projects according to risks and opportunities for fire control and the protection of aquatic ecosystems; and (3) develop new consistency in the management and regulatory process. Ultimately, all natural resource management is uncertain; the role of science is to apply experimental design and hypothesis testing to management applications that affect fire and aquatic ecosystems. Policy-makers and the public will benefit from an expanded appreciation of fire ecology that enables them to implement watershed management projects as experiments with hypothesized outcomes, adequate controls, and replication.

Forest Ecology and Management↗

USGS2016

Recreation, values and stewardship: Rethinking why people engage in environmental behaviors in parks and protected areas

Successfully promoting and encouraging the adoption of environmental stewardship behavior is an important responsibility for public land management agencies. Although people increasingly report high levels of concern about environmental issues, widespread patterns of stewardship behavior have not followed suit (Moore 2002). One concept that can be applied in social science research to explain behavior change is that of values. More specifically, held and assigned values lie at the heart of understanding why people around the world continue to live in unsustainable ways that impact parks and protected areas. A held value is an individual psychological orientation defined by Rokeach as “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or endstate of existence is personally and socially preferable” (1973, 550). Held values are at the core of human cognition, and as such, influence attitudes and behavior. Assigned values on the other hand, according to Brown (1984), are the perceived qualities of an environment that are based on and deduced from held values. In other words, assigned values are considered the material and nonmaterial benefits that people believe they obtain from ecosystems. Held and assigned values predict stewardship behaviors (Figure 1). During the 2013 George Wright Society Conference on Parks, Protected Areas, and Cultural Sites, we organized a session to improve our understanding of why individuals and groups choose to engage in stewardship behaviors that benefit the environment. We used held and assigned values as vehicles to explore what people cared about in diverse landscapes, review select case studies from across the globe, and question how best to incorporate visitor perspectives into protected area management decisions and policymaking. In addition to sharing project results, we also discussed the importance of accounting for multiple and often competing value perspectives, potential ways to integrate disciplinary perspectives on valuing nature, and future directions for social science research and practice. In this paper, we present the results from our session to provide fodder for further contemplation about the timely question of how park and protected area managers can foster values that lead to environmental protection.

Book chapter↗

USGS2026

The path to FAIR research models: Lessons learned

Numerical modeling of Earth surface processes emerged as an important scientific tool in the late 1960s to mid-1970s, driven by the development of finite element methods in computer science. These advancements, initially applied in civil engineering, enabled scientists to simulate complex geological phenomena. At that time, models were often only described in publications, access was limited to researchers with direct connections to the developers, and the code was rarely documented for reuse, limiting their application beyond the original research context. The FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) as applied to data began to take shape in the 21st century with the rise of open science, digital repositories, and standardized data sharing frameworks. In the late 2010s, grassroots movements began to apply some of the FAIRness goals to numerical models. Subsequently, more formalized FAIR model principles were developed that addressed the specific needs of the scientific modeling community, resulting in the formulation of the FAIR principles for research software (FAIR4RS). In this study, we examine the development and implementation of strategies by two geoscience research infrastructures – the CSDMS (Community Surface Dynamics Modeling System) Model Repository and the U.S. Geological Survey Model Catalog – to enhance the FAIRness of models guided by FAIR4RS. Some of the development and implementation efforts described predate the formalization of FAIR and FAIR4RS principles, making this an ongoing and adaptive process. We evaluate the temporal progression towards increased FAIR4RS alignment across three phases of research infrastructure development: prototype, refinement, and growth and iteration. Although certain principles were more straightforward to implement early in prototypes of the catalog infrastructures, others required broader community collaboration during refinement, and some continue to pose practical challenges in the growth and iteration phase. By tracing these dynamics, our aim is to provide insights that can guide other modeling initiatives in effectively adopting FAIR4RS principles within their communities.

Geoscientific Model Development↗

USGS2010

Effects of invasive alien kahili ginger (Hedychium gardnerianum) on native plant species regeneration in a Hawaiian rainforest

Questions: Does the invasive alien Hedychium gardnerianum (1) replace native understory species, (2) suppress natural regeneration of native plant species, (3) increase the invasiveness of other non-native plants and (4) are native forests are able to recover after removal of H. gardnerianum. Location: A mature rainforest in Hawai'i Volcanoes National Park on the island of Hawai'i (about 1200 m. a.s.l.; precipitation approximately 2770mm yr -1 ). Study sites included natural plots without effects of alien plants, ginger plots with a H. gardnerianum-domimted herb layer and cleared plots treated with herbicide to remove alien plants. Methods: Counting mature trees, saplings and seedlings of native and alien plant species. Using nonparametric H-tests to compare impact of H. gardnerianum on the structure of different sites. Results: Results confirmed the hypothesis that H. gardnerianum has negative effects on natural forest dynamics. Lower numbers of native tree seedlings and saplings were found on ginger-dominated plots. Furthermore, H. gardnerianum did not show negative effects on the invasive alien tree species Psidium cattleianum. Conclusions: This study reveals that where dominance of H. gardnerianum persists, regeneration of the forest by native species will be inhibited. Furthermore, these areas might experience invasion by P. cattleianum, resulting in displacement of native canopy species in the future, leading to a change in forest structure and loss of other species dependent on natural rainforest, such as endemic birds. However, if H. gardnerianum is removed the native Hawaiian forest is likely to regenerate and regain its natural structure. ?? 2009 International Association for Vegetation Science.

