Geology ReportsSearch

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “People and Nature”

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.

561 records · Page 32Linked to original sources

Regional and other general factors bearing on evaluation of earthquake and other geologic hazards to coastal communities of southeastern Alaska

The great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, brought into sharp focus the need for engineering geologic studies in seismically active regions. As a result, nine communities in southeastern Alaska were selected for reconnaissance investigations as an integral part of an overall program to evaluate earthquake and other geologic hazards in most of the larger Alaska coastal communities. This report gives background information on the regional and other general factors that bear on these evaluations. Southeastern Alaska, about 525 miles long and averaging about 125 miles in width, consists of a narrow mainland strip and numerous islands. For the most part, it is a region of rugged relief with numerous glaciers capping many of the higher mountainous areas and with long linear fiords forming the inland waterways. A maritime climate prevails with mild winters and cool summers. The southeastern part of the region receives the highest precipitation in the continental United States. Ketchikan, with a population of 6,994 in 1970, is the largest city. Geology and structure of the area are complex. Igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks crop out and range in age from Paleozoic to Tertiary. Surficial deposits of Pleistocene and Holocene age mantle many areas. All of southeastern Alaska, except probably the highest peaks, was covered by glacier ice advances of late Pleistocene age. Major deglaciation was well advanced by 10,000 years ago--a time which approximately marks the end of the Pleistocene and the beginning of the Holocene. There followed a period of warm climate called the Hypsithermal, which in southeastern Alaska began 7,000-8,000 years ago and ended about 4,800-3,500 years ago. Glaciers in most places receded back of their present positions. The Hypsithermal was followed by an interval (termed Neoglaciation) of cooler climate and resurgence of glacier ice which continues to the present, although most glaciers are now rapidly receding. During the past 10,000 years worldwide sea level has risen about 100 feet, but during the past 4,000 years it has risen only about 10 feet or about 0.03 inch per year. With sea level used as a datum, the amount of sea-level rise must be added to the apparent uplift of land for the time under consideration to determine the actual amount of land uplift. The widespread presence of emergent marine deposits, several hundred feet above sea level, demonstrates that the land in southeastern Alaska has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known has been uplifted since the last major deglaciation. The greatest known uplift is in the vicinity of Juneau where glaciomarine deposits are present 750 feet above present sea level. Part of southeastern Alaska is presently undergoing one of the most rapid rates of uplift of any place in the world. The fastest emergence is occurring in the Glacier Bay area where the land is being uplifted relative to sea level approximately 3.9 cm per year. Most or all of the uplift appears to be due to rebound as a result of deglaciation. Southeastern Alaska lies within the circum-Pacific earthquake belt, one of the world's greatest zones of seismic activity. During historic time, there have been five earthquakes in the region with magnitudes of 8 or greater, three with magnitudes of 7 to 8, eight with magnitudes of 6 to 7, more than 15 with magnitudes of 5 to 6, and about 140 recorded earthquakes with magnitudes smaller than 5 or of unassigned magnitudes. All of the earthquakes with magnitudes 8 or greater, and a large proportion of the others, appear to be related to the active Fairweather- Queen Charlotte Islands fault system or its western extension, the Chugach-St. Elias fault. Earthquake epicenters on the Denali fault system, the other major fault system in southeastern Alaska, are few in comparison. However, because high microearthquake activity has been recorded recently on this system and earthquakes of moderate size have occurred on some of its segments, the Denali fault system probably should not be dismissed as a relict fault system of no current tectonic importance. There are numerous other known faults, as well as lineaments that may be faults of varying degrees of tectonic activity in southeastern Alaska, adjacent Canada, and eastern Alaska. One of these elements is the Totschunda fault system, which connects with the Denali fault system in eastern Alaska; it has been very active during Holocene time but few historical earthquake epicenters appear to be related to it. Both historical seismicity and geologic conditions, such as frequency and recency of faulting, must be considered together to permit an assessment of the future earthquake probability of an area. Data are too few for both factors for an accurate evaluation to be made of earthquake probability in southeastern Alaska. However, information compiled in the form of strain-release and seismic-zone maps permit some generalizations. Thus, it is tentatively concluded