Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Policy Sciences”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2007

Potential economic impact of introduction and spread of the red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, in Hawaii

Globally, many invasive alien species have caused extensive ecological and economic damage from either accidental or intentional introduction. The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, has created billions of dollars in costs annually, spreading as an invasive species across the southern United States. In 1998, the red imported fire ant spread into California creating a highly probable future introduction via shipped products to Hawaii. This paper presents the estimation of potential economic impacts of the red imported fire ant (RIFA) to the state of Hawaii. Evaluation of impacts focuses on the economic sectors of (1) households, (2) agriculture (cattle and crop production), (3) infrastructure (cemeteries, churches, cities, electrical, telephone, and cable services, highways, hospitals and schools), (4) recreation, tourism and business (hotels/resort areas, golf courses, commercial businesses and tourists), and (5) government expenditures (with minimal intervention). The full annual economic costs of the red imported fire ant to Hawaii are estimated (in US$ 2006) to be $211 million/year, comprised of $77 million in damages and expenditures and $134 million in foregone outdoor opportunities to households and tourists. The present value of the projected costs of RIFA over a 20-year period after introduction total $2.5 billion. RIFA invasions across the globe indicate that economic cost-effective action in Hawaii entails implementation of prevention, early detection and rapid response treatment programs for RIFA. ?? 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2009

Integrating scientific knowledge into large-scale restoration programs: the CALFED Bay-Delta Program experience

Integrating science into resource management activities is a goal of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a multi-agency effort to address water supply reliability, ecological condition, drinking water quality, and levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of northern California. Under CALFED, many different strategies were used to integrate science, including interaction between the research and management communities, public dialogues about scientific work, and peer review. This paper explores ways science was (and was not) integrated into CALFED's management actions and decision systems through three narratives describing different patterns of scientific integration and application in CALFED. Though a collaborative process and certain organizational conditions may be necessary for developing new understandings of the system of interest, we find that those factors are not sufficient for translating that knowledge into management actions and decision systems. We suggest that the application of knowledge may be facilitated or hindered by (1) differences in the objectives, approaches, and cultures of scientists operating in the research community and those operating in the management community and (2) other factors external to the collaborative process and organization.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2009

Ingredients in sustainably managing water in semi-arid environments

The lessons learned from CALFED indicate that ingredients important in the long-term resolution of water management issues may not result in short-term “solutions”. The value of this special issue lies in its identification of ingredients that stimulate re-framing of issues, adapting to new knowledge and innovative decisions. But sustainable water management also requires the political patience to sustain those processes as a means of perpetuating the long-term decision-making necessary to anticipate and/or respond to an ever-changing environment.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2021

Understanding collaborative governance from a communication network perspective: A case study of the Atlantic Salmon recovery framework

Atlantic salmon populations in Maine remain critically low despite extensive hatchery supplementation and habitat improvement efforts. In 2000, the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment was listed as Endangered under the ESA with joint listing authority shared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Because, regulators, and tribal, federal and state managers operate with independent authorities, recovery decisions depend upon effective communication and coordination among groups. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed (n = 41) and interviewed (n = 28) members of the Atlantic Salmon Recovery Framework (ASRF), the joint governance structure responsible for Atlantic salmon management in Maine. We used survey results to examine the communication between members of ASRF through communication network analysis. While there is a relatively high network density for individual communication (56 %), connections are decentralized, a characteristic that can be incompatible with some organizational structures. Challenges reported by members fit into three general categories; i. slow and ineffective decision-making, ii. confusion surrounding leadership and accountability, and iii. low adaptive capacity. Despite these challenges, participants reported a commitment to maintaining a collaborative governance structure and a long history of inter-organizational relationships. This introspective effort has led to a reorganization effort to optimize communication pathways.

Maine↗
USGS2022

Institutional barriers to actionable science: Perspectives from decision support tool creators

Scholars have identified a ‘usability gap’ between science and its ability to inform real-world decisions as well as a range of factors that facilitate or impede attempts to span the usability gap with information products. However, most attention has focused on barriers related to information users; much less research focuses on the unique institutional and organizational barriers experienced by creators of decision support tools. To address this gap, we used semi-structured interviews to investigate the perspectives and experiences of practitioners holding scientific or technology roles, including their goals for their tools, their perceptions of success in meeting those goals, and the barriers and opportunities they encountered. We find that there is often a mismatch between what tool creators know is necessary to achieve success for their tools and what is actually possible given various constraints. Our results suggest that knowledge may be a less important barrier to conducting actionable science through creating decision support tools than the institutional context in which tool creators work.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2023

