Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Action”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10Linked to original sources
USGS2006

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

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

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey core science systems strategy: Characterizing, synthesizing, and understanding the critical zone through a modular science framework

Executive Summary Core Science Systems is a new mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that resulted from the 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This report describes the Core Science Systems vision and outlines a strategy to facilitate integrated characterization and understanding of the complex Earth system. The vision and suggested actions are bold and far-reaching, describing a conceptual model and framework to enhance the ability of the USGS to bring its core strengths to bear on pressing societal problems through data integration and scientific synthesis across the breadth of science. The context of this report is inspired by a direction set forth in the 2007 Science Strategy. Specifically, ecosystem-based approaches provide the underpinnings for essentially all science themes that define the USGS. Every point on Earth falls within a specific ecosystem where data, other information assets, and the expertise of USGS and its many partners can be employed to quantitatively understand how that ecosystem functions and how it responds to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Every benefit society obtains from the planet— food, water, raw materials to build infrastructure, homes and automobiles, fuel to heat homes and cities, and many others— are derived from or affect ecosystems. The vision for Core Science Systems builds on core strengths of the USGS in characterizing and understanding complex Earth and biological systems through research, modeling, mapping, and the production of high quality data on the Nation’s natural resource infrastructure. Together, these research activities provide a foundation for ecosystem-based approaches through geologic mapping, topographic mapping, and biodiversity mapping. The vision describes a framework founded on these core mapping strengths that makes it easier for USGS scientists to discover critical information, share and publish results, and identify potential collaborations that transcend all USGS missions. The framework is designed to improve the efficiency of scientific work within USGS by establishing a means to preserve and recall data for future applications, organizing existing scientific knowledge and data to facilitate new use of older information, and establishing a future workflow that naturally integrates new data, applications, and other science products to make interdisciplinary research easier and more efficient. Given the increasing need for integrated data and interdisciplinary approaches to solve modern problems, leadership by the Core Science Systems mission will facilitate problem solving by all USGS missions in ways not formerly possible. The report lays out a strategy to achieve this vision through three goals with accompanying objectives and actions. The first goal builds on and enhances the strengths of the Core Science Systems mission in characterizing and understanding the Earth system from the geologic framework to the topographic characteristics of the land surface and biodiversity across the Nation. The second goal enhances and develops new strengths in computer and information science to make it easier for USGS scientists to discover data and models, share and publish results, and discover connections between scientific information and knowledge. The third goal brings additional focus to research and development methods to address complex issues affecting society that require integration of knowledge and new methods for synthesizing scientific information. Collectively, the report lays out a strategy to create a seamless connection between all USGS activities to accelerate and make USGS science more efficient by fully integrating disciplinary expertise within a new and evolving science paradigm for a changing world in the 21st century.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Department of the Interior metadata implementation guide—Framework for developing the metadata component for data resource management

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is a Federal agency with over 90,000 employees across 10 bureaus and 8 agency offices. Its primary mission is to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. Data and information are critical in day-to-day operational decision making and scientific research. DOI is committed to creating, documenting, managing, and sharing high-quality data and metadata in and across its various programs that support its mission. Documenting data through metadata is essential in realizing the value of data as an enterprise asset. The completeness, consistency, and timeliness of metadata affect users’ ability to search for and discover the most relevant data for the intended purpose; and facilitates the interoperability and usability of these data among DOI bureaus and offices. Fully documented metadata describe data usability, quality, accuracy, provenance, and meaning. Across DOI, there are different maturity levels and phases of information and metadata management implementations. The Department has organized a committee consisting of bureau-level points-of-contacts to collaborate on the development of more consistent, standardized, and more effective metadata management practices and guidance to support this shared mission and the information needs of the Department. DOI’s metadata implementation plans establish key roles and responsibilities associated with metadata management processes, procedures, and a series of actions defined in three major metadata implementation phases including: (1) Getting started—Planning Phase, (2) Implementing and Maintaining Operational Metadata Management Phase, and (3) the Next Steps towards Improving Metadata Management Phase. DOI’s phased approach for metadata management addresses some of the major data and metadata management challenges that exist across the diverse missions of the bureaus and offices. All employees who create, modify, or use data are involved with data and metadata management. Identifying, establishing, and formalizing the roles and responsibilities associated with metadata management are key to institutionalizing a framework of best practices, methodologies, processes, and common approaches throughout all levels of the organization; these are the foundation for effective data resource management. For executives and managers, metadata management strengthens their overarching views of data assets, holdings, and data interoperability; and clarifies how metadata management can help accelerate the compliance of multiple policy mandates. For employees, data stewards, and data professionals, formalized metadata management will help with the consistency of definitions, and approaches addressing data discoverability, data quality, and data lineage. In addition to data professionals and others associated with information technology; data stewards and program subject matter experts take on important metadata management roles and responsibilities as data flow through their respective business and science-related workflows. The responsibilities of establishing, practicing, and governing the actions associated with their specific metadata management roles are critical to successful metadata implementation.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

