Geology topics

Anne Wein

Publications and source records attributed to Anne Wein.

41 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

USGS2010

A method for assessing carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and greenhouse-gas fluxes in ecosystems of the United States under present conditions and future scenarios

he Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Section 712, mandates the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a methodology and conduct an assessment of the Nation’s ecosystems, focusing on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and emissions of three greenhouse gases (GHGs): carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The major requirements include (1) an assessment of all ecosystems (terrestrial systems, such as forests, croplands, wetlands, grasslands/shrublands; and aquatic ecosystems, such as rivers, lakes, and estuaries); (2) an estimate of the annual potential capacities of ecosystems to increase carbon sequestration and reduce net GHG emissions in the context of mitigation strategies (including management and restoration activities); and (3) an evaluation of the effects of controlling processes, such as climate change, land-use and land-cover change, and disturbances such as wildfires. The concepts of ecosystems, carbon pools, and GHG fluxes follow conventional definitions in use by major national and international assessment or inventory efforts. In order to estimate current ecosystem carbon stocks and GHG fluxes and to understand the potential capacity and effects of mitigation strategies, the method will use two time periods for the assessment: 2001 through 2010, which establishes a current ecosystem carbon and GHG baseline and will be used to validate the models; and 2011 through 2050, which will be used to assess potential capacities based on a set of scenarios. The scenario framework will be constructed using storylines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), along with both reference and enhanced land-use and land-cover (LULC) and land-management parameters. Additional LULC and land-management mitigation scenarios will be constructed for each storyline to increase carbon sequestration and reduce GHG fluxes in ecosystems. Input from regional experts and stakeholders will be solicited to construct these scenarios. The methods for mapping the current LULC and ecosystem disturbances will require the extensive use of both remote-sensing data and field-survey data (for example, forest inventories) to capture and characterize landscape-changing events. For potential LULC changes and ecosystem disturbances, key drivers such as socioeconomic and climate changes will be used in addition to the biophysical data. The result of these analyses will be a series of maps for each future year for each scenario. These annual maps will form the basis for estimating carbon storage and GHG emissions. For terrestrial ecosystems, carbon storage, carbon-sequestration capacities, and GHG emissions under the present conditions and future scenarios will be assessed using the LULC-change and ecosystem-disturbance estimates in map format with a spatially explicit biogeochemical ensemble modeling system that incorporates properties of management activities (such as tillage or harvesting) and properties of individual ecosystems (such as energy exchange, vegetation characteristics, hydrological cycling, and soil attributes). For aquatic ecosystems, carbon burial in sediments and fluxes of GHG are functions of the present and future potential stream flow and sediment transport and will be assessed using empirical hydrological modeling methods. Validation and uncertainty analysis methods described in the methodology will follow established guidelines to assess the quality of the assessment results. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Level II ecoregions map will be the practical instrument for developing and delivering assessment results. Consequently, the ecoregion (there are 22 modified ecoregions) will be the reporting unit of the assessment because the scenarios, assessment results, validation, and uncertainty analysis will be produced at that scale. The implementation of these methods will require collaborations among various Federal agencies, State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the science community. Using the method described in this document, the assessment can be completed in approximately 3 to 4 years. The primary deliverables will be assessment reports containing tables, charts, and maps that will present the estimated GHG parameters annually for 2001 through 2050 by ecosystem, pool, and scenario. The results will permit the evaluation of a range of policies, mitigation options, and research topics, such as the demographic, LULC-change, or climate-change effects on carbon stocks, carbon sequestration, and GHG fluxes in ecosystems.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2008

The ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario— A story that southern Californians are writing

