Geology topics

Nina Burkardt

Publications and source records attributed to Nina Burkardt.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

A gender and social vulnerability assessment approach

The report on an approach for gender and social vulnerability assessment is a supporting tool – or a guiding note – to assist the MRC to conduct the gender and vulnerability assessment in the Lower Mekong Basin. While the approach focuses on floods, droughts, and extreme storm events for the MRC’s future application, the overall gender and vulnerability framework described in this report could be applied to water resource development in the Mekong. It describes the steps for calculating exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity components to determine an overall vulnerability score at the province level for each of the Mekong countries, which will shed light on possible strategies and measures to reduce vulnerability and achieve greater gender equality.

Report↗

USGS2023

An integrated framework for examining groundwater vulnerability in the Mekong River Delta region

The Mekong River provides water, food security, and many other valuable benefits to the more than 60 million Southeast Asian residents living within its basin. However, the Mekong River Basin is increasingly stressed by changes in climate, land cover, and infrastructure. These changes can affect water quantity and quality and exacerbate related hazards such as land subsidence and saltwater intrusion, resulting in multiple compounding risks for neighboring communities. In this study, we demonstrate the connection between climate change, groundwater availability, and social vulnerability by linking the results of a numerical groundwater model to land cover and socioeconomic data at the Cambodia-Vietnam border in the Mekong River Delta region. We simulated changes in groundwater availability across 20 years and identified areas of potential water stress based on domestic and agriculture-related freshwater demands. We then assessed adaptive capacity to understand how communities may be able to respond to this stress to better understand the growing risk of groundwater scarcity driven by climate change and overextraction. This study offers a novel approach for assessing risk of groundwater scarcity by linking the effects of climate change to the socioeconomic context in which they occur. Increasing our understanding of how changes in groundwater availability may affect local populations can help water managers better plan for the future, leading to more resilient communities.

PLoS ONE↗

USGS2023

The Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Scenario Retrospective 2006–21

The U.S. Geological Survey Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project has created four major hazard scenarios—ShakeOut, ARkStorm, Tsunami Scenario, and HayWired—with multidisciplinary teams of scientists, academics, and practitioners. By presenting a clear and highly detailed narrative of potential damage from earthquakes, tsunamis, and winter storms, the scenarios are intended to foster science-based preparedness strategies and disaster risk reduction innovations. This evaluation explores the presence of these scenarios in cultures of preparedness and their role in disaster risk reduction, and reports barriers and enablers to creating and using these scenarios. To do this, the evaluation team developed a mixed-methods study that includes background research for each scenario, qualitative interviews, data collection of media and academic engagement, and examples of SAFRR scenario use in hazard planning. The data collection led to the development of a hazard scenario evaluation tool that combines theories from multiple disciplines to create a best practice set of categories that aid in scenario use and efficacy. The evaluation tool categories—actionable, longitudinal, educational, relevant, and thorough—are organized as a series of checklists that are used to determine how the scenario planners prioritized different aspects of the scenarios to achieve their goals. The tool could also be used to aid scenario planning for other regional disaster risk reduction scenarios of a similar scope. Findings from this evaluation include detailed narratives of scenario use over time, demonstrating that the scenarios have continued to be useful in hazard planning and preparedness across the globe. Examples of use include using the scenarios to advocate for resilient building and development policy, to promote hazard response exercises, and as source data for the development of new hazard models and science. The scenarios themselves are innovative, both in the hazard science created for scenario development and in their branding and public engagement as U.S. Geological Survey products. This SAFFR retrospective is a descriptive evaluation and does not formally address the effects of the scenarios. Nevertheless, this report does include evidence of scenario affects as discovered through qualitative interviews and research, which is presented to explore how the SAFRR scenarios have been received by cultures of preparedness.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2022

Navigating the space between policy and practice: Toward a typology of collaborators in a federal land management agency

Navigating the space between policy and on-the-ground natural resource management presents unique challenges. We interviewed 22 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Field Office Managers to understand their perceptions toward, and applications of, collaboration with public and private stakeholders. Interviews were transcribed and open-coded using qualitative data analysis software. Then, each interview was represented visually using the MaxQDA MaxMaps feature. We deductively coded each visual model and created a typology based on a mix of salient traits exhibited by each group. Differences emerged in each group’s approach to teaching and learning; communication style; attitude toward collaboration; attention to relational and substantive outcomes; and the ability to create space within the agency mission to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Findings can help agencies navigate the challenges associated with aligning agency directives with on-the-ground realities in different contexts when collaborators exhibit different traits.

