Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Environmental Science and 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 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2010

Integrating Agriculture and Conservation

The USGS produces the needed science-based information to guide management actions and policy decisions that support wildlife habitat and other environmental services compatible with USDA conservation goals and farm operations. The Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) has conducted research involving a national landowner survey and numerous short- and long-term evaluations regarding vegetation responses to land management practices. This research helps land and resource managers to make informed decisions and resolve resource management conflicts.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2011

College and university environmental programs as a policy problem (Part 2): Strategies for improvement

Environmental studies and environmental sciences programs in American and Canadian colleges and universities seek to ameliorate environmental problems through empirical enquiry and analytic judgment. In a companion article (Part 1) we describe the environmental program movement (EPM) and discuss factors that have hindered its performance. Here, we complete our analysis by proposing strategies for improvement. We recommend that environmental programs re-organize around three principles. First, adopt as an overriding goal the concept of human dignity—defined as freedom and social justice in healthy, sustainable environments. This clear higher-order goal captures the human and environmental aspirations of the EPM and would provide a more coherent direction for the efforts of diverse participants. Second, employ an explicit, genuinely interdisciplinary analytical framework that facilitates the use of multiple methods to investigate and address environmental and social problems in context. Third, develop educational programs and applied experiences that provide students with the technical knowledge, powers of observation, critical thinking skills and management acumen required for them to become effective professionals and leaders. Organizing around these three principles would build unity in the EPM while at the same time capitalizing on the strengths of the many disciplines and diverse local conditions involved.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

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 environmental 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, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. 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. 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 decision making. 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. 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, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 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. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2001

Acidic deposition in the northeastern United States: Sources and inputs, ecosystem effects, and management strategies: The effects of acidic deposition in the northeastern United States include the acidification of soil and water, which stresses terrestrial and aquatic biota

Acidic deposition is the transfer of strong acids and acid-forming substances from the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. The composition of acidic deposition includes ions, gases, and particles derived from the following: gaseous emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), ammonia (NH 3 ), and particulate emissions of acidifying and neutralizing compounds. Over the past quarter century of study, acidic deposition has emerged as a critical environmental stress that affects forested landscapes and aquatic ecosystems in North America, Europe, and Asia. This complex problem is an example of a new class of environmental issues that are multiregional in scale and are not amenable to simple resolution by policymakers. Acidic deposition can originate from transboundary air pollution and can affect large geographic areas. It is highly variable across space and time, links air pollution to diverse terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, and alters the interactions of many elements (e.g., sulfur [S], nitrogen [N], hydrogen ion [H + ], calcium [Ca 2+ ], magnesium [Mg 2+ ], and aluminum [Al]). It also contributes directly and indirectly to biological stress and to the degradation of ecosystems. Despite the complexity of the effects of acidic deposition, North American and European management actions directed toward the recovery of damaged natural resources have resulted in recent decreases in both emissions and deposition of acidic S compounds. Accordingly, acidic deposition presents an instructive case study for coordinating science and policy efforts aimed at resolving large-scale environmental problems.

northeastern United States↗
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↗
USGS2003

Preliminary preview for a geographic and monitoring program project; a review of point source-nonpoint source effluent trading/offset systems in watersheds

Watershed-based trading and offset systems are being developed to improve policy-maker?s and regulator?s ability to assess nonpoint source impacts in watersheds and to evaluate the efficacy of using market-incentive programs for preserving environmental quality. An overview of the history of successful and failed trading programs throughout the United States suggests that certain political, economic, and scientific conditions within a temporal and spatial setting help meet water quality standards. The current lack of spontaneous trading among dischargers does not mean that a marketable permit trading system is an inherently inefficient regulatory approach. Rather, its infrequent use is the result of institutional and informational barriers. Improving and refining the earth science information and technologies may help determine whether trading is a suitable policy for improving water quality. However, it is debatable whether or not environmental information is the limiting factor. This paper reviews additional factors affecting the potential for instituting a trading policy. The motivation for investigating and reviewing the history of offsets and trading was inspired by a project in the preliminary stages being developed by U.S. Geological Survey Western Geographic Science Center and the Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. An offset feasibility study will be an integrated, map-based approach that incorporates environmental, economic, and statistical information to investigate the potential for using offsets to meet mercury Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Sacramento River watershed. A regional water-quality offset program is being studied that may help known point sources reduce mercury loading more cost effectively by the remediation of abandoned mines or other diffuse sources as opposed to more costly treatment at their own sites. An efficient offset program requires both a scientific basis and methods to translate that science into a regulatory decision framework.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2022

Integrating principles and tools of decision science into value-driven watershed planning for compensatory mitigation

