Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Policy Sciences”

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 289 records · Page 16Linked to original sources
USGS2023

The 2023 US 50-State National Seismic Hazard Model: Overview and implications

The US National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was updated in 2023 for all 50 states using new science on seismicity, fault ruptures, ground motions, and probabilistic techniques to produce a standard of practice for public policy and other engineering applications (defined for return periods greater than ∼475 or less than ∼10,000 years). Changes in 2023 time-independent seismic hazard (both increases and decreases compared to previous NSHMs) are substantial because the new model considers more data and updated earthquake rupture forecasts and ground-motion components. In developing the 2023 model, we tried to apply best available or applicable science based on advice of co-authors, more than 50 reviewers, and hundreds of hazard scientists and end-users, who attended public workshops and provided technical inputs. The hazard assessment incorporates new catalogs, declustering algorithms, gridded seismicity models, magnitude-scaling equations, fault-based structural and deformation models, multi-fault earthquake rupture forecast models, semi-empirical and simulation-based ground-motion models, and site amplification models conditioned on shear-wave velocities of the upper 30 m of soil and deeper sedimentary basin structures. Seismic hazard calculations yield hazard curves at hundreds of thousands of sites, ground-motion maps, uniform-hazard response spectra, and disaggregations developed for pseudo-spectral accelerations at 21 oscillator periods and two peak parameters, Modified Mercalli Intensity, and 8 site classes required by building codes and other public policy applications. Tests show the new model is consistent with past ShakeMap intensity observations. Sensitivity and uncertainty assessments ensure resulting ground motions are compatible with known hazard information and highlight the range and causes of variability in ground motions. We produce several impact products including building seismic design criteria, intensity maps, planning scenarios, and engineering risk assessments showing the potential physical and social impacts. These applications provide a basis for assessing, planning, and mitigating the effects of future earthquakes.

Earthquake Spectra↗
USGS2018

A vision for documenting and sharing knowledge in conservation

As editors, we mark the launch of Conservation Science and Practice , a journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), with the following remarks framing the purpose and aspirations of the journal. Our aim is to share scholarship on and experiences of the practice of conservation. We define conservation practice as the application of conservation principles or theory across conservation issues, from planning and directly managing nature to influencing public policy and private behaviors—at scales from local communities to international governing bodies. We are striving for Conservation Science and Practice to be a forum for sharing lessons learned from research and practice to reciprocally informing and improving both arenas.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2017

Reducing risk where tectonic plates collide

Most of the world’s earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic eruptions are caused by the continuous motions of the many tectonic plates that make up the Earth’s outer shell. The most powerful of these natural hazards occur in subduction zones, where two plates collide and one is thrust beneath another. The U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) “Reducing Risk Where Tectonic Plates Collide—A USGS Plan to Advance Subduction Zone Science” is a blueprint for building the crucial scientific foundation needed to inform the policies and practices that can make our Nation more resilient to subduction zone-related hazards.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2007

Quality-Assurance Plan for Water-Quality Activities in the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Office of Water Quality in the Water Resources Discipline of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), this quality-assurance plan has been created for use by the USGS Washington Water Science Center (WAWSC) in conducting water-quality activities. The plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the personnel of the WAWSC for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of water-quality data. The policies and procedures that are documented in this quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities are meant to complement the WAWSC's quality-assurance plans for surface-water and ground-water activities and to supplement the WAWSC quality-assurance plan.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2003

Amphibian decline: An integrated analysis of multiple stressor effects

Capturing the attention and imagination of the public and the scientific community alike, the mysterious decline in amphibian populations drew scientists and resource managers from ecotoxicology and chemistry, ecology and field biology, conservation biology, and natural resource policy to a SETAC–Johnson Foundation workshop. Facilitating environmental stewardship, increasing capacity of the sciences to explain complex stressors, and educating the public on relationships among communities of all types motivated these experts to address amphibian decline and the role of various stressors in these losses.

Book↗
USGS1991

Science and the public welfare

Earthquakes & Volcanoes has achieved much in its 20-year history. It serves as a link with policy makers and the public. it offers a variety of information attractive to professionals: historical, culutral, and curent events, and news items not found or missed elsewhere. And the journal can anticipate an even mroe important role in the future because, with increasing concentrations of population as well as building costs, people and their constructs have become mroe vulnerable to hazards.

