Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Science”

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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward

This “U.S. Geological Survey Pollinator Science Strategy, 2025–35—A Review and Look Forward” (“Pollinator Science Strategy”) describes the science vision of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to support management, conservation, and policy decisions on animal pollinators and their habitats. As the science arm of the Department of the Interior, the USGS has a primary role in providing scientific information to natural resource managers and policymakers across the United States. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” was drafted by a team of USGS pollinator researchers and was further developed through feedback from Federal, State, Tribal, nongovernmental organizations, and industry partners. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” highlights the USGS’s role in the research to promote healthy pollinator populations and address partner information gaps so they can make more informed management decisions. By outlining the importance of USGS science in addressing the information needs of other agencies, organizations, and the public, the “Pollinator Science Strategy” reaffirms the USGS’s commitment to pollinator research and showcases our research priorities for 2025–35. With more than 300 research centers nationally, the USGS is equipped to address pollinator science across scales of complexity and geographic range. USGS pollinator science is organized according to the following five thematic areas: Assessing species ecology, distributions, and natural history requirements. Tracking species status and trends. Understanding species threats and stressors. Informing restoration and management actions. Developing novel methods for improving pollinator research, monitoring, and population outcomes that can benefit our Nation. Our pollinator information products and associated data are made widely available to the public to ensure scientific transparency and accessibility. This “Pollinator Science Strategy” concludes with several research goals that the USGS will work towards from 2025 to 2035, representing our vision for USGS science. These research goals include synthesizing and modernizing the latest information on pollinator threats, developing research that assists managers with habitat design and restoration, providing training to partners on native bee identification and monitoring design, and developing new technologies for assessing the status and trends of our nation’s pollinators.

Circular↗
USGS2025

Collaborative drought science planning in the Colorado River Basin

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is using collaborative, interdisciplinary planning to develop data and tools needed to optimize the management of water resources and land use by resource management agencies during an ongoing, multidecadal drought in the Colorado River Basin. The USGS Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team works to build relationships with resource management agencies and other stakeholders who can benefit from the use of USGS data and products. In 2023, the Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team hosted a series of collaborative workshops to bring together representatives of resource management agencies and other stakeholders (any person or entity with interests in a resource or location) with USGS program managers, scientists, and multidisciplinary subject matter experts to codevelop concepts for interdisciplinary drought science and technology projects to address pressing needs related to drought in the Colorado River Basin. Workshop participants identified current and recent scientific data that could be shared through a centralized online data portal. Workshop participants also identified drought science and technology needs and developed project concepts to address those science needs. Participants categorized project concepts based on their potential to develop short-, mid-, and long-term drought science data and tools, provide for the spatial or temporal expansion of ongoing USGS science projects, and address high-priority science needs. Participants developed nine project concepts: (1) understanding shifting ecohydrologic baselines, (2) San Juan River Basin synthesis, (3) incorporating dynamic land cover into hydrologic models, (4) aridification compared to drought, (5) surface water-groundwater interactions, (6) cascading effects of drought on dust, (7) cascading effects of drought on water availability, (8) cascading effects of drought on socioeconomic factors, and (9) the value of water in the Colorado River Basin. This report provides an overview of the 2023 Codesign Workshop Series, synthesized outcomes from workshop materials and discussions, and science project concepts that emerged from the collaborative meetings that will continue to be refined into science project proposals through codevelopment processes. This report also highlights lessons learned and next steps needed to receive feedback and testing of the USGS Science Collaboration Portal, continue collaboration to develop detailed specifics and steps for short-term wins, develop interdisciplinary project proposals, and implement science planning and studies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2011