The question is not if but when southern California will be hit by a major earthquake - one so damaging that it will permanently change lives and livelihoods in the region. How severe the changes will be depends on the actions that individuals, schools, businesses, organizations, communities, and governments take to get ready. To help prepare for this event, scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have changed the way that earthquake scenarios are done, uniting a multidisciplinary team that spans an unprecedented number of specialties. The team includes the California Geological Survey, Southern California Earthquake Center, and nearly 200 other partners in government, academia, emergency response, and industry, working to understand the long-term impacts of an enormous earthquake on the complicated social and economic interactions that sustain southern California society. This project, the ShakeOut Scenario, has applied the best current scientific understanding to identify what can be done now to avoid an earthquake catastrophe. More information on the science behind this project will be available in The ShakeOut Scenario (USGS Open-File Report 2008-1150; http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1150/). The 'what if?' earthquake modeled in the ShakeOut Scenario is a magnitude 7.8 on the southern San Andreas Fault. Geologists selected the details of this hypothetical earthquake by considering the amount of stored strain on that part of the fault with the greatest risk of imminent rupture. From this, seismologists and computer scientists modeled the ground shaking that would occur in this earthquake. Engineers and other professionals used the shaking to produce a realistic picture of this earthquake's damage to buildings, roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure. From these damages, social scientists projected casualties, emergency response, and the impact of the scenario earthquake on southern California's economy and society. The earthquake, its damages, and resulting losses are one realistic outcome, deliberately not a worst-case scenario, rather one worth preparing for and mitigating against. Decades of improving the life-safety requirements in building codes have greatly reduced the risk of death in earthquakes, yet southern California's economic and social systems are still vulnerable to large-scale disruptions. Because of this, the ShakeOut Scenario earthquake would dramatically alter the nature of the southern California community. Fortunately, steps can be taken now that can change that outcome and repay any costs many times over. The ShakeOut Scenario is the first public product of the USGS Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project, created to show how hazards science can increase a community's resiliency to natural disasters through improved planning, mitigation, and response.

California↗

USGS2008

The ShakeOut Scenario

This is the initial publication of the results of a cooperative project to examine the implications of a major earthquake in southern California. The study comprised eight counties: Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura. Its results will be used as the basis of an emergency response and preparedness exercise, the Great Southern California ShakeOut, and for this purpose we defined our earthquake as occurring at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2008. As members of the southern California community use the ShakeOut Scenario to plan and execute the exercise, we anticipate discussion and feedback. This community input will be used to refine our assessment and will lead to a formal publication in early 2009. Our goal in the ShakeOut Scenario is to identify the physical, social and economic consequences of a major earthquake in southern California and in so doing, enable the users of our results to identify what they can change now?before the earthquake?to avoid catastrophic impact after the inevitable earthquake occurs. To do so, we had to determine the physical damages (casualties and losses) caused by the earthquake and the impact of those damages on the region?s social and economic systems. To do this, we needed to know about the earthquake ground shaking and fault rupture. So we first constructed an earthquake, taking all available earthquake research information, from trenching and exposed evidence of prehistoric earthquakes, to analysis of instrumental recordings of large earthquakes and the latest theory in earthquake source physics. We modeled a magnitude (M) 7.8 earthquake on the southern San Andreas Fault, a plausible event on the fault most likely to produce a major earthquake. This information was then fed forward into the rest of the ShakeOut Scenario. The damage impacts of the scenario earthquake were estimated using both HAZUS-MH and expert opinion through 13 special studies and 6 expert panels, and fall into four categories: building damages, non-structural damages, damage to lifelines and infrastructure, and fire losses. The magnitude 7.8 ShakeOut earthquake is modeled to cause about 1800 deaths and $213 billion of economic losses. These numbers are as low as they are because of aggressive retrofitting programs that have increased the seismic resistance of buildings, highways and lifelines, and economic resiliency. These numbers are as large as they are because much more retrofitting could still be done. The earthquake modeled here may never happen. Big earthquakes on the San Andreas Fault are inevitable, and by geologic standards extremely common, but probably will not be exactly like this one. The next very damaging earthquake could easily be on another fault. However, lessons learned from this particular event apply to many other events and could provide benefits in many possible future events.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2007