that most, if not all, of southeastern Alaska should be placed in seismic zone 3, a zone in which earthquakes of magnitude greater than 6 will occur from time to time and where there may be major damage to manmade structures. Inferred effects from future earthquakes in southeastern Alaska include: (1) surface displacement along faults and other tectonic land-level changes, (2) ground shaking, (3) compaction, (4) liquefaction in cohesionless materials, (5) reaction of sensitive and quick clays, (6) water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing, (7) earthquake-induced sub aerial slides and slumps, (8) earthquake induced subaqueous slides, (9) effects on glaciers and related features, (10) effects on ground water and stream flow, and (11) tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves. Because of the reconnaissance nature of our studies in the coastal communities and the sparsity of laboratory data on physical properties of geologic units in each area studied, the inferred effects must be largely empirical and generalized. Therefore, the inferences are based in large part upon the effects of past major earthquakes in Alaska and elsewhere, particularly upon the well-documented effects of the Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964. Buildings, highways, bridges, tunnels, harbor facilities, pipelines, canals, and other manmade structures may be severely damaged or destroyed by fault displacement or related tectonic land-level changes in southeastern Alaska. Direct damage from fault rupture would be restricted virtually to structures built directly athwart the fault. In California and Nevada, fault rupture almost always accompanies shocks of magnitude 6.5 or greater. The Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, and the Chilean earthquake of May 22, 1960, dramatically illustrated the severe adverse effects that can result from uplift or subsidence over a wide area. The variable most responsible for the degree of shaking at any epicentral distance is the type of ground. Generally, shaking is considerably greater in poorly consolidated deposits than in hard bedrock, particularly if the deposits are water saturated. Severe shaking of alluvial deposits and manmade fill, with resultant heavy damage, is well documented from the records of many past earthquakes. Damage commonly has been heavy as a result of ground settlement caused by compaction of loose sediments by shaking during an earthquake. This has been especially true where compaction was accompanied by tectonic downdrop of land, such as occurred during the Chilean earthquake of 1960 and the Alaska earthquake of 1964. Loosely emplaced manmade fill, deltaic deposits, beach deposits, and alluvial deposits may be susceptible to compaction in southeastern Alaska during a severe earthquake. Liquefaction of sand and silt is a fairly common effect of large earthquakes. It was well illustrated at Niigata, Japan, during the earthquake of June 16, 1964, and resulted in extensive damage. When part of a sloping soil mass liquefies, the entire mass can undergo catastrophic failure and can flow as a high-density liquid. In southeastern Alaska, deltaic deposits probably would be most susceptible to liquefaction. Sensitive and quick clays, which lose a considerable part of their strength when shaken, commonly fail during an earthquake and become rapid earthflows. Extensive studies were made of the sensitivity of the Bootlegger Cove Clay at Anchorage because of the marked loss of shear strength and dramatic failures of the deposits during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. If similar sensitive clays are present in some places in southeastern Alaska, they most likely are in some of the emergent fine-grained marine deposits; supporting data to confirm their presence, however, are largely lacking. Records of some 50 major earthquakes show that in at least half of the instances water and sediment have been ejected from surficial deposits Water-sediment ejection and associated subsidence and ground fracturing commonly cause extensive damage to the works of man. Ejecta may fill basements and other low-lying parts of buildings. Agricultural land can be covered with a blanket of infertile soils, and small ponds can be filled or made shallow. In southeastern Alaska these phenomena are most likely to occur on valley floors, deltas, tidal flats, alluvial fans, swamps, and lakeshores. Earthquake-induced sliding on land generally is confined to steep slopes but may take place in fine-grained deposits on moderately to nearly flat surfaces if the deposits are subject to liquefaction. A large rockslide triggered by the Lituya Bay, Alaska, earthquake of July 10, 1958, generated a wave that surged up the opposite wall of the inlet to a record height of 1,740 feet. During the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of August 17, 1959, a spectacular rockslide plunged into the Madison River canyon, buried 28 people, dammed the river, and created a large lake. Earthquake-records are replete with accounts of sliding of surficial deposits during moderate to large earthquakes. Most or all of the general factors that favor subaerial landsliding are present in southeastern Alaska. Earthquake-induced subaqueous slides can produce adverse effects both nearshore and some distance