USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Science Action”

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 163 records · Page 9Linked to original sources
USGS2022

Priorities for translating goodwill between movement ecologists and conservation practitioners into effective collaboration

Addressing ongoing biodiversity loss requires collaboration between conservation scientists and practitioners. However, such collaboration has proved challenging. Despite the potential importance of tracking animal movements for conservation, reviews of the tracking literature have identified a gap between the academic discipline of movement ecology and its application to biodiversity conservation. Through structured conversations with movement ecologists and conservation practitioners, we aimed to understand whether the identified gap is also perceived in practice, and if so, what factors hamper collaboration and how these factors can be remediated. We found that both groups are motivated and willing to collaborate. However, because their motivations differ, there is potential for misunderstandings and miscommunications. In addition, external factors such as funder requirements, academic metrics, and journal scopes may limit the applicability of scientific results in a conservation setting. Potential solutions we identified included improved communication and better presentation of results, acknowledging each other's motivations and desired outputs, and adjustment of funder priorities. Addressing gaps between science and implementation can enhance collaboration and support conservation action to address the global biodiversity crisis more effectively.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2018

Overview and progress of the pallid sturgeon assessment framework redesign process

The Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program (PSPAP) was initiated in 2003, and full implementation began in 2006, to monitor the trend of Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) and native fish communities in the Upper and Lower Missouri River Basins. The original PSPAP (v. 1.0) was a catch-effort based monitoring program where population abundance and trend were monitored using a relative index, catch per unit effort. In 2013, the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP), led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), began a reassessment of science and monitoring approaches to support a new river management plan. The need to redesign the PSPAP was triggered by the recognition that the PSPAP v. 1.0 would not be optimally effective in contributing information needed to make decisions about the pallid sturgeon fundamental management objective—to avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of the pallid sturgeon from USACE actions in the Missouri River—identified in the Missouri River Science and Adaptive Management Plan. The fundamental management objective includes two management subobjectives: (1) increase pallid sturgeon recruitment to age 1 and (2) maintain or increase numbers of pallid sturgeon as an interim measure until sufficient and sustained natural recruitment occurs. These two management subobjectives motivated the development of two fundamental information objectives for PSPAP v. 2.0: (1) to provide information needed to quantify recruitment to age 1 and (2) to quantify pallid sturgeon population abundance and trend. The charge to the authors of this report was to develop an approach to monitoring the pallid sturgeon population in the Missouri River that would contribute information toward gauging overall performance of management actions to achieve the fundamental objectives of the MRRP and to potentially improve understanding of linkages from the management activities to population responses. We used transparent and robust processes to identify alternative monitoring designs that meet the fundamental objectives for managing pallid sturgeon in the MRRP, with a focus on simulation models to evaluate the performance of varying monitoring. This report documents the process of comparing potential alternative monitoring design abilities to provide decision-relevant information for management of the species. The process includes evaluation of information content and attendant uncertainties and considers tradeoffs in types of information valued by stakeholders. The anticipated end product of this process will be synthesized in a decision-support tool that can be used to facilitate learning and iterative revisions of the monitoring roadmap.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Phase 1 studies summary of major findings of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, South San Francisco Bay, California