Prioritizing science efforts to inform decision making on public lands

Public land management agencies in the US are committed to using science-informed decision making, but there has been little research on the types and topics of science that managers need most to inform their decisions. We used the National Environmental Policy Act to identify four types of science information needed for making decisions relevant to public lands: (1) data on resources of concern, (2) scientific studies relevant to potential effects of proposed actions, (3) methods for quantifying potential effects of proposed actions, and (4) effective mitigation measures. We then used this framework to analyze 70 Environmental Assessments completed by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado. Commonly proposed actions were oil and gas development, livestock grazing, land transactions, and recreation. Commonly analyzed resources included terrestrial wildlife, protected birds, vegetation, and soils. Focusing research efforts on the intersection of these resources and actions, and on developing and evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation measures to protect these resources, could strengthen the science foundation for public lands decision making.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2008

Applying the land use portfolio model to estimate natural-hazard loss and risk — A hypothetical demonstration for Ventura County, California

With costs of natural disasters skyrocketing and populations increasingly settling in areas vulnerable to natural hazards, society is challenged to better allocate its limited risk-reduction resources. In 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act, amending the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Pub. L. 93-288, 1988; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002, 2008b; Disaster Mitigation Act, 2000), mandating that State, local, and tribal communities prepare natural-hazard mitigation plans to qualify for pre-disaster mitigation grants and post-disaster aid. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was assigned to coordinate and implement hazard-mitigation programs, and it published information about specific mitigation-plan requirements and the mechanisms (through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program-HMGP) for distributing funds (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002). FEMA requires that each community develop a mitigation strategy outlining long-term goals to reduce natural-hazard vulnerability, mitigation objectives and specific actions to reduce the impacts of natural hazards, and an implementation plan for those actions. The implementation plan should explain methods for prioritizing, implementing, and administering the actions, along with a 'cost-benefit review' justifying the prioritization. FEMA, along with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS), supported the development of HAZUS ('Hazards U.S.'), a geospatial natural-hazards loss-estimation tool, to help communities quantify potential losses and to aid in the selection and prioritization of mitigation actions. HAZUS was expanded to a multiple-hazard version, HAZUS-MH, that combines population, building, and natural-hazard science and economic data and models to estimate physical damages, replacement costs, and business interruption for specific natural-hazard scenarios. HAZUS-MH currently performs analyses for earthquakes, floods, and hurricane wind. HAZUS-MH loss estimates, however, do not account for some uncertainties associated with the specific natural-hazard scenarios, such as the likelihood of occurrence within a particular time horizon or the effectiveness of alternative risk-reduction options. Because of the uncertainties involved, it is challenging to make informative decisions about how to cost-effectively reduce risk from natural-hazard events. Risk analysis is one approach that decision-makers can use to evaluate alternative risk-reduction choices when outcomes are unknown. The Land Use Portfolio Model (LUPM), developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), is a geospatial scenario-based tool that incorporates hazard-event uncertainties to support risk analysis. The LUPM offers an approach to estimate and compare risks and returns from investments in risk-reduction measures. This paper describes and demonstrates a hypothetical application of the LUPM for Ventura County, California, and examines the challenges involved in developing decision tools that provide quantitative methods to estimate losses and analyze risk from natural hazards.

