SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Proceedings”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2007

Science and management in the Hanalei watershed: A trans-disciplinary approach: Proceedings from the Hanalei watershed workshop, February 21-22, 2007

The results of recent studies in the Hanalei watershed are impressive, both in content and breadth. Funded, directed, and/or conducted by investigators from many disciplines from local organizations (the Hanalei Watershed Hui), the University of Hawai‘i, the State of Hawai‘i (Department of Health, Department of Land and Natural Resources), and Federal organizations (U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Geological Survey, Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency), their sum total have contributed markedly to our understanding of processes in the watershed. There has been an overwhelming amount of information that has been collected in the Hanalei Bay Watershed from Mt. Waialeale to the far reefs in just the past 5 years. This workshop was initiated to document our collective understanding, better integrate our results, and identify the salient issues that remain to be studied.

Hawai'i↗

USGS2008

USGS Gulf Coast Science Conference and Florida Integrated Science Center Meeting: Proceedings with abstracts, October 20-23, 2008, Orlando, Florida

Welcome! The USGS is the Nation's premier source of information in support of science-based decision making for resource management. We are excited to have the opportunity to bring together a diverse array of USGS scientists, managers, specialists, and others from science centers around the Gulf working on biologic, geologic, and hydrologic issues related to the Gulf of Mexico and the State of Florida. We've organized the meeting around the major themes outlined in the USGS Circular 1309, Facing Tomorrow's Challenges - U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007-2017. USGS senior leadership will provide a panel discussion about the Gulf of Mexico and Integrated Science. Capstone talks will summarize major topics and key issues. Interactive poster sessions each evening will provide the opportunity for you to present your results and talk with your peers. We hope that discussions and interactions at this meeting will help USGS scientists working in Florida and the Gulf Coast region find common interests, forge scientific collaborations and chart a direction for the future. We hope that the meeting environment will encourage interaction, innovation and stimulate ideas among the many scientists working throughout the region. We'd like to create a community of practice across disciplines and specialties that will help us address complex scientific and societal issues. Please take advantage of this opportunity to visit with colleagues, get to know new ones, share ideas and brainstorm about future possibilities. It is our pleasure to provide this opportunity. We are glad you're here.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2008

Digital Mapping Techniques '07 - Workshop Proceedings

The Digital Mapping Techniques '07 (DMT'07) workshop was attended by 85 technical experts from 49 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 27 state geological surveys. This year's meeting, the tenth in the annual series, was hosted by the South Carolina Geological Survey, from May 20-23, 2007, on the University of South Carolina campus in Columbia, South Carolina. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Geologic Map Database Project and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG). As in previous year's meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information, principally in order to develop more efficient methods for digital mapping, cartography, GIS analysis, and information management. At this meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized: 1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, 'publishing' includes Web-based release); 2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LIDAR; 3) digital cartographic techniques; 4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; 5) analytical GIS techniques; and 6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2009

Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making - Proceedings of a Workshop

The production, location, use, and value of ecosystem services have become an important factor in resource management. Decisions relating to resource conservation and restoration, as well as development, require an understanding of the services provided by natural systems and the response of these systems to natural and human-induced change. Increased demands for development and the resulting pressures on ecosystem services have lent urgency to the need for an improved understanding of the value of natural capital. However, resource management decisions are often made without considering the importance and value of services resulting from natural systems.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2010

Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making - Proceedings of a Workshop

The analytical framework for understanding ecosystem services in conservation, resource management, and development decisions is multidisciplinary, encompassing a combination of the natural and social sciences. This report summarizes a workshop on 'Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' which focused on the analytical process and on identifying research priorities for assessing ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies. Attendees discussed research directions and solutions to key challenges in developing the analytical framework. The discussion was divided into two sessions: (1) the measurement framework: quantities and values, and (2) the spatial framework: mapping and spatial relationships. This workshop was the second of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These three workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can be more effectively incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, 'Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In preconference workshop 1, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services be used more routinely and effectively in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and they identified some key challenges in developing the analytical framework. Preconference workshop 3, 'Developing an Institutional Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on October 30, 2008, in Albuquerque, NM; participants examined the relationship between the institutional framework and the use of ecosystem services in decision making.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2009

Digital Mapping Techniques '08: Workshop Proceedings, Moscow, Idaho, May 18-21, 2008