Executive Summary The South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (Project) is one of the largest restoration efforts in the United States. It is located in South San Francisco Bay of California. It is unique not only for its size—more than 15,000 acres—but also for its location adjacent to one of the nation’s largest urban areas, home to more than 4 million people (Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties). The Project is intended to restore and enhance wetlands in South San Francisco Bay while providing for flood management, wildlife-oriented public access, and recreation. Restoration goals of the project are to provide a mosaic of saltmarsh habitat to benefit marsh species and managed ponds to benefit waterbirds, throughout 3 complexes and 54 former salt ponds. Although much is known about the project area, significant uncertainties remain with a project of this geographic and temporal scale of an estimated 50 years to complete the restoration. For example, in order to convert anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of the existing managed ponds to saltmarsh habitat, conservation managers first enhance the habitat of managed ponds in order to increase use by waterbirds, and provide migratory, wintering, and nesting habitat for more than 90 species of waterbirds. Project managers have concluded that the best way to address these uncertainties is to carefully implement the project in phases and learn from the outcome of each phase. The Adaptive Management Plan (AMP) identifies specific restoration targets for multiple aspects of the Project and defines triggers that would necessitate some type of management action if a particular aspect is trending negatively. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) biologist Laura Valoppi served as the project Lead Scientist and oversaw implementation of the AMP in coordination with other members of the Project Management Team (PMT), comprised of representatives from the California State Coastal Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To implement the AMP, the PMT have selected and funded applied studies and monitoring projects to address key uncertainties. This information is used by the PMT to make decisions about current management of the project area and future restoration actions in order to meet project. This document summarizes the major scientific findings from studies conducted from 2009 to 2016, as part of the science program that was conducted in conjunction with Phase 1 restoration and management actions. Additionally, this report summarizes the management response to the study results under the guidance of the AMP framework and provides a list of suggested studies to be conducted in “Phase 2–A scorecard summarizing the Project’s progress toward meeting the AMP goals for a range of Project objectives.” The scoring to date indicates that the Project is meeting or exceeding expectations for sediment accretion and western snowy plover ( Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus ) recovery. There is uncertainty with respect to objectives for California gulls ( Larus californicus ), California least tern ( Sternula antillarum ), steelhead trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), and regulatory water quality objectives. Water quality and algal blooms, specifically of the managed ponds, is indicated as trending negative. However, the vast majority of objectives are trending positive, including increased abundance for a number of bird guilds, increasing marsh habitat, maintenance of mudflats, visitor experience, estuarine fish numbers, and special-status marsh species numbers.

California↗
USGS2010

Southeast Regional Assessment Project for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The Southeastern United States spans a broad range of physiographic settings and maintains exceptionally high levels of faunal diversity. Unfortunately, many of these ecosystems are increasingly under threat due to rapid human development, and management agencies are increasingly aware of the potential effects that climate change will have on these ecosystems. Natural resource managers and conservation planners can be effective at preserving ecosystems in the face of these stressors only if they can adapt current conservation efforts to increase the overall resilience of the system. Climate change, in particular, challenges many of the basic assumptions used by conservation planners and managers. Previous conservation planning efforts identified and prioritized areas for conservation based on the current environmental conditions, such as habitat quality, and assumed that conditions in conservation lands would be largely controlled by management actions (including no action). Climate change, however, will likely alter important system drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain recent historic conditions in conservation lands into the future. Climate change will also influence the future conservation potential of non-conservation lands, further complicating conservation planning. Therefore, there is a need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change on future environmental conditions. Congress recognized this important issue and authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC; http://nccw.usgs.gov/) in the Fiscal Year 2008. The NCCWSC will produce science that will help resource management agencies anticipate and adapt to climate change impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. With the release of Secretarial Order 3289 on September 14, 2009, the mandate of the NCCWSC was expanded to address climate change-related impacts on all Department of the Interior (DOI) resources. The NCCWSC will establish a network of eight DOI Regional Climate Science Centers (RCSCs) that will work with a variety of partners to provide natural resource managers with tools and information that will help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The forecasting products produced by the RCSCs will aid fish, wildlife, and land managers in designing suitable adaptive management approaches for their programs. The DOI also is developing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) as science and conservation action partnerships at subregional scales. The USGS is working with the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop science collaboration between the future Southeast RCSC and future LCCs. The NCCWSC Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) will begin to develop regional downscaled climate models, land cover change models, regional ecological models, regional watershed models, and other science tools. Models and data produced by SERAP will be used in a collaborative process between the USGS, the FWS (LCCs), State and federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and academia to produce science at appropriate scales to answer resource management questions. The SERAP will produce an assessment of climate change, and impacts on land cover, ecosystems, and priority species in the region. The predictive tools developed by the SERAP project team will allow end users to better understand potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on terrestrial and aquatic populations in the Southeastern United States. The SERAP capitalizes on the integration of five existing projects: (1) the Multi-State Conservation Grants Program project "Designing Sustainable Landscapes," (2) the USGS multidisciplinary Science Thrust project "Water Availability for Ecological Needs," (3) the USGS Southeast Pilot Project "Climate Change in the Southeastern U.S. and its Impacts on Bird Distributions and Habitats," (4) a sea-level rise impacts study envisioned jointly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and (5) two USGS sea-level rise impact assessment projects that address inundation hazards and provide probabilistic forecasts of coastal geomorphic change. The SERAP will expand on these existing projects and include the following tasks, which were initiated in summer 2009: * Regionally downscaled probabilistic climate-change projections * Integrated coastal assessment * Integrated terrestrial assessment * Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: aquatic and hydrologic dynamics * Optimal conservation strategies to cope with climate change The SERAP seeks to formally integrate these tasks to aid conservation planning and design so that ecosystem management decisions can be optimized for providing desirable outcomes across a range of species and environments. The following chapters detail SERAP's efforts in providing a suite of regional climate, watershed, and landscape-change analyses and develop the interdisciplinary framework required for the biological planning phases of adaptive management and strategic conservation. The planning phase will include the identification of conservation alternatives, development of predictive models and decision support tools, and development of a template to address similar challenges and goals in other regions. The project teams will explore and develop ways to link the various ecological models arising from each component. The SERAP project team also will work closely with members of the LCCs and other partnerships throughout the life of the project to ensure that the objectives of the project meet resources mangers needs in the Southeast.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1982

