Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2011

USGS science in the gulf oil spill: Novel science applications in a crisis

Marcia McNutt reflects on the role of the US Geological Survey (USGS) team following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Secretary Salazar asked Marcia McNutt to lead the Flow Rate Technical Group, a team charged by National Incident Commander Adm. Thad Allen with improving estimates of the oil discharge rate from the Macondo well as quickly as possible. Given the unprecedented nature of this spill, the team moved rapidly to deploy every reasonable approach. The team estimated the plume velocity from deep-sea video and from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's acoustic Doppler current profiler. The team calculated the total volume of the spill using aircraft remote sensing. After the unsuccessful top kill attempt in late May, during which large volumes of mud were pumped down the flowing well, an important part of understanding the failure of the procedure was answering the question.

Sea Technology↗
USGS2022

Science mission requirements for a globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel for U.S. Scientific Ocean Drilling

Through the collection and analysis of shallow and deep subseafloor sediments, rocks, fluids, and life, scientific ocean drilling has enriched our understanding of the complex Earth system. Among other achievements, scientific ocean drilling has documented the history of Earth’s climate, the waxing and waning of polar ice sheets, the past changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation, the existence and function of microbial life in the subseafloor, the compositional variations in Earth’s crust and underlying mantle, and the physical and chemical processes acting at subduction zones, including those associated with tsunamigenic earthquakes. Over the decades, more than 12,000 articles that depend on analyses of scientific ocean drilling samples and geophysical data have been published, many detailing breakthrough contributions to global knowledge about the Earth system. Approximately 45% of these publications were led by U.S.-affiliated authors (International Ocean Discovery Program Publication Services, 2021). Since the mid-1980s, the workhorse of this multidisciplinary, international research effort has been the riserless D/V JOIDES Resolution, operated by Texas A&M University with funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). D/V JOIDES Resolution has conducted the vast majority of scientific ocean drilling expeditions and collected most of the scientific cores over that period, including 82% of the expeditions and 93% of the cores in the last decade alone, despite being one of three platforms that is operated within the International Ocean Discovery Program. However, D/V JOIDES Resolution is approaching the end of its useful life. With a strong commitment to continue scientific ocean drilling beyond the end of the current phase, the community developed a document outlining the research frontiers that should be pursued. Exploring Earth by Scientific Ocean Drilling: 2050 Science Framework (Koppers and Coggon, 2020) describes seven scientific strategic objectives that focus on understanding interconnections within the Earth system and five flagship initiatives that integrate these objectives into long-term research efforts that address issues facing society. Additional elements in the 2050 Science Framework, including STEM education, workforce development, technology development, and innovative applications of data analytics, will advance the goals of scientific ocean drilling. Addressing the 2050 Science Framework also requires building partnerships with allied U.S. and international science programs and strengthening existing ones. To implement a significant portion of the 2050 Science Framework, the U.S. scientific community seeks to lease or acquire a newly built, globally ranging, state-of-the art, riserless drilling vessel. The many and varied technical and human resources requirements for successful accomplishment of scientific and educational goals summarized in this document and described in detail in the 2050 Science Framework require broad community input and careful consideration. Following receipt of NSF’s formal Request for Assistance to the United States Science Support Program (USSSP), the U.S. scientific ocean drilling community conducted a one-year exercise to identify its national scientific needs and priorities in order to determine the Science Mission Requirements (SMRs) presented here. This community effort included: (1) a U.S. community-wide survey to identify the specific operational and technical capabilities critical to addressing science in the 2050 Science Framework; (2) a series of online workshops focusing on critical capabilities identified by the survey; and (3) a large in-person workshop to synthesize the results of the survey and the virtual workshops (Appendix 1). The approach was designed to reach as many participants as possible. Overall, 278 survey responses were received from U.S. community members, representing 104 unique institutions from 39 states and the District of Columbia, and 137 unique individuals participated in the workshops (Appendix 2). The results of this effort comprise two classes of SMRs: Foundational Science Mission Requirements and Primary Science Mission Requirements. Foundational SMRs define minimum criteria for a new riserless drilling vessel that can address significant portions of the 2050 Science Framework. Primary SMRs build upon the Foundational SMRs and will create more robust science opportunities and data collection capabilities, will increase progress in addressing the 2050 Science Framework objectives, and will provide more real-time ship-to-shore interaction to improve science productivity, engagement, and outreach. Modern safety and environmental standards, including meeting standards to access protected waters such as exclusive economic zones, extended continental shelves, or high latitudes, while being cognizant of the vessel’s environmental footprint. Safe and efficient operations in global locations and in water depths from 70 m to 6000+ m, with total drill string length of at least 7000 m. High-quality core and data collection from a range of key subseafloor environments. Advanced heave compensation, dynamic positioning, and drill pipe stability. Modern mud and cement/casing systems. Critical onboard measurements for safety, operational decision-making, documentation of ephemeral properties, mission-specific science, and long-term science goals that extend beyond a single expedition. Designated and appropriate space for sample and data preservation. Highly skilled onboard personnel, including technical staff for curation and core handling; support for safety, time-sensitive, and critical shipboard measurements; computer support; equipment and instrument repair; application support; and data assurance. Primary Science Mission Requirements include: Flexible shipboard space for laboratories and on deck to ensure safe, successful implementation of diverse science objectives and operations. Minimizing contamination of recovered samples. Over-the-side capabilities for science-supporting technology (e.g., remotely operated vehicles, water- column sampling, sediment-water interface sampling). Downhole logging and measurements. Expanded borehole observatory capabilities. Reliable and consistent ship-to-shore communications. NSF’s investment in a new globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will have a powerful economic multiplier effect, including the infusion of additional science support funds in the United States for training and research, the development of new technologies and tools, and the associated scientific and technical workforce development. The skills and knowledge gained through scientific ocean drilling are translatable to careers in fields such as sustainable energy development (e.g., geothermal and offshore wind), carbon sequestration, data management and cyberinfrastructure, biotechnology, communications, science education, policy, hazard mitigation, and environmental management. The United States is a leader in a well-established and internationally collaborative scientific ocean drilling community. A modern, globally ranging, riserless drilling vessel will allow the United States to expand its leadership position, address broad scientific questions that current capabilities preclude, and cultivate equitable international, multidisciplinary collaborations that will ensure scientific ocean drilling’s future success.

