SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Policy Sciences”

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 415 records · Page 23Linked to original sources

USGS2024

Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)—Updated 1960–2023

Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) are at the center of state and national land-use policies largely because of their unique life-history traits as an ecological indicator for health of sagebrush ecosystems. This updated population trend analysis provides state and federal land and wildlife managers with best-available science to help guide management and conservation plans aimed at benefitting sage-grouse populations. This analysis relied on previously published population trend modeling methodology from Coates and others (2021, 2022a) and incorporates population lek count data for 1960–2023. Included in this update are changes in terminology. Specifically, we now use the terms Period 1 (previously Long), Period 2 (previously Medium/Long), Period 3 (previously Medium), Period 4 (previously Short/Medium), Period 5 (previously Short), and Period 6 (previously Recent) to identify specific trends. State-space models estimated 2.8-percent average annual decline in sage-grouse populations between 1966 and 2021 (Period 1, six population oscillations) across their geographical range. Average annual decline among climate clusters for the same number of oscillations ranged between 2.1 and 3.1 percent. Cumulative declines were 41.1, 64.5, and 78.4 percent range-wide during Period 5 (19 years), Period 3 (35 years), and Period 1 (55 years), respectively. Population growth during 2022 and 2023 continue to point to 2021 as the most recent range-wide nadir.

Data Report↗

USGS2026

Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus )—Updated 1960–2025

Greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter sage-grouse) are at the center of State and national land-use policies largely because of their unique life-history traits as an ecological indicator for the health of sagebrush ecosystems. This updated population analysis provides State and Federal land and wildlife managers with the best available science to help guide management and conservation plans aimed at benefitting sage-grouse populations and the ecosystems they inhabit. This analysis relied on previously published population modeling methodology from Coates and others (2021, 2022a) and incorporates population lek count data for 1960–2025. Included in this report are methodological updates to period terminology, expanded reporting of trends across all nadir-to-nadir combinations, and revised extirpation probability estimation that utilizes every historic population nadir to forecast abundance. Each of these updates are detailed under individual Modification sections. Additional updates include simulation analyses that evaluate the effects of progressively longer exclusions of Wyoming lek count data (Wyoming Game and Fish Department has not provided access to a complete lek count data set since 2023) on trends, extirpation probabilities, and targeted annual warning system signals. State-space models estimated a 2.7-percent average annual decline in sage-grouse populations between 1966 and 2021 (Period 1–7, six population oscillations) across their geographical range. The average annual decline among climate clusters for the same number of oscillations ranged between 2.0 and 3.5 percent. Cumulative declines were 42.4, 61.7, and 77.9 percent range-wide in Period 5–7 (19 years [two oscillations]), Period 3–7 (36 years [four oscillations]), and Period 1–7 (55 years), respectively. Between 2024 and 2025 (1-year, non-trend timeframe), range-wide population size declined 1.9 percent ( 95-percent credible interval [CRI]= −4.71–1.48). Simulations of missing data from Wyoming showed that progressively longer gaps produced more negative trend estimates and higher extirpation probabilities, predominantly within Wyoming. Effects on targeted annual warning system signals were more nuanced, with missed warnings occurring inside and outside Wyoming and false warnings occurring predominantly within Wyoming.

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Nort↗

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↗

USGS2021

Final report on the assessment of the U.S. Geological Survey’s bureauwide Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) process

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) formed the internal Research Grade Evaluation (RGE) Review Team in May 2017. The Team undertook a 2-year comprehensive review of RGE practices and policies at the USGS that included (1) the first-ever quantitative assessment of the USGS workforce evaluated under the RGE process, (2) a benchmarking meeting in March 2018 of the USGS and 11 other Federal science agencies to compare how each conducts research scientist evaluation, and (3) extensive surveys of four internal stakeholder groups. The Team recommends that the RGE review process emphasize the importance of outcomes resulting from a scientist’s efforts, rather than focusing on easily quantified outputs such as peer-reviewed papers, presentations, and posters. Thus, the Team recommends that a scientist’s work be assessed according to contributions and impacts in three areas: (1) scientific understanding, (2) the missions of the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of the Interior, and (3) society more broadly. The Team developed (1) new formats for the Research Scientist Record (RSR) and Development Scientist Record (DSR) that match the Office of Personnel Management’s guidelines for factor scoring and (2) new findings templates to provide more meaningful feedback to scientists.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2018

Science for a risky world—A U.S. Geological Survey plan for risk research and applications

Executive Summary Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, hurricanes, droughts, floods, wildfires, geomagnetic storms, and pandemics—can wreak havoc on human communities, the economy, and natural resources for years following an initial event. Hazards can claim lives and cause billions of dollars in damage to homes and infrastructure as well as lost or compromised economic activity and threats to national security. They also can have adverse environmental, social, economic, and health effects that extend well beyond the immediate area, sometimes with global implications. Changes in population growth, climate, and urbanization may exacerbate hazard impacts. Because of the potential severity of a single hazard event, reducing risk—the potential loss of societally important assets caused by these hazards—is a high priority for everyone, including policy makers, community members, emergency managers, resource managers, utility operators, business owners, and planners. These stakeholders demand usable, user-centric information to support decisions for planning a resilient future and for responding to and recovering from unanticipated events in more adaptable and cost-effective ways. Meeting this demand requires maximizing the use of environmental observations; hazards science; and research on communications, social stressors, and human behavior to deliver risk information in forms that are accessible by decision makers and the public alike. To achieve this, scientists and stakeholders must collaborate to match community needs with actionable insights, research, products, and tools, using advances in technology to improve information discovery and delivery.