U.S. Geological Survey Fundamental Science Practices

The USGS has a long and proud tradition of objective, unbiased science in service to the Nation. A reputation for impartiality and excellence is one of our most important assets. To help preserve this vital asset, in 2004 the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) of the USGS was charged by the Director to develop a set of fundamental science practices, philosophical premises, and operational principles as the foundation for all USGS research and monitoring activities. In a concept document, 'Fundamental Science Practices of the U.S. Geological Survey', the ELT proposed 'a set of fundamental principles to underlie USGS science practices.' The document noted that protecting the reputation of USGS science for quality and objectivity requires the following key elements: - Clearly articulated, Bureau-wide fundamental science practices. - A shared understanding at all levels of the organization that the health and future of the USGS depend on following these practices. - The investment of budget, time, and people to ensure that the USGS reputation and high-quality standards are maintained. The USGS Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) encompass all elements of research investigations, including data collection, experimentation, analysis, writing results, peer review, management review, and Bureau approval and publication of information products. The focus of FSP is on how science is carried out and how products are produced and disseminated. FSP is not designed to address the question of what work the USGS should do; that is addressed in USGS science planning handbooks and other documents. Building from longstanding existing USGS policies and the ELT concept document, in May 2006, FSP policies were developed with input from all parts of the organization and were subsequently incorporated into the Bureau's Survey Manual. In developing an implementation plan for FSP policy, the intent was to recognize and incorporate the best of USGS current practices to obtain the optimum overall program for our science. In January 2009, the USGS moved to full implementation of FSP. The FSP Advisory Committee (FSPAC) was formed to serve as the Bureau's working and standing committee to ensure the objectivity and quality of the Bureau's science information products and to provide support for the full implementation of FSP.

Circular↗
USGS2023

The benefits of big-team science for conservation: Lessons learned from trinational monarch butterfly collaborations

Many pressing conservation issues are complex problems caused by multiple social and environmental drivers; their resolution is aided by interdisciplinary teams of scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders working together. In these situations, how do we generate science to effectively guide conservation (resource management and policy) decisions? This paper describes elements of successful big-team science in conservation, as well as shortcomings and lessons learned, based on our work with the monarch butterfly ( Danaus plexippus ) in North America. We summarize literature on effective science teams, extracting information about elements of success, effective implementation approaches, and barriers or pitfalls. We then describe recent and ongoing conservation science for the monarch butterfly in North America. We focus primarily on the activities of the Monarch Conservation Science Partnership–an international collaboration of interdisciplinary scientists, policy experts and natural resource managers spanning government, non-governmental and academic institutions—which developed science to inform imperilment status, recovery options, and monitoring strategies. We couch these science efforts in the adaptative management framework of Strategic Habitat Conservation, the business model for conservation employed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to inform decision-making needs identified by stakeholders from Canada, the United States, and Mexico. We conclude with elements critical to effective big-team conservation science, discuss why science teams focused on applied conservation problems are unique relative to science teams focusing on traditional or theoretical research, and list benefits of big team science in conservation.

Frontiers in Environmental Science↗
USGS2022

An introduction to decision science for conservation

Biodiversity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science; confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply; and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science , decision theory , decision analysis , structured decision-making , and decision-support tools . Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming; rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade-offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid-prototyping approach. At each step, decision-support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision-support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision-support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.