Report↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey climate science plan—Future research directions

Executive Summary Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the importance of climate change to its future research agenda, the USGS’s Climate Science Steering Committee requested the development of a Climate Science Plan to identify future research directions. Subject matter experts from across the Bureau formed the USGS Climate Science Plan Writing Team, which convened in September 2022 to identify and outline the major climate science topics of future concern and develop an integrated approach to conducting climate science in support of the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior missions. The resulting USGS Climate Science Plan identifies three major priorities under which USGS climate science proceeds: (1) characterize climate change and associated impacts, (2) assess climate change risks and develop approaches to mitigate climate change, and (3) provide climate science tools and support. The Climate Science Plan identifies 12 specific goals to achieve the outcomes of the three priorities. Conduct long-term, broad-scale, and multidisciplinary measurements and monitoring and research activities to define, quantify, and predict the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems; Provide leadership to standardize measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions, lateral carbon fluxes, and carbon sinks across lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI); Provide science capacity, training, tools, and infrastructure to Tribal partners; support Tribal-led science initiatives; Conduct climate change research in partnership with the broader climate science community; Develop improved data synthesis methods through collaborative and open science across mission areas and between the USGS and agency partners; Translate climate change impacts into risk assessments in support of risk management strategies; Develop new and improved risk assessments, models, and approaches for mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts, and reducing uncertainties; design early warning systems for risk mitigation; Investigate climate change mitigation strategies and create decision science support tools to inform climate change mitigation and adaptation; Provide a framework that facilitates knowledge co-production needed to inform policy decisions; Provide access to USGS data and information through novel integration and visualization approaches; Build capacity within USGS and DOI through development of scientific training curricula; and Coordinate science and capacity building efforts broadly across the Federal Government. To achieve these goals, the USGS Climate Science Plan also outlines climate science guidelines—key elements for conducting climate-based research—as well as emerging opportunities to support successful climate science. The USGS Climate Science Plan provided in this circular will guide future research priorities and science-support investments, as well as continued development of the climate workforce for decades to come, ensuring that the USGS continues to serve as one of the Nation’s leading climate science agencies.

