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
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↗
USGS1998

Chapter D. The Loma Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989 - Recovery, Mitigation, and Reconstruction

The papers in this chapter reflect the broad spectrum of issues that arise following a major damaging urban earthquake-the regional economic consequences, rehousing problems, reconstruction strategies and policies, and opportunities for mitigation before the next major seismic event. While some of these papers deal with structural or physical science topics, their significant social and policy implications make them relevant for improving our understanding of the processes and dynamics that take place during the recovery period.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2006

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies: Scientific Solutions for a Healthy Bay and Watershed

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the science agency for the Department of Interior (DOI), has the critical role of providing objective science to document and understand ecosystem change in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The human population in the Bay watershed , which grew from 8.1 million in 1950 to almost 16 million in 2000, has resulted in degraded water quality, loss of habitat, and declines in fish and bird populations. USGS scientists are leaders in understanding cause and effect of human activities and natural changes on water quality and the health of the ecosystem. The USGS interacts with resource managers and policy makers to use the science to adapt approaches for implementation, and assess effectiveness of, management actions for ecosystem conservation, restoration, and sustainability. Since the mid-1980s, the USGS has been an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) , a multi-agency partnership led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working to achieve the restoration goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement . This agreement established over 100 restoration commitments to be addressed by 2010. In 2005, which was the mid-point of the agreement, there was growing concern at all levels of government and by the public that ecological conditions in the Bay and its watershed had not significantly improved. The slow rate of improvement, coupled with the projected impact of human-population increase in the Bay watershed (fig. 1) , implied that many desired ecological conditions will not be achieved by 2010. To address these challenges, the USGS wrote a new science plan for 2006-2011 , and is synthesizing key findings to highlight the accomplishments from science activities for 2000-2005.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2008

Quality-Assurance Plan for Water-Quality Activities in the USGS Ohio Water Science Center

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Office of Water Quality in the Water Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey, a quality-assurance plan has been written for use by the Ohio Water Science Center in conducting water-quality activities. This quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the Ohio Water Science Center for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of water-quality data. The policies and procedures documented in this quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities are meant to complement the Ohio Water Science Center quality-assurance plans for water-quality monitors, the microbiology laboratory, and surface-water and ground-water activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

The National Map: from geography to mapping and back again

When the means of production for national base mapping were capital intensive, required large production facilities, and had ill-defined markets, Federal Government mapping agencies were the primary providers of the spatial data needed for economic development, environmental management, and national defense. With desktop geographic information systems now ubiquitous, source data available as a commodity from private industry, and the realization that many complex problems faced by society need far more and different kinds of spatial data for their solutions, national mapping organizations must realign their business strategies to meet growing demand and anticipate the needs of a rapidly changing geographic information environment. The National Map of the United States builds on a sound historic foundation of describing and monitoring the land surface and adds a focused effort to produce improved understanding, modeling, and prediction of land-surface change. These added dimensions bring to bear a broader spectrum of geographic science to address extant and emerging issues. Within the overarching construct of The National Map, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is making a transition from data collector to guarantor of national data completeness; from producing paper maps to supporting an online, seamless, integrated database; and from simply describing the Nation’s landscape to linking these descriptions with increased scientific understanding. Implementing the full spectrum of geographic science addresses a myriad of public policy issues, including land and natural resource management, recreation, urban growth, human health, and emergency planning, response, and recovery. Neither these issues nor the science and technologies needed to deal with them are static. A robust research agenda is needed to understand these changes and realize The National Map vision. Initial successes have been achieved. These accomplishments demonstrate the utility of The National Map to the Nation and give confidence in evolving its future applications.

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing↗
USGS2007

Fly Ash: From Cradle to Grave

The Energy Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey promotes and supports coal research to improve the understanding of the coal endowment of the United States. This results in geologically based, non-biased energy information products for policy and decision makers, land and resource managers, other federal and state agencies, the domestic energy industry, foreign governments, nongovernmental groups, academia, and other scientists. A more integrated approach to our coal quality work involves what we call a 'cradle to grave' approach. These types of studies focus not on just one aspect of the coal but rather on how or where different quality parameters form and (or) occur and what happens to them through the mining, production, transport, utilization and waste disposal process. An extensive suite of coal quality analyses, mineralogical, petrology, and leaching investigations are determined on samples taken from the different phases of the coal utilization process. This report consists of a tutorial that was given on June 10, 2007 at the 32nd International Technical Conference on Coal Utilization & Fuel Systems, The Power of Coal, Clearwater Coal Conference in Clearwater, Florida, USA. This tutorial covers how these studies are conducted and the importance of providing improved, comprehensive, science-based data sets for policy and decision makers.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Multimodel inference and adaptive management