Earthquakes & Volcanoes (USGS)↗
USGS2014

Comprehensive framework for ecological assessment of the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) established and funded the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative (MBHI), with the goal of improving and increasing wetland habitats on private lands to benefit wintering and migrating waterbirds displaced from oil-impacted coastal wetlands. The NRCS and conservation partners provided financial and technical assistance to landowners and managers of sites enrolled in various conservation easement programs, and incorporated approximately 190,000 ha of wetlands and agricultural lands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV) and Gulf Coast regions in the MBHI. In fall 2010, the NRCS worked with scientists and graduate students from three universities and various conservation agencies to design and implement landscape-scale evaluations of (1) the use of MBHI-managed wetlands and comparable non-MBHI wetlands by Charadriiformes (shorebirds), Anseriformes (waterfowl), and other waterbirds; and (2) the relative effectiveness of different MBHI practices for providing habitat and food resources for migrating, resident, and wintering waterbirds. In this paper, we describe the scientific framework designed to evaluate the MBHI in improving waterbird habitats on private lands in the MAV, the Gulf Coast Prairies in Louisiana and Texas, and Gulf coastal wetlands of Mississippi and Alabama. The results of our evaluation will enhance our understanding of the influence of MBHI, other Farm Bill Conservation Initiative managed lands (e.g., Wetland Reserve Program), and selected agricultural working lands (e.g., Oryza sativa L. [Rice] fields in southern Louisiana and Texas) on wintering and migrating waterbirds. A proactive approach that uses science to evaluate governmental conservation programs is relevant and can inform development of meaningful public policy that likely will be needed for effective delivery of future conservation programs and to justify financial incentives paid to landowners to apply best management practices.

Southeastern Naturalist↗
USGS2011

Integrating estimates of ecosystem services from conservation programs and practices into models for decision makers

Most government agencies involved in land management are seeking consistent approaches to evaluate the effects of specific management actions on ecological processes and concurrent changes on ecosystem services. This is especially true within the context of anthropogenic influences, such as land use and climate change. The Conservation Effects Assessment Project—Wetlands National Component (CEAP–Wetlands) was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evaluate effects of conservation practices on ecosystem services including carbon sequestration for climate stability, groundwater recharge, runoff and flood attenuation, water storage, nutrient and contaminant retention, and wildlife habitat. A primary purpose of CEAP–Wetlands is to provide science‐based information in an adaptive monitoring framework for use by the USDA to facilitate policy and management decisions, and to document effects of conservation programs and practices to the federal Office of Management and Budget. Herein, we propose a modeling framework to allow estimation of conservation practice and program effects on various ecosystem services at different temporal and spatial scales. This modeling approach provides the broad view needed by decision‐makers to avoid unintended negative environmental outcomes, and to communicate to society the positive effects of conservation actions on a broad suite of ecosystem services.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2017

Quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities in the U.S. Geological Survey Washington Water Science Center

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Office of Water Quality in the Water Mission Area of the U.S. Geological Survey, a quality-assurance plan has been created for use by the Washington Water Science Center (WAWSC) in conducting water-quality activities. This qualityassurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the WAWSC for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, and publication of water-quality data. The policies and procedures documented in this quality-assurance plan for water-quality activities complement the quality-assurance plans for surface-water and groundwater activities at the WAWSC.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

History of U.S. Geological Survey scientific peer review and approval, 1879–2019

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior, has valued and used a scientific peer review and approval process since its creation in 1879. Bureau approval, formerly called Director’s approval, has been described in several USGS documents since 1900, and peer review has been codified in policy since 1959. Peer review of USGS manuscripts is intended to ensure the accuracy of data, the scientific validity of interpretations, and the consideration of alternative interpretations. This rigorous quality assurance process is considered deliberative because of the iterative exchange of ideas and opinions among the involved parties. Peer review practices differed between USGS organizational units until implementation of USGS Fundamental Science Practices (FSP) in 2006, which formalized Bureau-wide science practices, including peer review and approval, for all Bureau scientific information products released to the public or other Federal agencies. FSP policies also address review and approval requirements pertaining to the release of USGS-funded data and software and endorse quality-control standards for USGS laboratories. Bureau approval signifies the scientific excellence of information products, validates and ensures that all necessary reviews have been conducted, and confirms that information products meet USGS science quality standards and have the full backing of the Bureau. The extent, scope, and history of the peer review and approval process within the USGS are documented herein, so future USGS scientists and the public understand how consistent approaches in developing, reviewing, and publishing USGS scientific information have been and continue to be essential in maintaining the reputation of the Bureau for reliable and impartial Earth science research and data collection.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2015

