USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Resources Policy”

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 685 records · Page 38Linked to original sources
USGS2025

Multi-temporal surface water mapping with high-resolution elevation and image data through weakly supervised deep learning

Monitoring the extent of surface water features (hydrography), accurately storing them in databases, and representing them on topographic maps are essential for various applications such as navigation and policy-making for legislative boundaries and permitting. In this context, hydrographic data includes features that generally have water present or image data showing signs that water is forming a terrain channel, and which would be included in 1:24,000 or larger scale topographic maps. In addition, reliable hydrographic data play a critical role to help manage environmental risks such as droughts, floods, fires, and landslides, as well as monitoring biological resources and pollutants. Inaccuracies in hydrography data can lead to modelling inaccuracies, resulting in economic, social, and environmental risks. However, generating sufficiently accurate high-resolution (HR) hydrography and terrain data for these purposes remains a substantial challenge primarily because of complex surface water dynamics and data handling limitations.

Alaska↗
USGS2014

Agricultural conversion without external water and nutrient inputs reduces terrestrial vegetation productivity

Driven by global population and standard of living increases, humanity co-opts a growing share of the planet's natural resources resulting in many well-known environmental trade-offs. In this study, we explored the impact of agriculture on a resource fundamental to life on Earth: terrestrial vegetation growth (net primary production; NPP). We demonstrate that agricultural conversion has reduced terrestrial NPP by ~7.0%. Increases in NPP due to agricultural conversion were observed only in areas receiving external inputs (i.e., irrigation and/or fertilization). NPP reductions were found for ~88% of agricultural lands, with the largest reductions observed in areas formerly occupied by tropical forests and savannas (~71% and ~66% reductions, respectively). Without policies that explicitly consider the impact of agricultural conversion on primary production, future demand-driven increases in agricultural output will likely continue to drive net declines in global terrestrial productivity, with potential detrimental consequences for net ecosystem carbon storage and subsequent climate warming.

Geophysical Research Letters↗
USGS2022

A generically parameterized model of Lake eutrophication: The impact of Stoichiometric ratios and constraints on the abundance of natural phytoplankton communities (GPLake-S)

Water quality improvement to avoid excessive phytoplankton blooms often requires eutrophication management where both phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) play a role. While empirical eutrophication studies and ecological resource competition theory both provide insight into phytoplankton abundance in response to nutrient loading, they are not seamlessly linked in the current state of eutrophication research. We argue that understanding species competition for multiple nutrients and light in natural phytoplankton communities is key to assessing phytoplankton abundance under changing nutrient supply. Here we present GPLake-S, a mechanistic model rooted in ecological resource competition theory, which has only eight parameters and can predict chlorophyll- a to nutrient relationships for phytoplankton communities under N, P, N+P colimitation and light limitation. GPLake-S offers a simple mechanistic tool to make first estimates of chlorophyll-a levels and nutrient thresholds for generic lake properties, accounting for variation in N:P ratio preferences of phytoplankton species. This makes the model supportive of water management and policy.

Ecological Modelling↗
USGS2026

End-user needs for remote sensing wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region of North America

The Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America comprises globally important grassland and wetland ecosystems critical for numerous populations of migratory birds. Due to the importance of this region for migratory birds, and particularly waterfowl, and the threats of habitat loss due to intensifying agriculture, there is a mature and diverse system of conservation organizations, agencies, and partnerships that spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually on habitat conservation to support migratory bird populations. Remote sensing can be a powerful tool for observing and evaluating global change at large scales as well as expanding inferences from field studies to the broader landscape with statistical models. However, development and utilization of these tools has lagged behind their demand for several reasons, including concerns over spatial and temporal resolution and accuracy of products; perception of a misalignment with decision-maker needs; technological barriers such as skill sets of conservation professionals, computing resources, data access, and usability. In this report, we summarize the needs of conservation professionals and scientists who use or want to use remote sensing data products to inform science about wetland change and conservation of wetlands in the PPR. We assembled this information through several methods leading up to, during, and following a January 2026 PPR Wetland Remote Sensing Workshop. The workshop included United States and Canadian scientists, conservation professionals, and policy experts. Our goal was to bring together end-users and remote sensing product developers jointly to explore reducing the lag between product development and utilization of products to inform science and conservation. Specifically, we aimed to identify gaps in wetland remote sensing that limit effective monitoring, management, and conservation in the PPR, and to develop a framework that outlines pathways to address these gaps by fostering collaboration, improving communication networks, encouraging discussion, and building on existing and ongoing efforts. This report summarizes our participants’ descriptions of end-user needs and the outcomes of the workshop.

