Search USGSSearch

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Policy Sciences”

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 271 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

Fighting misinformation in seismology: Expert opinion on earthquake facts vs fiction

Misinformation carries the potential for immense damage to public understanding of science and for evidence-based decision making at an individual and policy level. Our research explores the following questions within seismology: which claims can be considered misinformation, which are supported by a consensus, and which are still under scientific debate? Consensus and debate are important to quantify, because where levels of scientific consensus on an issue are high, communication of this fact may itself serve as a useful tool in combating misinformation. This is a challenge for earthquake science, where certain theories and facts in seismology are still being established. The present study collates a list of common public statements about earthquakes and provides–to the best of our knowledge–the first elicitation of the opinions of 164 earth scientists on the degree of verity of these statements. The results provide important insights for the state of knowledge in the field, helping identify those areas where consensus messaging may aid in the fight against earthquake related misinformation and areas where there is currently lack of consensus opinion. We highlight the necessity of using clear, accessible, jargon-free statements with specified parameters and precise wording when communicating with the public about earthquakes, as well as of transparency about the uncertainties around some issues in seismology.

Frontiers in Earth Science

Advancing monitoring approaches to enhance tidal Chesapeake Bay habitat assessment for submerged aquatic vegetation, water clarity, chlorophyll a and dissolved oxygen

Water quality monitoring capacity has been declining for the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) at a time when information needs are growing, and data gaps exist to address critical decision-support for managers. The CBP Scientific Technical Assessment and Reporting Team is leading a Principal’s Staff Committee requested gap analyses toward understanding support needed to improve water quality monitoring and analysis programming. Advanced technologies and alternative monitoring approaches in the form of satellite-based measurements, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) algorithms for data interpretation, continuous water quality in-situ sensor arrays, and community science efforts offer a growing portfolio of valuable opportunities for expanding data collections and analysis program capacities. However, since 1985, each of these options are examples of growing opportunities to enhance water quality assessments yet has seen limited adoption into elements of Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring programs. Where new technologies have been adopted (e.g., shallow water continuous water quality monitoring), such temporally rich data streams have supported Bay health insights yet had limited use in regulatory water quality criteria assessment. This Scientific Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) supported workshop provided the ideal forum for engaging our CBP partnership regarding the maturity of new and evolving monitoring and analysis capacities to address program information needs while appreciating limitations with adopting new tools and approaches. Improving natural resources monitoring efficiency and effectiveness will expand the scientific and technical foundations for making robust, strategic choices on decisions for CBP Partnership community-based priorities, policies, and management actions. Workshop findings and recommendations reflect progress in science, technology, and analyses addressing long-standing programmatic limitations in data collection and analysis capacities. State-of-the-science updates highlighted in the workshop span the spectrum of efforts representing improvements, successes, remaining challenges toward operationalizing protocols, and guidance toward research, or adoption and implementation by monitoring programs.

Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia

The gap between experts, farmers and non-farmers on perceived environmental vulnerability and the influence of values and beliefs

Science has played a mixed role in guiding conservation and sustainability-oriented decision-making by individuals, policymakers, institutions, and governments. Not all science-based conservation and sustainability initiatives that address issues facing humanity and ecosystems and global problems have gained public support. Conservation decisions and policy prescriptions are and may be based on perceptions about and experiences with the environment, local land use, and ecosystems that may not align with or be grounded in science or evidence from experts in the field. Values, beliefs, and perceptions associated with nature play a critical role in how individuals view biodiversity conservation, sustainability, and natural resource management . This study first examines the gap between experts (scientists and other field experts) and the public (farmers and non-farmers) about the state of water and land resources, wildlife and associated habitats, and aquatic biodiversity in the Smoky Hill River Watershed in western Kansas. Second, the study examines the role that values and beliefs play in shaping environmental perceptions for farmers and non-farmers. Analysis confirms that a gap between experts and farmers/non-farmers does exist, especially with respect to the state of the Ogallala Aquifer, playas, rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, native grasslands, wildlife habitats, farmland, native fish populations, and wildlife species. Ordered-logistic regression analyses, meanwhile, indicate that farmer and non-farmer perceptions about the state of the local environment are influenced by traditional and self-interested values, as well as environmental values and beliefs, but less so by religiosity and political ideology. Despite broad takeaways, results exhibited heterogeneity across the farmer and non-farmer subpopulations. If environmental professionals cannot align ecological data, stakeholders’ values/perceptions, and policies, then the existing body of technical research and management on sustainability in natural and social sciences may be of little value.