Society and Natural Resources↗

USGS2022

2021 assessment of the Joint Fire Science Program’s Fire Science Exchange Network

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), on behalf of the Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP), conducted an evaluation of the Fire Science Exchange Network (FSEN), which connects wildland fire scientists and practitioners through 15 individual exchanges across the United States to help address complex wildfire needs and challenges. The study was divided into two phases: The first phase was a literature review and synthesis from materials provided by the JFSP Board. Phase two, informed by the JFSP review, was an online survey sent to more than 16,000 exchange network users compiled from the electronic mailing lists for each exchange. Respondents were asked their opinions on the importance, quality, and delivery of information for 16 key fire science topics, the prioritization of FSEN objectives, and from where and to what extent respondents are gathering information on key topics. Overall, respondents believed that sharing information and building relationships are the most important objectives of the FSEN. Respondents believed the exchange network is successful in delivering information for many of the key science topics (for example, fire behavior, prescribed fire, firefighter safety, and incident management); gaps were identified in scientific resources available for some topics (for example, economic impacts, social science and human dimensions, Indigenous knowledge). Most respondents participated in one to two exchanges and relied heavily on their respondent location (the exchange in which they primarily live and [or] work) for information. Respondents also often relied on external sources outside of the exchange network. Regional patterns emerged in information gathering whereby respondents from exchanges in the western United States (for example, Northern Rockies, Southern Rockies, and Northwest) and respondents from exchanges in the eastern United States (for example, Southern, Oak Woodlands, and Tallgrass) frequently gathered information from each other.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2021

A typology of drought decision making: Synthesizing across cases to understand drought preparedness and response actions

Drought is an inescapable reality in many regions, including much of the western United States. With climate change, droughts are predicted to intensify and occur more frequently, making the imperative for drought management even greater. Many diverse actors – including private landowners, business owners, scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and managers and policymakers within tribal, local, state, and federal government agencies – play multiple, often overlapping roles in preparing for and responding to drought. Managing water is, of course, one of the most important roles that humans play in both mitigating and responding to droughts; but, focusing only on “water managers” or “water management” fails to capture key elements related to the broader category of drought management. The respective roles played by those managing drought (as distinct from water managers), the interactions among them, and the consequences in particular contexts, are not well understood. Our team synthesized insights from 10 in-depth case studies to understand key facets of decision making about drought preparedness and response. We present a typology with four elements that collectively describe how decisions about drought preparedness and response are made (context and objective for a decision; actors responsible; choice being made or action taken; and how decisions interact with and influence other decisions). The typology provides a framework for system-level understanding of how and by whom complex decisions about drought management are made. Greater system-level understanding helps decision makers, program and research funders, and scientists to identify constraints to and opportunities for action, to learn from the past, and to integrate ecological impacts, thereby facilitating social learning among diverse participants in drought preparedness and response.

Colordao, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Or↗

USGS2020

Navigating climate adaptation on public lands: How views on ecosystem change and scale interact with management approaches

Managers are increasingly being asked to integrate climate change adaptation into public land management. The literature discusses a range of adaptation approaches, including managing for resistance, resilience, and transformation; but many strategies have not yet been widely tested. This study employed in-depth interviews and scenario-based focus groups in the Upper Gunnison Basin in Colorado to learn how public land managers envision future ecosystem change, and how they plan to utilize different management approaches in the context of climate adaptation. While many managers evoked the past in thinking about projected climate impacts and potential responses, most managers in this study acknowledged and even embraced (if reluctantly) that many ecosystems will experience regime shifts in the face of climate change. However, accepting that future ecosystems will be different from past ecosystems led managers in different directions regarding how to respond and the appropriate role of management intervention. Some felt management actions should assist and even guide ecosystems toward future conditions. Others were less confident in projections and argued against transformation. Finally, some suggested that resilience could provide a middle path, allowing managers to help ecosystems adapt to change without predicting future ecosystem states. Scalar challenges and institutional constraints also influenced how managers thought about adaptation. Lack of institutional capacity was believed to constrain adaptation at larger scales. Resistance, in particular, was considered impractical at almost any scale due to institutional constraints. Managers negotiated scalar challenges and institutional constraints by nesting different approaches both spatially and temporally.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2019