Test and calibration of the Digital World-Wide Standardized Seismograph

During the past decade there has been steady progress in the modernization of the global seismograph network operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The World-Wide Standardized Seismograph Network (WWSSN) has been augmented by new stations with advanced instrumentation, including the Seismic Research Observatories (SRO) and the modified High-Gain Long-Period (ASRO) stations. One goal in the modernization effort has been to improve signal resolution in the long-period band. A second goal has been to generate a global digital data base to support contemporary computer-based analysis and research. In 1976, a Panel on Seismograph Networks was established by the Committee on Seismology of the National Academy of Sciences to review progress in network seismology and recommend actions that would lead to an improved global data base for seismology. One recommendation in the Panel report (Engdahl, 1977) called for upgrading selected WWSSN stations by the installation of digital recorders. This was viewed as an economical way of expanding the digital network, which had proven itself to be a very promising new tool for earthquake and explosion research. Funds for the development and assembly of 15 digital recorders were provided to the USGS by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and an ad Inoc panel of scientists was convened by the Committee on Seismology to advise the USGS on the selection of stations to be upgraded and on data recording requirements, A total of 19 digital World-Wide Standardized Seismograph (DWWSS) systems will be operational when all are installed. The additional systems were made available through purchase by the USGS and other organizations; for example, the University of Bergen purchased and installed a DWWSS-type recorder and agreed to furnish the USGS with the data. A list of operational and planned DWWSS network stations is given in Table 1.1. As one might expect, the digital recorder turned out to be somewhat more sophisticated than the original concept. It was decided to record three components of long-period data continuously, three components of intermediateperiod data in an event mode, and the vertical-component short-period data in and event mode (with the capability of adding short-period horizontal channels in the future). Special amplifiers were developed for use with the WWSS seismometers, and a 16-bit fixed-point analog-to-digital converter was chosen to provide increased resolution (as opposed to a 16-bit gain-ranged encoder). The microprocessor-based digital recording systems were developed and assembled at the USGS Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) and ASL-based technicians began installation at WWSSN stations in 1980. The current and proposed locations of the DWWSSN stations, together with other stations in the Global Digital Seismograph Network (GDSN), are shown on the map in Figure 1.1. A system was operated at Albuquerque for about 18 months, serving as a test bed for evaluation studies. Although the network hardware has been available for some time, the installation of the DWWSSN has proceeded slowly. The National Science Foundation supported installation of six stations and the USGS is funding installation of most of the others; however, the network completion date is conjectural because of funding uncertainties. The DWWSSN stations are supported with supplies and technical assistance from ASL (subject to availability of funds). Data recorded on magnetic tapes are mailed to ASL where they are reviewed for quality, then merged with other GDSN station data on the network-day tapes. Hoffman (1980) provides a description of the network-day tape format. Zirbes and Buland (1981) have developed and published user software for reading and interpreting the day tapes. This report will serve several purposes. One is to provide nominal system transfer functions and calibration information that are needed in the analysis of DWWSSN data. A second purpose is to report on an evaluation of operating characteristics (calibration stability, noise levels, and linearity) that may limit the usefulness of the data and to determine if modifications may be needed to improve the data. It is not an exhaustive study in this respect. We continue to depend mostly on data user feedback to point out deficiencies and we solicit comments whenever anomalies are observed in the data.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Integrating scientific knowledge into large-scale restoration programs: the CALFED Bay-Delta Program experience