Prairie Pothole region↗
USGS2012

Pacific salmonines in the Great Lakes Basin

Pacific salmon (genus Oncorhynchus) are a valuable resource, both within their native range in the North Pacific rim and in the Great Lakes basin. Understanding their value from a biological and economic perspective in the Great Lakes, however, requires an understanding of changes in the ecosystem and of management actions that have been taken to promote system stability, integrity, and sustainable fisheries. Pacific salmonine introductions to the Great Lakes are comprised mainly of Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead and have accounted for 421, 177, and 247 million fish, respectively, stocked during 1966-2007. Stocking of Pacific salmonines has been effective in substantially reducing exotic prey fish abundances in several of the Great Lakes (e.g., lakes Michigan, Huron, and Ontario). The goal of our evaluation was to highlight differences in management strategies and perspectives across the basin, and to evaluate policies for Pacific salmonine management in the Great Lakes. Currently, a potential conflict exists between Pacific salmonine management and native fish rehabilitation goals because of the desire to sustain recreational fisheries and to develop self-sustaining populations of stocked Pacific salmonines in the Great Lakes. We provide evidence that suggests Pacific salmonines have not only become naturalized to the food webs of the Great Lakes, but that their populations (specifically Chinook salmon) may be fluctuating in concert with specific prey (i.e., alewives) whose populations are changing relative to environmental conditions and ecosystem disturbances. Remaining questions, however, are whether or not “natural” fluctuations in predator and prey provide enough “stability” in the Great Lakes food webs, and even more importantly, would a choice by managers to attempt to reduce the severity of predator-prey oscillations be antagonistic to native fish restoration efforts. We argue that, on each of the Great Lakes, managers are pursuing appropriate goals, managing the aquatic resources of the lakes for the greatest public good, given the variability in conditions and likelihood for success specific to each lake.

Book chapter↗
USGS2020

Managing climate refugia for freshwater fishes under an expanding human footprint

Within the context of climate adaptation, the concept of climate refugia has emerged as a framework for addressing future threats to freshwater fish populations. We evaluated recent climate‐refugia management associated with water use and landscape modification by comparing efforts in the US states of Oregon and Massachusetts, for which there are contrasting resource use patterns. Using these examples, we discuss tools and principles that can be applied more broadly. Although many early efforts to identify climate refugia have focused on water temperature, substantial gains in evaluating other factors and processes regulating climate refugia (eg stream flow, groundwater availability) are facilitating refined mapping of refugia and assessment of their ecological value. Major challenges remain for incorporating climate refugia into water‐quality standards, evaluating trade‐offs among policy options, addressing multiple species’ needs, and planning for uncertainty. However, with a procedurally transparent and conceptually sound framework to build upon, recent efforts have revealed a promising path forward.

Massachusetts, Oregon↗
USGS2020

The 3D Elevation Program and energy for the Nation

High-resolution light detection and ranging (lidar) data are used in energy infrastructure siting, design, permitting, construction, and monitoring to promote public safety through the reduction of risks. For example, lidar data are used to identify safe locations for energy infrastructure by analyzing terrain parameters and identifying and evaluating geologic hazards (for example, landslide and fault locations) and their potential public safety effects on the location or design of infrastructure. Increasingly, engineering companies and regulatory agencies are using lidar and other remote sensing techniques as an efficient method to collect accurate, comprehensive data while reducing risks to field personnel. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) is collecting lidar data nationwide (interferometric synthetic aperture radar [IfSAR] data in Alaska) to support a wide range of applications, including projects related to energy infrastructure construction and safety. Renewable energy resources, resource mining, and oil and gas resources were identified by the National Enhanced Elevation Assessment as business uses requiring three-dimensional (3D) elevation data. Elevation data are critical in assessing potential sites for energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, refineries and other facilities, to mitigate risks from natural hazards. For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil, uses enhanced elevation data to conduct National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance assessments. The acquisition of high-resolution lidar data by the USGS 3DEP initiative helps the FERC and NEPA permit applicants by providing accurate and consistent data for hazards analysis. The use of these data accelerates the application and review process and avoids the much higher costs of acquiring elevation data along proposed energy facility locations and pipeline corridors.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey science strategy to address chronic wasting disease and cervid health in 2024–2028