offshore. Nearshore sliding may progress shoreward and destroy harbor facilities and other structures, commonly with substantial loss of life. Disastrous large submarine slides occurred along the fronts of deltas in Seward and Valdez during the Alaska earthquake of 1964. In similar fashion, the largest submarine slides in southeastern Alaska likely will be triggered along the larger delta fronts. Sliding farther offshore can constitute a threat to navigation because of changes in water depths. Also underwater sliding can break communication cables. Glaciers were not greatly affected by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 despite the fact that about 20 percent of the area that underwent strong shaking is covered by ice. In contrast, the cataclysmic avalanche of ice and rock that fell from a high glacier-covered peak in Peru during the earthquake of May 31, 1970, produced devastating effects downvalley on man and his works in the form of mudflows. Most towns in southeastern Alaska are sufficiently distant from glaciers so as not be to directly affected. Both the Alaska earthquake of 1964 and the Hebgen Lake, Montana, earthquake of 1959 significantly affected ground- and surface-water regimens. Water levels in some wells declined whereas in others flow increased. Some springs discharged at a rate three times as much as normal; flow of others decreased or stopped. Discharge of many streams increased markedly. Most or all of the effects described above could occur in parts of southeastern Alaska during future large earthquakes. Tsunamis, seiches, and other abnormal water waves associated with large earthquakes commonly cause vast property damage and heavy loss of life. Tsunami effects can be devastating to coastal areas as far as many thousands of miles from their generation source. Seiche effects generally are confined to inland bodies of water or to relatively enclosed coastal bodies of water. Abnormal waves generated by submarine sliding or by subaerial sliding into water generally produce only local effects but may be highly devastating. Tsunami waves resulting from the Chilean earthquake of 1960 inflicted extensive damage and loss of life on coastal communities throughout a large part of southern Chile, and significant runups and damage were recorded in many places throughout the Pacific Ocean area. The tsunami waves generated by the Alaska earthquake of 1964 struck with devastating force along a broad stretch of the Alaska coast and produced heavy property damage and loss of life as far away as Crescent City, Calif. Seiche waves generated by that earthquake reached runup heights of 20-30 feet on some lakes in Alaska, and water-level fluctuations were recorded on streams, reservoirs, lakes, and swimming pools in States bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Waves generated by submarine sliding struck violently at a number of places during or immediately after the quake and were the major cause of loss of life and damage to property. Slide-generated waves probably would have a higher destructive potential in southeastern Alaska than either tsunami waves or seiche waves because of their possibly higher local runups and because they can hit the shores almost without warning during or immediately after an earthquake. Nonearthquake-related geologic hazards, although generally far less dramatic than those related to earthquakes, tend to occur so much more frequently or persistently that their aggregate effects can be significant. Three kinds of geologic hazards of this type are discussed: (1) nonearthquake-induced landsliding and subaqueous sliding, (2) flooding, and (3) land uplift. The potential for nonearthquake-triggered landsliding in southeastern Alaska ranges widely from place to place. Past sliding generally furnishes the clue in the prediction of where and in what materials future sliding will occur. Fast-moving rockslides, debris slides, and mudflows can be expected to occur from time to time on steep slopes and be highly destructive to highways, power plants, pipelines, buildings, and other facilities located on a slope or at its base. Present slow downslope movement of talus can be expected to continue at the same general rate unless conditions are changed by man or there are climatic changes. Snow and debris avalanches can be especially hazardous during winter months. Long-inactive landslides may be triggered into renewed activity or new slides may be created by man-induced modifications. Accelerated slope erosion and debris flows may follow large-scale clearing and cutting of timber. Subaqueous sliding can be expected to occur periodically along fronts of deltas and on other oversteepened underwater slopes. Floods have been common in parts of southeastern Alaska because of heavy precipitation and rapid runoff from steep slopes with resulting heavy damage to roads and other facilities. Continued damage can be expected in the future unless more remedial measures are taken. Current uplift of land in southeastern Alaska, although probably not affecting man significantly in a short period of time, may have some adverse long-term effects. These long-term effects should be borne in mind when facilities such as docks and boat harbors are constructed on or near the shore, where there is a critical relation between height of land and water.