California↗
USGS2025

Microbiome data management in action workshop: Atlanta, GA, USA, June 12–13, 2024

Microbiome research is revolutionizing human and environmental health, but the value and reuse of microbiome data are significantly hampered by the limited development and adoption of data standards. While several ongoing efforts are aimed at improving microbiome data management, significant gaps still remain in terms of defining and promoting adoption of consensus standards for these datasets. The Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies (STORMS) guidelines for human microbiome research have been endorsed and successfully utilized by many research organizations, publishers, and funding agencies, and have been recognized as a consensus community standard. No equivalent effort has occurred for environmental, synthetic, and non-human host-associated microbiomes. To address this growing need within the microbiome research community, we convened the Microbiome Data Management in Action Workshop (June 12–13, 2024, in Atlanta, GA, USA), to bring together key decision makers in microbiome science including researchers, publishers, funders, and data repositories. The 50 attendees, representing the diverse and interdisciplinary nature of microbiome research, discussed recent progress and challenges, and brainstormed actionable recommendations and paths forward for coordinated environmental microbiome data management and the modifications necessary for the STORMS guidelines to be applied to environmental, non-human host, and synthetic microbiomes. The outcomes of this workshop will form the basis of a formalized data management roadmap to be implemented across the field. These best practices will drive scientific innovation now and in years to come as these data continue to be used not only in targeted reanalyses but in large-scale models and machine learning efforts.

Environmental Microbiome↗
USGS2025

Exploring the science and data foundation for Federal public lands decisions

Public lands provide diverse resources, values, and services worldwide. Laws and policies typically require consideration of science in public lands decisions, and resource managers are committed to science-informed decision-making. However, it can be challenging for managers to use, and document the use of, science and data in their decisions. To better understand science and data use in Federal public lands decisions in the United States, we assessed the number, type, and age of documents cited in 70 Environmental Assessments (EAs) completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado from 2015–2019. We focused on the BLM, as they manage the largest area of public lands in the United States. We selected Colorado as our study area, as actions proposed on BLM lands in Colorado are representative of those across the nation. Fifty percent of citations were categorized as science and 23% as data. EAs contained an average of 17 citations (range 0–111), with documents analyzing effects of oil and gas development and recreation actions including the highest and lowest mean number of citations (41 and 6, respectively). Of individual resource analysis sections within EAs, 24% contained ≥1 science citation and 21% contained ≥1 data citation. Journal articles were the most cited type of document (26% of citations) followed by non-BLM inventories (13%). Forty-seven percent of citations were relatively recent (2010 or later); the oldest citation was from 1927. Commonly analyzed resources with the highest mean number of citations were socioeconomics, mineral resources, and noise. Fourteen of 33 commonly analyzed resources included <1 citation on average. Actions and resources with no or few citations represent opportunities for strengthening the transparent use of science and data in public lands decision-making.

Colorado↗
USGS2023

Synthesis of larval lamprey responses to dewatering: State of the science, critical uncertainties, and management implications

Objective Dewatering of fine sediments in rivers and streams can kill many thousands of larval lampreys (order Petromyzontiformes) that are burrowed in these habitats. The larval life stage for lampreys lasts 3–10 years, and because larvae often aggregate in large numbers, negative impacts from dewatering could potentially deplete local populations and affect multiple year-classes. Larval lampreys have not traditionally been considered during instream projects, but recent efforts to increase awareness of lamprey habitats have resulted in guidance on dewatering approaches to limit impacts to lampreys. Salvage efforts to rescue and relocate lampreys aim to mitigate losses, but a lack of understanding of lamprey responses limits the optimization of dewatering and salvage procedures. Methods We summarize the state of the science for nine factors that influence larval lamprey ( Entosphenus and Lampetra spp.) responses to dewatering, including burrowing depth, the prevalence and timing of emergence, movements, survival, shoreline slope, dewatering rate, light, and lamprey size. Result Research suggests that (1) shoreline slope influences movement capability, (2) hot and sunny conditions increase the risk of mortality, (3) salvage activities cause minimal direct mortality, and (4) smaller larvae are especially vulnerable to negative impacts from dewatering because they are more likely to emerge and are less capable of movement. Critical uncertainties associated with dewatering include cues that drive emergence, the influence of sediment composition and stratigraphy, vertical distribution of larvae in natural settings, use of the hyporheic zone, the scale of predation losses, and the effectiveness and impacts of salvage activities. Conclusion Balancing investments in salvage operations and lamprey exclusion efforts (e.g., screening) and developing field survey approaches to evaluate lamprey use of the hyporheic zone are identified management implications and research needs. Addressing the critical uncertainties discussed here and providing updated, science-based guidance on dewatering and salvage practices are suggested management actions to support lamprey conservation.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management↗
USGS2017

Earth Stewardship: An initiative by the Ecological Society of America to foster engagement to sustain Planet Earth