Conservation Biology↗
USGS2006

History of the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center ("the Center") has been a nucleus of research, technology development, and associated scientific activities within the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years. The Center’s historical activities are deeply rooted in federal biological resources research and its supporting disciplines, particularly as they relate to the needs of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its resource management agencies. The organizational framework and activities of the Center have changed and adapted over the years in response to shifts in the scientific issues and challenges facing the U.S. Department of the Interior and with the development of new strategies to meet these challenges. Thus, the history of the Center has been dynamic. The Center has been nested within the U.S. Geological Survey since 1996. From 1993 to 1996 the Center was a major unit of the National Biological Service (named the National Biological Survey at its inception). This was a period of great organizational flux. During that time the Center comprised multiple field stations and science functions that prior to 1993 had been scattered among the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1993, certain biological research components of these agencies were assigned to join with the National Ecology Research Center, formerly one of the major research and development hubs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the year when biological resources research in the U.S. Department of the Interior was consolidated by the Secretary of the Interior, who in an April 1993 memo explaining his intentions wrote, "Our Department has, without doubt, the best biologists in the world." Soon after formation of the new agency, the Center was re-named the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, reflecting its geographic location within the new Midcontinent administrative region of the National Biological Service (the other three original administrative regions were the eastern, western, and southern). The change in name to the Fort Collins Science Center took place in 2002, soon after the center moved to new facilities on the Colorado State University Natural Resources Research Campus. At various times during the period when it was part of the National Biological Service (1993–96), the Center served as the administrative and programmatic home base for a wide number of science activities in numerous Western states (table 1). This reflected the previous fragmentation of biological and related science efforts across resource management agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The organization of the 2 Center within the National Biological Service was a manifestation of the desire of the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate its biological science activities in administratively independent entities that would ensure that the science retained its objectivity. Congress later recognized the need to maintain a hierarchical independence between biological science and resource management in the Department. However, Congress also saw that the U.S. Geological Survey, with its long history of objective science support to the nation in geology, water resources, geography, and remote sensing, was a suitable alternative home for these biological science functions. Thus, in 1996 Congress transferred the biological resources functions of the National Biological Service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed overviews and opinions about the history and policy issues surrounding the formation and subsequent fate of the National Biological Service can be found elsewhere (for example Cohn, 1993, 2005; Kaufman, 1993; Kreeger, 1994; Pulliam, 1995, 1998a,b; Reichhardt, 1994; Wagner, 1999)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

Using public litigation records to identify priority science needs for managing public lands

Relevant science is essential for effective natural resource decision making, including on public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that cover 1/10th of the United States. Most of the BLM’s management decisions require analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of science in these decisions is often challenged. Using coproduction, we assembled an interagency team of scientists and resource managers to develop a method for using public litigation to identify priority science needs for the BLM. We searched publicly available case documents finalized from 2015–2019 in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico within federal courts and the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identified 108 case documents that involved challenges to the BLM’s use of science. We retained 48 case documents that contained at least one challenge about the BLM’s use of science for a specific resource. We categorized all challenges in each case document according to the proposed action, affected resource, type of science challenged (data about resources, science relevant to potential impacts, methods for analyzing potential impacts, and mitigation actions), and specific nature of the challenge (e.g., challenging direct effects analysis). We identified priority science needs based on the frequency of challenges, the number of states where similar challenges occurred, whether the BLM lost the challenge, and whether the case was remanded. Top needs related to oil and gas development actions and included science about effects on air quality and climate, water, and socioeconomics; data for air quality and climate; and methods for analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources and air quality and climate. The BLM can use this information to prioritize actions (e.g., funding new research or science syntheses) to strengthen its science foundation for decision-making.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2012

Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force---Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Science Assessment and Needs