Alaska

Geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines, Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri

The Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines are located in Washington, Jefferson, and St. Francois Counties, Missouri, where barite and lead ore are present together in surficial and near-surface deposits. Lead mining in the area began in the early 1700’s and extended into the early 1900’s. Hand mining of lead in the residuum resulted in widespread pits (also called shafts or diggings), and there was some underground mining of lead in bedrock. By the 1860’s barite was recovered from the residuum by hand mining, also resulting in widespread diggings, but generally not underground mines in bedrock. Mechanized open-pit mining of the residuum for barite began in the 1920’s. Barite production slowed by the 1980’s, and there has not been any barite mining since 1998. Mechanized barite mining resulted in large mined areas and tailings ponds containing waste from barite mills. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that lead is present in surface soils in Washington and Jefferson Counties at concentrations exceeding health-based screening levels. Also, elevated concentrations of barium, arsenic, and cadmium have been identified in surface soils, and lead concentrations exceeding the Federal drinking-water standard of 15 micrograms per liter have been identified in private drinking-water wells. Potential sources of these contaminants are wastes associated with barite mining, wastes associated with lead mining, or unmined natural deposits of barium, lead, and other metals. As a first step in helping EPA determine the source of soil and groundwater contamination, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the EPA, investigated the geology and mining history of the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines. Ore minerals are barite (barium sulfate), galena (lead sulfide), cerussite (lead carbonate), anglesite (lead sulfate), sphalerite (zinc sulfide), smithsonite (zinc carbonate), and chalcopyrite (copper-iron sulfide). The Cambrian Potosi Dolomite is the most important formation for the ore deposits, followed by the Eminence Dolomite. Because galena, sphalerite, and barite are less soluble than dolomite, chemical weathering of the ore-bearing dolomite bedrock resulted in the concentration of ore minerals in the residuum. Most of the barite and lead mining was in the residuum, which averages 10 to 15 feet thick. Lead mining by French explorers may have begun in 1719 along Old Mines Creek at Cabanage de Renaudiere, which was followed shortly by the discovery of lead and the development of lead mines at Mine Renault (also called Forche a Renault Mine), Old Mines, and at other places along the Big River, Mineral Fork, and Forche a Renault Creek. Lead mining began sometime between 1775 and 1780 at Mine a Breton, the name of which was later changed to Potosi. Other mining areas were developed in the early part of the 19th century, including Fourche a Courtois (Palmer Mines), the French Diggings, and the Richwoods Mines. Zinc became a valuable resource after the Civil War, and the Valles Mines was an important supplier of zinc as well as lead, with at least some production up until the 1920’s. Lead mining declined in the early part of the 20th century as mining in the Old Lead Belt, Mine La Motte, and the Tri-State District expanded. The earliest lead mines were diggings in the residuum and were round holes (shafts) about 4 feet in diameter dug with pick and shovel about 15–20 feet deep, with drifts dug a short distance laterally from the bottom of the shafts. This mining process was repeated a short distance away until a large area was covered with pits. Some mining in bedrock began by about 1800, with shafts as deep as 170 feet and as much as several hundred feet of lateral drifts. Smelting of the lead ore to elemental lead was first done using a log furnace, which was inefficient; estimates have been made that only about 50 percent of the lead was recovered, and the remainder was lost to the ashes (slags) and to volatilization. Starting in 1798, ash furnaces were used to smelt the ashes from the log furnaces. These two furnaces were worked in tandem for many years but were gradually replaced by