Natural resource management decision-making under climate uncertainty: Building social-ecological resilience in southwestern Colorado

The goal of this project was to facilitate climate change adaptation that contributes to social-ecological resilience, ecosystem and species conservation, and sustainable human communities in southwestern Colorado. The team developed and piloted integrated adaptation planning tools and principles that merge the strengths of the iterative scenario process, the Adaptation for Conservation Targets (ACT) planning framework, institutional analysis, and climate modeling. These tools and principles generated practical strategies and scientific knowledge to advance climate change adaptation in both the Gunnison River Basin and San Juan River Basin and, potentially, other landscapes. A key objective of this project was to work with decision-makers to develop social-ecological adaptation strategies and coordinate actions to reduce the impacts of a changing climate on nature and people. To accomplish this, the project blended science (biophysical and social) and participatory approaches to integrate expert knowledge, land management decision making, and local needs. These adaptation strategies and their creation process were documented by the project team to assist communities and scientists elsewhere who are grappling with the challenges posed by climate change.

Colorado↗

USGS2018

Ecological drought: Accounting for the non-human impacts of water shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA

Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.

Montana↗

USGS2015

Coping with earthquakes induced by fluid injection

Large areas of the United States long considered geologically stable with little or no detected seismicity have recently become seismically active. The increase in earthquake activity began in the mid-continent starting in 2001 ( 1 ) and has continued to rise. In 2014, the rate of occurrence of earthquakes with magnitudes ( M ) of 3 and greater in Oklahoma exceeded that in California (see the figure). This elevated activity includes larger earthquakes, several with M > 5, that have caused significant damage ( 2 , 3 ). To a large extent, the increasing rate of earthquakes in the mid-continent is due to fluid-injection activities used in modern energy production ( 1 , 4 , 5 ). We explore potential avenues for mitigating effects of induced seismicity. Although the United States is our focus here, Canada, China, the UK, and others confront similar problems associated with oil and gas production, whereas quakes induced by geothermal activities affect Switzerland, Germany, and others.

Science↗

USGS2015

A survey of Bureau of Land Management employees on collaboration and alternative dispute resolution

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been actively expanding its capacity to work cooperatively with other agencies, Tribes, the public, and other stakeholders using collaborative and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches. In 1997, the BLM created the BLM’s Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (Collaboration/ADR Program) to centralize, strengthen, and coordinate these efforts. Specifically, the Collaboration/ADR Program is charged with developing ADR policies; ensuring that statutory and regulatory requirements are met; and providing training, resources, and direct support for collaboration and ADR in the BLM. At the request of the Collaboration/ADR Program, the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, located in the Fort Collins Science Center, conducted an online survey of BLM employees in early 2013 to address four overarching questions: What information sources and assistance resources are BLM employees currently accessing to fill their conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration needs? What are the perceived information and resource needs of BLM employees associated with conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What information and resources can the BLM Collaboration/ADR Program provide to fill BLM employee needs? What is the BLM employee level of knowledge associated with conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What are the attitudes and perceptions of BLM employees toward conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? This report describes the findings of this online survey and will assist the BLM’s Collaboration and ADR Oversight Committee in developing the Strategic Plan for the Collaboration/ADR Program. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to advance collaboration in the BLM and to increase the capacity of the Collaboration/ADR Program to support collaborative efforts on the ground. In March 2013, a user-specific link to the online survey was sent via email to all current BLM employees ( n = 6,734) that could potentially have had experience in collaboration and conflict resolution based on their job series. The links took the respondents to a webpage where the survey was administered. Email reminders were sent at weekly intervals thereafter. When the survey closed in May 2013, the response rate was 45 percent (3,161 employees). Of these, only 14 percent (427 respondents) indicated that they did not have direct experience with collaboration or ADR, and were unlikely to gain experience in the future. Because these respondents were not the target population of this survey, they were branched to the demographic questions at the end of the survey and were not included in any further analyses. The remaining 86 percent (2,734 respondents) indicated that either they did have direct experience with collaboration and (or) ADR, or that they might gain experience with one or both in the future. Below we highlight some of the key findings from their survey responses (refer to the Results section for a comprehensive report of the survey findings).