The Digital Mapping Techniques '08 (DMT'08) workshop was attended by more than 100 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 24 State geological surveys. This year's meeting, the twelfth in the annual series, was hosted by the Idaho Geological Survey, from May 18-21, 2008, on the University of Idaho campus in Moscow, Idaho. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey's National Geologic Map Database Project and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG). As in previous years' meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information, principally in order to develop more efficient methods for digital mapping, cartography, GIS analysis, and information management. At this meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LiDAR; (3) digital cartographic techniques; (4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; (5) analytical GIS techniques; and (6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2010

Proceedings of the 25th Himalaya-Karakoram-Tibet Workshop

For a quarter of a century the Himalayan-Karakoram-Tibet (HKT) Workshop has provided scientists studying the India-Asia collision system a wonderful opportunity for workshop-style discussion with colleagues working in this region. In 2010, HKT returns to North America for the first time since 1996. The 25th international workshop is held from June 7 to10 at San Francisco State University, California. The international community was invited to contribute scientific papers to the workshop, on all aspects of geoscience research in the geographic area of the Tibetan Plateau and its bounding ranges and basins, from basic mapping to geochemical and isotopic analyses to large-scale geophysical imaging experiments. In recognition of the involvement of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists in a wide range of these activities, the USGS agreed to publish the extended abstracts of the numerous components of HKT-25 as an online Open-File Report, thereby ensuring the wide availability and distribution of these abstracts, particularly in the HKT countries from which many active workers are precluded by cost from attending international meetings. In addition to the workshop characterized by contributed presentations, participants were invited to attend a pre-meeting field trip from the Coast Ranges to the Sierra Nevada, to allow the international group to consider how the tectonic elements of the Pacific margin compare to those of the Himalayan belt. Following the workshop, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a workshop on the 'Future directions for NSF-sponsored geoscience research in the Himalaya/Tibet' intended to provide NSF Program Directors with a clear statement and vision of community goals for the future, including the scientific progress we can expect if NSF continues its support of projects in this geographic region, and to identify which key geoscience problems and processes are best addressed in the Himalaya and Tibet, what key datasets are needed, and how NSF can best support the evolving need for interdisciplinary investigations. This workshop also has clear societal relevance. Recent earthquakes have brought international attention to active tectonics and earthquake hazards in the HKT region. Prominent examples include the Mw 7.8 Kokoxili (Qinghai, China) earthquake of 2001, the Mw 7.6 Kashmir (Pakistan) earthquake of 2005, the Mw 7.9 Wenchuan (Sichuan, China) earthquake of 2008, and this year the Mw 6.9 Yushu (Qinghai, China) earthquake. Geological and geophysical field work conducted both before these earthquakes, as well as in response to them, has helped to define the active faults and regional tectonics in the HKT region. The research presented at this workshop provides the framework necessary for improved seismic hazard assessments in this region. The organizers gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF's Continental Dynamics Program and its Office of International Science and Engineering, through award EAR-0965796. We thank San Francisco State University's Sheldon Axler, Dean of the College of Science and Engineering, and Toby Garfield, Director of the Romberg Tiburon Center, for use of their conference facilities; and the Department of Geosciences, particularly Deb Shulman and Miriam Knof, for administrative support. The California Academy of Sciences generously hosted a reception for visiting delegates, and Brad Ritts (Chevron Exploration Technology Company), Todd Greene (California State University, Chico) and John Shervais (Utah State University) together co-led the pre-conference field trip. Technical editing of this volume was led by Roxanne Renedo (U.S. Geological Survey) with assistance from Margaret Milia (Stanford University). We are grateful to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquake Hazards Program and the USGS Menlo Park (California) Publishing Service Center for making this online report possible.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Digital Mapping Techniques '09-workshop proceedings, Morgantown, West Virginia, May 10-13, 2009

The Digital Mapping Techniques '09 (DMT'09) workshop was attended by 90 technical experts from 42 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 24 State geological surveys. This workshop, the thirteenth in the annual series, was hosted by the West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey, May 10-13, 2009, on the West Virginia University campus in Morgantown, West Virginia. Each DMT workshop has been coordinated by the National Geologic Map Database project and the Association of American State Geologists (AASG). As in the previous years' meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information, principally in order to develop more efficient methods for digital mapping, cartography, GIS analysis, and information management. At this meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products (here, "publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LiDAR; (3) digital cartographic techniques; (4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; (5) analytical GIS techniques; and (6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Proceedings of a Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning Workshop for the Western United States