Ecology is an inherently complex science coping with correlated variables, nonlinear interactions and multiple scales of pattern and process, making it difficult for experiments to result in clear, strong inference. Natural resource managers, policy makers, and stakeholders rely on science to provide timely and accurate management recommendations. However, the time necessary to untangle the complexities of interactions within ecosystems is often far greater than the time available to make management decisions. One method of coping with this problem is multimodel inference. Multimodel inference assesses uncertainty by calculating likelihoods among multiple competing hypotheses, but multimodel inference results are often equivocal. Despite this, there may be pressure for ecologists to provide management recommendations regardless of the strength of their study’s inference. We reviewed papers in the Journal of Wildlife Management (JWM) and the journal Conservation Biology (CB) to quantify the prevalence of multimodel inference approaches, the resulting inference (weak versus strong), and how authors dealt with the uncertainty. Thirty-eight percent and 14%, respectively, of articles in the JWM and CB used multimodel inference approaches. Strong inference was rarely observed, with only 7% of JWM and 20% of CB articles resulting in strong inference. We found the majority of weak inference papers in both journals (59%) gave specific management recommendations. Model selection uncertainty was ignored in most recommendations for management. We suggest that adaptive management is an ideal method to resolve uncertainty when research results in weak inference.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2016

Surface-water quality-assurance plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center

This Surface-Water Quality-Assurance Plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center (WAWSC) for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of surface-water data. This plan serves as a guide to all WAWSC personnel involved in surface-water data activities, and changes as the needs and requirements of the WAWSC change. Regular updates to this plan represent an integral part of the quality-assurance process. In the WAWSC, direct oversight and responsibility by the hydrographer(s) assigned to a surface-water station, combined with team approaches in all work efforts, assure highquality data, analyses, reviews, and reports for cooperating agencies and the public.

Washington↗
USGS2017

Building translational ecology communities of practice: insights from the field

Translational ecology (TE) prioritizes the understanding of social systems and decision contexts in order to address complex natural resource management issues. Although many practitioners in applied fields employ translational tactics, the body of literature addressing such approaches is limited. We present several case studies illustrating the principles of TE and the diversity of its applications. We anticipate that these examples will help others develop scientific products that decision makers can use “off the shelf” when solving critical ecological and social challenges. Our collective experience suggests that research of such immediate utility is rare. Long‐term commitment to working directly with partners to develop and reach shared goals is central to successful translation. The examples discussed here highlight the benefits of translational processes, including actionable scientific results, more informed policy making, increased investment in science‐driven solutions, and inspiration for partnerships. We aim to facilitate future TE‐based projects and build momentum for growing this community of practice.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2022

Applied citizen science in freshwater research

Worldwide, scientists are increasingly collaborating with the general public. Citizen science methods are readily applicable to freshwater research, monitoring, and education. In addition to providing cost-effective data on spatial and temporal scales that are otherwise unattainable, citizen science provides unique opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders in resource management and decision-making. However, these methods are not infallible. Citizen science projects require deliberate planning in order to collect high data quality and sustain meaningful community partnerships. Citizen science practitioners also have an ethical responsibility to ensure that projects are not putting the safety of participants at stake. We discuss here how citizen science is being applied in freshwater research, emerging challenges in project planning and implementation, as well as how citizen science is shaping public understanding, policy, and management of freshwaters.

WIREs Water↗
USGS2013

Integrated environmental modeling: a vision and roadmap for the future

Integrated environmental modeling (IEM) is inspired by modern environmental problems, decisions, and policies and enabled by transdisciplinary science and computer capabilities that allow the environment to be considered in a holistic way. The problems are characterized by the extent of the environmental system involved, dynamic and interdependent nature of stressors and their impacts, diversity of stakeholders, and integration of social, economic, and environmental considerations. IEM provides a science-based structure to develop and organize relevant knowledge and information and apply it to explain, explore, and predict the behavior of environmental systems in response to human and natural sources of stress. During the past several years a number of workshops were held that brought IEM practitioners together to share experiences and discuss future needs and directions. In this paper we organize and present the results of these discussions. IEM is presented as a landscape containing four interdependent elements: applications, science, technology, and community. The elements are described from the perspective of their role in the landscape, current practices, and challenges that must be addressed. Workshop participants envision a global scale IEM community that leverages modern technologies to streamline the movement of science-based knowledge from its sources in research, through its organization into databases and models, to its integration and application for problem solving purposes. Achieving this vision will require that the global community of IEM stakeholders transcend social, and organizational boundaries and pursue greater levels of collaboration. Among the highest priorities for community action are the development of standards for publishing IEM data and models in forms suitable for automated discovery, access, and integration; education of the next generation of environmental stakeholders, with a focus on transdisciplinary research, development, and decision making; and providing a web-based platform for community interactions (e.g., continuous virtual workshops).

Environmental Modelling and Software↗
USGS2004

Geographic Information Office

The Geographic Information Office (GIO) is the principal information office for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), focused on: Information Policy and Services, Information Technology, Science Information, Information Security, and the Federal Geographic Data Committee/Geospatial One Stop.

Fact Sheet↗