The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force (GCERTF) was established by Executive Order 13554 as a result of recommendations from “America’s Gulf Coast: A Long-term Recovery Plan after the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill” by Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus (Mabus Report). The GCERTF consists of members from 11 Federal agencies and representatives from each State bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The GCERTF was charged to develop a holistic, long-term, science-based Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy for the Gulf of Mexico. Federal and State agencies staffed the GCERTF with experts in fields such as policy, budgeting, and science to help develop the Strategy. The Strategy was built on existing authorities and resources and represents enhanced collaboration and a recognition of the shared responsibility among Federal and State governments to restore the Gulf Coast ecosystem. In this time of severe fiscal constraints, Task Force member agencies and States are committed to establishing shared priorities and working together to achieve them. As part of this effort, three staffers, one National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientist and two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists, created and led a Science Coordination Team (SCT) to guide scientific input into the development of the Gulf of Mexico Regional Ecosystem Restoration Strategy. The SCT leads from the GCERTF coordinated more than 70 scientists from the Federal and State Task Force member agencies to participate in development of a restoration-oriented science document focused on the entire Gulf of Mexico, from inland watersheds to the deep blue waters. The SCT leads and scientists were organized into six different working groups based on expanded goals from the Mabus Report: Coastal habitats are healthy and resilient. Living coastal and marine resources are healthy, diverse, and sustainable. Coastal communities are adaptive and resilient. Storm buffers are sustainable. Inland habitats and watersheds are managed to help support healthy and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystems. Offshore environments are healthy and well managed Each working group was charged with defining their specific goal, describing the current conditions related to that goal (for example, the status of coastal habitats in the Gulf of Mexico), providing highlevel activities needed to further define and achieve the goal, with associated outcome-based performance indicators, and identifying the scientific gaps in understanding to accomplish the goal and implement the recommended activities. The overall scientific assessment reveals that the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem continues to suffer from extensive degradation, and action is necessary to develop a healthy, resilient, and sustainable Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. The six groups also were tasked with outlining the necessary monitoring, modeling, and research needs to aid in achieving the goals. Recognizing that (1) the scientific needs (monitoring, modeling, and research) overlap among many of the goals, and (2) an overarching scientific framework could be developed to implement the necessary science in support of the Strategy, a seventh group was created with several members from each of the original six working groups. This seventh group compiled all of the cross-cutting monitoring, modeling, and research needs previously identified by the individual groups. These scientific requirements are found in Chapter 5 of this document. The seventh group also has developed a Science Plan, outlined in Chapter 6. The Science Plan provides the basic science infrastructure to support the overall Gulf restoration program and Strategy. The Science Plan allows for the development of an iterative and flexible approach to adaptive management and decision-making related to restoration projects based on sound science that includes monitoring, modeling, and research. Taken in its entirety, this document helps to articulate the current state of the system and the critical science needs to support effective restoration of the Gulf of Mexico resources that have been trending towards decline for decades.

Report↗
USGS2024

Identifying priority science information needs for managing public lands

Public lands worldwide provide diverse resources, uses, and values, ranging from wilderness to extractive uses. Decision-making on public lands is complex as a result and is required by law to be informed by science. However, public land managers may not always have the science they need. We developed a methodology for identifying priority science needs for public land management agencies. We relied on two core data sources: environmental effects analyses conducted for agency decisions and legal challenges to those decisions. We considered needs in four categories: data, science, methods, and mitigation measures. We classified topics as primary science needs when (1) the topic was analyzed frequently in agency environmental analyses, (2) our metric of quality/defensibility was low or mitigation measures were frequently included for the topic, and (3) the agency was challenged on its use of science for the topic. We applied our methodology to the Bureau of Land Management—the largest public land manager in the United States—in Colorado, a state with abundant and diverse public lands. Primary identified needs were data on vegetation; science about effects of oil and gas development and livestock grazing on multiple resources, including terrestrial wildlife; methods for analyzing environmental effects for many topics; and mitigation measures for protecting vegetation, soils, water quality, and archaeological and historic resources. Science needs often reflect needs for facilitating and supporting the use of existing science in agency decision-making. Our method can be applied across agencies, geographies, and timeframes to help strengthen science use in public lands decision-making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2007

Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 2007–2017

Executive Summary In order for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to respond to evolving national and global priorities, it must periodically reflect on, and optimize, its strategic directions. This report is the first comprehensive science strategy since the early 1990s to examine critically major USGS science goals and priorities. The development of this science strategy comes at a time of global trends and rapidly evolving societal needs that pose important natural-science challenges. The emergence of a global economy affects the demand for all resources. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a new model for managing Federal lands—ecosystem-based management. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program predicts that the next few decades will see rapid changes in the Nation’s and the Earth’s environment. Finally, the natural environment continues to pose risks to society in the form of volcanoes, earthquakes, wildland fires, floods, droughts, invasive species, variable and changing climate, and natural and anthropogenic toxins, as well as animal-borne diseases that affect humans. The use of, and competition for, natural resources on the global scale, and natural threats to those resources, has the potential to impact the Nation’s ability to sustain its economy, national security, quality of life, and natural environment. Responding to these national priorities and global trends requires a science strategy that not only builds on existing USGS strengths and partnerships but also demands the innovation made possible by integrating the full breadth and depth of USGS capabilities. The USGS chooses to go forward in the science directions proposed here because the societal issues addressed by these science directions represent major challenges for the Nation’s future and for the stewards of Federal lands, both onshore and offshore. The six science directions proposed in this science strategy are summarized in the following paragraphs. The ecosystems strategy is listed first because it has a dual nature. It is itself an essential direction for the USGS to pursue to meet a pressing national and global need, but ecosystem-based approaches are also an underpinning of the other five directions, which all require ecosystem perspectives and tools for their execution. The remaining strategic directions are listed in alphabetical order.