Integrating science into resource management activities is a goal of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program, a multi-agency effort to address water supply reliability, ecological condition, drinking water quality, and levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of northern California. Under CALFED, many different strategies were used to integrate science, including interaction between the research and management communities, public dialogues about scientific work, and peer review. This paper explores ways science was (and was not) integrated into CALFED's management actions and decision systems through three narratives describing different patterns of scientific integration and application in CALFED. Though a collaborative process and certain organizational conditions may be necessary for developing new understandings of the system of interest, we find that those factors are not sufficient for translating that knowledge into management actions and decision systems. We suggest that the application of knowledge may be facilitated or hindered by (1) differences in the objectives, approaches, and cultures of scientists operating in the research community and those operating in the management community and (2) other factors external to the collaborative process and organization.

Environmental Science and Policy↗
USGS2025

Balancing monitoring and management in the adaptive management of an invasive species

Efficient allocation of managers' limited resources is necessary to effectively control invasive species, but determining how to allocate effort between monitoring and management over space and time remains a challenge. In an adaptive management context, monitoring data are key for gaining knowledge and iteratively improving management, but monitoring costs money. Community science or other opportunistic monitoring data present an opportunity for managers to gain critical knowledge without a substantial reduction in management funds. We designed a management strategy evaluation to investigate optimal spatial allocation of resources to monitoring and management, while also exploring the potential for community science data to improve decision-making, using adaptive management of invasive flowering rush ( Butomus umbellatus ) in the Columbia River, USA, as a case study. We evaluated management and monitoring alternatives under two invasion conditions, a well-established invasion and an emerging invasion, for both risk-neutral and risk-averse decision makers. Simulations revealed that regardless of invasion condition or managers' risk tolerance, allocating effort outward from the estimated center of invasion ( Epicenter prioritization) resulted in the lowest overall level of infestation at the end of management. This allocation outperformed alternatives in which management occurred in fixed areas ( Linear prioritization) and alternatives that targeted patchily distributed areas with the highest estimated infestation level of the invasive species ( High invasion prioritization). Additionally, management outcomes improved when more resources were allocated toward removal effort than monitoring effort, and the addition of community science data improved outcomes only under certain scenarios. Finally, actions that led to the best outcomes often did not produce the most accurate and precise estimates of parameters describing system function, emphasizing the importance of using value of information principles to guide monitoring. Our adaptive management approach is adaptable to many invasive species management contexts in which ongoing monitoring allows management strategies to be updated over time.

Oregon, Washington↗
USGS2006

Scaling local species-habitat relations to the larger landscape with a hierarchical spatial count model

Much of what is known about avian species-habitat relations has been derived from studies of birds at local scales. It is entirely unclear whether the relations observed at these scales translate to the larger landscape in a predictable linear fashion. We derived habitat models and mapped predicted abundances for three forest bird species of eastern North America using bird counts, environmental variables, and hierarchical models applied at three spatial scales. Our purpose was to understand habitat associations at multiple spatial scales and create predictive abundance maps for purposes of conservation planning at a landscape scale given the constraint that the variables used in this exercise were derived from local-level studies. Our models indicated a substantial influence of landscape context for all species, many of which were counter to reported associations at finer spatial extents. We found land cover composition provided the greatest contribution to the relative explained variance in counts for all three species; spatial structure was second in importance. No single spatial scale dominated any model, indicating that these species are responding to factors at multiple spatial scales. For purposes of conservation planning, areas of predicted high abundance should be investigated to evaluate the conservation potential of the landscape in their general vicinity. In addition, the models and spatial patterns of abundance among species suggest locations where conservation actions may benefit more than one species. ?? 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Landscape Ecology↗
USGS2012