Circular↗
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↗
USGS2022

Use case development for earth monitoring, analysis, and prediction (EarthMAP)—A road map for future integrated predictive science at the U.S. Geological Survey

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort that was not aligned to an immediate funding opportunity. Connecting the Use Cases to stakeholder needs without the opportunity for direct stakeholder engagement was also challenging. The last notable challenge was in obtaining consistent interpretation and characterization of the qualitative data housed in the narrative descriptions of Use Cases, written in different styles. Overall, the 36 Use Cases can serve as components of a road map for advancing integrated monitoring and predictive science throughout the USGS by revealing opportunities to (1) encourage cross-region initiatives that address shared interests in common themes by integrating similar Use Cases and through direct involvement of stakeholders in identifying needs and designing effective responses, (2) leverage the Use Cases to target investments that are aligned with the Bureau and Department of the Interior (DOI) priorities, (3) connect Use Cases and the results of the companion EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021) to identify potential priorities for capacity building investments, and (4) raise awareness of common integrated and interdisciplinary science interests within and across the regions through Use Case and Capacity Assessment summary outreach activities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

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 policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making 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 well-being 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 decision-makers 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 USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency 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 DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. 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 and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • 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 decision-making 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 decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific 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 both 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 over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Fate and behavior tools related to inland spill response—Workshop on the U.S. Geological Survey’s role in Federal science support

Executive Summary There is a growing body of tools available for science support for determining the fate and behavior of industrial and agricultural chemicals that are rapidly injected (“spilled”) into aquatic environments. A 2-day roundtable-style workshop was held by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in Middleton, Wisconsin, in December 2017 to describe and explore existing Federal science support for spill fate and behavior tools used for inland spills, ongoing and new fate and behavior studies, and science gaps in planning and response tools as part of the USGS Midcontinent Region’s efforts to include spill response as part of its strategic plans. A total of 28 attendees representing a variety of Federal, State, and regional entities presented on programs and tools used in various aspects of spill response. Most programs and tools discussed were for spills in riverine environments but tools and applications for spills in lakes, on land surfaces, in urban storm sewer networks, and groundwater also were discussed. A primary workshop focus was to facilitate communication and increase potential for future collaboration among agencies for inland spill science support. The role and need for more USGS science support within the inland spill community was discussed. Enhanced communication is needed within the USGS and the U.S. Department of the Interior science programs, as well as within and among other agencies that do emergency planning and response. A main conclusion of the workshop was that there are untapped resources of the USGS outlined in the agency’s science strategy that could strengthen science support for fate and behavior tools in inland areas, especially in the Upper Mississippi River, Ohio River, and Great Lakes Basins where large freshwater resources overlap with dense corridors of oil and hazardous substances, with transportation networks, and with large populations centers. Fate and behavior tools are being developed quickly for inland spill response by multiple Federal agencies in partnership with local and regional entities. Applicability of these tools ranges from planning and preparedness, to the early stages of spill response for protection of human life and property, and to the application of monitoring and models to assess the long-term consequences of spills. Key findings from the workshop, with an emphasis on potential further development of USGS science support, include the following: •The national and regional response to spills occurs within an established system that must be respected by all parties involved in spill response. The USGS’s role is to support spill responders who are physically working at a spill scene, deploying booms and using other efforts to contain and recover spilled materials. •The USGS has tools that have been used throughout spill response operations, from early response to recovery and restoration. Developing a more formal role for the USGS to participate in science support for inland spills on a consistent basis is a desired outcome. This will require the USGS to improve internal and external communication and would be best accomplished by assigning one or more coordinator positions within the agency to plan and oversee USGS spill-response efforts. More involvement of the USGS on National and Regional Response Teams, especially in the realm of the Science and Technology Subcommittees, will gofar in increasing external communication and integration of fate and behavior tools. •Rapid response to spills requires modeling and mapping of plumes and associated time-of-travel estimation for a range of stream sizes across the United States. Many existing models use USGS streamgage data and the USGS National Hydrography Dataset. Nearly all existing models would benefit from updated linkages to USGS StreamStats and its soon-to-be released time-of-travel estimates,real-time velocity, stream morphology, and slope data. Integrating USGS tools with those from other agencies could be done to better serve the larger spill response community. • A problem is that existing models to rapidly predict plume extent, as well as more followup/longer-term fate and transport models, can be unknown or unavailable to spill responders. Thus, creating and strengthening linkages among USGS scientists skilled at using these tools is needed to support spill response with the on-scene responders. • Research for inland spill fate and behavior done outside of an immediate spill response can assist with spill planning and preparedness by (1) revealing sites likely to experience spills in the future (high-risk sites) and (2) understanding how a spilled substance might behave under a range of environmental conditions. However, USGS research on this topic has been scarce and subject to funding availability. Examples include the 2010 Line 6B Spill release into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, where the USGS provided science support for a variety of fate and behavior tools for stream and impoundment environments. A long-term research site in Bemidji, Minnesota, provides important insights into transformations and longevity of spilled oil in groundwater and groundwater-surface water interactions. • Linking stream models to other components of this inland environment, including groundwater, overland flow, and karst, is needed. Stream network data can be linked to underground conduits such as storm sewers and karst groundwater systems. Stream models can also be linked with geospatial data such as that contained in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interactive mapping tools. • The USGS is uniquely qualified to collect water-quality data during spills in the United States because of its many geographically dispersed water science centers, its knowledge and preparedness for flood measurement and documentation, and its cadre of skilled water-quality employees. Rapid-deployment gages, used for floods, could also be used for spills if they included spill-specific sensors. Coordinated expertise at USGS water and environmental science centers can be used for monitoring spill effects and for assessing risk to water quality and ecological communities. • Scientists at the USGS have proven capable of providing science coordination and technical assistance within the Incident Command Structure at the request of the lead on-scene coordinator. This external coordination, as well as internal communication within USGS Water, Hazards, and Ecosystems Mission Areas, could be improved by establishing and naming a USGS spills coordinator. Scott Morlock, Jo Ellen Hinck, and Faith Fitzpatrick are currently (2017) serving in informal coordination roles in addition to their traditional duties.