Circular↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and responding to global change

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a nonregulatory Federal science agency with national scope and responsibilities, is uniquely positioned to serve the Nation’s needs in understanding and responding to global change, including changes in climate, water availability, sea level, land use and land cover, ecosystems, and global biogeochemical cycles. Global change is among the most challenging and formidable issues confronting our Nation and society. Scientists agree that global environmental changes during this century will have far-reaching societal implications (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the face of these challenges, the Nation can benefit greatly by using natural science information in decisionmaking. Since the passage of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the USGS has made substantial scientific contributions to understanding the interactive living and nonliving components of the Earth system. USGS natural science activities have led to fundamental advances in observing and understanding climate and land-cover change and the effects these changes have on ecosystems, natural-resource availability, and societal sustainability. Most of these major advances were pursued in partnership with other organizations within and outside the Department of the Interior. The inherent value of partnerships with other U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies and natural-resource managers is emphasized in all aspects of the planning and implementation of this Science Strategy for the coming decade. Over the next 10 years, the USGS will make substantial contributions to understanding how Earth systems interact, respond to, and cause global change. The USGS will work with science partners, decisionmakers, and resource managers at local to international levels (including Native American tribes) to improve understanding of past and present change; develop relevant forecasts; and identify those lands, resources, and communities most vulnerable to global change processes. Science will play an essential role in helping communities and land and resource managers understand local to global implications, anticipate effects, prepare for changes, and reduce the risks associated with decisionmaking in a changing environment. USGS partners and stakeholders will benefit from the data, predictive models, and decision-support products and services resulting from the implementation of this strategy. This Science Strategy recognizes core USGS strengths that are applied to key societal problems. It establishes seven goals for USGS global change science and strategic actions that may be implemented in the short term (1–5 years) and the longer term (5–10 years) to improve our understanding of the following areas of inquiry: Rates, causes, and impacts of past global changes; The global carbon cycle; Biogeochemical cycles and their coupled interactions; Land-use and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; Droughts, floods, and water availability under changing land-use and climatic conditions; Coastal response to sea-level rise, climatic change, and human development; and Biological responses to global change. In addition to the seven thematic goals, we address the central role of monitoring in accordance with the USGS Science Strategy recommendation that global change research should rely on existing “…decades of observational data and long-term records to interpret consequences of climate variability and change to the Nation’s biological populations, ecosystems, and land and water resources” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 19). We also briefly describe specific needs and opportunities for coordinating USGS global change science among USGS Mission Areas and address the need for a comprehensive and sustained communications strategy.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Grand challenges for integrated USGS science — A workshop report

