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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 397 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

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↗

USGS2021

Bridging the research-implementation gap in avian conservation with translational ecology

The recognized gap between research and implementation in avian conservation can be overcome with translational ecology, an intentional approach in which science producers and users from multiple disciplines work collaboratively to co-develop and deliver ecological research that addresses management and conservation issues. Avian conservation naturally lends itself to translational ecology because birds are well studied, typically widespread, often exhibit migratory behaviors transcending geopolitical boundaries, and necessitate coordinated conservation efforts to accommodate resource and habitat needs across the full annual cycle. In this perspective, we highlight several case studies from bird conservation practitioners and the ornithological and conservation social sciences exemplifying the 6 core translational ecology principles introduced in previous studies: collaboration, engagement, commitment, communication, process, and decision-framing. We demonstrate that following translational approaches can lead to improved conservation decision-making and delivery of outcomes via co-development of research and products that are accessible to broader audiences and applicable to specific management decisions (e.g., policy briefs and decision-support tools). We also identify key challenges faced during scientific producer–user engagement, potential tactics for overcoming these challenges, and lessons learned for overcoming the research-implementation gap. Finally, we recommend strategies for building a stronger translational ecology culture to further improve the integration of these principles into avian conservation decisions. By embracing translational ecology, avian conservationists and ornithologists can be well positioned to ensure that future management decisions are scientifically informed and that scientific research is sufficiently relevant to managers. Ultimately, such teamwork can help close the research-implementation gap in the conservation sciences during a time when environmental issues are threatening avian communities and their habitats at exceptional rates and at broadening spatial scales worldwide.

Ornithological Applications↗

USGS2023

Towards vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all: Learning from the last 30 years to inform the next 30 years

A common goal among fisheries science professionals, stakeholders, and rights holders is to ensure the persistence and resilience of vibrant fish populations and sustainable, equitable fisheries in diverse aquatic ecosystems, from small headwater streams to offshore pelagic waters. Achieving this goal requires a complex intersection of science and management, and a recognition of the interconnections among people, place, and fish that govern these tightly coupled socioecological and sociotechnical systems. The World Fisheries Congress (WFC) convenes every four years and provides a unique global forum to debate and discuss threats, issues, and opportunities facing fish populations and fisheries. The 2021 WFC meeting, hosted remotely in Adelaide, Australia, marked the 30th year since the first meeting was held in Athens, Greece, and provided an opportunity to reflect on progress made in the past 30 years and provide guidance for the future. We assembled a diverse team of individuals involved with the Adelaide WFC and reflected on the major challenges that faced fish and fisheries over the past 30 years, discussed progress toward overcoming those challenges, and then used themes that emerged during the Congress to identify issues and opportunities to improve sustainability in the world's fisheries for the next 30 years. Key future needs and opportunities identified include: rethinking fisheries management systems and modelling approaches, modernizing and integrating assessment and information systems, being responsive and flexible in addressing persistent and emerging threats to fish and fisheries, mainstreaming the human dimension of fisheries, rethinking governance, policy and compliance, and achieving equity and inclusion in fisheries. We also identified a number of cross-cutting themes including better understanding the role of fish as nutrition in a hungry world, adapting to climate change, embracing transdisciplinarity, respecting Indigenous knowledge systems, thinking ahead with foresight science, and working together across scales. By reflecting on the past and thinking about the future, we aim to provide guidance for achieving our mutual goal of sustaining vibrant fish populations and sustainable fisheries that benefit all. We hope that this prospective thinking can serve as a guide to (i) assess progress towards achieving this lofty goal and (ii) refine our path with input from new and emerging voices and approaches in fisheries science, management, and stewardship.

Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries↗

USGS1976

United States Geological Survey Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1975

The Survey resumes the practice of annually summarizing the progress it has made in identifying the Nation's land, water, energy, and mineral resources, classifying federally owned mineral lands and waterpower sites, and in supervising the exploration and development of energy and mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands. The Annual Report for 1975 consists of five parts: * The Year in Review - a review of the issues and events which affected Survey programs and highlights of program accomplishments. * Perspectives - several short papers which address major resource issues and summarize recent advances in the earth sciences. * A description of the Survey's budget, programs, and accomplishments. * A set of statistical tables and related information which documents program trends, workloads, and accomplishments. * A compendium of Survey publications and information services available to the public. One purpose of this report is to increase public awareness and understanding of the Geological Survey's programs and, more generally, of the role of earth sciences information in helping to resolve many of the natural resource conflicts that face our society now and in the years ahead. To be useful, however, information must be available and readily accessible to those responsible for natural resource policy at the time that the decisions are made. This report emphasizes the types of information products and services provided by the Survey and tells how to obtain additional information.