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey core science systems strategy: Characterizing, synthesizing, and understanding the critical zone through a modular science framework

Executive Summary Core Science Systems is a new mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that resulted from the 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This report describes the Core Science Systems vision and outlines a strategy to facilitate integrated characterization and understanding of the complex Earth system. The vision and suggested actions are bold and far-reaching, describing a conceptual model and framework to enhance the ability of the USGS to bring its core strengths to bear on pressing societal problems through data integration and scientific synthesis across the breadth of science. The context of this report is inspired by a direction set forth in the 2007 Science Strategy. Specifically, ecosystem-based approaches provide the underpinnings for essentially all science themes that define the USGS. Every point on Earth falls within a specific ecosystem where data, other information assets, and the expertise of USGS and its many partners can be employed to quantitatively understand how that ecosystem functions and how it responds to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Every benefit society obtains from the planet— food, water, raw materials to build infrastructure, homes and automobiles, fuel to heat homes and cities, and many others— are derived from or affect ecosystems. The vision for Core Science Systems builds on core strengths of the USGS in characterizing and understanding complex Earth and biological systems through research, modeling, mapping, and the production of high quality data on the Nation’s natural resource infrastructure. Together, these research activities provide a foundation for ecosystem-based approaches through geologic mapping, topographic mapping, and biodiversity mapping. The vision describes a framework founded on these core mapping strengths that makes it easier for USGS scientists to discover critical information, share and publish results, and identify potential collaborations that transcend all USGS missions. The framework is designed to improve the efficiency of scientific work within USGS by establishing a means to preserve and recall data for future applications, organizing existing scientific knowledge and data to facilitate new use of older information, and establishing a future workflow that naturally integrates new data, applications, and other science products to make interdisciplinary research easier and more efficient. Given the increasing need for integrated data and interdisciplinary approaches to solve modern problems, leadership by the Core Science Systems mission will facilitate problem solving by all USGS missions in ways not formerly possible. The report lays out a strategy to achieve this vision through three goals with accompanying objectives and actions. The first goal builds on and enhances the strengths of the Core Science Systems mission in characterizing and understanding the Earth system from the geologic framework to the topographic characteristics of the land surface and biodiversity across the Nation. The second goal enhances and develops new strengths in computer and information science to make it easier for USGS scientists to discover data and models, share and publish results, and discover connections between scientific information and knowledge. The third goal brings additional focus to research and development methods to address complex issues affecting society that require integration of knowledge and new methods for synthesizing scientific information. Collectively, the report lays out a strategy to create a seamless connection between all USGS activities to accelerate and make USGS science more efficient by fully integrating disciplinary expertise within a new and evolving science paradigm for a changing world in the 21st century.

Circular↗

USGS2012

Science strategy for Core Science Systems in the U.S. Geological Survey, 2013-2023

