Geology ReportsSearch

Geology topics

Dee M. Williams

Publications and source records attributed to Dee M. Williams.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy for Arctic Alaska, fiscal years 2022–24

Introduction The United States is an Arctic nation because of Alaska and thus maintains tremendous interests and stewardship responsibilities in the region, especially as the region undergoes substantial environmental transformation. This Arctic Science Strategy is intended to support those interests and responsibilities by expressing the core values, mission, vision, and the broad research goals and priority objectives of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for science coordination in Arctic Alaska. It synthesizes strategic planning activities across the USGS in the Arctic over the next 3-year planning horizon, identifies some major networks of collaboration, and aligns with current research priorities of the Department of the Interior Climate Action Plan, released October 7, 2021 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2021). Also, in recognition of the rapid pace of Arctic environmental changes and the corresponding need to move with urgency beyond routine patterns of operation, this strategy extends an implementation challenge to staff and colleagues in hopes of reaching for breakthrough results in some target areas of performance.

Alaska

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report

Maps of the Arctic Alaska boundary area as defined by the U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act—Including geospatial characteristics of select marine and terrestrial features

This pamphlet presents a series of general reference maps showing relevant geospatial features of the U.S. Arctic boundary as defined by the U.S. Congress since 1984. The first generation of the U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act (ARPA) boundary maps was originally formatted and published in 2009 by a private firm contracted with the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Arctic Research Commission. Recognizing the steadily increasing relevance of Arctic issues to national and global affairs that requires more functional projections and online tools, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Alaska Regional Office and the National Geospatial Technical Operations Center developed this updated series of ARPA boundary maps. Map sheet 1 shows the ARPA boundary as it relates to Alaska and marine features of the Bering Sea. Map sheet 2 shows the ARPA boundary from a circumpolar perspective. Map sheet 3 shows the national boundary of the U.S. 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone through the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, facilitating Arctic domain awareness and more consistent territorial assessments of the U.S. Arctic. Map sheet 4 shows, in poster-size detail, the ARPA boundary as it relates to terrestrial features of Arctic Alaska north of the Yukon and Kuskokwim Rivers. Map sheet 5 shows, in poster-size detail, the ARPA boundary as it relates to marine and terrestrial features of the Aleutian Islands. These new maps collectively illustrate several value-added attributes, including updated bathymetry and shoreline refinements, demographic information, international borders and offshore territorial claims, Alaska conservation areas, Alaska land cover, Alaska terrestrial shaded relief, annual sea ice maximum extent, annual circumpolar 10-degree-Celsius isotherm, location of active volcanoes, and updated geospatial information. The static PDF-file maps offer value as standalone products but are intended for use with a potential interactive website that can be sourced by annual data updates, allowing users to access the various map layers in a dynamic up-to-date environment.

Alaska

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

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

Hawaii