Chronic wasting disease (CWD), a neurological disease similar to scrapie in goats and sheep, has been spreading since the 1960s throughout cervid populations in the United States. It is currently detected in 30 States and now also extends to Canada, Korea, and Scandinavia. CWD is a fatal disease caused by an infectious abnormally folded prion protein. Population-level effects of CWD on localized subpopulations of white-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ), mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ), and elk ( Cervus elaphus ) have been documented. While susceptible to CWD, free-ranging moose ( Alces alces ) and reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) populations do not currently appear to be as severely affected. The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health Science Team is to deliver integrated science to build resiliency into free-ranging cervid populations through more effective management of CWD, build capacity for ungulate health science, and enhance cervid health information sharing across USGS science centers and cooperative research units as well as with stakeholders. The USGS can play an important role in supporting regional and (or) national capacity building by providing resources and guidance to local, State, and Tribal management entities and by providing tools to enhance disease management. The USGS Ecosystems Mission Area’s Biological Threats and Invasive Species Research Program (BTRP) is the lead Federal program for free-ranging wildlife disease research and surveillance. The BTRP is relied upon by Congress, as well as local, State, and Tribal partners, to provide quality science that allows for informed decisions to be made about wildlife disease policy, planning, and management. The information provided by our research gives policy makers and the public the understanding needed to improve management preparedness and response. This document describes the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy To Address Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervid Health. It lays out a 5-year science strategy (2024–2028) for continued USGS research to study CWD in free-ranging cervids and their environments. The strategy includes improving detection methods, advancing our understanding of the mechanisms of transmission, incorporating the human dimensions and socio-economic effects of CWD in scientific studies, developing tools for decision making, and understanding potential effects of this disease on ecosystem health.

Circular↗
USGS2023

Guidelines for conducting reviews of geologic names and aquifer names in U.S. Geological Survey hydrogeologic maps and reports

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is officially charged with assessment of various aspects of geology and hydrogeology throughout the Nation. Hence, USGS publications adhere to broadly uniform procedures in the classification and nomenclature of geologic and hydrogeologic units. Responsibility for this uniformity is under the technical guidance of the Geologic Names Committee (GNC), which formulates general policy and advises on specific nomenclatural issues. Central to the GNC proceedings is the North American Stratigraphic Code (hereafter referred to as “the Code”) (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature [NACSN], 2021). Geologic reports typically contain geologic maps and cross sections, geologic unit names, lithologic descriptions, and stratigraphic correlation charts, as well as results of drilling activities and structure-contour, depth-to-top, depth-to-base, or sediment-thickness maps. Groundwater-resource maps and other hydrogeologic maps and reports can also contain many of these same elements. Groundwater-resource reports rarely contain original geologic mapping, revisions of stratigraphic nomenclature, or redefinitions or changes in the ranks or ages of geologic units; however, these reports usually contain descriptions and classifications of hydrogeologic units, and they also may introduce new or modify existing aquifer nomenclature. The following general guidance is published for those designated as geologic and aquifer names reviewers.

Professional Paper↗
USGS2010

Land-Use Portfolio Modeler, Version 1.0

Natural hazards pose significant threats to the public safety and economic health of many communities throughout the world. Community leaders and decision-makers continually face the challenges of planning and allocating limited resources to invest in protecting their communities against catastrophic losses from natural-hazard events. Public efforts to assess community vulnerability and encourage loss-reduction measures through mitigation often focused on either aggregating site-specific estimates or adopting standards based upon broad assumptions about regional risks. The site-specific method usually provided the most accurate estimates, but was prohibitively expensive, whereas regional risk assessments were often too general to be of practical use. Policy makers lacked a systematic and quantitative method for conducting a regional-scale risk assessment of natural hazards. In response, Bernknopf and others developed the portfolio model, an intermediate-scale approach to assessing natural-hazard risks and mitigation policy alternatives. The basis for the portfolio-model approach was inspired by financial portfolio theory, which prescribes a method of optimizing return on investment while reducing risk by diversifying investments in different security types. In this context, a security type represents a unique combination of features and hazard-risk level, while financial return is defined as the reduction in losses resulting from an investment in mitigation of chosen securities. Features are selected for mitigation and are modeled like investment portfolios. Earth-science and economic data for the features are combined and processed in order to analyze each of the portfolios, which are then used to evaluate the benefits of mitigating the risk in selected locations. Ultimately, the decision maker seeks to choose a portfolio representing a mitigation policy that maximizes the expected return-on-investment, while minimizing the uncertainty associated with that return-on-investment. The portfolio model, now known as the Land-Use Portfolio Model (LUPM), provided the framework for the development of the Land-Use Portfolio Modeler, Version 1.0 software (LUPM v1.0). The software provides a geographic information system (GIS)-based modeling tool for evaluating alternative risk-reduction mitigation strategies for specific natural-hazard events. The modeler uses information about a specific natural-hazard event and the features exposed to that event within the targeted study region to derive a measure of a given mitigation strategy`s effectiveness. Harnessing the spatial capabilities of a GIS enables the tool to provide a rich, interactive mapping environment in which users can create, analyze, visualize, and compare different