Circular↗

USGS2002

Meeting ecological and societal needs for freshwater

Human society has used freshwater from rivers, lakes, groundwater, and wetlands for many different urban, agricultural, and industrial activities, but in doing so has overlooked its value in supporting ecosystems. Freshwater is vital to human life and societal well-being, and thus its utilization for consumption, irrigation, and transport has long taken precedence over other commodities and services provided by freshwater ecosystems. However, there is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term benefits to society. The short-term benefits include ecosystem goods and services, such as food supply, flood control, purification of human and industrial wastes, and habitat for plant and animal life—and these are costly, if not impossible, to replace. Long-term benefits include the sustained provision of those goods and services, as well as the adaptive capacity of aquatic ecosystems to respond to future environmental alterations, such as climate change. Thus, maintenance of the processes and properties that support freshwater ecosystem integrity should be included in debates over sustainable water resource allocation. The purpose of this report is to explain how the integrity of freshwater ecosystems depends upon adequate quantity, quality, timing, and temporal variability of water flow. Defining these requirements in a comprehensive but general manner provides a better foundation for their inclusion in current and future debates about allocation of water resources. In this way the needs of freshwater ecosystems can be legitimately recognized and addressed. We also recommend ways in which freshwater ecosystems can be protected, maintained, and restored. Freshwater ecosystem structure and function are tightly linked to the watershed or catchment of which they are a part. Because riverine networks, lakes, wetlands, and their connecting groundwaters, are literally the “sinks” into which landscapes drain, they are greatly influenced by terrestrial processes, including many human uses or modifications of land and water. Freshwater ecosystems, whether lakes, wetlands, or rivers, have specific requirements in terms of quantity, quality, and seasonality of their water supplies. Sustainability normally requires these systems to fluctuate within a natural range of variation. Flow regime, sediment and organic matter inputs, thermal and light characteristics, chemical and nutrient characteristics, and biotic assemblages are fundamental defining attributes of freshwater ecosystems. These attributes impart relatively unique characteristics of productivity and biodiversity to each ecosystem. The natural range of variation in each of these attributes is critical to maintaining the integrity and dynamic potential of aquatic ecosystems; therefore, management should allow for dynamic change. Piecemeal approaches cannot solve the problems confronting freshwater ecosystems. Scientific definitions of the requirements to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems are necessary but insufficient for establishing the appropriate distribution between societal and ecosystem water needs. For scientific knowledge to be implemented science must be connected to a political agenda for sustainable development. We offer these recommendations as a beginning to redress how water is viewed and managed in the United States: (1) Frame national and regional water management policies to explicitly incorporate freshwater ecosystem needs, particularly those related to naturally variable flow regimes and to the linking of water quality with water quantity; (2) Define water resources to include watersheds, so that freshwaters are viewed within a landscape, or systems context; (3) Increase communication and education across disciplines, especially among engineers, hydrologists, economists, and ecologists to facilitate an integrated view of freshwater resources; (4) Increase restoration efforts, using well-grounded ecological principles as guidelines; (5) Maintain and protect the remaining freshwater ecosystems that have high integrity; and (6) Recognize the dependence of human society on naturally functioning ecosystems.

Ecological Applications↗

USGS2025

Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)—Updated 1960–2024

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Nort↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Arizona: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Arizona as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the MCRS database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Arizona↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Utah: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Utah as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the MCRS database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Utah↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Washington: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Washington as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the Mining Claim Recordation System (MCRS) database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Washington↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in California: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in California as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the MCRS database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

California↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Colorado: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Colorado as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the Mining Claim Recordation System (MCRS) database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Colorado↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in New Mexico: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in New Mexico as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the MCRS database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

New Mexico↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Nevada: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Nevada as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the MCRS database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Nevada↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Oregon: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Oregon as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the Mining Claim Recordation System (MCRS) database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Oregon↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Wyoming: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Wyoming as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill, and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate BLM State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the Mining Claim Recordation System (MCRS) database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Wyoming↗

USGS1999

Digital mining claim density map for federal lands in Idaho: 1996

This report describes a digital map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide digital spatial mining claim density information for federal lands in Idaho as of March 1997. Mining claim data is earth science information deemed to be relevant to the assessment of historic, current, and future ecological, economic, and social systems. There is no paper map included in this Open-File report. In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), all unpatented mining claims, mill and tunnel sites must be recorded at the appropriate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) State office. BLM maintains a cumulative computer listing of mining claims in the Mining Claim Recordation System (MCRS) database with locations given by meridian, township, range, and section. A mining claim is considered closed when the claim is relinquished or a formal BLM decision declaring the mining claim null and void has been issued and the appeal period has expired. All other mining claims filed with BLM are considered to be open and actively held. The digital map (figure 1.) with the mining claim density database available in this report are suitable for geographic information system (GIS)-based regional assessments at a scale of 1:100,000 or smaller.

Idaho↗

USGS2020

Assessing the state of water resource knowledge and tools for future planning in the lower Rio Grande-Rio Bravo Basin

The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin (hereinafter referred to as the Rio Grande) is a transboundary basin, with the Rio Grande forming the border between the United States and Mexico for approximately 2,034 km. The waters of the Rio Grande serve as a critical drinking source for 13 million people, connecting numerous population centers representing diverse backgrounds and cultures along its length. Cross-border ecosystems and communities make water management strategies particularly challenging. With different regulations and societal interests in the two countries, developing effective water-management strategies is challenging and requires the coordination of diverse interested parties representing different government agencies, institutions, and stakeholder groups with varying and sometimes conflicting objectives. To better evaluate the human and environmental water needs (environmental flows) of this constrained river system, an improved understanding of past and present water management objectives, policies, allocation practices, and water use is needed.

Lower Rio Grande-Río Bravo Basin↗