Applied Vegetation Science↗

USGS2024

Identifying priority science information needs for managing public lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management—the largest public land manager in the United States—in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

Environmental Management↗

USGS1999

USGS Science for Restoration of South Florida: The South Florida Ecosystem Program

As land and resource managers see the value of their resources diminish, and the public watches the environments they knew as children become degraded, there are increasing calls to restore what has been lost, or to build productive ecosystems that will be healthy and sustainable under the conditions of human use. The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Placed-Based Studies Program was established to provide sound science for resource managers in critical ecosystems such as South Florida (fig. 1). The program, which began in south Florida in 1995, provides relevant information, high-quality data, and models to support decisions for ecosystem restoration and management. The program applies multi- and interdisciplinary science to address regional and subregional environmental resources issues.

Florida↗

USGS2014

Hydrogeology of the Old Faithful area, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, and its relevance to natural resources and infrastructure

A panel of leading experts (The Old Faithful Science Review Panel) was convened by Yellowstone National Park (YNP) to review and summarize the geological and hydrological understanding that can inform National Park Service management of the Upper Geyser Basin area. We give an overview of present geological and hydrological knowledge of the Old Faithful hydrothermal (hot water) system and related thermal areas in the Upper Geyser Basin. We prioritize avenues for improving our understanding of key knowledge gaps that limit informed decision-making regarding human use in this fragile natural landscape. Lastly, we offer guidelines to minimize impacts to the hydrothermal system that could be used to aid decisions by park management. Old Faithful sits within the Upper Geyser Basin, an area of abundant hydrothermal activity where boiling waters extend from the surface to significant depth within glacial sediments and underlying volcanic rocks. The geyser systems are directly fed by waters recharged decades to millennia ago, which are surrounded by colder, younger waters. Activity of the geysers is controlled by complex subsurface plumbing with fractures and conduits separated by regions of low permeability. Observations over the past century indicate that the thermal areas and their features are both fragile and highly dynamic. Although Old Faithful has erupted regularly for the past 150 years, it exhibits changes in eruptive behavior over time, and the average interval between eruptions has increased by about 50 percent over the past 50 years. It is clear that human activity has modified the hydrothermal system in the past; conversely, natural features pose ongoing hazards to humans and human infrastructure. Current (2014) long-term programs to measure heat discharge by chloride-flux monitoring, and more recently by thermal-infrared imaging, are crucial for assessing the status of the hydrothermal system. Complementary studies could include airborne resistivity, environmental tracers, numerical modeling, and greater emphasis on measuring the discharge of water during geyser eruptions. Such data are needed to better understand the subsurface plumbing systems that feed the geysers. Further understanding can be gained through installation of shallow groundwater observation wells, surface geophysical studies, and direct measurement of temperature gradients near the surface. It also is critical to archive existing data from all studies in a manner that will be readily accessible to scientists and decision makers. Monitoring and data collection can be achieved through the YNP geology program, by direct funding to other groups, or by encouraging and facilitating externally funded research. There are many documented examples at YNP and elsewhere where human infrastructure and natural thermal features have negatively affected each other. Unless action is taken, human conflicts with the Old Faithful hydrothermal system are likely to increase over the coming years. This is partly because of the increase in park visitation over the past decades, but also because the interval between eruptions of Old Faithful has increased, lengthening the time spent (and services needed) for each visitor at Old Faithful. To avoid an increase in visitor impacts, the National Park Service should consider 2 alternate strategies to accommodate people, vehicles, and services in the Upper Geyser Basin, such as shuttle services from staging (parking and dining) areas with little or no recent hydrothermal activity. We further suggest that YNP consider a zone system to guide maintenance and development of infrastructure in the immediate Old Faithful area. A “red” zone includes hydrothermally active land where new development is discouraged and existing infrastructure is modified with great care. An outer “green” zone represents areas where cooler temperatures and less hydrothermal flow are thought to exist, and where development and maintenance could proceed as occurs elsewhere in the park. An intermediate “yellow” zone would require preliminary assessment of subsurface temperatures and gas concentrations to assess suitability for infrastructure development. The panel recommends that YNP management follow the lead of the National Park System Advisory Board Science Committee (2012) by applying the “precautionary principle” when making decisions regarding the interaction of hydrothermal phenomena and park infrastructure in the Old Faithful area and other thermal areas within YNP.

Wyoming↗

USGS2002

Abstracts for the symposium on the application of neural networks to the earth sciences

Artificial neural networks are a group of mathematical methods that attempt to mimic some of the processes in the human mind. Although the foundations for these ideas were laid as early as 1943 (McCulloch and Pitts, 1943), it wasn't until 1986 (Rumelhart and McClelland, 1986; Masters, 1995) that applications to practical problems became possible. It is the acknowledged superiority of the human mind at recognizing patterns that the artificial neural networks are trying to imitate with their interconnected neurons. Interconnections used in the methods that have been developed allow robust learning. Capabilities of neural networks fall into three kinds of applications: (1) function fitting or prediction, (2) noise reduction or pattern recognition, and (3) classification or placing into types. Because of these capabilities and the powerful abilities of artificial neural networks, there have been increasing applications of these methods in the earth sciences. The abstracts in this document represent excellent samples of the range of applications. Talks associated with the abstracts were presented at the Symposium on the Application of Neural Networks to the Earth Sciences: Seventh International Symposium on Mineral Exploration (ISME–02), held August 20–21, 2002, at NASA Moffett Field, Mountain View, California. This symposium was sponsored by the Mining and Materials Processing Institute of Japan (MMIJ), the U.S. Geological Survey, the Circum-Pacific Council, and NASA. The ISME symposia have been held every two years in order to bring together scientists actively working on diverse quantitative methods applied to the earth sciences. Although the title, International Symposium on Mineral Exploration, suggests exclusive focus on mineral exploration, interests and presentations have always been wide-ranging—abstracts presented here are no exception.

Open-File Report↗