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) has responded to the growing commitment among ecologists to make their science relevant to society through a series of concerted efforts, including the Sustainable Biosphere Initiative (1991), scientific assessment of ecosystem management (1996), ESA’s vision for the future (2003), Rapid Response Teams that respond to environmental crises (2005), and the Earth Stewardship Initiative (2009). During the past 25 years, ESA launched five new journals, largely reflecting the expansion of scholarship linking ecology with broader societal issues. The goal of the Earth Stewardship Initiative is to raise awareness and to explore ways for ecologists and other scientists to contribute more effectively to the sustainability of our planet. This has occurred through four approaches: (1) articulation of the stewardship concept in ESA publications and Website, (2) selection of meeting themes and symposia, (3) engagement of ESA sections in implementing the initiative, and (4) outreach beyond ecology through collaborations and demonstration projects. Collaborations include societies and groups of Earth and social scientists, practitioners and policy makers, religious and business leaders, federal agencies, and artists and writers. The Earth Stewardship Initiative is a work in progress, so next steps likely include continued nurturing of these emerging collaborations, advancing the development of sustainability and stewardship theory, improving communication of stewardship science, and identifying opportunities for scientists and civil society to take actions that move the Earth toward a more sustainable trajectory.

Book chapter↗
USGS2015

A spatial classification and database for management, research, and policy making: The Great Lakes aquatic habitat framework

Managing the world's largest and most complex freshwater ecosystem, the Laurentian Great Lakes, requires a spatially hierarchical basin-wide database of ecological and socioeconomic information that is comparable across the region. To meet such a need, we developed a spatial classification framework and database &mdash; Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Framework (GLAHF). GLAHF consists of catchments, coastal terrestrial, coastal margin, nearshore, and offshore zones that encompass the entire Great Lakes Basin. The catchments captured in the database as river pour points or coastline segments are attributed with data known to influence physicochemical and biological characteristics of the lakes from the catchments. The coastal terrestrial zone consists of 30-m grid cells attributed with data from the terrestrial region that has direct connection with the lakes. The coastal margin and nearshore zones consist of 30-m grid cells attributed with data describing the coastline conditions, coastal human disturbances, and moderately to highly variable physicochemical and biological characteristics. The offshore zone consists of 1.8-km grid cells attributed with data that are spatially less variable compared with the other aquatic zones. These spatial classification zones and their associated data are nested within lake sub-basins and political boundaries and allow the synthesis of information from grid cells to classification zones, within and among political boundaries, lake sub-basins, Great Lakes, or within the entire Great Lakes Basin. This spatially structured database could help the development of basin-wide management plans, prioritize locations for funding and specific management actions, track protection and restoration progress, and conduct research for science-based decision making.

Great Lakes↗
USGS2013

Invasive species in southern Nevada

Southern Nevada contains a wide range of topographies, elevations, and climactic zones emblematic of its position at the ecotone between the Mojave Desert, Great Basin, and Colorado Plateau ecoregions. These varied environmental conditions support a high degree of biological diversity (Chapter 1), but they also provide opportunities for a wide range of invasive species. In addition, the population center of the Las Vegas valley, and the agricultural area scattered throughout Clark, Lincoln, and Nye counties, all connected by a network of roads and highways, plus ephemeral and perennial watercourses, provide abundant opportunities for new invaders to be transported into and within southern Nevada (Brooks 2009; Brookes and Lair 2009). Invasive species are a concern for land managers because they can compete directly with native species (Brooks 2000; Chambers and others 2007; DeFlaco and others 2003, 2007; Mazzola and others 2010), change habitat conditions (Brooks and Esque 2002; Esque and others 2010; Miller and others 2011), and alter ecosystems properties (Brooks and Matchett 2006; Brooks and Pyke 2001; Evans and others 2001). Many invasive species have already established and spread to the point that they are now considered to pose significant problems in southern Nevada. However, there are likely many more than have wither not been transported to or colonized the region, or have established by for various reasons not spread or increased in abundance to the point where they have a significant impact. Land managers must understand both current and potential future problems posed by invasive species to appropriately prioritize management actions. This chapter addressed Sub-goal 1.2 in the SNAP Science Research Strategy (table 1.3; Turner and others 2009), which is to protect southern Nevada's ecosystems from the adverse impacts of invasive species. It provides a brief overview of the key concepts associated with the ecology and management of invasive species, and includes information relevant to all five strategic goals identified by the National Invasive Species Council: prevention, early detection and rapid response, control and management, restoration, and organization collaboration (National Invasive Species Council 2001, 2008). Restoration also is discussed in a broader context in Chapter 5 and 7. This chapter does not present a comprehensive review of all invasive species associated land management issues in southern Nevada, but rather uses key species of concern to illustrate invasion ecology concepts and management strategies. It is focused on terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, and does not address potential invasive taxa from the other Kingdoms. The information presented herein is intended to provide a foundation upon which land management plans can be developed and project-level decisions can be made relative to the management of invasive species in southern Nevada.