Annual Report↗

USGS2020

A socio-environmental geodatabase for integrative research in the transboundary Rio Grande/Río Bravo basin

Management of water resources in the transboundary Rio Grande/Río Bravo Basin (the Basin) presents challenges for state and Federal entities in the United States and Mexico making management decisions on shared water resources. Damming, channelization, water availability, and allocation are governed by water rights and water-sharing agreements. Data and information sharing are important aspects of transboundary cooperation, but differences in format, content, spatial and temporal resolution, and language hinder collaboration. In addition, data on the kinds and geographic distribution of water governance and management institutions across the Basin have not been consistently documented. Existing data disparities parallel the hydrological and social fragmentation of the Basin. Seeking to underscore the interdependence between social and environmental processes in the Basin, anthropologists and modelers collaborated to develop a socio-environmental geodatabase. This geodatabase is a first step in modeling the social components of decision making and their connectivity to environmental processes across the Basin. The geodatabase is available in an open-access domain and contains geospatial data related to water and land governance, hydrology, water use and hydraulic infrastructure, socioeconomics, and the biophysical environment necessary to advance the understanding of basin dynamics. Having these data documented and compiled in a central location serves as a resource to help decision makers better understand upstream and downstream social-environmental characteristics. This knowledge is useful for developing sustainable water management policies in a region where water resources are increasingly under pressure from climatic, environmental, and human-related changes.

Chihuahua, New Mexico, Texas↗

USGS2011

USGS science for the Nation's changing coasts: Shoreline change research

The demands of increasing human population in the coastal zone create competition with coastal habitat preservation and with recreational and commercial uses of the coast and nearshore waters. As climate changes over the coming century, these problems facing coastal communities will likely worsen. Good management and policy decision-making require baseline information on the rates, trends, and scientific understanding of the processes of coastal change on a regional to national scale. To address this need, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is engaged in a research project of national scope to measure, report, and interpret historical shoreline change along open-ocean coasts of the United States. One of the primary goals of this project is to understand shoreline change hazards using methods that are comparable from one area of the country to another and that will allow for future, repeatable analyses of shoreline movement, coastal erosion, and land loss.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2018

Integrated observations and informatics improve understanding of changing marine ecosystems

Marine ecosystems have numerous benefits for human societies around the world and many policy initiatives now seek to maintain the health of these ecosystems. To enable wise decisions, up to date and accurate information on marine species and the state of the environment they live in is required. Moreover, this information needs to be openly accessible to build indicators and conduct timely assessments that decision makers can use. The questions and problems being addressed demand global-scale investigations, transdisciplinary science, and mechanisms to integrate and distribute data that otherwise would appear to be disparate. Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs) and marine Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs), conceptualized by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON), respectively, guide observation of the ocean. Additionally, significant progress has been made to coordinate efforts between existing programs, such as the GOOS, MBON, and Ocean Biogeographic Information System collaboration agreement. Globally and nationally relevant indicators and assessments require increased sharing of data and analytical methods, sustained long-term and large-scale observations, and resources to dedicated to these tasks. We propose a vision and key tenets as a guiding framework for building a global integrated system for understanding marine biological diversity and processes to address policy and resource management needs. This framework includes: using EOVs and EBVs and implementing the guiding principles of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR) data and action ecology. In doing so, we can encourage relevant, rapid, and integrative scientific advancement that can be implemented by decision makers to maintain marine ecosystem health.