Core Science Systems is a new mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that grew out of the 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This report describes the vision for this USGS mission and outlines a strategy for Core Science Systems to facilitate integrated characterization and understanding of the complex earth system. The vision and suggested actions are bold and far-reaching, describing a conceptual model and framework to enhance the ability of USGS to bring its core strengths to bear on pressing societal problems through data integration and scientific synthesis across the breadth of science. The context of this report is inspired by a direction set forth in the 2007 Science Strategy. Specifically, ecosystem-based approaches provide the underpinnings for essentially all science themes that define the USGS. Every point on earth falls within a specific ecosystem where data, other information assets, and the expertise of USGS and its many partners can be employed to quantitatively understand how that ecosystem functions and how it responds to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Every benefit society obtains from the planet—food, water, raw materials to build infrastructure, homes and automobiles, fuel to heat homes and cities, and many others, are derived from or effect ecosystems. The vision for Core Science Systems builds on core strengths of the USGS in characterizing and understanding complex earth and biological systems through research, modeling, mapping, and the production of high quality data on the nation’s natural resource infrastructure. Together, these research activities provide a foundation for ecosystem-based approaches through geologic mapping, topographic mapping, and biodiversity mapping. The vision describes a framework founded on these core mapping strengths that makes it easier for USGS scientists to discover critical information, share and publish results, and identify potential collaborations that transcend all USGS missions. The framework is designed to improve the efficiency of scientific work within USGS by establishing a means to preserve and recall data for future applications, organizing existing scientific knowledge and data to facilitate new use of older information, and establishing a future workflow that naturally integrates new data, applications, and other science products to make it easier and more efficient to conduct interdisciplinary research over time. Given the increasing need for integrated data and interdisciplinary approaches to solve modern problems, leadership by the Core Science Systems mission will facilitate problem solving by all USGS missions in ways not formerly possible. The report lays out a strategy to achieve this vision through three goals with accompanying objectives and actions. The first goal builds on and enhances the strengths of the Core Science Systems mission in characterizing and understanding the earth system from the geologic framework to the topographic characteristics of the land surface and biodiversity across the nation. The second goal enhances and develops new strengths in computer and information science to make it easier for USGS scientists to discover data and models, share and publish results, and discover connections between scientific information and knowledge. The third goal brings additional focus to research and development methods to address complex issues affecting society that require integration of knowledge and new methods for synthesizing scientific information. Collectively, the report lays out a strategy to create a seamless connection between all USGS activities to accelerate and make USGS science more efficient by fully integrating disciplinary expertise within a new and evolving science paradigm for a changing world in the 21st century.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Disputes over science and dispute resolution approaches - A survey of Bureau of Reclamation employees

Water resources in parts of the Western United States are over-allocated, which intensifies the pressure to support water management decisions with strong scientific evidence. Because scientific studies sometimes provide uncertain or competing results or recommendations, science can become a source of disputes during decision-making processes. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is an important water manager in the Western United States, and Reclamation decision processes are often contested by a variety of affected constituencies. We conducted a Web-based survey of Reclamation employees to determine (1) which types of disputes over science are occurring and how common they are, (2) which approaches have been used by Reclamation to try to resolve these different types of disputes, (3) how useful Reclamation employees find these approaches at resolving these types of disputes, (4) the final outcomes of these disputes and the decision-making processes that were hindered by the disputes over science, and (5) the potential usefulness of several different types of dispute resolution resources that Reclamation could provide for employees that become involved in disputes over science. The calculated minimum response rate for the survey was 59 percent. Twenty-five percent of respondents indicated that they had been involved in a dispute over science while working at Reclamation. Native species and species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were the most common issue types reported in these disputes over science. Survey respondents indicated that they used a variety of approaches to resolve disputes over science and rated most approaches as either neutral or somewhat helpful in these endeavors. Future research is needed to determine whether there are additional variables underlying these disputes that were not measured in this survey that may identify when dispute resolution methods are most effective, or whether resolving aspects of these disputes, such as differing interpretations of science, is very difficult or impossible regardless of the dispute resolution methods used.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2010

Resolving disputes over science in natural resource agency decisionmaking

Natural resource agencies make decisions involving public resources in which the public, by definition, have a stake. These resources are often finite. Thus, different viewpoints, interests, or beliefs may conflict when parties are perceived to be interdependent or one party is perceived to block or oppose other parties' use of a scarce resource. These confl icts may occur regard less of whether there are any real differences between the parties or whether one party's actions actually affect the other (Thomas 1992; Robbins 1994; Appelbaum et al. 1999). Conflicts are defined here as "a process of social interaction involving a struggle over claims to resources, power and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires" (Appelbaum et al. 1999, 63). Such conflicts can occur at multiple stages or levels of decisionmaking and can be embedded within other conflicts.

