USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

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.

614 records · Page 35Linked to original sources
USGS2021

Toward improved decision-support tools for Delta Smelt management actions

The Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP) has endorsed a goal of reversing the recent downward trajectory of the Delta Smelt population within 5-10 generations, with the long-term aim of establishing a self-sustaining population. An ambitious agenda of management actions is planned, and more management actions are being considered. This White Paper furthers one of the recommendations in the 2019 Delta Smelt Science Plan – the need to predict the potential ecological effects of taking a management action. Existing statistical models can be highly informative in assessing the response of Delta Smelt to changing system conditions and management actions. However, management actions can shift or alter conditions in ways that models based on analysis of historical data may not be able to represent, and short-term or localized effects may be missed with models designed to assess effects at the population level. Decision support tools (DSTs) are computer-based tools developed to assist decision-making, often combining computationally intensive analysis and spatial mapping of environmental relationships. DSTs can be used in planning processes that evaluate an array of actions, such as in Structured Decision Making (SDM), where DSTs are needed to compare among alternatives. DSTs can also be used to explore the potential effects of different approaches to implementing management actions. The goal of this White Paper is to identify plausible options for DSTs that could be developed for future use to evaluate management actions that seek to either reverse the decline of Delta Smelt or minimize or mitigate the effects of other water management actions. Different types of management actions lead to different needs for DSTs. This White Paper was developed using three types of actions currently being considered to enhance the Delta Smelt population: Supplementation with Hatchery Fish, Summer-Fall Habitat, and Food Enhancement actions. These three management actions target different parts of the estuary and different processes, with a variety of possible metrics to gauge performance. Three DSTs are proposed that collectively address management questions related to the management actions considered, with each requiring a slightly different set of processes to be included and producing an array of outputs at varying spatial and temporal scales: DST 1. Modeling Fish Movement, Survival, and Reproduction Across Their Range. This DST can address management questions that require information about Delta Smelt spatial distribution and movement. • DST 1 could be used to compare conditions with and without management actions in place, how the management action performs among different types of water years (with varied flow and associated abiotic conditions), and to assess relative change with different variations and strategies of the management actions. • DST 2. Changes in Habitat Conditions and Delta Smelt Response. This DST is intended to evaluate combinations of conditions that are considered to provide suitable habitat for Delta Smelt, and Delta Smelt response. Delta Smelt habitat is generally described as open water with low salinity (0 to 6), turbidity of at least 12 NTU, suitable temperature conditions, and sufficient food availability to support growth. • DST 3. Regional Effects of Food Subsidy. This DSTs seeks to evaluate effectiveness of food enhancement actions by providing information on responses of the immediate targets of the action (i.e., phytoplankton or zooplankton) and tracing those to projected growth responses of Delta Smelt. There is not a single DST that adequately addresses management questions relevant to all management actions, although there is some overlap in the management questions each of the three DSTs can address. For each of the DSTs a substantial foundation of models and approaches already exists and modeling has already been applied to several of the management actions described. However, a number of outstanding issues remain for further development of the proposed DSTs. These are summarized in this White Paper together with potential approaches that could be applied or tested. Some components for the DSTs are already available and thus development could be relatively easy. However, for several of the topics identified there are gaps in knowledge that currently limit formulation of model structure and process representations. This presents challenges to readily incorporate some needed mechanisms into the models. Eleven next steps, aligned with relevant DSTs, are outlined. The next steps vary in their complexity or technical ‘lift’ required. Many build on existing work, or methods and approaches that have already been developed or are underway, while others require additional thinking to establish a viable approach. Some interim utility for decisions could be gained during initial development of the DSTs with further features added over time. Development of a DST requires engagement of both managers and scientists. Identifying the outputs and resolution needed for management purposes early in development of any DST is essential for effective pursuit of next steps and suitable approaches to address challenges. Dialog between managers and technical experts also informs what process-based simulation can do, and what tradeoffs are acceptable to meet a given purpose. To further develop the DSTs outlined here for application in the estuary requires: - Engagement of a committed group of technical experts with appropriate expertise. - The development of a coordinated workplan including appropriate project management and tracking. - Dialog between potential users (i.e., managers and policy makers) and technical experts. - Resources to pursue DST development including personnel and computational resources. This White Paper demonstrates the potential for moving toward DSTs for a variety of management actions in support of Delta Smelt that include mechanistic representations of physical and biological processes. Through focused effort from technical experts, managers and policy makers, DSTs can be developed to provide quantitative predictions of management effects on the ecosystem, targeting the changes the management actions seek to achieve, how these effects compare to ambient conditions, and how the effects vary among water year types or with timing and location of actions. Importantly, solid foundations exist which can be leveraged, refined, and built upon to specifically inform current and future management decisions.