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a long history of advancing the traditional Earth science disciplines and identifying opportunities to integrate USGS science across disciplines to address complex societal problems. The USGS science strategy for 2007–2017 laid out key challenges in disciplinary and interdisciplinary arenas, culminating in a call for increased focus on a number of crosscutting science directions. Ten years on, to further the goal of integrated science and at the request of the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), a workshop with three dozen invited scientists spanning different disciplines and career stages in the Bureau convened on February 7–10, 2017, at the USGS John Wesley Powell Center for Analysis and Synthesis in Fort Collins, Colorado. The workshop focused on identifying “grand challenges” for integrated USGS science. Individual participants identified nearly 70 potential grand challenges before the workshop and through workshop discussions. After discussion, four overarching grand challenges emerged: Natural resource security, Societal risk from existing and emerging threats, Smart infrastructure development, and Anticipatory science for changing landscapes. Participants also identified a “comprehensive science challenge” that highlights the development of integrative science, data, models, and tools—all interacting in a modular framework—that can be used to address these and other future grand challenges: Earth Monitoring, Analyses, and Projections (EarthMAP) EarthMAP is our long-term vision for an integrated scientific framework that spans traditional scientific boundaries and disciplines, and integrates the full portfolio of USGS science: research, monitoring, assessment, analysis, and information delivery. The Department of Interior, and the Nation in general, have a vast array of information needs. The USGS meets these needs by having a broadly trained and agile scientific workforce. Encouraging and supporting cross-discipline engagement would position the USGS to tackle complex and multifaceted scientific and societal challenges in the 21st Century.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Greater sage-grouse science (2015–17)—Synthesis and potential management implications

Executive Summary The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter called “sage-grouse”), a species that requires sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), has experienced range-wide declines in its distribution and abundance. These declines have prompted substantial research and management investments to improve the understanding of sage-grouse and its habitats and reverse declines in distribution and population numbers. Over the past two decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has responded to eight petitions to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with the completion of the most recent listing determination in September 2015. At that time, the USFWS determined that the sage-grouse did not warrant a listing, primarily because of the large scale science-based conservation and planning efforts completed or started by Federal, State, local agencies, private landowners, and other entities across the range. The planning efforts culminated in the development of the 2015 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments, which provided regulatory certainty and commitment from Federal land-management agencies to limit, mitigate, and track anthropogenic disturbance and implement other sage-grouse conservation measures. After these policy decisions, the scientific community has continued to refine and expand the knowledge available to inform implementation of management actions, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those actions, and continue developing an overall understanding of sage-grouse populations, habitat requirements, and their response to human activity and other habitat changes. The development of science has been driven by multiple prioritization documents including the “Greater Sage-Grouse National Research Strategy” (Hanser and Manier, 2013) and, most recently, the “Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan” (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016). In October 2017, after a review of the 2015 Federal plans relative to State sage-grouse plans, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3353, the BLM issued a notice of intent to consider whether to amend some, all, or none of the 2015 land use plans. At that time, the BLM requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inform this effort through the development of an annotated bibliography of sage-grouse science published since January 2015 and a report that synthesized and outlined the potential management implications of this new science. Development of the annotated bibliography resulted in the identification and summarization of 169 peer-reviewed scientific publications and reports. The USGS then convened an interagency team (hereafter referred to as the “team”) to develop this report that focuses on the primary topics of importance to the ongoing management of sage-grouse and their habitats. The team developed this report in a three-step process. First, the team identified six primary topic areas for discussion based on the members’ collective knowledge regarding sage-grouse, their habitats, and threats to either or both. Second, the team reviewed all the material in the “Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Research on Greater Sage-Grouse Published since January 2015” to identify the science that addressed the topics. Third, team members discussed the science related to each topic, evaluated the consistency of the science with existing knowledge before 2015, and summarized the potential management implications of this science. The six primary topics identified by the team were: Multiscale habitat suitability and mapping tools Discrete anthropogenic activities Diffuse activities Fire and invasive species Restoration effectiveness Population estimation and genetics

Open-File Report↗
USGS1979

Use of U.S. Geological Survey earth-science products by selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region, California