Recent scientific and ocean policy assessments demonstrate that a fundamental change in our current management system is required to achieve the long-term health of our ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes in order to sustain the services and benefits they provide to society. The present (2011) species- and sector-centric way we manage these ecosystems cannot account properly for cumulative effects, sustaining multiple ecosystem services, and holistically and explicitly evaluating the tradeoffs associated with proposed alternative and multiple human uses. A transition to an ecosystem-based approach to management and conservation of coastal and marine resources is needed. Competing uses and activities such as commerce, recreation, cultural practices, energy development, conservation, and national security are increasing pressure for new and expanded resource usage in coastal marine ecosystems. Current management efforts use a sector-by-sector approach that mostly focuses on a limited range of tools and outcomes [for example, oil and gas leases, fishery management plans, and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)]. A comprehensive, ecosystem-based, and proactive approach to planning and managing these uses and activities is needed. Further, scientific understanding and information are essential to achieve an integrated decision-making process that includes knowledge of ecosystem services, existing and possible future conditions, and potential consequences of natural and anthropogenic events. Because no single government agency has executive authority for coastal or ocean resources, conflicting objectives around competing uses abound. In recent years, regional- and state-level initiatives in Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) have emerged to coordinate management activities. In some respects, the components and steps of the overall CMSP process are similar to how existing ocean resources are regulated and managed. For example, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) uses spatial planning exercises in State Renewable Energy Task Force meetings to identify competing and conflicting ocean uses, and to delineate areas suitable for renewable energy development. Similarly terrestrial areas such as in national parks and national wildlife refuges managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI) prepare management plans for preservation and restoration of species and habitats of concern, some of which are protected by law. The analogy to CMSP is clear - multiple users and multiple expectations, resulting in the requirement to establish spatial plans for management of different resources and different ecosystem services. A two-day workshop on December 1-2, 2010, was convened for DOI representatives and several key non-DOI participants with roles in CMSP as a step toward clarifying national perspectives and consequences of the National Ocean Policy for the West (appendix 1). Discussions helped to develop an understanding of CMSP from the federal perspective and to identify regional priorities. An overarching theme was to promote a better understanding of current and future science needs. The workshop format included briefings by key Federal agencies on their understanding of the national focus followed by discussion of regional issues, including the needs for scientific information and coordination. The workshop also explored potential science contributions by Federal agencies and others; utilizing current capabilities, data, and information systems; and provided a foundation for possible future regional workshops focusing in turn on the West Coast Region (California, Oregon, and Washington), Pacific Islands (sometimes referred to as Oceania) and Alaska. Participants were asked to share information in the following areas, recognizing that the purpose would be to learn more about the national perspective (see appendixes 2-4): Explore how the Western U.S. (Alaska, Pacific Islands, and West Coast Region) migh

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Developing an institutional framework to incorporate ecosystem services into decision making-Proceedings of a workshop

The routine and effective incorporation of ecosystem services information into resource management decisions requires a careful consideration of the value of goods and services provided by natural systems. A multidisciplinary workshop was held in October 2008 on "Developing an Institutional Framework to Incorporate Ecosystem Services into Decision Making." This report summarizes that workshop, which focused on examining the relationship between an institutional framework and consideration of ecosystem services in resource management decision making. This workshop was the third in a series of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can more effectively be incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, "Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In this workshop, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services more routinely and effectively used in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and identified some key challenges to developing the analytical framework (Hogan and others, 2009). Preconference workshop 2, "Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making," was held July 28, 2008, in Naples, FL, and focused on the analytical process and identification of research priorities for ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies (Hogan and others, 2010). The summary presented here synthesizes the discussion at workshop 3 and considers how institutional structures and policy instruments can be used to achieve the vision developed in workshop 1, while recognizing the analytical capabilities and limitations identified in workshop 2. Our purpose was to identify how to use ecosystem service information more effectively and broadly in resource management and development decisions. We recognized the need to facilitate an integrated understanding of (1) the natural capital that produces ecosystem services; (2) the geospatial and temporal aspects of ecosystem service production, values, and use; (3) the value of ecosystem services (monetary and nonmonetary); and (4) institutional instruments, processes, and structures (property rights, laws, governance structures, and courts, for example). Interdisciplinary collaboration and understanding is beneficial and needs to engage stakeholders. The appropriate use of institutional structures, including markets, to integrate ecosystem services into decision making depends on the players and characteristics of the specific situation (such as stakeholders, the ecosystem, resources, and the political environment). Incorporating ecosystem service values into decisions requires consideration of place-based social, cultural, economic, and landscape characteristics and institutions. Thus, a single, prescribed solution will not work-various institutional strategies must be used in different situations. Market-based approaches require appropriate regulations, monitoring, and enforcement, depending on the situation and place. Further, market approaches will need to be coupled with nonmarket approaches into an integrated institutional framework.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Digital Mapping Techniques '10-Workshop Proceedings, Sacramento, California, May 16-19, 2010