Lessons learned in knowledge co-production for climate-smart decision-making

Knowledge co-production, a process that involves both creators and users of information in knowledge generation, is growing in popularity in the conservation and ecology fields. While examples of successful co-production are becoming more common, many barriers and challenges remain in this work. Here, we reflect on our experiences in knowledge co-production from three recent case studies, using a prominent framework to understand and improve our efforts at each phase of the co-production process. Our reflections yield insights that may help other scientists seeking to support decision-making. We found that paying particular attention to the composition of the team and connecting with agency representatives early and often are key to success. Long-term commitment to the project and the people involved are also key. We conclude with suggestions for refining the framework to incorporate our primary lessons learned and include the valuation of a plurality of knowledge systems and empowerment as an ultimate impact of knowledge co-production.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2024

Prototyping structured decision making for water resource management in the San Francisco Bay-Delta

A structured decision making (SDM) approach can help evaluate tradeoffs between conservation and human-benefit objectives by fostering communication and knowledge transfer among stakeholders, decision makers, and the public. However, the process is iterative and completing the full process may take years. It can be difficult to initiate an SDM effort when problems seem insurmountable. Occasionally, SDM may not even be the best or correct approach for addressing the conservation problem at hand. We describe the implementation of an SDM process to help inform difficult decisions related to competing objectives. We convened a diverse stakeholder group from the largest estuary in the western United States; the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Bay-Delta). The stakeholder group consisted of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies, non-profit organizations, and recreational fishers. The stakeholder group agreed on a problem statement and identified four priority objectives related to Chinook salmon, delta smelt, water availability and reliability, and agricultural water use. Furthermore, they proposed 14 candidate management actions to achieve their objectives. The group then used existing quantitative models and data to evaluate trade-offs in proposed management actions to identify areas of agreement of proposed candidate actions. The clear communication of the problem statement and objectives among the stakeholder group, along with evaluation of tradeoffs and uncertainty via decision-support models suggest that a full SDM approach may work in the Bay-Delta. We further communicate lessons learned during our implementation of SDM to help guide future SDM efforts in the region and elsewhere.

California↗
USGS1991

Aquatic habitat measurement and valuation: imputing social benefits to instream flow levels

Instream flow conflicts have been analysed from the perspectives offered by policy oriented applied (physical) science, theories of conflict resolution and negotiation strategy, and psychological analyses of the behavior patterns of the bargaining parties. Economics also offers some useful insights in analysing conflict resolution within the context of these water allocation problems. We attempt to analyse the economics of the bargaining process in conjunction with a discussion of the water allocation process. In particular, we examine in detail the relation between certain habitat estimation techniques, and the socially optimal allocation of non-market resources. The results developed here describe the welfare implications implicit in the contemporary general equilibrium analysis of a competitive market economy. We also review certain currently available techniques for assigning dollar values to the social benefits of instream flow. The limitations of non-market valuation techniques with respect to estimating the benefits provided by instream flows and the aquatic habitat contingent on these flows should not deter resource managers from using economic analysis as a basic tool for settling instream flow conflicts.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS1971

A procedure for evaluating environmental impact

In a recent article in "Science" discussing the Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Gillette (1971) states "The law's instructions for preparing an impact report apparently are not specific enough to insure that an agency will fully, or even usefully, examine the environmental effects of the projects it plans." This report contains a procedure that may assist in developing uniform environmental impact statements. The Department of the Interior and the Council on Environmental Quality will appreciate comments on the procedure here proposed. The heart of the system is a matrix which is general enough to be used as a reference checklist or a reminder of the full range of actions and impacts on the environment that may relate to proposed actions. The marked matrix also serves as an abstract of the text of the environmental assessment to enable the many reviewers of impact reports to determine quickly what are considered to be the significant impacts and their relative importance as evaluated by the originator of the impact report. Many exhaustive studies of the use of matrices for environmental studies are now being undertaken. (See Sorensen, 1971.) This comparatively simple system is intended as a guide for the many people who are faced with the evaluation and preparation of environmental impact reports before the results of these studies have been completed. It should be borne in mind that there is presently no uniformity in approach or agreement upon objectives in an impact analysis and this generalized matrix is a step in that direction. The procedure does not limit the development of detail in any specific aspect of the environment; a separate expanded matrix for any environmental aspect can easily be developed within the framework provided.

Circular↗
USGS2015

Data categories for marine planning

The U.S. National Ocean Policy calls for a science- and ecosystem-based approach to comprehensive planning and management of human activities and their impacts on America’s oceans. The Ocean Community in Data.gov is an outcome of 2010–2011 work by an interagency working group charged with designing a national information management system to support ocean planning. Within the working group, a smaller team developed a list of the data categories specifically relevant to marine planning. This set of categories is an important consensus statement of the breadth of information types required for ocean planning from a national, multidisciplinary perspective. Although the categories were described in a working document in 2011, they have not yet been fully implemented explicitly in online services or geospatial metadata, in part because authoritative definitions were not created formally. This document describes the purpose of the data categories, provides definitions, and identifies relations among the categories and between the categories and external standards. It is intended to be used by ocean data providers, managers, and users in order to provide a transparent and consistent framework for organizing and describing complex information about marine ecosystems and their connections to humans.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2016