An inventory of the use of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) products in studies, plans, implementation, and other planning activities was made for seven selected regional agencies in the San Francisco Bay region -- a region of over five million people. This inventory was designed to determine and document the use of over 100 earth-science products prepared as a part of the San Francisco Bay Region Environment and Resources Planning Study (SFBRS). The inventory showed that: (1) all seven agencies have staff members who are familiar with SFBRS products and make frequent use of them; (2) all seven agencies have prepared planning documents citing SFBRS products; (3) the types of planning applications most often indicated were water-quality and physical resources studies, potential site evaluation, and general reference; (4) almost 80 percent of the over 100 SFBRS products were used at least once, and eleven of the products were used 20 or more times each for various regional planning activities; and (5) at least 46 other USGS products were also used for various regional planning activities. During the inventory, over 50 regional agency. officials, employees, and consultants were interviewed and asked -- among other things -- to indicate any problems they had noted in the use of the SFBRS products, to suggest improvements, and to identify any additional earth-science information needed or desired. The responses showed that: (1) the scales commonly used for "work" maps were 1:62,500 or larger, and for "implementation" maps were 1:24,000 or larger; (2) two agencies have a geologist on their planning staff, others have staff members with training or experience in earth-science or engineering, and all had the benefit of geotechnical services from outside their agency; (3) all seven agencies experienced some problems in using the products, primarily because the scale was too small or the detail not great enough; (4) all seven agencies expressed interest in the topical interpretive reports in preparation and a need or desire for additional earth-science, engineering, or other related information; (5) six of the seven agencies suggested specific improvements to future products -- primarily larger scale or more detail and less technical or more interpretive information; and (6) all seven agencies received educational, advisory or review services from USGS personnel. Fifteen selected examples of the application of SFBRS products to various regional planning activities are discussed and illustrated. These examples include six planning studies, five plans, two implementation activities, and two other types of activities. From the inventory and responses to the interviews, it is concluded that the selected regional agencies in the bay region are familiar with, make frequent use of, and will continue to use SFBRS products for a wide range of regional planning activities. Suggestions to ensure more effective use of earth-science information in the future include: (1) monitoring and analyzing new State and Federal laws or regulations and emerging critical issues so as to anticipate and respond to regional earth-science information needs; (2) creating a users advisory committee to help identify critical issues and needs; (3) providing engineering interpretations and land- and water-use capability ratings to make earth-science information more readily usable; (4) giving priority to areas impacted by development; (5) providing earth-science information at the larger scale and greater detail commonly used and needed by regional agencies; (6) releasing earth-science information faster and according to a formal distribution pattern; and (7) providing educational, advisory, and review services in connection with any earth-science information designed for planners and decisionmakers.

California↗
USGS2013

Science-based management of public lands in southern Nevada

Landmark legislation provides guiding principles for land management planning in southern Nevada and the rest of the United States. Such legislation includes, but is not limited to, the Forest Service Organic Administration Act of 1897 (16 U.S>C. 473-478, 479-482 and 551), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (U.S.C. Title 16, Secs. 1-4). Wilderness Act 1964 (P.L.88-577), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 91-205), National Forest Management Act of of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). The acts establishing congressionally designated areas within southern Nevada, such as Lake Mead National Recreation Area, Spring Mountains National Restoration Area, and Desert National Wildlife Refuge, also contain guidelines for the management of these lands. These documents variously require preservation of natural and cultural resource and wilderness character, protection of species, and prevention of undesirable environmental effects from land management actions. These requirements must be met while allowing for multiple "uses" of certain public lands (e.g. recreation, ranching, resources extraction, renewable energy development, etc.) to the degree that they do no threaten preservation, protection, and prevention goals,. many considerations some into play in the development and implementation for land management plans and actions. The planning process requires a balancing act that sometimes pit one need or priority against another. When priorities can trump other needs can prioritized and receive disproportionate consideration. Overall, the management of public lands is a very complicated and sometime contentious process. Science provides an objective way to help weigh quantifiable information and draw conclusions about the effects of past and potential future land management policies, decisions, and actions. When effectively integrated into adaptive management, science-based information can reduce uncertainties, increase knowledge, and improve decision making. However, the specific science information needed for effective management is often lacking or difficult to access or interpret. Science is typically reported in scientific journals as discrete units describing individual studies with other scientists as the primary audience. Translations of these studies an synthesis or multiple studies into formats that can be readily used in land management planning efforts are often lacking. Identifying and articulating the highest priority science and research needs is one of the primary purposes of the Southern Nevada Agency Partnership (SNAP; http://www.SNAP.gov) Science and Research Team (chapter 1; Turner and others 2009). The SNAP Science and Research Strategy (Strategy) calls for a synthesis report to be written every 5 years summarizing the state of knowledge, information gaps and management implications of scientific information as it relates to the SNAP Strategy goals (Turner and others 2009). This General Technical Report serves as the first SNAP Science and Research Synthesis Report (Synthesis Report) commissioned by the Science and Research Team. The Synthesis Report is mostly based on information form the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and is itself peer reviewed and constitutes a new contribution to the scientific literature. This final chapter addresses Sub-goal 2.3, which is to manage current and future authorized southern Nevada land uses in a manner that balances public need and ecosystem sustainability, and Sub-goal 2.5, which is to promote an effective conservation education and interpretation program to improve the quality of resources and enhance public use and enjoyment of southern Nevada public lands. It summarizes information form the previous chapters on what scientific information is known currently and what remains largely unknown, and it discusses how science can be used to make future management decisions that balances public needs and ecosystem sustainability.

