DOI · DOI-0061 · record R2671
Invasive Carp Harvest Predictive Model
Department of the Interior · USGS
Overview
- Development stage
- PilotSource: b) Pilot – The use case has been deployed in a limited test or pilot capacity.
- High-impact designation
- Not high-impactSource: c) Not high-impact
- Impact justification
- Not reported
- Start date
- 2025-01-27 (day precision)Source: 1/27/2025
- Withheld from public reporting
- NoSource: a) No
Mission
- Topic area
- Science
- Operational functions
- Forecasting and prediction Derived by keyword rules; see methodology
Problem the AI is intended to solve
identify where invasive carp are congregating in large numbers in the Mississippi River for targeted harvest
Expected benefits
target for commercial harvesters seeking invasive carp in the Mississippi River
System outputs
predictions, maps
Technology
- AI classification
- Classical / predictive MLSource: Classical/Predictive Machine Learning: Models trained on data to make predictions or classifications based on identified patterns or relatio…
- System name(s)
- Not reported
- Custom-developed code
- No
- Public source code
- Not reported
Sourcing
- How it was built
- Developed in-houseSource: b) Developed in-house
- Vendor (as reported)
- Not reported
- Vendors (standardized)
- None on the standard list
A vendor is the supplier named by the agency. It does not identify the underlying model or AI technology.
Data and privacy
- Involves PII
- No
- Privacy Impact Assessment
- Not reported
- Authorization to Operate
- No
- Demographic features
- k) None of the above
- Training and evaluation data
- multiple public datasets
- Federal Data Catalog
- Not reported
Governance
5 of 8 minimum-practice questions answered. A blank answer means the agency reported nothing; it does not mean the practice is absent.
Pre-deployment testingNo answer reported
AI impact assessmentNo answer reported
Independent reviewReported in placeSource: a) Yes – by another appropriate agency office or reviewer not directly involved in the AI’s development
Ongoing monitoringReported in placeSource: a) Yes, sufficient monitoring protocols have been established
Operator trainingReported in placeSource: a) Yes, sufficient and periodic training has been established
Fail-safeNot applicableSource: b) Not applicable
Appeal processReported in progressSource: c) Establishment of an appropriate appeal process is in-progress
User and public consultationNo answer reported
Potential impacts and how they were identified
Not reported