Arctic Research Plan: FY2017-2021

The United States is an Arctic nation—Americans depend on the Arctic for biodiversity and climate regulation and for natural resources. America’s Arctic—Alaska—is at the forefront of rapid climate, environmental, and socio-economic changes that are testing the resilience and sustainability of communities and ecosystems. Research to increase fundamental understanding of these changes is needed to inform sound, science-based decision- and policy-making and to develop appropriate solutions for Alaska and the Arctic region as a whole. Created by an Act of Congress in 1984, and since 2010 a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in the Executive Office of the President, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) plays a critical role in advancing scientific knowledge and understanding of the changing Arctic and its impacts far beyond the boundaries of the Arctic. Comprising 14 Federal agencies, offices, and departments, IARPC is responsible for the implementation of a 5-year Arctic Research Plan in consultation with the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, the Governor of the State of Alaska, residents of the Arctic, the private sector, and public interest groups.

Report↗
USGS2019

Grounding simulation models with qualitative case studies: Toward a holistic framework to make climate science usable for US public land management

Policies directing agencies and public land managers to incorporate climate change into management face several barriers. These stem, in part, from a disconnect between the information that is produced and the information needs of local resource managers. A disproportionate focus on the natural and physical sciences in climate vulnerability and adaptation assessment obscure understandings of complex social systems and the interactions and feedbacks in social-ecological systems. We use a qualitative case study of bison management on Department of the Interior-managed and tribal lands to explore how a social-science driven Determinants and Analogue Vulnerability Assessment (DAVA) can inform ecological response models, specifically simulation models that account for multiple drivers of change. First, we illustrate how a DAVA approach can help to: 1) identify key processes, entities, and interactions across scales; 2) document local impacts, indicators, and monitoring efforts of drought and climate; and 3) identify major tradeoffs and uncertainties. We then demonstrate how qualitative narratives can inform simulation models by: 1) prioritizing model components included in modeling efforts; 2) framing joint management and climate scenarios; and 3) parameterizing and evaluating model performance. We do this by presenting a conceptual joint agent-based/state-and-transition simulation modeling framework. Simulation models can represent multiple interacting variables and can identify surprising, emergent outcomes that might not be evident from qualitative analysis alone, and we argue that qualitative case studies can ground simulation models in local contexts and help make them more structurally realistic and useful. Together, these can provide a step toward developing actionable climate change adaptation strategies.

Climate Risk Management↗
USGS2005

Quality-assurance plan for ground-water activities, U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Water Science Center

This quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey's Washington Water Science Center, for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of ground-water data. This plan serves as a guide to all Washington Water Science Center personnel involved in ground-water activities, and changes as the needs and requirements of the Washington Water Science Center and Discipline change. Regular updates to this plan represent an integral part of the quality-assurance process.

Open-File Report↗
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↗
USGS2023

Prioritizing science efforts to inform decision making on public lands

Public land management agencies in the US are committed to using science-informed decision making, but there has been little research on the types and topics of science that managers need most to inform their decisions. We used the National Environmental Policy Act to identify four types of science information needed for making decisions relevant to public lands: (1) data on resources of concern, (2) scientific studies relevant to potential effects of proposed actions, (3) methods for quantifying potential effects of proposed actions, and (4) effective mitigation measures. We then used this framework to analyze 70 Environmental Assessments completed by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado. Commonly proposed actions were oil and gas development, livestock grazing, land transactions, and recreation. Commonly analyzed resources included terrestrial wildlife, protected birds, vegetation, and soils. Focusing research efforts on the intersection of these resources and actions, and on developing and evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures to protect these resources, could strengthen the science foundation for public lands decision making.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2020

Bridging the research-management gap: Landscape ecology in practice on public lands in the western United States

The field of landscape ecology has grown and matured in recent decades, but incorporating landscape science into land management decisions remains challenging. Many lands in the western United States are federally owned and managed for multiple uses, including recreation, conservation, and energy development. We argue for stronger integration of landscape science into the management of these public lands. We open by outlining the relevance of landscape science for public land planning, management, and environmental effects analysis, including pertinent laws and policies. We identify challenges to integrating landscape science into public land management, including the multijurisdictional nature and complicated spatial pattern of public lands, the capacity of agencies to identify and fill landscape science needs, and public perceptions about the meaning of landscape approaches to management. We provide several recent examples related to landscape monitoring, restoration, reclamation, and conservation in which landscape science products were developed specifically to support decision-making. We close by highlighting three actions - elevating the importance of science-management partnerships dedicated to coproducing actionable landscape science products, identifying where landscape science could foster efficiencies in the land-use planning process, and developing scenario-based landscape models for shrublands - that could improve landscape science support for public land planners and managers.

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