Science strategy for Core Science Systems in the U.S. Geological Survey, 2013-2023

Core Science Systems is a new mission of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) that grew out of the 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017.” This report describes the vision for this USGS mission and outlines a strategy for Core Science Systems to facilitate integrated characterization and understanding of the complex earth system. The vision and suggested actions are bold and far-reaching, describing a conceptual model and framework to enhance the ability of USGS to bring its core strengths to bear on pressing societal problems through data integration and scientific synthesis across the breadth of science. The context of this report is inspired by a direction set forth in the 2007 Science Strategy. Specifically, ecosystem-based approaches provide the underpinnings for essentially all science themes that define the USGS. Every point on earth falls within a specific ecosystem where data, other information assets, and the expertise of USGS and its many partners can be employed to quantitatively understand how that ecosystem functions and how it responds to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. Every benefit society obtains from the planet—food, water, raw materials to build infrastructure, homes and automobiles, fuel to heat homes and cities, and many others, are derived from or effect ecosystems. The vision for Core Science Systems builds on core strengths of the USGS in characterizing and understanding complex earth and biological systems through research, modeling, mapping, and the production of high quality data on the nation’s natural resource infrastructure. Together, these research activities provide a foundation for ecosystem-based approaches through geologic mapping, topographic mapping, and biodiversity mapping. The vision describes a framework founded on these core mapping strengths that makes it easier for USGS scientists to discover critical information, share and publish results, and identify potential collaborations that transcend all USGS missions. The framework is designed to improve the efficiency of scientific work within USGS by establishing a means to preserve and recall data for future applications, organizing existing scientific knowledge and data to facilitate new use of older information, and establishing a future workflow that naturally integrates new data, applications, and other science products to make it easier and more efficient to conduct interdisciplinary research over time. Given the increasing need for integrated data and interdisciplinary approaches to solve modern problems, leadership by the Core Science Systems mission will facilitate problem solving by all USGS missions in ways not formerly possible. The report lays out a strategy to achieve this vision through three goals with accompanying objectives and actions. The first goal builds on and enhances the strengths of the Core Science Systems mission in characterizing and understanding the earth system from the geologic framework to the topographic characteristics of the land surface and biodiversity across the nation. The second goal enhances and develops new strengths in computer and information science to make it easier for USGS scientists to discover data and models, share and publish results, and discover connections between scientific information and knowledge. The third goal brings additional focus to research and development methods to address complex issues affecting society that require integration of knowledge and new methods for synthesizing scientific information. Collectively, the report lays out a strategy to create a seamless connection between all USGS activities to accelerate and make USGS science more efficient by fully integrating disciplinary expertise within a new and evolving science paradigm for a changing world in the 21st century.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) scenario planning summary report