The Digital Mapping Techniques '10 (DMT'10) workshop was attended by 110 technical experts from 40 agencies, universities, and private companies, including representatives from 19 State geological surveys (see Appendix A). This workshop, hosted by the California Geological Survey, May 16-19, 2010, in Sacramento, California, was similar in nature to the previous 13 meetings (see Appendix B). The meeting was coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Geologic Map Database project. As in the previous meetings, the objective was to foster informal discussion and exchange of technical information. It is with great pleasure that I note that the objective was again successfully met, as attendees continued to share and exchange knowledge and information, and renew friendships and collegial work begun at past DMT workshops. At this meeting, oral and poster presentations and special discussion sessions emphasized (1) methods for creating and publishing map products ("publishing" includes Web-based release); (2) field data capture software and techniques, including the use of LiDAR; (3) digital cartographic techniques; (4) migration of digital maps into ArcGIS Geodatabase format; (5) analytical GIS techniques; and (6) continued development of the National Geologic Map Database.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2012

Proceedings of the workshop on alternative futures: Accounting for growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

This workshop provided a forum for identifying and discussing policies and assumptions for use in creating regionally consistent alternative future land-use scenarios. The alternative scenarios will help to inform how planning can potentially be used as a primary Best Management Practice by identifying land-use policies and other planning actions that can be taken to minimize future increases in nutrients and sediments associated with the spatial pattern and intensity of land development. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office will run these scenarios through the watershed model to quantify the differences in loadings achieved through implementation of land-use policies and to help assess the uncertainty associated with the current trend forecast. In addition, the outcomes of this workshop can assist jurisdictions in planning for growth with respect to minimizing future increases in nutrient and sediment associated with land development. Ultimately, this workshop was intended to provide jurisdictions with information that can be used to better account for refinement of their Watershed Implementation Plans.

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylv↗

USGS2013

Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes--Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012

Locally and globally, there is growing recognition of the critical roles that herring, smelt, sand lance, eulachon, and other forage fishes play in marine ecosystems. Scientific and resource management entities throughout the Salish Sea, agree that extensive information gaps exist, both in basic biological knowledge and parameters critical to fishery management. Communication and collaboration among researchers also is inadequate. Building on the interest and enthusiasm generated by recent forage fish workshops and symposia around the region, the 2012 Research Symposium on the Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes was designed to elucidate practical recommendations for science and policy needs and actions, and spur further collaboration in support for the precautionary management of forage fish. This dynamic and productive event was a joint venture of the Northwest Straits Commission Forage Fish Program, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and The Puget Sound Partnership. The symposium was held on September 12–14, 2012, at the University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratories campus. Sixty scientists, graduate students, and fisheries policy experts convened; showcasing ongoing research, conservation, and management efforts targeting forage fish from regional and national perspectives. The primary objectives of this event were to: (1) review current research and management related to marine forage fish species; and (2) identify priority science and policy needs and actions for Washington, British Columbia, and the entire West Coast. Given the diversity of knowledge, interests, and disciplines surrounding forage fish on both sides of the international border, the organizing committee made a concerted effort to contact many additional experts who, although unable to attend, provided valuable insights and ideas to the symposium structure and discussions. The value of the symposium format was highlighted in the closing remarks delivered by Joseph Gaydos, SeaDoc Society and Chair of the Puget Sound Science Panel. Dr. Gaydos’ presentation referenced the 2011 paper by Murray Rudd in the journal Conservation Biology , “How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy.” The paper points out that policy makers and funding agencies are more likely to gain a full understanding of issues when they are presented with research findings from an aligned research program. That is, compared to unaligned research strategies, where work is not based on identified research priorities.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2013