The U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS)—A master catalog and collections management plan for U.S. Geological Survey geologic samples and sample collections

**Updated guidance is available in USGS Instructional Memorandum CSS 2019-01 .** Abstract The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is widely recognized in the earth science community as possessing extensive collections of earth materials collected by research personnel over the course of its history. In 2006, a Geologic Collections Inventory was conducted within the USGS Geology Discipline to determine the extent and nature of its sample collections, and in 2008, a working group was convened by the USGS National Geologic and Geophysical Data Preservation Program to examine ways in which these collections could be coordinated, cataloged, and made available to researchers both inside and outside the USGS. The charge to this working group was to evaluate the proposition of creating a Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS), a centralized database that would (1) identify all existing USGS geologic collections, regardless of size, (2) create a virtual link among the collections, and (3) provide a way for scientists and other researchers to obtain access to the samples and data in which they are interested. Additionally, the group was instructed to develop criteria for evaluating current collections and to establish an operating plan and set of standard practices for handling, identifying, and managing future sample collections. Policies and procedures promoted by the GCMS would be based on extant best practices established by the National Science Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution. The resulting report—USGS Circular 1410, “The U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Collections Management System (GCMS): A Master Catalog and Collections Management Plan for U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Samples and Sample Collections”—has been developed for sample repositories to be a guide to establishing common practices in the collection, retention, and disposal of geologic research materials throughout the USGS. While constructing this report, the GCMS’s potential customers and their needs were considered. Two critical definitions have been clarified: a repository is a facility for the long-term management of geologic collections, and a collection is a set of specimens that have been brought together on the basis of some common characteristic. Required sample metadata for newly collected samples, as well as for older collections, were also stipulated and are listed and explained in this report. Several basic policies are also recommended by the GCMS in order to standardize operations among the physical repositories where collections are currently housed. The GCMS Collection Management Plan provides a set of protocols and templates for the management of scientific collections, including access, storage, transfer, and disposal of physical geologic samples and data. This plan is flexible to allow each repository to adapt the practices best suited to its collections. The general consideration for implementation of the GCMS is that all active USGS geologic sample repositories will form the core of GCMS and that participating science centers will develop procedures based on proposed GCMS methodologies. The GCMS is a collective resource for the entire USGS community and the users who discover the geologic materials kept in these repositories and seek to access them.

Circular↗
USGS2017

Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications

Habitat destruction and infectious disease are dual threats to nature and people. The potential to simultaneously advance conservation and human health has attracted considerable scientific and popular interest; in particular, many authors have justified conservation action by pointing out potential public health benefits . One major focus of this debate—that biodiversity conservation often decreases infectious disease transmission via the dilution effect—remains contentious. Studies that test for a dilution effect often find a negative association between a diversity metric and a disease risk metric, but how such associations should inform conservation policy remains unclear for several reasons. For one, diversity and infection risk have many definitions, making it possible to identify measures that conform to expectations. Furthermore, the premise that habitat destruction consistently reduces biodiversity is in question, and disturbance or conservation can affect disease in many ways other than through biodiversity change. To date, few studies have examined the broader set of mechanisms by which anthropogenic disturbance or conservation might increase or decrease infectious disease risk to human populations. Due to interconnections between biodiversity change, economics and human behaviour, moving from ecological theory to policy action requires understanding how social and economic factors affect conservation. This Theme Issue arose from a meeting aimed at synthesizing current theory and data on ‘biodiversity, conservation and infectious disease’ (4–6 May 2015). Ecologists, evolutionary biologists, economists, epidemiologists, veterinary scientists, public health professionals, and conservation biologists from around the world discussed the latest research on the ecological and socio-economic links between conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease, and the open questions and controversies in these areas. By combining ecological understanding with insights from the social and economic sciences, the papers in this Theme Issue address the complex relationships, patterns and ecological mechanisms that influence conservation, infectious disease, and the policy options available to protect nature and human health.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:↗
USGS2003