Nevada↗
USGS2026

Agency approach to allocation of human capital and program composition for human-marine mammal interaction management in the United States

Introduction: Marine mammals have served important and diverse roles throughout human history. Once exploited to near extinction, many species in the United States (U.S.) have recovered dramatically under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has jurisdiction to administer the MMPA for cetaceans and most pinnipeds. While most take is now prohibited, NMFS still dedicates significant time and resources to protecting and conserving marine mammals. As human populations continue to grow and exploit marine environments, opportunities for human-marine mammal interactions (HMMI) have increased. Resources may fail to keep up with growing needs for conservation investments, so that many agencies struggle to adequately meet social and legal requirements. Methods: This study evaluated NMFS’ approach to addressing HMMI through a mixed-methods (semi-structured interviews, quantitative questionnaire, and facilitated workshops) expert elicitation analysis of resource allocation (i.e., staff time) and priorities of NMFS Science Center (SC) and Regional Office (RO) staff across five geographic regions to understand how employee time is allocated, the degree to which employee time allocation is aligned with self-reported job descriptions, and employee perceptions of actions or investments which would improve their ability to mitigate HMMI. Results and Discussion: SC staff reported spending more time on Biological and Administrative tasks , while RO staff allocated more time to Policy, Social science , and Outreach tasks . SC employees spent less time on Biological tasks than specified by their perceived job descriptions, suggesting resource constraints. Participants identified Biological research and monitoring as top priorities, followed by Policy tasks . Identified actions included increasing research capacity, enhancing enforcement, expanding social science expertise, and improving outreach programs. The study reveals mismatches between mandated activities and available resources, suggesting strategic reallocation or increased funding may benefit the agency in effectively addressing growing HMMI challenges.

Frontiers in Marine Science↗
USGS2023

Closing the gap between science and management of cold-water refuges in rivers and streams

Human activities and climate change threaten coldwater organisms in freshwater ecosystems by causing rivers and streams to warm, increasing the intensity and frequency of warm temperature events, and reducing thermal heterogeneity. Cold-water refuges are discrete patches of relatively cool water that are used by coldwater organisms for thermal relief and short-term survival. Globally, cohesive management approaches are needed that consider interlinked physical, biological, and social factors of cold-water refuges. We review current understanding of cold-water refuges, identify gaps between science and management, and evaluate policies aimed at protecting thermally sensitive species. Existing policies include designating cold-water habitats, restricting fishing during warm periods, and implementing threshold temperature standards or guidelines. However, these policies are rare and uncoordinated across spatial scales and often do not consider input from Indigenous peoples. We propose that cold-water refuges be managed as distinct operational landscape units, which provide a social and ecological context that is relevant at the watershed scale. These operational landscape units provide the foundation for an integrated framework that links science and management by (1) mapping and characterizing cold-water refuges to prioritize management and conservation actions, (2) leveraging existing and new policies, (3) improving coordination across jurisdictions, and (4) implementing adaptive management practices across scales. Our findings show that while there are many opportunities for scientific advancement, the current state of the sciences is sufficient to inform policy and management. Our proposed framework provides a path forward for managing and protecting cold-water refuges using existing and new policies to protect coldwater organisms in the face of global change.

Global Change Biology↗
USGS2017

Cooperative science to inform Lake Ontario management: Research from the 2013 Lake Ontario CSMI program

Since the mid-1970s, successful Lake Ontario management actions including nutrient load and pollution reductions, habitat restoration, and fish stocking have improved Lake Ontario. However, several new obstacles to maintenance and restoration have emerged. This special issue presents management-relevant research from multiple agency surveys in 2011 and 2012 and the 2013 Cooperative Science and Monitoring Initiative (CSMI), that span diverse lake habitats, species, and trophic levels. This research focused on themes of nutrient loading and fate; vertical dynamics of primary and secondary production; fish abundance and behavior; and food web structure. Together these papers identify the status of many of the key drivers of the Lake Ontario ecosystem and contribute to addressing lake-scale questions and management information needs in Lake Ontario and the other Great Lakes and connecting water bodies.