Partnering for science: proceedings of the USGS Workshop on Citizen Science

What U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) programs use citizen science? How can projects be best designed while meeting policy requirements? What are the most effective volunteer recruitment methods? What data should be collected to ensure validation and how should data be stored? What standard protocols are most easily used by volunteers? Can data from multiple projects be integrated to support new research or existing science questions? To help answer these and other questions, the USGS Community of Data Integration (CDI) supported the development of the Citizen Science Working Group (CSWG) in August 2011 and funded the working group’s proposal to hold a USGS Citizen Science Workshop in fiscal year 2012. The stated goals for our workshop were: raise awareness of programs and projects in the USGS that incorporate citizen science, create a community of practice for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, provide a forum to discuss the challenges of—and opportunities for—incorporating citizen science into USGS projects, and educate and support scientists and managers whose projects may benefit from public participation in science.To meet these goals, the workshop brought together 50 attendees (see appendix A for participant details) representing the USGS, partners, and external citizen science practitioners from diverse backgrounds (including scientists, managers, project coordinators, and technical developers, for example) to discuss these topics at the Denver Federal Center in Colorado on September 11–12, 2012. Over two and a half days, attendees participated in four major plenary sessions (Citizen Science Policy and Challenges, Engaging the Public in Scientific Research, Data Collection and Management, and Technology and Tools) comprised of 25 invited presentations and followed by structured discussions for each session designed to address both prepared and ad hoc "big questions." A number of important community support and infrastructure needs were identified from the sessions and discussions, and a subteam was formed to draft a strategic vision statement to guide and prioritize future USGS efforts to support the citizen science community. Attendees also brainstormed proposal ideas for the fiscal year 2013 CDI request for proposals: one possible venue to support the execution of the vision.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

Proceedings of the 9th U.S.-Japan natural resources panel for earthquake research

Introduction The UJNR Panel on Earthquake Research promotes advanced study toward a more fundamental understanding of the earthquake process and hazard estimation. The Ninth Joint meeting was extremely beneficial in furthering cooperation and deepening understanding of problems common to both the U.S. and Japan. The meeting included productive exchanges of information on approaches to systematic observation and modeling of earthquake processes. Regarding the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku, the Panel recognizes that further efforts are necessary to achieve our common goal of reducing earthquake risk through close collaboration and focused discussions at the 10th UJNR meeting. We look forward to continued cooperation on issues involving the densification of observation networks and the open exchange of data among scientific communities. We recognize the importance of making information publicly available in a timely manner. We also recognize the importance of information exchange on research policy and strategies, including the frameworks of research organizations. Areas of Cooperation –Specific areas of earthquake research where cooperative research between the U.S. and Japan may lead to significant advancement include, but are not limited to: –Probabilistic earthquake and tsunami hazard estimation, including extraordinarily large earthquakes, both in our respective countries and worldwide, incorporating knowledge of current and past behavior, and physics based computational models; –Real-time information from seismic, geodetic and strain measurements, including borehole strainmeters and seafloor observations using offshore cabled networks; –Technologies for measuring crustal deformation; –Early warning technologies for earthquakes and tsunamis; Studies of recurrence of large and extraordinary large earthquakes using paleoseismic, paleotsunami, geodetic and seismic methods; –Laboratory, theoretical and in situ studies of fault-zone processes; –Studies of episodic tremor and slow slip events using seismic, geodetic, and borehole strain measurements, and simulation techniques; –Systematic studies of earthquake predictability through rigorously evaluated scientific prediction experiments and robust databases; –Studies of near-source ground motions, geological effects and the response of engineered structures. The Panel strongly urges that the appropriate agencies in the U.S. and Japan that are represented on this panel work together with the academic sector to support and coordinate scientific work in these areas of cooperation. The Panel recognizes the importance of promoting the exchange of scientific personnel, exchange of data, and fundamental studies to advance progress in earthquake research. The U.S. and Japan should promote these exchanges throughout the world. The Panel endorses continuation of these activities.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2015

A quarter century of research on the Colorado Plateau: A compilation of the Colorado Plateau Biennial Conference Proceedings for 1993-2015