White Paper↗
USGS2025

Global methane budget 2000-2020

Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH 4 ) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. CH 4 is the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and both emissions and atmospheric concentrations of CH 4 have continued to increase since 2007 after a temporary pause. The relative importance of CH 4 emissions compared to those of CO 2 for temperature change is related to its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger radiative effect, and acceleration in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in quantifying the factors responsible for the observed atmospheric growth rate arise from diverse, geographically overlapping CH 4 sources and from the uncertain magnitude and temporal change in the destruction of CH 4 by short-lived and highly variable hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to improve, synthesise, and update the global CH 4 budget regularly and to stimulate new research on the methane cycle. Following Saunois et al. (2016, 2020), we present here the third version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal CH 4 budget, integrating results of top-down CH 4 emission estimates (based on in situ and Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) atmospheric observations and an ensemble of atmospheric inverse-model results) and bottom-up estimates (based on process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). We present a budget for the most recent 2010–2019 calendar decade (the latest period for which full data sets are available), for the previous decade of 2000–2009 and for the year 2020. The revision of the bottom-up budget in this 2025 edition benefits from important progress in estimating inland freshwater emissions, with better counting of emissions from lakes and ponds, reservoirs, and streams and rivers. This budget also reduces double counting across freshwater and wetland emissions and, for the first time, includes an estimate of the potential double counting that may exist (average of 23 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ). Bottom-up approaches show that the combined wetland and inland freshwater emissions average 248 [159–369] Tg CH 4 yr −1 for the 2010–2019 decade. Natural fluxes are perturbed by human activities through climate, eutrophication, and land use. In this budget, we also estimate, for the first time, this anthropogenic component contributing to wetland and inland freshwater emissions. Newly available gridded products also allowed us to derive an almost complete latitudinal and regional budget based on bottom-up approaches. For the 2010–2019 decade, global CH 4 emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (top-down) to be 575 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 553–586, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this amount, 369 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or ∼ 65 % is attributed to direct anthropogenic sources in the fossil, agriculture, and waste and anthropogenic biomass burning (range 350–391 Tg CH 4 yr −1 or 63 %–68 %). For the 2000–2009 period, the atmospheric inversions give a slightly lower total emission than for 2010–2019, by 32 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 9–40). The 2020 emission rate is the highest of the period and reaches 608 Tg CH 4 yr −1 (range 581–627), which is 12 % higher than the average emissions in the 2000s. Since 2012, global direct anthropogenic CH 4 emission trends have been tracking scenarios that assume no or minimal climate mitigation policies proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (shared socio-economic pathways SSP5 and SSP3). Bottom-up methods suggest 16 % (94 Tg CH 4 yr −1 ) larger global emissions (669 Tg CH 4 yr −1 , range 512–849) than top-down inversion methods for the 2010–2019 period. The discrepancy between the bottom-up and the top-down budgets has been greatly reduced compared to the previous differences (167 and 156 Tg CH 4 yr −1 in Saunois et al. (2016, 2020) respectively), and for the first time uncertainties in bottom-up and top-down budgets overlap. Although differences have been reduced between inversions and bottom-up, the most important source of uncertainty in the global CH 4 budget is still attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and inland freshwaters. The tropospheric loss of methane, as the main contributor to methane lifetime, has been estimated at 563 [510–663] Tg CH 4 yr −1 based on chemistry–climate models. These values are slightly larger than for 2000–2009 due to the impact of the rise in atmospheric methane and remaining large uncertainty ( ∼ 25 %). The total sink of CH 4 is estimated at 633 [507–796] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by the bottom-up approaches and at 554 [550–567] Tg CH 4 yr −1 by top-down approaches. However, most of the top-down models use the same OH distribution, which introduces less uncertainty to the global budget than is likely justified. For 2010–2019, agriculture and waste contributed an estimated 228 [213–242] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 211 [195–231] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Fossil fuel emissions contributed 115 [100–124] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 120 [117–125] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. Biomass and biofuel burning contributed 27 [26–27] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the top-down budget and 28 [21–39] Tg CH 4 yr −1 in the bottom-up budget. We identify five major priorities for improving the CH 4 budget: (i) producing a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting CH 4 based on a robust classification of different types of emitting ecosystems; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of CH 4 observations at local (e.g. FLUXNET-CH 4 measurements, urban-scale monitoring, satellite imagery with pointing capabilities) to regional scales (surface networks and global remote sensing measurements from satellites) to constrain both bottom-up models and atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) integration of 3D variational inversion systems using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane as well as information in the bottom-up inventories on anthropogenic super-emitters detected by remote sensing (mainly oil and gas sector but also coal, agriculture, and landfills) to improve source partitioning.

Earth System Science Data↗