Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Public Works Management and Policy”

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.

63 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2011

Natural resource mitigation, adaptation and research needs related to climate change in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert

This report synthesizes the knowledge, opinions, and concerns of many Federal and State land managers, scientists, stakeholders, and partners from a workshop, held at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, on April 20-22, 2010. Land managers, research scientists, and resource specialists identified common concerns regarding the potential effects of climate change on public lands and natural resources in the Great Basin and Mojave Desert and developed recommendations for mitigation, adaptation, and research needs. Water and, conversely, the effects of drought emerged as a common theme in all breakout sessions on terrestrial and aquatic species at risk, managing across boundaries, monitoring, and ecosystem services. Climate change models for the southwestern deserts predict general warming and drying with increasing precipitation variability year to year. Scientists noted that under these changing conditions the past may no longer be a guide to the future in which managers envision increasing conflicts between human water uses and sustaining ecosystems. Increasing environmental stress also is expected as a consequence of shifting ecosystem boundaries and species distributions, expansion of non-native species, and decoupling of biotic mutualisms, leading to increasingly unstable biologic communities. Managers uniformly expressed a desire to work across management and agency boundaries at a landscape scale but conceded that conflicting agency missions and budgetary constraints often impede collaboration. More and better science is needed to cope with the effects of climate change but, perhaps even more important is the application of science to management issues using the methods of adaptive management based on long-term monitoring to assess the merits of management actions. Access to data is essential for science-based land management. Basic inventories, spatial databases, baseline condition assessments, data quality assurance, and data sharing were identified as top information priorities by all participants at this workshop. Optimizing the utility of ecosystem monitoring data will require standardizing monitoring protocols across agencies. Better communication among researchers and managers and cooperation through partnerships to manage resources across boundaries were emphasized as necessary for adapting to changing climatic conditions. However, even these strategies may be insufficient unless policy mandates, agency missions, and funding are coordinated at a high level.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
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↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Community and citizen science on the Elwha River: Past, present, and future

This report reflects on the past, present, and potential future of community and citizen science (CCS) in the Elwha River watershed, with particular focus on the years before and after a major restoration event: the removal of two dams that had impacted the river system for a century. We ask: how does CCS feature in the Elwha story and how could it feature? We use the term CCS to reference the broad range of ways in which members of the public might participate in authentic science and monitoring processes, including students and both paid and unpaid interns: participants are individuals contributing to scientific projects without prior formal training in the topic. Removal of the Elwha dams was a large-scale, complex project, and communities had an important role to play: the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe (LEKT) and other local groups were a large part of the original drive to remove the dams. Some funding and policy requirements for monitoring are ending, but there is still much to learn from the changes happening in the Elwha, requiring ongoing research and monitoring. In 2022, the Elwha scientific community came together in a multifaceted effort called the “Elwha ScienceScape” to mark the ten-year anniversary of dam removal and to plan for future monitoring. One of ScienceScape’s priorities is expanding CCS efforts, and because the Elwha dam removal is a powerful international symbol of large-scale watershed restoration, ScienceScape is well-positioned to inform and emphasize the potential role of CCS in dam removal worldwide. This report presents insights about Elwha CCS from an academic literature review and discussions with scientists and many others that have been working in the Elwha. We found that the history of CCS on the Elwha is important but understated, with few scientific papers acknowledging support by volunteers of various kinds. Recent and ongoing CCS projects on the Elwha tend to be focused on biological phenomena, and most are associated with educational opportunities (across many types of institutions) and paid internships. We also noted that most Elwha CCS projects required volunteers with particular pre-existing skill sets (e.g., botanical knowledge) or time to impart specialized training (e.g. boat use), leading many projects towards engagement with a smaller number of volunteers. Partners working in the Elwha are considering a wide range of potential new CCS projects, and these ideas are in varying stages of development. Many new projects would broaden public involvement in terms of the opportunities available and increase the variety of focal topics for research and monitoring. This increased breadth is promising: there are indications that the local community’s interests also range widely, from fish recovery after dam removal to dam removal impacts on humans. Elwha CCS projects have encountered some challenges and barriers, including the administrative burden of coordinating volunteers and managing liability concerns. But Elwha ScienceScape scientists are committed to the value that CCS brings both to the research itself as well as to those who participate in these projects. CCS can be a way to increase equity in science and engage people who would not otherwise participate in research, and in many cases the research simply wouldn’t be possible without their help. Support with project administration, volunteer management, and data management could help in expanding CCS efforts and broadening their inclusivity. More systematic tracking of CCS projects to assess how they contribute to research and to community and participant benefit could be helpful in establishing and maintaining a long-term CCS strategy in the Elwha.