This Open-File Report is a compilation of the work published in the Colorado Plateau Biennial Conference book series over the span of the past nearly quarter century (conferences held between 1991–2011). The primary focus of the conferences has been to work toward integrating new science findings into management of the region’s natural and cultural resources. This conference and book series has begun a tradition of cooperation and community, bridging cultural, social, and biophysical research interests and addressing the needs of scientists and land managers working in a complex geographic area. We include here the abstracts for each of the 11 books in the series, as well as links to files with comprehensive literature citations and author listings. The goal of this compilation is to encourage further cooperation and communication on research and management issues of the Colorado Plateau among researchers, land managers, Native American tribes, and the public.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

Proceedings of the 11th United States-Japan natural resources panel for earthquake research, Napa Valley, California, November 16–18, 2016

The UJNR Panel on Earthquake Research promotes advanced research toward a more fundamental understanding of the earthquake process and hazard estimation. The Eleventh Joint meeting was extremely beneficial in furthering cooperation and deepening understanding of problems common to both Japan and the United States. The meeting included productive exchanges of information on approaches to systematic observation and modeling of earthquake processes. Regarding the earthquake and tsunami of March 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku and the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake sequence, the Panel recognizes that further efforts are necessary to achieve our common goal of reducing earthquake risk through close collaboration and focused discussions at the 12th UJNR meeting.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2019

Demonstrating the value of Earth observations—methods, practical applications, and solutions—group on Earth observations side event proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the European Association for Remote Sensing Companies, and the European Space Agency in coordination with the GEOValue Community hosted a side event to the Group on Earth Observations Plenary on October 23–24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. The workshop, entitled “Demonstrating the Value of Earth Observations: Methods, Practical Applications and Solutions,” brought together more than 60 international experts including economists, scientists, and engineers to consider the state of the science and applications of valuing Earth observations (EO). This 2-day workshop built upon previous activities developed under the GEOValue initiative. This workshop brought together expert analysts from multiple disciplines and backgrounds who are developing methods to identify and measure the value of information generated from the use of satellite and in-situ data. The mix of government agencies, international financial institutions, and independent consultants who participated in the workshop blended to develop a rich mix of views, approaches, and outcomes. During the first part of the workshop, the focus was on the latest science in valuing EO. A number of methodologies were described. Approaches generally assess the societal benefits of specific actions (for example, investments in EO). Some methods focus on broad measures of economic activity (for example, gross domestic product) or methods to assess total economic value such as contingent valuation surveys. Alternatively, use-case approaches (a use case is defined as an evaluation in which one or more decisions, applications, or other uses of data, information, and information products are specifically considered) start with the specific actions and how information is used to support decision making and affect outcomes. The second part of the meeting was focused on the use and development of value chains and decision trees. A value chain can be defined as the set of value-adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and services. In terms of EO, the value chain approach can be applied to consider societal benefits of the data and assess the value of data and data features. The EO value chain considers the geospatial data sources and the processing of the data into value added information to be incorporated into decision-support systems, leading to decision makers’ actions. To understand the value of EO, one would also need to recognize the demand side of the equation or how EO benefits users. Extending the value chain concept and incorporating tenets of Bayesian decision making, a decision tree would include one or more use cases. The value provided by the marginal increase in information could flow from one or several parts of the supply side of the value chain. The decision tree is based on the premise that information has no value if it is not used in at least one decision. By connecting the value chain and the decision tree, a framework is created that allows for conceptualizing the value of EO in its many uses. One can then apply economic techniques to monetize the marginal benefit of an outcome with information versus one without. A third part of the meeting applied the value chain and decision-tree frameworks to five specific thematic areas, each with the focus of using information for a decision point: Effect of increasing temperatures on human health; Flooding—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts to safety and property damage; Harmful algal blooms—Effects on human health, recreation, and tourism; Energy and mineral supply—Mitigating, managing, and avoiding impacts of shortfalls on the economy; and Effects of natural hazards on transportation systems—Effects on mobility, safety, and the economy. During the working session, five separate groups worked to define and delineate the value chains and decision trees associated with each topic, discussing the related challenges and data needs. The outcomes were reported back to the full group. Because of the complexity of the topics, most groups first identified a network of value chains and then narrowed the scope to develop a single value chain to address their group’s topic. Although they worked separately and on different topics, the groups came to similar conclusions, concurring that the value chain and decision-tree frameworks are very effective for informing quantitative impact assessments and developing a relatable narrative to assist the public in understanding the link between EO and citizens.

Open-File Report↗