Increasing resiliency to natural hazards - A strategic plan for the Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project in Southern California

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is initiating a new project designed to improve resiliency to natural hazards in southern California through the application of science to community decision making and emergency response. The Multi-Hazards Demonstration Project will assist the region’s communities to reduce their risk from natural hazards by directing new and existing research towards the community’s needs, improving monitoring technology, producing innovative products, and improving dissemination of the results. The natural hazards to be investigated in this project include coastal erosion, earthquakes, floods, landslides, tsunamis, and wildfires. Americans are more at risk from natural hazards now than at any other time in our Nation’s history. Southern California, in particular, has one of the Nation’s highest potentials for extreme catastrophic losses due to natural hazards, with estimates of expected losses exceeding $3 billion per year. These losses can only be reduced through the decisions of the southern California community itself. To be effective, these decisions must be guided by the best information about hazards, risk, and the cost-effectiveness of mitigation technologies. The USGS will work with collaborators to set the direction of the research and to create multi-hazard risk frameworks where communities can apply the results of scientific research to their decision-making processes. Partners include state, county, city, and public-lands government agencies, public and private utilities, companies with a significant impact and presence in southern California, academic researchers, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and local emergency response agencies. Prior to the writing of this strategic plan document, three strategic planning workshops were held in February and March 2006 at the USGS office in Pasadena to explore potential relationships. The goal of these planning sessions was to determine the external organizations’ needs for mitigation efforts before potential natural hazard events, and response efforts during and after the event. On the basis of input from workshop participants, four priority areas were identified for future research to address. They are (1) helping decision makers design planning scenarios, (2) improving upon the mapping of multiple hazards in urban areas, (3) providing real-time information from monitoring networks, and (4) integrating information in a risk and decision-making analysis. Towards this end, short-term and out-year goals have been outlined with the priorities in mind. First-year goals are (1) to engage the user community to establish the structures and processes for communications and interactions, (2) to develop a program to create scenarios of anticipated disasters, beginning in the first year with a scenario of a southern San Andreas earthquake that triggers secondary hazards, (3) to compile existing datasets of geospatial data, and (4) to target research efforts to support more complete and robust products in future years. Both the first-year and out-year goals have been formulated around a working-group structure that builds on existing research strengths within the USGS. The project is intended to demonstrate how developments in methodology and products can lead to improvement in our management of natural hazards in an urban environment for application across the Nation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2005

The no-project alternative analysis: An early product of the Tahoe Decision Support System

We report on the development of a No-project alternative analysis (NPAA) or “business as usual” scenario with respect to a 20-year projection of 21 indicators of environmental and socioeconomic conditions in the Lake Tahoe Basin for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Our effort was inspired by earlier work that investigated the tradeoffs between an environmental and an economic objective. The NPAA study has implications for a longer term goal of building a Tahoe Decision Support System (TDSS) to assist the TRPA and other Basin agencies in assessing the outcomes of management strategies. The NPAA assumes no major deviations from current management practices or from recent environmental or societal trends and planned Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) projects. Quantitative “scenario generation” tools were constructed to simulate site-specific land uses, various population categories, and associated vehicle miles traveled. Projections of each indicator’s attainment status were made by building visual conceptual models of the relevant natural and social processes, extrapolating trends, and using available models, research, and expert opinion. We present results of the NPAA, projected indicator status, key factors affecting the indicators, indicator functionality, and knowledge gaps. One important result is that current management practices may slow the loss or degradation of environmental qualities but not halt or reverse it. Our analysis also predicts an increase in recreation and commuting into and within the basin, primarily in private vehicles. Private vehicles, which are a critical mechanism by which the Basin population affects the surrounding environment, are a key determinant of air-quality indicators, a source of particulate matter affecting Secchi depth, a source of noise, and a factor in recreational and scenic quality, largely owing to congestion. Key uncertainties in the NPAA include climate change, EIP project effectiveness, and external population, economic activity, and air pollution.

Lake Tahoe Basin↗