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2016

Adapting inland fisheries management to a changing climate

Natural resource decision makers are challenged to adapt management to a changing climate while balancing short-term management goals with long-term changes in aquatic systems. Adaptation will require developing resilient ecosystems and resilient management systems. Decision makers already have tools to develop or ensure resilient aquatic systems and fisheries such as managing harvest and riparian zones. Because fisheries management often interacts with multiple stakeholders, adaptation strategies involving fisheries managers and other partners focused on land use, policy, and human systems, coupled with long-term monitoring, are necessary for resilient systems. We show how agencies and organizations are adapting to a changing climate in Minnesota and Ontario lakes and Montana streams. We also present how the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission created a management structure to develop adaptation strategies. These examples demonstrate how organizations and agencies can cope with climate change effects on fishes and fisheries through creating resilient management and ecological systems.

Fisheries↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey environmental health science strategy — Providing environmental health science for a changing world

Executive Summary America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, quality of life, and economic prosperity lead to environmental change. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will compound the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, synthetic chemicals and substances, natural earth materials, toxins, and other biogenic compounds. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public health managers. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decisionmaking. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The “One Health” paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO; World Health Organization, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA; American Veterinary Medical Association, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm.

Circular↗
USGS2004

The Enterprise Web

The Enterprise Web is a bureau wide approach to managing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) information on the Web. Under the direction of the USGS Geographic Information Office, the Enterprise Web operates the Bureau's Web servers and their associated sites. Through a network of people and resources, the Enterprise Web or "E-Web" works with programs and partners to effectively use the USGS Web presence to advance and deliver natural science information. It provides the corporate infrastructure, best practices, and tools to focus the Bureau's Web presence on customer and business needs and to ensure that USGS Web sites are reliable, secure, and in compliance with all applicable laws, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements, and Department of the Interior (DOI) policy.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2001

Energy Resources Program of the U.S. Geological Survey

Our Nation faces the simultaneous challenges of increasing demand for energy, declining domestic production from existing oil and gas fields, and increasing expectations for environmental protection. The Energy Information Administration (2000) forecasts that worldwide energy consumption will increase 32 percent between 1999 and 2020 because of growth of the world economy. Forecasts indicate that in the same time period, U.S. natural gas consumption will increase 62 percent, petroleum consumption will increase 33 percent, and coal consumption will increase 22 percent. The U.S. Geological Survey provides the objective scientific information our society needs for sound decisions regarding land management, environmental quality, and economic, energy, and strategic policy.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Climate consideration in environmental effects analyses on federal public lands in the United States

Effects of a changing climate, including drought, wildfire, and invasive species encroachment, are evident on public lands across the United States. Decision making on Federal public lands requires analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and there are guidelines for considering climate in NEPA analyses. To better understand how climate most recently has been considered, we analyzed a stratified random sample of 130 environmental assessments (EAs) completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from 2021 to 2023 across the contiguous United States. We assessed whether EAs considered (1) potential effects of the proposed action on climate (2) potential climate effects on the proposed action, and (3) potential climate effects on resources of concern. We also identified whether EAs included data and science about climate or greenhouse gas emissions, and which datasets and documents were cited. We used two approaches: automated keyword searches and document analysis. Thirty-seven percent of EAs considered the potential effects of the proposed action on climate, 8% considered the potential effects of climate on the proposed action, and 4% of individual resource analyses considered the potential effects of climate on the resource. EAs in the ‘oil and gas development,’ ‘renewable energy,’ and ‘forestry and timber management’ proposed action categories most frequently considered the potential effects of climate and used climate data and science. Our findings suggest an opportunity for scientists to work more closely with public land managers to identify available data and science for considering climate in environmental effects analyses and to provide science delivery mechanisms that can facilitate the consideration and use of climate science in decision making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2016

Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century

Wildlife conservation is losing ground in the U.S. for many reasons. The net effect is declines in species and habitat. To address this trend, the wildlife conservation institution (i.e., all customs, practices, organizations and agencies, policies, and laws with respect to wildlife) must adapt to contemporary social–ecological conditions. Adaptation could be supported by clear guidelines reflecting contemporary expectations for wildlife governance. We combine elements of public trust thinking and good governance to produce a broad set of wildlife governance principles. These principles represent guidance for ecologically and socially responsible wildlife conservation. They address persistent, systemic problems and, if adopted, will bring the institution into line with modern expectations for governance of public natural resources. Implementation will require changes in values, objectives, and processes of the wildlife conservation institution. These changes may be difficult, but promise improved wildlife conservation outcomes and increased support for conservation. We introduce challenges and opportunities associated with the principles, and encourage dialogue about them among scientists, practitioners, and other leaders in U.S. wildlife conservation. The principles alone will not change the course of conservation for the better, but may be necessary for such change to occur.