Open-File 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↗
USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

As a wildlife population ecologist who wants to conduct useful science, I find the Endangered Species Act (ESA), like other federal wildlife statutes, an intriguing read. The topic is in my wheelhouse—fish, wildlife, and plants, with a focus at the population and species levels. There is an emphasis on science, in fact, the “best scientific and commercial data available.” And there are intriguing questions: what threats does a species face? What habitat would be critical for its survival? Could any federal actions put the species or critical habitat in greater peril? I am not alone in this attraction. Hundreds of scientists continue to consider the types of scientific analysis suggested by the ESA. The enthusiasm is palpable. If the first cursory read of the ESA is intriguing to me as a scientist, the second close read is tantalizing—I realize that something very attractive is just out of reach. I know how to estimate the probability of extinction, but I do not know what “in danger of extinction” means. I know how to evaluate the incremental change in status that might arise from some level of proposed take, but I do not know what “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of a species means. The standards expressed in the statute are not stated in purely scientific terms. Thus, ESA decisions cannot be based solely on science, and require additional policy interpretation. Clarity about these policy interpretations—even awareness that they are needed—can be hard to find, leaving a gap between what I can provide as a scientist and what an ESA decision maker needs. This awareness of the interaction between science and policy is also occurring in the larger field of conservation science, where there has been an increasing recognition of a research-implementation gap, the need for actionable science, and the promise of translational ecology. All of these terms emphasize that science alone does not result in action; instead, action arises out of decisions that are informed both by science and by values. At the interface of science and policy, a scientist can deliver relevant knowledge, and a decision maker can explain the policy context in which that science is needed. As a scientist wanting to conduct useful science, I crave this two-way conversation. But how can this conversation be structured in a meaningful and appropriate way? In this chapter, I explore how decision analysis can be used to navigate the science-policy interface for ESA decisions. Decision analysis is a large, well-established field that studies how decisions are made and how they could be made, with explicit attention given to clarifying and separating the values-based and science-based elements of a decision; identifying the impediments that make a decision difficult; and providing tools to overcome those impediments. There have been concerted efforts to apply formal decision analysis to ESA decisions, but the practice is not yet widespread across both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The chapter begins with an introduction to decision analysis and how it seeks to bridge the science-policy interface. In subsequent sections, I explore how a decision analyst might frame listing and reclassification decisions, recovery planning, section 7 consultation, budget allocations, and a few other ESA decisions, with an emphasis on two questions: for each type of decision, what policy clarifications does the decision maker need to make; and knowing the policy context, what type of scientific assessment is needed. In the final discussion, I identify common themes among the types of decisions, and offer thoughts on how decision analysis could be more widely used to integrate science into ESA decisions.

Book chapter↗
USGS2012

Integrated science and interdisciplinary research for parks and protected areas

This paper summarizes presentations and discussion that focused on integrated science and the use of interdisciplinary research during a panel session held at the George Wright Society Meeting in New Orleans, March 14, 2011. The panel brought together nationally recognized members from the social and biological scientific communities, along with decision-makers and managers of parks and protected areas. The goal of the panel was to spark a discussion among panel members and the audience on the benefits and challenges of utilizing interdisciplinary research and integrated science to answer complex questions at the international, national, regional, and local park levels. The key focus points for the panel presentations and subsequent discussion revolved around the following five questions: How do we define interdisciplinary research and integrated science? What are the benefits, drawbacks, and challenges of interdisciplinary research and integrated science? When should this type of science be used? What are the barriers to employing interdisciplinary research and integrated science, and how can those perceived barriers be overcome? What are some examples of situations where this type of science has worked for you? We will break this paper down into seven sections, each summarizing the results of the panel presentations and subsequent audience discussion: 1. How do we define integrated science and interdisciplinary research? 2. The need for integrated science. 3. The challenges of integrated science and interdisciplinary research. 4. The benefits of integrated science and interdisciplinary research. 5. Integrated science in protected area management. 6. Communicating integrated science. 7. Key components to improve scientific outcomes.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2005

Geography for a Changing World - A science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005-2015

This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.