Technical Memorandum↗

USGS2009

Stakeholder Evaluation for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Completion Report

The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the largest system of public lands in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. There are over 545 national wildlife refuges nationwide, encompassing 95 million acres. As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, each refuge is developing 15-year comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs). Each CCP describes a vision and desired future condition for the refuge and outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for each refuge's habitat and visitor service programs. The CCP process for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Davis, West Virginia was initiated in 2006. This planning process provides a unique opportunity for public input and involvement. Public involvement is an important part of the CCP process. Participation by parties with a stake in the resource (stakeholders) has the potential to increase understanding and support and reduce conflicts. Additionally, meaningful public participation in a decision process may increase trust and provide satisfaction in terms of both process and outcome for management and the public. Public meetings are a common way to obtain input from community members, visitors, and potential visitors. An 'Issues Workbook' is another tool the FWS uses to obtain public input and participation early in the planning process. Sometimes, however, these traditional methods do not capture the full range of perspectives that exist. A stakeholder evaluation is a way to more fully understand community preferences and opinions related to key topics in refuge planning. It can also help refuge staff understand how changes in management affect individuals in terms of their preference for services and experiences. Secondarily, a process such as this can address 'social goals' such as fostering trust in regulating agencies and reducing conflict among stakeholders. As part of the CCP planning effort at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the FWS sponsored a stakeholder evaluation conducted by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center the winter of 2006-2007. The stakeholder evaluation was intended to answer the following questions: 1)Which Refuge management issues are most important, and to whom?, 2)How do opinions about what is most important to stakeholders overlap or conflict?, 3)Why do stakeholders emphasize specific issues, and what values are driving this?, and 4)What potential solutions do stakeholders have for addressing important issues? This information will be used by the Refuge to help guide development of their CCP as they strive to balance stakeholder desires with their charge to manage the unique wetlands and uplands of the Canaan Valley for wildlife conservation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

An exploration of Bureau of Reclamation approaches for managing conflict over diverging science

As a major institutional agent supplying Western water resources, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides important leadership, technical, and financial resources in water management, serving as the West's "water broker" (Bowersox 2000; Pisani 2003). In recent years, growing numbers of constituencies using water and the over-allocation of water resources have contributed to conflict over the resource in the American West (National Research Council 2004). Although the conflicts arise from many sources, one common theme is that Reclamation managers often must make decisions about water use and allocation when scientific studies provide uncertain or competing recommendations. We conducted a preliminary study of Reclamation water managers and water scientists to try to understand the approaches or techniques they use or consider useful for dealing with scientific conflicts over water allocation and how these compare to techniques found in the relevant literature. We report the results of (1) an electronic survey of Reclamation senior managers and (2) a panel discussion amongst Reclamation senior managers as to the current institutional capabilities for managing diverging scientific findings in water dispute resolution processes. We conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the different tools and techniques managers reported in the survey and in the panel discussion.

Technical Memorandum↗

USGS2008

Mathematical models frame environmental dispute [Review of the article Useless arithmetic: Ten points to ponder when using mathematical models in environmental decision making]

When Linda Pilkey- Jarvis and Orrin Pilkey state in their article, "Useless Arithmetic," that "mathematical models are simplified, generalized representations of a process or system," they probably do not mean to imply that these models are simple. Rather, the models are simpler than nature and that is the heart of the problem with predictive models. We have had a long professional association with the developers and users of one of these simplifications of nature in the form of a mathematical model known as Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM), which is part of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM). The IFIM is a suite of techniques, including PHABSIM, that allows the analyst to incorporate hydrology , hydraulics, habitat, water quality, stream temperature, and other variables into a tradeoff analysis that decision makers can use to design a flow regime to meet management objectives (Stalnaker et al. 1995). Although we are not the developers of the IFIM, we have worked with those who did design it, and we have tried to understand how the IFIM and PHABSIM are actually used in decision making (King, Burkardt, and Clark 2006; Lamb 1989).

Public Administration Review↗