Wshington↗
USGS2014

Status and trends of Caribbean coral reefs: 1970-2012

This it the 9th status report since the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) was founded in 1995 was the data arm of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) to document the ecological condition or corral reefs, strengthen monitoring efforts, and link existing organizations and people working on reefs worldwide. The US Government provided the initial funding to help set up a global network of coral reef workers and has continued to provide core support. Since then, the series of reports have aimed to present the current status of coral reefs of the world or particular regions, the major threats to reefs and their consequences, and any initiative undertaken under the auspices of ICRI or other bodies to arrest or reverse the decline of coral reefs. IUCN assumed responsibility for hosting the global coordination of the GCRMN in 2010 under the scientific direction of Jeremy Jackson with the following objectives: 1. Document quantitatively the global status and trends for corals, macroalgae, sea urchins, and fishes based on available data from individual scientists as well as the peer reviewed scientific literature, monitoring programs, and report. 2. Bring together regional experts in a series of workshops to involve them in data compilation, analysis, and synthesis. 3. Integrate coral reef status and trends with independent environmental, management, and socioeconomic data to better understand the primary factors responsible for coral reef decline, the possible synergies among factors that may further magnify their impacts, and how these stresses may be more effectively alleviated. Work with GCRMN partners to establish simple and practical standardized protocols for future monitoring and assessment. Disseminate information and results to help guide member state policy and actions. The overarching objective is to understand why some reefs are much healthier than others, to identify what kinds of actions have been particularly beneficial or harmful, and to vigorously communicate results in simple and straightforward terms to foster more effective conservation and management. This and subsequent reports will focus on separate biogeographic regions in a stepwise fashion and combine all of the results for a global synthesis in the coming years. We began in the wide Caribbean region because the historical data are so extensive and to refine methods of analysis before moving on to other regions. This report documents quantitative trends for Caribbean reef corals, macroalgae, sea urchins, and fishes based on data from 90 reef locations over the past 43 tears. This is the first report to combine all these disparate kinds of data in a single place to explore how the different major components of coral reef ecosystems interact on a broadly regional oceanic scale. We obtained data from more than 35,000 ecological surveys carried out by 78 principal investigators (PIs) and some 200 colleagues working in 34 countries, states, and territories throughout the wide Caribbean region. We conducted two workshops in Panama and Brisbane, Australia to bring together people who provided the data to assist in data quality control, analysis, and synthesis. The first workshop at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in the Republic of Panama 29 April to 5 May, 2012 included scientists from 18 countries and territories to verify and expand the database and to conduct exploratory analyses of status and trends. Preliminary results based on the Panama workshop were presented to the DC Marine Community and Smithsonian Institution Senate of Scientists in May 2012 and at the International Coral Reef Symposium (ICRS) and annual ICRI meeting in Cairns, Australia in July 2012. The second workshop in Brisbane, Australia in December 2012 brought together eight coral reef scientists for more detailed data analysis and organization of results for this report and subsequent publications. Subsequent presentations to solicit comments while the report was being finalized were made in 2013-2014 at the ICRI General meeting in Belize, the biennial meeting of the Association of Island Marine Laboratories in Jamaica, the Panamerican Coral Reef Congress in Merida, Mexico, the annual meeting of he Western Society of Naturalists, and numerous universities in Costa Rica, the USA and Europe. The main body of the report is in two sections. Part I provides an overview of overall status and trends and detailed analyses of the multiple factors responsible for the decline of reef corals throughout the entire wider Caribbean region. The editors are grateful to all the people who have so generously provided data and expertise, but we assume responsibility for the many statements, conclusions and recommendations and final wording of the text. Part II provides a more detailed analysis of the status and trends of coral reef ecosystems in the 32 countries, states, and territories for which we have data. The format includes maps indicating all locations sampled, a detailed table of data sources and sites surveyed, timelines of ecologically important evens, and relevant references. Each of these reports was compiled in consultation with local experts and all those who provided data and advice are listed as authors of each country report.