Journal of Environmental Management

Twenty-five essential research questions to inform the protection and restoration of freshwater biodiversity

Freshwater biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate. Freshwater conservationists and environmental managers have enough evidence to demonstrate that action must not be delayed but have insufficient evidence to identify those actions that will be most effective in reversing the current trend. Here, the focus is on identifying essential research topics that, if addressed, will contribute directly to restoring freshwater biodiversity through supporting ‘bending the curve’ actions (i.e. those actions leading to the recovery of freshwater biodiversity, not simply deceleration of the current downward trend). The global freshwater research and management community was asked to identify unanswered research questions that could address knowledge gaps and barriers associated with ‘bending the curve’ actions. The resulting list was refined into six themes and 25 questions. Although context-dependent and potentially limited in global reach, six overarching themes were identified: (i) learning from successes and failures; (ii) improving current practices; (iii) balancing resource needs; (iv) rethinking built environments; (v) reforming policy and investments; and (vi) enabling transformative change. Bold, efficient, science-based actions are necessary to reverse biodiversity loss. We believe that conservation actions will be most effective when supported by sound evidence, and that research and action must complement one another. These questions are intended to guide global freshwater researchers and conservation practitioners, identify key projects and signal research needs to funders and governments. Our questions can act as springboards for multidisciplinary and multisectoral collaborations that will improve the management and restoration of freshwater biodiversity.

Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosys

USGS Arctic Science Strategy

The United States is one of eight Arctic nations responsible for the stewardship of a polar region undergoing dramatic environmental, social, and economic changes. Although warming and cooling cycles have occurred over millennia in the Arctic region, the current warming trend is unlike anything recorded previously and is affecting the region faster than any other place on Earth, bringing dramatic reductions in sea ice extent, altered weather, and thawing permafrost. Implications of these changes include rapid coastal erosion threatening villages and critical infrastructure, potentially significant effects on subsistence activities and cultural resources, changes to wildlife habitat, increased greenhouse-gas emissions from thawing permafrost, threat of invasive species, and opening of the Arctic Ocean to oil and gas exploration and increased shipping. The Arctic science portfolio of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and its response to climate-related changes focuses on landscapescale ecosystem and natural resource issues and provides scientific underpinning for understanding the physical processes that shape the Arctic. The science conducted by the USGS informs the Nation's resource management policies and improves the stewardship of the Arctic Region.

Fact Sheet

Interpreting and Reporting Radiological Water-Quality Data

This document provides information to U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Science Centers on interpreting and reporting radiological results for samples of environmental matrices, most notably water. The information provided is intended to be broadly useful throughout the United States, but it is recommended that scientists who work at sites containing radioactive hazardous wastes need to consult additional sources for more detailed information. The document is largely based on recognized national standards and guidance documents for radioanalytical sample processing, most notably the Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual (MARLAP), and on documents published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American National Standards Institute. It does not include discussion of standard USGS practices including field quality-control sample analysis, interpretive report policies, and related issues, all of which shall always be included in any effort by the Water Science Centers. The use of 'shall' in this report signifies a policy requirement of the USGS Office of Water Quality.