Circular↗
USGS2011

Geology for a changing world 2010-2020-Implementing the U.S. Geological Survey science strategy

This report describes a science strategy for the geologic activities of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2010-2020. It presents six goals with accompanying strategic actions and products that implement the science directions of USGS Circular 1309, 'Facing Tomorrow's Challenges-U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017.' These six goals focus on providing the geologic underpinning needed to wisely use our natural resources, understand and mitigate hazards and environmental change, and understand the relationship between humans and the environment. The goals emphasize the critical role of the USGS in providing long-term research, monitoring, and assessments for the Nation and the world. Further, they describe measures that must be undertaken to ensure geologic expertise and knowledge for the future. The natural science issues facing today's world are complex and cut across many scientific disciplines. The Earth is a system in which atmosphere, oceans, land, and life are all connected. Rocks and soils contain the answers to important questions about the origin of energy and mineral resources, the evolution of life, climate change, natural hazards, ecosystem structures and functions, and the movements of nutrients and toxicants. The science of geology has the power to help us understand the processes that link the physical and biological world so that we can model and forecast changes in the system. Ensuring the success of this strategy will require integration of geological knowledge with the other natural sciences and extensive collaboration across USGS science centers and with partners in Federal, State, and local agencies, academia, industry, nongovernmental organizations and, most importantly, the American public. The first four goals of this report describe the scientific issues facing society in the next 10 years and the actions and products needed to respond to these issues. The final two goals focus on the expertise and infrastructure needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the geological sciences in the USGS. The ultimate goal of USGS science and of the strategy laid out in this document is to contribute to the development of a sustainable society that operates in harmony with the Earth systems that society depends upon. As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, our Nation faces growing challenges in resource availability, climate and environmental change, and natural hazards. Meeting these challenges will require strong collaboration across the natural and social sciences and extensive partnerships with both the public and private sectors. The six goals described in this document represent a mix of scientific focus areas and operational necessities that together provide a comprehensive roadmap for USGS geologic science to effectively contribute to the USGS mission, providing science for a changing world.

Circular↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey landscape science strategy 2020–2030

Across our Nation, multiple Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and landowners to restore, conserve, and manage lands and resources to benefit fish, wildlife, and people. One of the largest Federal efforts is led by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), with multiple DOI agencies working to conserve and manage public lands, resources, and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations. As a science provider within the DOI, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has an important role in developing actionable science products that can inform decision making on public lands and across all of our Nation’s landscapes. Our landscapes and resources are undergoing continual change from a complex and interacting suite of stressors that include traditional and nontraditional land uses, a changing climate, a dynamic economy, and a culturally diverse and ever-changing society. Landscape science seeks to understand how the physical, biological, and social components of ecosystems and landscapes interact with each other and are affected by these stressors across local to global scales. The USGS has developed this landscape science strategy to focus and strengthen the agency’s efforts to inform critical conservation, restoration, and management decisions for American landscapes. The strategy directly supports the overarching 21st-century science strategy of the USGS and expands our perspective and focus on partnerships, including with internal, external, traditional, and nontraditional partners. The vision for USGS landscape science is to integrate multiple disciplines and approaches to create and deliver relevant, timely, and scientifically sound products that enable our partners to make informed decisions about how to manage complex interacting natural and human systems across changing American landscapes. This strategy seeks to leverage the expertise, data, analytical capacity, and tools of the agency and to strengthen integration of science efforts across programs and scales. A cornerstone of the strategy is working closely with landowners and resource managers to identify the science that is needed to inform management actions, and then working collaboratively with those same partners to coproduce science and data products that are timely, practical, and useful for their decision making. Many individual efforts within the USGS already embrace landscape science ideas and practices. With the development of this strategy, we are seeking to build on these efforts and to focus agency attention and expertise on expanding, connecting, and institutionalizing core practices and approaches for landscape science that produces actionable science products and tools that decision makers can use to help conserve and manage American landscapes.

Circular↗