Lake Ontario↗
USGS2023

It begins with curiosity—How do scientists learn from volcanoes?

This poster uses photographs of scientists in action to introduce the principles of critical thinking and curiosity-driven science as they relate to the study of volcanoes. Captions align with educational “Next Generation Science Standards” and include job titles and tasks to increase career awareness among students and their teachers. The poster is available in both English and Spanish.

General Information Product↗
USGS2019

South Atlantic Water Science Center Strategic Science Plan: 2019–23

Executive Summary The South Atlantic Water Science Center Strategic Science Planning Team has developed a unified strategic science plan to guide the science vision of the South Atlantic Water Science Center (SAWSC) in response to the merging of the Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina Water Science Centers. This plan proposes a path forward to keep SAWSC science activities relevant to the many diverse needs of stakeholders in the South Atlantic region (Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) and considers the hydrologic setting and issues of the region. This plan advises the creation of five working groups to address five priority science topics for the period 2019–23 and beyond. The five priority science topics are (1) Foundational Data, (2) Effects of Land-Use Change, (3) Coastal Plain Science, (4) Water Availability, and (5) Hazards. From the goals laid forth in this plan for each priority science topic, the working groups plan to devise a set of strategic actions and milestones to be achieved by the SAWSC to provide valuable and relevant data, research, and assessments in the South Atlantic region. In this report, the “South Atlantic region” is used to describe the area encompassed by the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2021

Using structured decision making to incorporate ecological and social values into harvest decisions: Case studies of white-tailed deer and walleye

Harvest decisions for fish and wildlife populations often include conflicting ecological, economic, and social values. Using decision analysis, such as structured decision making and adaptive management, as a framework to aid decision makers in multi-objective decision making for setting harvest regulations can lead to a more transparent and resilient decision. The process includes opportunities for inclusion of stakeholders’ concerns, either through multi-party workshops or the use of social science techniques to elicit objectives (i.e., values) and predict consequences of management actions. The authors present two case studies of using decision analysis to determine stakeholders’ objectives, identify alternative harvest strategies, predict the consequences of these alternatives on all objectives, and analyze tradeoffs among objectives. A case study of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) in New York State provides an example of combining predictive population modeling and implementation of survey instruments statewide to determine optimal region-specific harvest regulations. Harvest management of walleye ( Sander vitreus ) provides an example of the inclusion of commercial and recreational angler groups in a series of workshops to make decisions about harvest quotas for one of the world’s largest freshwater fisheries.

Book chapter↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey Energy and Minerals science strategy: A resource lifecycle approach

Executive Summary The economy, national security, and standard of living of the United States depend heavily on adequate and reliable supplies of energy and mineral resources. Based on population and consumption trends, the Nation’s use of energy and minerals can be expected to grow, driving the demand for ever broader scientific understanding of resource formation, location, and availability. In addition, the increasing importance of environmental stewardship, human health, and sustainable growth places further emphasis on energy and mineral resources research and understanding. Collectively, these trends in resource demand and the interconnectedness among resources will lead to new challenges and, in turn, require cutting-edge science for the next generation of societal decisions. The long and continuing history of U.S. Geological Survey contributions to energy and mineral resources science provide a solid foundation of core capabilities upon which new research directions can grow. This science strategy provides a framework for the coming decade that capitalizes on the growth of core capabilities and leverages their application toward new or emerging challenges in energy and mineral resources research, as reflected in five interrelated goals. Goal 1.—Understand fundamental Earth processes that form energy and mineral resources Goal 2.—Understand the environmental behavior of energy and mineral resources and their waste products Goal 3.—Provide inventories and assessments of energy and mineral resources Goal 4.—Understand the effects of energy and mineral development on natural resources and society Goal 5.—Understand the reliability and availability of energy and mineral supplies Within each goal, multiple actions are identified. The level of specificity and complexity of these actions varies, consistent with the reality that even a modest refocus can yield large payoffs in the near term whereas more ambitious plans may take years to reach fruition. As such, implementation of these actions is largely dependent on available resources and the sequencing of prerequisite steps. This science strategy places an emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration and leveraging of expertise across the U.S. Geological Survey and with external partners.

Circular↗