Techniques and Methods

A new analysis of Mars "Special Regions": findings of the Second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2)

A committee of the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG) has reviewed and updated the description of Special Regions on Mars as places where terrestrial organisms might replicate (per the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy). This review and update was conducted by an international team (SR-SAG2) drawn from both the biological science and Mars exploration communities, focused on understanding when and where Special Regions could occur. The study applied recently available data about martian environments and about terrestrial organisms, building on a previous analysis of Mars Special Regions (2006) undertaken by a similar team. Since then, a new body of highly relevant information has been generated from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (launched in 2005) and Phoenix (2007) and data from Mars Express and the twin Mars Exploration Rovers (all 2003). Results have also been gleaned from the Mars Science Laboratory (launched in 2011). In addition to Mars data, there is a considerable body of new data regarding the known environmental limits to life on Earth—including the potential for terrestrial microbial life to survive and replicate under martian environmental conditions. The SR-SAG2 analysis has included an examination of new Mars models relevant to natural environmental variation in water activity and temperature; a review and reconsideration of the current parameters used to define Special Regions; and updated maps and descriptions of the martian environments recommended for treatment as "Uncertain" or "Special" as natural features or those potentially formed by the influence of future landed spacecraft. Significant changes in our knowledge of the capabilities of terrestrial organisms and the existence of possibly habitable martian environments have led to a new appreciation of where Mars Special Regions may be identified and protected. The SR-SAG also considered the impact of Special Regions on potential future human missions to Mars, both as locations of potential resources and as places that should not be inadvertently contaminated by human activity.

Astrobiology

Fifteen years of WRTDS for advancing water-quality science: A critical review of methodological developments and global applications

Contamination by nutrients, major ions, and metals poses a major threat to global water sustainability. Understanding how these pollutants vary across time and space requires long-term monitoring and robust statistical approaches. Traditional methods, however, often struggle to account for streamflow variability, seasonality, and nonlinear responses. Introduced in 2010, the Weighted Regressions on Time, Discharge, and Season (WRTDS) method offers a flexible, data-driven framework that generates both observed and flow-normalized estimates of concentration and load. Over the past 15 years, WRTDS has become a state-of-the-art tool for water-quality science and management, with applications spanning a wide range of hydrologic, climatic, and policy contexts─including major watersheds across North America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Arctic. In this review of WRTDS, we document the method’s major advancements, examine its expanding geographic and thematic applications, and summarize its relevance to water-quality management programs and policies worldwide. We also discuss its performance relative to other regression and machine-learning approaches. Finally, we identify key priorities for future development to support the continued evolution of WRTDS as a trusted and practical tool for scientists and managers working to protect and sustain water resources.

Environmental Science and Technology

Climate change and indigenous peoples: A synthesis of current impacts and experiences

A growing body of literature examines the vulnerability, risk, resilience, and adaptation of indigenous peoples to climate change. This synthesis of literature brings together research pertaining to the impacts of climate change on sovereignty, culture, health, and economies that are currently being experienced by Alaska Native and American Indian tribes and other indigenous communities in the United States. The knowledge and science of how climate change impacts are affecting indigenous peoples contributes to the development of policies, plans, and programs for adapting to climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This report defines and describes the key frameworks that inform indigenous understandings of climate change impacts and pathways for adaptation and mitigation, namely, tribal sovereignty and self-determination, culture and cultural identity, and indigenous community health indicators. It also provides a comprehensive synthesis of climate knowledge, science, and strategies that indigenous communities are exploring, as well as an understanding of the gaps in research on these issues. This literature synthesis is intended to make a contribution to future efforts such as the 4th National Climate Assessment, while serving as a resource for future research, tribal and agency climate initiatives, and policy development.

General Technical Report

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

Update on U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) are a set of standard principles fundamental to how USGS conducts and carries out its science activities and how resulting information products and data are reviewed, approved, and released. These policies, practices, philosophical premises, and operational principles serve as the foundation for all USGS research and monitoring activities and apply to all levels of the organization. The strength and future of the USGS depend on following these practices. USGS FSP were initiated in 2006 and fully implemented in 2009 to consolidate and standardize science practices across multiple scientific mission areas and science disciplines within the USGS.