Nevada↗
USGS2018

Practical tips to establish an actionable science portfolio for climate adaptation

The delivery of climate adaptation science products and services to inform resource management decisions—otherwise known as actionable climate adaptation science—is the primary driver and intended outcome of the science portfolios administered within the Department of the Interior's Climate Adaptation Science Center (CASC) network in the USA. This commitment hinges on the essential requirement that natural and cultural resource managers (science users) and scientists (science producers) work in unison with one another. This partnership may be illustrated by the conventional demand and supply relationship, where resource managers create the demand term by explicitly describing a priori top decisions or priority actions concerning the natural or cultural resources they administer, and scientists supply relevant research products and services. But an ideal interaction of users and producers is not trivial and presents challenges in the process of establishing an actionable science portfolio. A few practical suggestions are presented here to set up a productive dialogue between resource managers and scientists, and broker that conversation as they work side-by-side toward agreed-upon common objectives. These useful tips stem from working towards the goal of establishing actionable science portfolios within the CASC network and may prove valuable to similar entities committed to delivering climate adaptation science to address resource management concerns.

Science and Public Policy↗
USGS2006

What is science?

In 2000 The Ohio Academy of Science published its definition of "Science." Response to this definition led the Academy to produce a position paper entitled What is Science? The Academy officially adopted the position paper version of What is Science?, http: //www.ohiosci.org/ Whatisscience.pdf, at the April 2004 Ohio Academy of Science Annual Meeting. Response to this fact sheet demonstrated a need to further expand this document. Thus, this expanded version builds on the April 2004 position paper, What is Science? This paper clarifies what is science, the scientific method, a scientific hypothesis, a scientific theory, the importance of science, and what is not science.

Ohio Journal of Science↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey wildland fire science strategic plan, 2021–26

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildland Fire Science Strategic Plan defines critical, core fire science capabilities for understanding fire-related and fire-responsive earth system processes and patterns, and informing management decision making. Developed by USGS fire scientists and executive leadership, and informed by conversations with external stakeholders, the Strategic Plan is aligned with the needs of the fire science stakeholder community–fire, land, natural resource, and emergency managers from Federal, State, Tribal, and community organizations, as well as members of the scientific community. The Strategic Plan is composed of four integrated priorities, each with associated goals and specific strategies for accomplishing the goals: Priority 1: Produce state-of-the-art, actionable fire science; Priority 2: Engage stakeholders in science production and science delivery; Priority 3: Effectively communicate USGS fire science capacity, products, and information to a broad audience; and Priority 4: Enhance USGS organizational structure and advance support for fire science. The priorities of this Strategic Plan define the USGS’s commitment to producing and delivering cutting edge fire science, information, and decision-support tools in support of national, regional, and local priorities and stakeholder needs.

Circular↗