other furnaces, including the Scotch hearth. Estimates of lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent have been made for the Scotch hearth. By the mid-1870’s the air furnace was being used, also with estimated lead recovery as high as 80–90 percent. Zinc furnaces were built when zinc became a valuable commodity, but much of the zinc ore was shipped out of the area, either to a smelter in St. Louis, Missouri, or to other smelters. The total lead and zinc production from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated at 180,000 tons of lead and 60,000 tons of zinc. An estimated 97,000 tons of lead and an estimated 120,000 tons of zinc were lost during smelting. The estimated losses do not include losses at the mine site during mining and preparation for smelting, such as the loss of fine-grained galena during hand cleaning or the discarding of zinc ore before its value was known, for which no estimates are available. Hand mining for barite in the residuum was active by at least the 1860’s and peaked from 1905 to the 1930’s when several thousand people were engaged in barite mining. Hand mining (diggings) and cleaning of the ore was done in much the same way as earlier lead mining, with the additional use of a rattle box to further clean the barite. Mechanized open-pit mining of old barite diggings began in 1924 to recover barite left behind by hand mining, and washing plants were used to clean the clay from the barite. Hand mining, however, continued to thrive, and washer plants began to close temporarily in 1931; nearly all of the barite produced before 1937 was by hand mining. By the 1940’s, however, all barite mining was mechanized. Mechanized mining used shovels powered by steam, gasoline, or electricity (and by the 1950’s draglines and front-end loaders) to mine the residuum. The ore was loaded onto rail cars (and by the 1940’s, trucks) for shipment to washer plants. Clay was removed from the barite using a log washer, and a jig was used to concentrate the barite. Overflow from the log washers was waste and went to a mud (tailings) pond. The coarse jig tailings went to tailings piles or were used as railroad ballast and, later, to create roads within the mine pit. Some barite was ground, depending on its final use, and some ground barite was bleached using a hot solution of sulfuric acid to remove impurities such as iron minerals and lead sulfide (galena). An earlier bleaching process used lead-lined tanks. Large quantities of water were required for milling the barite; some was recirculated water and the remainder came from dammed streams or was pumped from wells. Tailings and wastewater were impounded behind dikes that were built across small valleys and were increased in height as necessary using washer waste and any overburden that had been stripped. In some cases, dikes were built across valleys that had already been mined for barite. The total production of barite from the Southeast Missouri Barite District and the Valles Mines is estimated to have been about 13.1 million tons. Most of the barite production was from Washington County. Hand mining and processing of barite was inefficient. Estimates of barite recovery range from less than one-fourth to about one-half because pillars between the shafts in the residuum needed to be left unmined for stability. With mechanized mining, large amounts of barite were lost during the milling process. It has been estimated that about 30 percent of the barite was lost and that about two-thirds of the lost barite was fine-grained and was discharged to the tailings ponds. Some galena was lost to the tailings ponds. A 1972 inventory of tailings ponds by the Missouri Geological Survey identified 67 ponds in the Southeast Missouri Barite District (there are more than this currently documented). Results from samples from four ponds that were drilled were used to estimate that the 67 ponds contained almost 39 million tons (or cubic yards) of tailings averaging about 5 percent barite, for a potential reserve of 1.935 million tons of barite. It is not known how much lead was removed during barite mining, either by hand or mechanized mining and processing, how much lead was recovered, or how much lead went as fines to the tailing ponds or as coarse material to mine roads or was otherwise lost.