Circular

Best practices for distributing and deploying U.S. Geological Survey Shiny applications

A goal of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research is to create actionable science for U.S. Department of the Interior managers and partners. Properly managed and released software tools can quickly, accurately, and easily translate scientific results to aid managers’ decision-making. The USGS policies on software development and distribution affect how authors of USGS software products must navigate the review and approval process. Understanding these rules and procedures will save time and effort in making science useful and visible through software development. This document outlines USGS policies on software development as they pertain to Shiny applications, which use R code to create interactive web-based applications. The requirements and procedures described here will also be relevant for other USGS software applications. This document is not intended to be a step-by-step guide on building a Shiny application or to go into detail about any of the referenced software programs. An understanding of the referenced software programs, including R, Git, and hypertext markup language/cascading style sheets (HTML/CSS) is needed to use this document efficiently, though links for more thorough guidance are included throughout.

Techniques and Methods

The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment

The cumulative effects of increasing human use of the ocean and coastal zone have contributed to a rapid decline in ocean and coastal resources. As a result, scientists are investigating how multiple, overlapping stressors accumulate in the environment and impact ecosystems. These investigations are the foundation for the development of new tools that account for and predict cumulative effects in order to more adequately prevent or mitigate negative effects. Despite scientific advances, legal requirements, and management guidance, those who conduct assessments—including resource managers, agency staff, and consultants—continue to struggle to thoroughly evaluate cumulative effects, particularly as part of the environmental assessment process. Even though 45 years have passed since the United States National Environmental Policy Act was enacted, which set a precedent for environmental assessment around the world, defining impacts, baseline, scale, and significance are still major challenges associated with assessing cumulative effects. In addition, we know little about how practitioners tackle these challenges or how assessment aligns with current scientific recommendations. To shed more light on these challenges and gaps, we undertook a comparative study on how cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is conducted by practitioners operating under some of the most well-developed environmental laws around the globe: California, USA; British Columbia, Canada; Queensland, Australia; and New Zealand. We found that practitioners used a broad and varied definition of impact for CEA, which led to differences in how baseline, scale, and significance were determined. We also found that practice and science are not closely aligned and, as such, we highlight opportunities for managers, policy makers, practitioners, and scientists to improve environmental assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

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

U.S. Geological Survey Program on the South Florida Ecosystem; proceedings of South Florida Restoration Science Forum, May 17-19, 1999, Boca Raton, Florida

The purpose of the forum is to highlight the powerful connection between science and management decisions in restoration efforts. The public's investment in science is paying off in support of better management decisions and restoration of imperiled south Florida Ecosystems, including the internationally recognized, globally significant Everglades. The forum affords a unique opportunity for elected officials and other policy- and decision makers, along with the general public, to see--under one roof--highlights of the most significant restoration science and management efforts underway. The forum promotes the link between science and management. Scientists and decisionmakers will come together to discuss the needs of each in order to ensure that plans for restoration are based in science and are the most cost effective and highest quality possible. Continued vigilance over south Florida ecosystems is essential to prevent further harm and to restore them. Representatives from numerous federal, state, local, and nongovernmental entities are organizing the forum for the Science Coordination Team of the South Florida Ecosystem Working Group. The U.S. Geological Survey and the South Florida Water Management District are the primary hosts of the forum.

Florida

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units Program—2015 Year In Review