A science and technology initiative within the office of civilian radioactive waste management

In 2002, by following a national decision-making process that had been specified in the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act, Yucca Mountain (YM) was designated as the site for the nation's geologic repository for commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF). The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) must now obtain regulatory approval to construct and operate a repository there, and to develop transportation and infrastructure needed to support operations. The OCRWM has also recently begun a separate Science and Technology (S&T) initiative, whose purposes, beginnings, current projects, and future plans are described here.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2011

Overview of the ARkStorm scenario

The U.S. Geological Survey, Multi Hazards Demonstration Project (MHDP) uses hazards science to improve resiliency of communities to natural disasters including earthquakes, tsunamis, wildfires, landslides, floods and coastal erosion. The project engages emergency planners, businesses, universities, government agencies, and others in preparing for major natural disasters. The project also helps to set research goals and provides decision-making information for loss reduction and improved resiliency. The first public product of the MHDP was the ShakeOut Earthquake Scenario published in May 2008. This detailed depiction of a hypothetical magnitude 7.8 earthquake on the San Andreas Fault in southern California served as the centerpiece of the largest earthquake drill in United States history, involving over 5,000 emergency responders and the participation of over 5.5 million citizens. This document summarizes the next major public project for MHDP, a winter storm scenario called ARkStorm (for Atmospheric River 1,000). Experts have designed a large, scientifically realistic meteorological event followed by an examination of the secondary hazards (for example, landslides and flooding), physical damages to the built environment, and social and economic consequences. The hypothetical storm depicted here would strike the U.S. West Coast and be similar to the intense California winter storms of 1861 and 1862 that left the central valley of California impassible. The storm is estimated to produce precipitation that in many places exceeds levels only experienced on average once every 500 to 1,000 years. Extensive flooding results. In many cases flooding overwhelms the state’s flood-protection system, which is typically designed to resist 100- to 200-year runoffs. The Central Valley experiences hypothetical flooding 300 miles long and 20 or more miles wide. Serious flooding also occurs in Orange County, Los Angeles County, San Diego, the San Francisco Bay area, and other coastal communities. Windspeeds in some places reach 125 miles per hour, hurricane-force winds. Across wider areas of the state, winds reach 60 miles per hour. Hundreds of landslides damage roads, highways, and homes. Property damage exceeds $ 300 billion, most from flooding. Demand surge (an increase in labor rates and other repair costs after major natural disasters) could increase property losses by 20 percent. Agricultural losses and other costs to repair lifelines, dewater (drain) flooded islands, and repair damage from landslides, brings the total direct property loss to nearly $ 400 billion, of which $ 20 to $ 30 billion would be recoverable through public and commercial insurance. Power, water, sewer, and other lifelines experience damage that takes weeks or months to restore. Flooding evacuation could involve 1.5 million residents in the inland region and delta counties. Business interruption costs reach $ 325 billion in addition to the $ 400 billion property repair costs, meaning that an ARkStorm could cost on the order of $ 725 billion, which is nearly 3 times the loss deemed to be realistic by the ShakeOut authors for a severe southern California earthquake, an event with roughly the same annual occurrence probability. The ARkStorm has several public policy implications: (1) An ARkStorm raises serious questions about the ability of existing federal, state, and local disaster planning to handle a disaster of this magnitude. (2) A core policy issue raised is whether to pay now to mitigate, or pay a lot more later for recovery. (3) Innovative financing solutions are likely to be needed to avoid fiscal crisis and adequately fund response and recovery costs from a similar, real, disaster. (4) Responders and government managers at all levels could be encouraged to conduct risk assessments, and devise the full spectrum of exercises, to exercise ability of their plans to address a similar event. (5) ARkStorm can be a reference point for application of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and California Emergency Management Agency guidance connecting federal, state and local natural hazards mapping and mitigation planning under the National Flood Insurance Plan and Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. (6) Common messages to educate the public about the risk of such an extreme disaster as the ARkStorm scenario could be developed and consistently communicated to facilitate policy formulation and transformation. These impacts were estimated by a team of 117 scientists, engineers, public-policy experts, insurance experts, and employees of the affected lifelines. In many aspects the ARkStorm produced new science, such as the model of coastal inundation. The products of the ARkStorm are intended for use by emergency planners, utility operators, policymakers, and others to inform preparedness plans and to enhance resiliency.