Frontiers in Marine Science↗

USGS2024

The state of the science and practice of stream restoration in the Chesapeake: Lessons learned to inform better implementation, assessment and outcomes

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) organized and led a workshop on the science and practice of stream restoration in order to summarize the state of knowledge in order to identify ways to improve stream restoration outcomes. The workshop identified a general framework for explaining the main factors leading to stream restoration outcomes: stream degradation has occurred, leading to regulatory and policy motivations that prioritize project goals, which leads to restoration approaches, assessment and monitoring efforts, and ultimately stream restoration outcomes. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, stream restoration often occurs in response to Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Bay. Reviews of stream restoration outcomes summarized at the workshop showed that, in general, stream restorations have led to minimal improvement to stream aquatic biota, effective ‘stabilization’ of channel form over time, moderate improvements to water quality, and short-term negative impacts to riparian vegetation. The fundamental finding of the workshop was that often the primary goal of stream restoration projects is to improve geomorphic stability in the restored reach and downstream water quality, and not to improve local ecological conditions through ‘uplift’ (improvement of one or more ecosystem functions through a restorative activity; a term defined in Appendix D), and therefore these projects often do not improve aquatic macroinvertebrate or fish communities. This conflict in goals is a shortcoming of the currently most common regulatory driver for stream restoration (reducing downstream loads of N, P, and sediment) that could be addressed directly through diversifying goals to include biotic uplift, as biological benefit is an assumed condition for the permitting and crediting of stream restoration projects. It is also likely that current understanding of stressors and drivers of stream ecosystem health is insufficient, and that reach-scale restoration focused on geomorphic restoration is not removing the actual sources of stream health impairment that may arise in the upstream watershed. More science could help to identify how to improve the ecological condition of streams through management. The outcome of stream restoration monitoring has revealed that while geomorphic and hydrodynamic functions of stream restoration projects may be achieved, biotic stream function improvements remain elusive. As such, ensuring uplift may be achieved by avoiding restoration projects that risk resources in higher-quality streams and riparian corridors. Reach-scale restoration often does not effectively mitigate the watershed-scale stressors of stream ecosystems. If a desired outcome of stream restoration includes ecological uplift, then focusing efforts on improving stream ecology could help meet that goal.

Chesapeake Bay watershed↗

USGS1999

How useful is landslide hazard information? Lessons learned in the San Francisco Bay region

Landslides, worldwide and in the United States, are arguably the most costly natural hazard. Substantial landslide information is available, but much of it remains underutilized, as a disconnect exists among geologists, decision makers, and the public. The lack of a national landslide insurance policy exacerbates this situation and promotes litigation as the principal recourse for recouping landslide-damage losses. The U.S. Geological Survey's landslide investigation in the San Francisco Bay region of California provides a context for making suggestions on how Earth science information could be used more effectively.

International Geology Review↗

USGS2000

How useful is landslide hazard information? Lessons learned in the San Francisco Bay region

California↗

USGS2013

Defining a data management strategy for USGS Chesapeake Bay studies

The mission of U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Chesapeake Bay studies is to provide integrated science for improved understanding and management of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Collective USGS efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed began in the 1980s, and by the mid-1990s the USGS adopted the watershed as one of its national place-based study areas. Great focus and effort by the USGS have been directed toward Chesapeake Bay studies for almost three decades. The USGS plays a key role in using “ecosystem-based adaptive management, which will provide science to improve the efficiency and accountability of Chesapeake Bay Program activities” (Phillips, 2011). Each year USGS Chesapeake Bay studies produce published research, monitoring data, and models addressing aspects of bay restoration such as, but not limited to, fish health, water quality, land-cover change, and habitat loss. The USGS is responsible for collaborating and sharing this information with other Federal agencies and partners as described under the President’s Executive Order 13508—Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed signed by President Obama in 2009. Historically, the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies have relied on national USGS databases to store only major nationally available sources of data such as streamflow and water-quality data collected through local monitoring programs and projects, leaving a multitude of other important project data out of the data management process. This practice has led to inefficient methods of finding Chesapeake Bay studies data and underutilization of data resources. Data management by definition is “the business functions that develop and execute plans, policies, practices and projects that acquire, control, protect, deliver and enhance the value of data and information.” (Mosley, 2008a). In other words, data management is a way to preserve, integrate, and share data to address the needs of the Chesapeake Bay studies to better manage data resources, work more efficiently with partners, and facilitate holistic watershed science. It is now the goal of the USGS Chesapeake Bay studies to implement an enhanced and all-encompassing approach to data management. This report discusses preliminary efforts to implement a physical data management system for program data that is not replicated nationally through other USGS databases.

Chesapeake Bay↗