Summary The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit (CRU) Program had its 80th anniversary in 2015. We did not have a party, but those of us who work directly for the Unit program on a daily basis celebrate the privilege we feel in being part of one of the greatest conservation institutions in history. Our mission is our hallmark: meeting the actionable science needs of our cooperators, providing them technical guidance and assistance in interpreting and applying new advances in science, and developing the future workforce through graduate education and mentoring. Our success in accomplishing our mission is due principally to the caliber of the scientists and students they recruit, and the tremendous support from our cooperators. The National Cooperators Coalition has been active in fostering support and I am very excited about their energy. A Special Session at the 2015 North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference was dedicated to the Unit program, and a vision for our future was presented at this most prestigious conservation policy forum. We compiled a directory of expertise within the Unit program organized within thematic science areas as identified by our cooperators. We intend for this directory to facilitate our transboundary initiatives where two or more Units in collaboration will be the catalyst that binds agencies and organizations together on landscape scale conservation science. We are co-sponsoring a workshop at the 2016 North American conference, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the American Fisheries Society, and The Wildlife Society to jump-start a dialogue on and identify issues associated with the widening gap between science and management. The CRU is viewed by our cooperators as being the standard for delivering actionable science in conservation, and the exception to the emerging trend. This is testament to the legacy of the Unit Program and the foundation it is built upon. In this Year in Review report, you will find details on staffing, vacancies, research funding, and other pertinent information. You will also see snapshots of Unit projects with information on how results have been or are being applied by cooperators. That is the essence of what we do: science that matter.

Circular

Scoping decision-maker needs and science availability to support regional natural capital accounting in the U.S. Colorado River Basin

Natural capital accounting has the potential to yield important policy insights at multiple scales, but there remains a disconnect between regional-scale natural capital accounts and their use for informing policy. In this paper, we propose a roadmap that could lead to the creation of policy-relevant regional accounts, with steps split across an initial scoping phase and a subsequent development phase. We demonstrate the scoping steps in action with an application to the Colorado River Basin (“Basin”), a large watershed in the southwestern United States (U.S.) that has faced aridification and substantial high-profile tradeoffs around the use of its water and other natural resources. Drawing on prior U.S. Geological Survey science co-production efforts, we conducted a series of eight discussion sessions with 41 scientists and science representatives whose work is relevant to Basin water, riparian and riverine ecosystems, upland ecosystems and energy and minerals. We summarise participants' thoughts on key topics and economic linkages, their insights and questions of interest and their recommendations on existing scientific data sources and gaps. We evaluate the suitability of the available data for construction of System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) Central Framework and SEEA Ecosystem Accounting accounts, including those for land, water, forests, energy and minerals and ecosystems (covering extent, condition and ecosystem services). We present a series of lessons learned during the scoping phase, as well as lessons that could be relevant for future practitioners engaging in the development phase. The information can help guide the development of timely and relevant regional-scale environmental-economic accounts in the U.S. and beyond.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,

Considerations and challenges in support of science and communication of fish consumption advisories for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Federal, state, tribal, or local entities in the United States issue fish consumption advisories (FCAs) as guidance for safer consumption of locally caught fish containing contaminants. Fish consumption advisories have been developed for commonly detected compounds such as mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls. The existing national guidance does not specifically address the unique challenges associated with bioaccumulation and consumption risk related to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). As a result, several states have derived their own PFAS-related consumption guidelines, many of which focus on one frequently detected PFAS, known as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). However, there can be significant variation between tissue concentrations or trigger concentrations (TCs) of PFOS that support the individual state-issued FCAs. This variation in TCs can create challenges for risk assessors and risk communicators in their efforts to protect public health. The objective of this article is to review existing challenges, knowledge gaps, and needs related to issuing PFAS-related FCAs and to provide key considerations for the development of protective fish consumption guidance. The current state of the science and variability in FCA derivation, considerations for sampling and analytical methodologies, risk management, risk communication, and policy challenges are discussed. How to best address PFAS mixtures in the development of FCAs, in risk assessment, and establishment of effect thresholds remains a major challenge, as well as a source of uncertainty and scrutiny. This includes developments better elucidating toxicity factors, exposures to PFAS mixtures, community fish consumption behaviors, and evolving technology and analytical instrumentation, methods, and the associated detection limits. Given the evolving science and public interests informing PFAS-related FCAs, continued review and revision of FCA approaches and best practices are vital. Nonetheless, consistent, widely applicable, PFAS-specific approaches informing methods, critical concentration thresholds, and priority compounds may assist practitioners in PFAS-related FCA development and possibly reduce variability between states and jurisdictions. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–20. © 2024 SETAC

Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management