California↗
USGS2016

Chesapeake Bay recovery and factors affecting trends: Long-termmonitoring, indicators, and insights

Monitoring the outcome of restoration efforts is the only way to identify the status of a recovery and the most effective management strategies. In this paper, we discuss Chesapeake Bay and watershed recovery and factors influencing water quality trends. For over 30 years, the Chesapeake Bay Program Partnership’s long-term tidal and watershed water quality monitoring networks have measured physical, chemical and biological parameters throughout the bay and its surrounding watershed underpinning an adaptive management process to drive ecosystem recovery. There are many natural and anthropogenic factors operating and interacting to affect the watershed and bay water quality recovery responses to management actions. Across habitats and indicators, the bay and its watershed continue to express a diverse spatial and temporal fabric of multiscale conditions, stressors and trends that show a range of health conditions and impairment s , as well as evidence of progress and degradation. Recurrent independent reviews of the monitoring program have driven a culture of continued adaptation of the monitoring networks to reflect ever evolving management information needs. The adherence to bay and watershed-wide consistent monitoring protocols provides monitoring data supporting analyses and development of scientific syntheses that underpin indicator and model development, regulatory assessments, targeting of management actions, evaluation of management effectiveness, and directing of priorities and policies.

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗
USGS2023

The Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Scenario Retrospective 2006–21

The U.S. Geological Survey Science Application for Risk Reduction (SAFRR) Project has created four major hazard scenarios—ShakeOut, ARkStorm, Tsunami Scenario, and HayWired—with multidisciplinary teams of scientists, academics, and practitioners. By presenting a clear and highly detailed narrative of potential damage from earthquakes, tsunamis, and winter storms, the scenarios are intended to foster science-based preparedness strategies and disaster risk reduction innovations. This evaluation explores the presence of these scenarios in cultures of preparedness and their role in disaster risk reduction, and reports barriers and enablers to creating and using these scenarios. To do this, the evaluation team developed a mixed-methods study that includes background research for each scenario, qualitative interviews, data collection of media and academic engagement, and examples of SAFRR scenario use in hazard planning. The data collection led to the development of a hazard scenario evaluation tool that combines theories from multiple disciplines to create a best practice set of categories that aid in scenario use and efficacy. The evaluation tool categories—actionable, longitudinal, educational, relevant, and thorough—are organized as a series of checklists that are used to determine how the scenario planners prioritized different aspects of the scenarios to achieve their goals. The tool could also be used to aid scenario planning for other regional disaster risk reduction scenarios of a similar scope. Findings from this evaluation include detailed narratives of scenario use over time, demonstrating that the scenarios have continued to be useful in hazard planning and preparedness across the globe. Examples of use include using the scenarios to advocate for resilient building and development policy, to promote hazard response exercises, and as source data for the development of new hazard models and science. The scenarios themselves are innovative, both in the hazard science created for scenario development and in their branding and public engagement as U.S. Geological Survey products. This SAFFR retrospective is a descriptive evaluation and does not formally address the effects of the scenarios. Nevertheless, this report does include evidence of scenario affects as discovered through qualitative interviews and research, which is presented to explore how the SAFRR scenarios have been received by cultures of preparedness.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
USGS2018

A values-based private landowner typology to improve grassland conservation initiatives

Many conservation initiatives are based on natural science alone, despite an extensive body of literature demonstrating that the incorporation of social science generates more successful and lasting outcomes. The Land Use Value (LUV) scale is an example of a social science tool that grassland conservation practitioners can use to improve their understanding of the land use decisions of private agricultural landowners. Drawing on data from a mail survey, we demonstrated the utility of the LUV scale to segment agricultural producers by four LUV types (Humans First, Nature First, Interconnected, and Disconnected) with significantly different motivations and land use behaviors. This information can be used to evaluate and align grassland conservation practices, policies, and messaging with the LUV types of private agricultural landowners. Tools like the LUV scale are critical to building the social science capacity of conservation professionals and organizations, in order to improve the efficacy of conservation initiatives.

Society and Natural Resources↗
USGS2013

Science-based management of public lands in southern Nevada

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

Nevada↗