Scenario planning provides a structured framework that can be used in strategic planning to help manage risk and prioritize actions (Schwartz 1996; Peterson et al. 2003). By providing a mechanism to communicate about complex situations, scenario planning encourages “out-of-the-box” thinking to help groups assess the impacts of plausible future scenarios on a target or resource. The outcomes from scenario planning can be used to improve management decisions, highlight data gaps, and/or identify future science priorities (Star et al. 2015; Borggaard et al. 2019). The application of scenario planning by resource management organizations (e.g., Borggaard et al. 2019; Runyon et al. 2020; Star et al. 2015) and the urgency surrounding the recovery of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), led to a 2018 NOAA Fisheries scenario planning initiative for the species. In addition to complementing the many management and conservation efforts already underway, this initiative was designed to address the uncertainties around future anthropogenic and environmental changes and how these uncertainties may impact species recovery. We used a scenario planning framework to explore plausible future conditions for North Atlantic right whales and to develop possible options to address those conditions and improve recovery. Specific objectives were to: 1) better understand the challenges of right whale management in a changing climate; 2) identify potential research activities and recovery needs across the species’ range; 3) increase coordination and collaboration related to recovery efforts; and 4) explore how scenario planning can be used to support decisions. Using projected changes in ocean conditions coupled with anthropogenic stressors, we built four plausible future scenarios for right whales. These scenarios helped identify priority research and management actions that NOAA Fisheries and our partners can undertake to improve right whale recovery. We identified priority actions related to science, management, and partnerships including, but not limited to, 1) research on shifting spatial and temporal distributions of right whales and prey in a changing climate; 2) development of technology to further reduce impacts from human activities; 3) continuation of ongoing management efforts related to vessel traffic and fishing; and 4) continued maintenance of existing and development of new partnerships (e.g., industry engagement in problem solving). This scenario planning exercise helped prioritize North Atlantic right whale management and science needs in light of changing ocean conditions and anthropogenic impacts. It can also serve as a reference for how NOAA Fisheries and its partners can better prepare for multiple plausible futures while complementing other on-going initiatives. Priorities identified here can be considered in conjunction with implementation and monitoring actions such as with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) and/or regional Right Whale U.S. Implementation Teams. The framework can also be repeated and improved upon as additional information becomes available to support future exercises.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2014

USGS ecosystem research for the next decade: advancing discovery and application in parks and protected areas through collaboration

Ecosystems within parks and protected areas in the United States and throughout the world are being transformed at an unprecedented rate. Changes associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, food, land, energy and mineral resources are placing urgency on sound decision making that will help sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). In recognition of the importance of science in making these decisions, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in 2007 identified ecosystem science as one of six science directions included in a comprehensive decadal strategy (USGS 2007). The Ecosystems Mission Area was identified as essential for integrating activity within the USGS and as a key to enhanced integration with other Federal and private sector research and management organizations (Myers at al., 2007). This paper focuses on benefits to parks and protected areas from the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area plan that expanded the scope of the original 2007 science strategy, to identify the Bureau’s work in ecosystem science over the next decade (Williams et al., 2013). The plan describes a framework that encompasses both basic and applied science and allows the USGS to continue to contribute meaningfully to conservation and management issues related to the Nation’s parks and ecological resources. This framework relies on maintaining long-standing, collaborative relationships with partners in both conducting science and applying scientific results. Here we summarize the major components of the USGS Ecosystems Science Strategy, articulating the vision, goals and strategic approaches, then outlining some of the proposed actions that will ultimately prove useful to those managing parks and protected areas. We end with a discussion on the future of ecosystem science for the USGS and how it can be used to evaluate ecosystem change and the associated consequences to management of our Nation’s natural resources.

The George Wright Forum↗
USGS2025

Points of consensus on catch-and-release: Considerations for science, ethics, and fisheries management

Catch-and-release (C&R), whether via regulations or voluntary actions, is typically employed with the intent of reducing ­fishing mortality while maintaining recreational angling opportunities (Isermann & Paukert, 2010), but there has been significant discourse about the relative importance of individual-level (see Cooke et al., 2025) vs. population-level (see Corsi et al., 2025) effects of C&R. We hope to offer the angling, scientific, and management communities some points of consensus from which this multifaceted dialogue on C&R can productively build. We preface this by noting that our collective views were informed by this process and the opportunity to share and learn from each other. What is apparent from this exercise is the value of embracing a holistic, cooperative approach. From a regulatory perspective, C&R is typically implemented in high-effort fisheries that are popular due to the quality of the fishing. Catch-and-release regulations are also applied in fisheries where populations have declined and fishing mortality is thought or, most appropriately, known to be a limiting factor for the population. When practiced voluntarily, anglers engaging in C&R can be characterized by high avidity and specialization, and angling is often a central component of their identity (e.g., Fisher, 1997). Due to their passion, avid anglers tend to spotlight the ethical, scientific, and regulatory considerations of C&R. As such, there is a need in fisheries management and science to understand in what situations these considerations transcend biological scales and how to navigate the gamut of voluntary actions and regulatory mandates. In this essay, we offer a distillation of the emergent consensus concepts that we hope managers and researchers will consider at both individual and population scales for legal, ethical, and scientific deliberations.