Report↗
USGS1993

Applications of research from the U.S. Geological Survey program, assessment of regional earthquake hazards and risk along the Wasatch Front, Utah

INTERACTIVE WORKSHOPS: ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS RESEARCH AND REDUCTION PROGRAM IN THE WASATCH FRONT, UTAH: Interactive workshops provided the forum and stimulus necessary to foster collaboration among the participants in the multidisciplinary, 5-yr program of earthquake hazards reduction in the Wasatch Front, Utah. The workshop process validated well-documented social science theories on the importance of interpersonal interaction, including interaction between researchers and users of research to increase the probability that research will be relevant to the user's needs and, therefore, more readily used. REDUCING EARTHQUAKE HAZARDS IN UTAH: THE CRUCIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN RESEARCHERS AND PRACTITIONERS: Complex scientific and engineering studies must be translated for and transferred to nontechnical personnel for use in reducing earthquake hazards in Utah. The three elements needed for effective translation, likelihood of occurrence, location, and severity of potential hazards, and the three elements needed for effective transfer, delivery, assistance, and encouragement, are described and illustrated for Utah. The importance of evaluating and revising earthquake hazard reduction programs and their components is emphasized. More than 30 evaluations of various natural hazard reduction programs and techniques are introduced. This report was prepared for research managers, funding sources, and evaluators of the Utah earthquake hazard reduction program who are concerned about effectiveness. An overview of the Utah program is provided for those researchers, engineers, planners, and decisionmakers, both public and private, who are committed to reducing human casualties, property damage, and interruptions of socioeconomic systems. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EARTHQUAKE MITIGATION POLICIES ALONG THE WASATCH FRONT IN UTAH: The earthquake hazard potential along the Wasatch Front in Utah has been well defined by a number of scientific and engineering studies. Translated earthquake hazard maps have also been developed to identify areas that are particularly vulnerable to various causes of damage such as ground shaking, surface rupturing, and liquefaction. The implementation of earthquake hazard reduction plans are now under way in various communities in Utah. The results of a survey presented in this paper indicate that technical public officials (planners and building officials) have an understanding of the earthquake hazards and how to mitigate the risks. Although the survey shows that the general public has a slightly lower concern about the potential for economic losses, they recognize the potential problems and can support a number of earthquake mitigation measures. The study suggests that many community groups along the Wasatch Front, including volunteer groups, business groups, and elected and appointed officials, are ready for action-oriented educational programs. These programs could lead to a significant reduction in the risks associated with earthquake hazards. A DATA BASE DESIGNED FOR URBAN SEISMIC HAZARDS STUDIES: A computerized data base has been designed for use in urban seismic hazards studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey. The design includes file structures for 16 linked data sets, which contain geological, geophysical, and seismological data used in preparing relative ground response maps of large urban areas. The data base is organized along relational data base principles. A prototype urban hazards data base has been created for evaluation in two urban areas currently under investigation: the Wasatch Front region of Utah and the Puget Sound area of Washington. The initial implementation of the urban hazards data base was accomplished on a microcomputer using dBASE III Plus software and transferred to minicomputers and a work station. A MAPPING OF GROUND-SHAKING INTENSITIES FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: This paper documents the development of maps showing a

Professional Paper↗
USGS2019

A draft decision framework for the National Park Service Interior Region 5 bison stewardship strategy

The Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative calls for its bureaus to plan and implement collaborative American bison conservation and to ensure involvement by tribal, state, and local governments and the public in that conservation. Four independently managed and geographically separated National Park Service (NPS) units in Interior Region 5 (IR5) preserve bison and other components of a formerly contiguous Great Plains landscape. Management of bison in IR5 parks has historically been specific to each park, and livestock and range management science informed much of the decision making. In the past two decades, NPS has shifted away from managing bison from this livestock-based perspective towards a wildlife stewardship approach, including ensuring their long-term adaptive potential and considering them as just one part of a complex ecosystem. This shift requires a more holistic and cooperative approach to stewardship that is challenging not only because of limitations in funding and fluctuations in leadership priorities, but also because of the constraints imposed by the parks’ relatively small, fenced areas. The IR5 NPS Bison Stewardship Strategy (“Strategy”) will help the NPS to meet its responsibilities in cooperative stewardship of bison. The Strategy will serve to organize and consolidate the NPS’s legal and policy responsibilities within a framework of collectively defined values and objectives to support the careful and transparent decision-making processes that both guide and transcend park-specific planning. This report describes a preliminary decision framework for the Strategy, including the context, the fundamental objectives, and a range of alternative strategies developed and considered through two workshops and a series of conference calls with NPS personnel, stakeholders, and outside experts with an interest in IR5 NPS bison stewardship. Although not the Strategy itself, this framework serves as the Strategy’s starting point and identifies 14 fundamental objectives, falling in four major themes: Persistence of Wild and Healthy Bison 1. Maximize the long-term persistence of bison in IR5 parks 2. Maximize the long-term adaptive capacity of bison in North America 3. Maximize the wildness of the bison herds 4. Maximize humane treatment of bison, while allowing natural processes to occur Supporting Tribal Buffalo Culture 5. Improve relationships, trust, and communication with Tribes to enhance shared stewardship of bison within and beyond IR5 6. Maximize the number of live, healthy bison that can be transferred to tribal herds Persistence of Native Ecological Communities and Processes 7. Maximize structural and compositional heterogeneity of native prairie plant communities across space and time within each park 8. Maximize the abundance and diversity of animal species of special concern 9. Minimize the loss of native grassland within each park 10. Minimize the abundance of exotic plants in the park landscape 11. Maximize riparian area and wetland integrity Public Outreach 12. Maximize the number of healthy, wild bison that are visible to the public 13. Maximize the safety of visitors 14. Maximize public understanding of the past, present, and future of bison and Native Americans in the Great Plains The terms “minimize” and “maximize” in these objectives describe the desired direction for each individual objective. Finding the right balance among these objectives and any others identified in further work is one of the central challenges in developing the Strategy. To that end, this report also demonstrates and describes potential methods for evaluating how well alternative strategies would achieve each of the fundamental objectives.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS2024