Missouri

Capacity assessment for Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) and future integrated monitoring and predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary Managers of our Nation’s resources face unprecedented challenges driven by the convergence of increasing, competing societal demands and a changing climate that affects the stability, vulnerability, and predictability of those resources. To help meet these challenges, the scientific community must take advantage of all available technologies, data, and integrative Earth systems modeling capacity to better inform resource and risk management decisions. This is the overarching goal of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision: “By 2030, the USGS will deliver well integrated observations and predictions of the future state of natural systems—water, ecosystems, energy, minerals, hazards—at regional and national scales, working primarily with federal, state, and academic partners to develop and operate the capability” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). Providing more integrated Earth systems science and actionable information to decision makers, stakeholders, and the public requires a better understanding of the depth and distribution of existing capacity (capabilities, tools, and techniques) across the Bureau. Identifying existing capacity is also a critical first step toward gap analysis and targeted investments to increase capacity over time. The USGS formed a Capacity Assessment Team (CAT) and charged it with (1) conducting a Request for Information (RFI) to identify existing USGS expertise and activities supportive of integrated and predictive science to inform decision making, (2) developing a strategy and proof-of-concept for a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, and (3) identifying lessons learned to inform development of best practices for future capacity assessment efforts. The RFI took the form of a survey, with content guided by the science and technology needs identified in a USGS report titled “Grand Challenges for Integrated U.S. Geological Survey Science—A Workshop Report” (Jenni and others, 2017). The 44-question survey provided respondents the ability to rate their level of experience with a suite of priority disciplines, analysis and modeling approaches, technologies, and stakeholder engagement strategies and to enter optional narrative text for supporting context. An introductory portion focused on general science capacity assessment, followed by three sections targeting capabilities related to the foundational components of EarthMAP: (1) data and information integration, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information. The survey results provided a high-level snapshot of USGS capacity in the targeted areas. Respondents (1,035 individuals) represented approximately 13 percent of the USGS across all mission areas and regions. Seventy-four percent of the respondents held a science-focused position title and the remainder had position titles in information technology, computer science, management, administrative, or other (contractors, volunteers, emeritus, and unknown). To provide greater insight into respondent capabilities and activities, information from the U.S. Department of the Interior and USGS enterprise information systems were used to further characterize topical expertise and organizational associations of survey respondents. To address the ongoing need to assess the Bureau’s capacity to address integrated predictive science priorities, the CAT developed a software-based proof-of-concept called the Integrated Science Assessment Information Database (iSAID) for assembling various information sources together toward making the full extent of USGS capabilities and scientific assets available for routine capacity assessment. This proof-of-concept is intended to serve as a catalyst for further development. The process of implementing the EarthMAP capacity assessment survey, analyzing survey responses, and developing the proof-of-concept resulted in lessons learned, findings, and recommendations. Example scenarios throughout the report demonstrate how capacity assessment data can inform science planning. Three overarching findings and recommendations are: (1) Finding: Capacity is limited in some critical disciplines, skills, and technology applications, but “sufficient” depends on the question and the need relative to availability at a given point in time. Recommendation: Develop an on-demand capacity assessment framework that enables rapid identification and evaluation of existing and available expertise to support decision needs as they arise. (2) Finding: Institutional barriers and lack of awareness constrain the ability of USGS staff to adopt new technologies, collaborate across administrative boundaries, and deliver actionable information to stakeholders in a timely manner. However, these barriers are not universally experienced. Recommendation: Pursue more targeted inquiries to clarify which institutional barriers are obstructing the adoption of new technologies and approaches or the sharing of expertise and equipment across organizational and regional boundaries. These inquiries should inform USGS leadership, mission areas, and regions whether policies can be revised or whether a lack of understanding is creating perceived obstacles. Highlight cases when staff have successfully adopted new technologies and approaches to advance EarthMAP priorities and provide actionable information in a timely manner to spread awareness of how perceived obstacles can be navigated and overcome when appropriate. (3) Finding: Examples of people and projects integrating across disciplines and scales and applying advanced approaches to meet complex stakeholder needs exist. Such examples provide transfer value across the spectrum from approach to decision making. Many projects, already underway, appear to meet elements of the EarthMAP vision, and the USGS has people who can provide leadership in multiple types of specific integrated science efforts. Recommendation: Use these findings as a starting point for near-term strategic planning for integrated science. Highlight, incentivize, and build on existing interdisciplinary predictive science and information delivery activities across the USGS to advance toward further realization of an EarthMAP capacity. The CAT efforts to develop and assess existing USGS capacity to advance the EarthMAP vision revealed a fundamental challenge for not only this effort but any effort to assess existing capacity: A considerable amount of thought, time, and effort is required to survey and assess capabilities and tools available to support a given need, yet best results are still likely to provide an incomplete assessment. To better meet the frequent need to assess capabilities, tools, products, and projects that address an expressed strategic priority, the CAT proposes the concept of an on-demand capacity assessment framework supported by a software package that dynamically pulls and integrates information from existing USGS information systems and public domain registries. Although existing USGS enterprise information systems currently lack the structure, cross-system consistency, interoperability, and stability to support a continuously updated capacity assessment capability, we identify reasonable near-term steps to improve the utility of information gathered on expertise and project capacity and to improve the consistency and completeness of information and the ability of USGS systems to share that information. The ability to search and characterize this information will make future assessments of capacity faster, more complete, more efficient, and more targeted. This approach would grow the Bureau’s capacity knowledge over time, iteratively improving the ability to access, leverage, and synthesize existing capabilities and assets as well as identify and fill critical gaps. The greatest promise for developing integrated science could lie in linking across existing projects and expertise to create a multi-project capacity for addressing large, complex environmental issues.

Open-File Report