Fisheries↗
USGS2003

Geographic analysis and monitoring at the United States Geological Survey

The Geographic Analysis and Monitoring (GAM) Program of the U.S. Geological Survey assesses the Nation's land surface at a variety of spatial and temporal scales to understand the rates, causes, and consequences of natural and human-induced processes and their interactions that affect the landscape over time. The program plays an important role in developing National Map tools and application. The GAM is a science and synthesis program that not only assesses the rates of changes to the Earth's land surface, but also provides reports on the status and trends of the Nation's land resources on a periodic basis, produces a land-use and land- cover database for the periodically updated map and data set-the Geographic Face of the Nation, and conducts research leading to improved understanding and knowledge about geographic processes. Scientific investigations provide comprehensive information needed to understand the environmental, resource, and economic consequences of landscape change. These analyses responds to the needs of resource managers and offers the American public baseline information to help them understand the dynamic nature of our national landscape and to anticipate the opportunities and consequences of our actions.

Cartography and Geographic Information Science↗
USGS2023

National preparedness strategy & action plan for potentially hazardous near-Earth objects and planetary defense

Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) are asteroids and comets that orbit the Sun, but have orbits that can bring them into Earth’s neighborhood—within 30 million miles of Earth’s orbit. Planetary defense is “applied planetary science” to address the NEO impact risks on Earth. This National Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan for Near-Earth Objects and Planetary Defense (2023 Planetary Defense Strategy) updates the United States’ first comprehensive Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, released in 2018. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy builds on existing efforts by Federal Departments and Agencies to address the hazard of near-Earth object impacts, includes evaluation of where progress has been made since 2018, and focuses future work on planetary defense across the U.S. government. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy maintains and updates the core five goals of the 2018 Strategy and Action Plan, while adding a sixth goal to improve governance and interagency coordination on planetary defense issues across Federal Departments and Agencies for the decade ahead. The 2023 Planetary Defense Strategy focuses on six goals: • Goal 1: Enhance NEO detection, tracking, and characterization capabilities. • Goal 2: Improve NEO modeling, prediction, and information integration. • Goal 3: Develop technologies for NEO deflection and disruption missions. • Goal 4: Increase international cooperation on NEO preparation. • Goal 5: Strengthen and routinely exercise NEO impact emergency procedures and action protocols. • Goal 6: Improve U.S. governance of planetary defense through new interagency collaboration.

Report↗
USGS2017

Building translational ecology communities of practice: insights from the field

Translational ecology (TE) prioritizes the understanding of social systems and decision contexts in order to address complex natural resource management issues. Although many practitioners in applied fields employ translational tactics, the body of literature addressing such approaches is limited. We present several case studies illustrating the principles of TE and the diversity of its applications. We anticipate that these examples will help others develop scientific products that decision makers can use “off the shelf” when solving critical ecological and social challenges. Our collective experience suggests that research of such immediate utility is rare. Long‐term commitment to working directly with partners to develop and reach shared goals is central to successful translation. The examples discussed here highlight the benefits of translational processes, including actionable scientific results, more informed policy making, increased investment in science‐driven solutions, and inspiration for partnerships. We aim to facilitate future TE‐based projects and build momentum for growing this community of practice.

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment↗
USGS2011

Black swans, wicked problems, and science during crises

Oceanic resources face challenges that are significant and widespread, including (but not limited to) overharvesting, climate change, selected stock collapse, coral reef decline, species extinction, pollution, and more. These challenges are the focus of much ocean science, which is helping to inform policy and guide management actions. The steady growth of research results and the emergence of new research needs have been systematically reviewed through periodic assessments, such as those of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (Valdés et al., 2010).

Oceanography↗
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↗