Conservation Letters↗
USGS2024

The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy

President Biden has been clear that the ocean is central to life on Earth. As he has proclaimed, “the ocean powers millions of jobs; feeds and sustains us; and is a rejuvenating source of inspiration, exploration, and recreation.” The Biden-Harris Administration has worked hard to fulfill the President’s goal to protect and conserve at least 30% of U.S. waters by 2030. The ocean faces increased threats from warming, overfishing, increased acidity, and loss of biodiversity. It is now more important than ever to sustain the many benefits that the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes provide, including food, a favorable climate, recreation, physical and mental health, and for many, a sense of cultural identity. Ocean life represents an irreplaceable heritage, the foundation of a habitable planet, and a vast trove of resources. Keeping our ocean healthy requires reliable information on the changing status of these living organisms, the drivers of biodiversity change, and options for effectively addressing those drivers. Over 2 million species are estimated to live in the ocean, yet only about 240,000 species have been described by scientists. Most of the ocean’s benefits result from those diverse species interacting with one another and the environment they create. To protect and conserve the ocean, we as a nation need to make better use of existing knowledge and prioritize acquiring new biodiversity knowledge to enable better policy and management decisions. The ability to monitor ocean species and habitats has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with innovations in technology, genomics, taxonomy, big data management and sharing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Yet large fractions of the U.S. ocean remain almost unknown. The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (strategy) reflects the urgent need to leverage these advances. The goals of this strategy must be guided by the nation’s diverse voices and ways of knowing, in order to maximize effective and equitable stewardship of the ocean’s diverse life and its benefits to people. The strategy is intended as a guiding document for government to advance three overarching goals: ● Goal 1: Drive delivery of ocean biodiversity knowledge at the national scale. Objectives include developing an Implementation Plan for achieving the strategy’s three goals; establishing a coordination mechanism to manage the implementation; and documenting gaps in biodiversity knowledge and the benefits of ocean biodiversity to people and economies. ● Goal 2: Strengthen tools and institutions to deliver ocean biodiversity knowledge. Objectives include establishing a robust information pipeline to support indicators and dynamic maps of ocean biodiversity, from the coasts to the deep sea. This pipeline should include expanded observing systems and comprehensive data management; science and technology solutions to accelerate the availability of biodiversity information; and plans to leverage previous investments to rebuild and expand the nation’s human capital and infrastructure to sustain foundational taxonomy and biodiversity science. ● Goal 3: Protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably use ocean biodiversity. Objectives include expanding the collection, delivery, and use of biodiversity knowledge to inform actions that advance ocean protection, conservation, restoration, and sustainable development. Government should lead in establishing and incentivizing diverse partnerships across scales and sectors to implement those actions and should educate and involve the public to discover and value the nation’s diverse ocean life. Achieving these goals will require commitments across society: new federal and private investments, coordination across sectors to address climate and equity challenges, and engagement of Indigenous Knowledge holders and frontline communities as full partners throughout planning and implementation. The Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) IWG-Biodiversity will begin developing an Implementation Plan to describe and direct specific actions to implement the strategy. Successful implementation of the strategy will harmonize and expand collection and delivery of timely knowledge on ocean life to all of society. The strategy will also enable evidence-based management and protection of the ocean. Advancing the strategy will build human and institutional capital and partnerships that support both existing mandates and new needs to rebuild and sustain biodiversity, achieve healthy ocean ecosystems, and manage living resources. Implementing the strategy will deliver knowledge for monitoring, modeling, forecasting, and assessments that support food security, public health, and cultural values, and that more effectively protect, conserve, and restore nature.

Report↗
USGS2022

Applied citizen science in freshwater research

Worldwide, scientists are increasingly collaborating with the general public. Citizen science methods are readily applicable to freshwater research, monitoring, and education. In addition to providing cost-effective data on spatial and temporal scales that are otherwise unattainable, citizen science provides unique opportunities for engagement with local communities and stakeholders in resource management and decision-making. However, these methods are not infallible. Citizen science projects require deliberate planning in order to collect high data quality and sustain meaningful community partnerships. Citizen science practitioners also have an ethical responsibility to ensure that projects are not putting the safety of participants at stake. We discuss here how citizen science is being applied in freshwater research, emerging challenges in project planning and implementation, as well as how citizen science is shaping public understanding, policy, and management of freshwaters.

WIREs Water↗