The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy

President Biden has been clear that the ocean is central to life on Earth. As he has proclaimed, “the ocean powers millions of jobs; feeds and sustains us; and is a rejuvenating source of inspiration, exploration, and recreation.” The Biden-Harris Administration has worked hard to fulfill the President’s goal to protect and conserve at least 30% of U.S. waters by 2030. The ocean faces increased threats from warming, overfishing, increased acidity, and loss of biodiversity. It is now more important than ever to sustain the many benefits that the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes provide, including food, a favorable climate, recreation, physical and mental health, and for many, a sense of cultural identity. Ocean life represents an irreplaceable heritage, the foundation of a habitable planet, and a vast trove of resources. Keeping our ocean healthy requires reliable information on the changing status of these living organisms, the drivers of biodiversity change, and options for effectively addressing those drivers. Over 2 million species are estimated to live in the ocean, yet only about 240,000 species have been described by scientists. Most of the ocean’s benefits result from those diverse species interacting with one another and the environment they create. To protect and conserve the ocean, we as a nation need to make better use of existing knowledge and prioritize acquiring new biodiversity knowledge to enable better policy and management decisions. The ability to monitor ocean species and habitats has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with innovations in technology, genomics, taxonomy, big data management and sharing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Yet large fractions of the U.S. ocean remain almost unknown. The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (strategy) reflects the urgent need to leverage these advances. The goals of this strategy must be guided by the nation’s diverse voices and ways of knowing, in order to maximize effective and equitable stewardship of the ocean’s diverse life and its benefits to people. The strategy is intended as a guiding document for government to advance three overarching goals: ● Goal 1: Drive delivery of ocean biodiversity knowledge at the national scale. Objectives include developing an Implementation Plan for achieving the strategy’s three goals; establishing a coordination mechanism to manage the implementation; and documenting gaps in biodiversity knowledge and the benefits of ocean biodiversity to people and economies. ● Goal 2: Strengthen tools and institutions to deliver ocean biodiversity knowledge. Objectives include establishing a robust information pipeline to support indicators and dynamic maps of ocean biodiversity, from the coasts to the deep sea. This pipeline should include expanded observing systems and comprehensive data management; science and technology solutions to accelerate the availability of biodiversity information; and plans to leverage previous investments to rebuild and expand the nation’s human capital and infrastructure to sustain foundational taxonomy and biodiversity science. ● Goal 3: Protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably use ocean biodiversity. Objectives include expanding the collection, delivery, and use of biodiversity knowledge to inform actions that advance ocean protection, conservation, restoration, and sustainable development. Government should lead in establishing and incentivizing diverse partnerships across scales and sectors to implement those actions and should educate and involve the public to discover and value the nation’s diverse ocean life. Achieving these goals will require commitments across society: new federal and private investments, coordination across sectors to address climate and equity challenges, and engagement of Indigenous Knowledge holders and frontline communities as full partners throughout planning and implementation. The Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) IWG-Biodiversity will begin developing an Implementation Plan to describe and direct specific actions to implement the strategy. Successful implementation of the strategy will harmonize and expand collection and delivery of timely knowledge on ocean life to all of society. The strategy will also enable evidence-based management and protection of the ocean. Advancing the strategy will build human and institutional capital and partnerships that support both existing mandates and new needs to rebuild and sustain biodiversity, achieve healthy ocean ecosystems, and manage living resources. Implementing the strategy will deliver knowledge for monitoring, modeling, forecasting, and assessments that support food security, public health, and cultural values, and that more effectively protect, conserve, and restore nature.

Report↗
USGS2021

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↗