Several environmental policies strive to restore impaired ecosystems and could benefit from a consistent and transparent process — co-developed with key stakeholders — to prioritize impaired ecosystems for restoration activities. The Clean Water Act, for example, establishes reallocation mechanisms to transfer ecosystem services from sites of disturbance to compensation sites to offset aquatic resource functions that are unavoidably lost through land development. However, planning for the prioritization of compensatory mitigation areas is often hampered by decision-making processes that fall into a myopic decision frame because they are not co-produced with stakeholders. In this study, we partnered with domain experts from the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to co-develop a real-world decision framework to prioritize catchments by potential for the development of mitigation projects following principles of a structured decision-making process and knowledge co-production. Following an iterative decision analysis cycle, domain experts revised foundational components of the decision framework and progressively added complexity and realism as they gained additional insights or more information became available. Through the course of facilitated in-person and remote interactions, the co-development of a decision framework produced three main ‘breakthroughs’ from the perspective of the stakeholder group: a) recognition of the problem as a multi-objective decision driven by several values in addition to biogeophysical goals (e.g., functional uplift; restoring or enhancing lost functionality of ecosystems), b) that the decision comprises a linked and sequential planning-to-implementation process, and c) future risk associated with land-use and climate change must be considered. We also present an interactive tool for ‘on-the-fly’ assessment of alternatives and tradeoff analysis, allowing domain experts to quickly test, react to, and revise prioritization strategies. The decision framework described in this study is not limited to the prioritization of compensatory mitigation activities across North Carolina, but rather serves as a framework to prioritize a wide range of restoration, conservation, and resource allocation activities in similar environmental contexts across the nation.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2024

Structured science syntheses to inform decision making on Federal public lands

The U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service partnered to develop a new type of science product: the structured science synthesis. Structured science syntheses are peer-reviewed reports that synthesize science information about a priority resource management issue on public lands. Structured science syntheses are developed explicitly to facilitate the application of science to decision making. Key characteristics of structured science syntheses include that they are coproduced with resource managers, developed using clear, repeatable methods and designed for ease of use. The syntheses include different types of science information needed for analyses completed under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS1999

The east coast petroleum province: Science and society

The U.S. Atlantic offshore, especially the mid-Atlantic, was an exciting exploration area from the 1970s into the 1980s. Much pioneering 'frontier' activity in both scientific and policy matters occurred in this area. Although production was not achieved, objective geological evidence indicates that the province does have potential. Major population centers of the mid-Atlantic area demand large amounts of energy and enormous amounts of crude and product are shipped through East Coast waters. Nevertheless, exploration has been shut down by moratoria, environmental concerns, and international pricing. It is suggested that the province will be revisited in the future and that the geologic and environmental information that has been generated at great cost should be preserved for use by the next generation of explorationists and policy-makers.

Northeastern Geology and Environmental Sciences↗
USGS2021

Preface to book: Wetland carbon and environmental management

The idea for this book, including its organization and contents, has its origin in the latest environmental and climate policy requirements in the United States, as well as science advances. In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), from which Section 712 required U.S. Federal agencies to provide a better understanding of carbon and greenhouse gas fluxes across the United States. As a result, largescale and coordinated efforts were launched to assess carbon storage, carbon fluxes, and greenhouse gas fluxes including CO2, CH4, and N2O from all major terrestrial and freshwater aquatic ecosystems, including forest, grassland/shrub, agricultural lands, wetlands, and rivers, streams, lakes, and impoundments. The EISA assessment produced major results (Selmants et al., 2017; Zhu, 2011; Zhu & McGuire, 2016; Zhu & Reed, 2012, 2014), but recognized that wetlands remained a significant source of uncertainty, especially for those wetlands that were being actively managed. The more recent Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which devoted two separate chapters to inland and coastal wetlands, respectively, noted that large knowledge gaps still remain, ranging from inadequate analysis of restored and managed wetlands, and consequences of management decisions, to future wetland responses to climate change (USGCRP, 2018). In recent literature, wetland management is suggested as a potential natural solution to mitigate climate change (Fargione et al., 2018, Kroeger et al., 2017) and help offset direct losses of wetlands from sea level rise, subsidence, and coastal erosion (Wang et al., 2017). The recognition that a synthesis of wetland carbon management was urgently needed was the genesis of Wetland Carbon and Environmental Management; discerning the relationships between wetland management and carbon flux (loss or gain) is an international goal.

Geophysical Monograph Series↗
USGS2007

Contaminated salmon and the public's trust

Scientific uncertainties often make it difficult for environmental policy makers to determine how to communicate risks to the public. A constructive, holistic, multisectoral dialogue about an issue can improve understanding of uncertainties from different perspectives and clarify options for risk communication. Many environmental issues could benefit from explicit promotion of such a dialogue. When issues are complex, unconstructive advocacy, narrow focus, and exclusion of selected parties from decision making can erode public trust in science and lead to cynicism about the policies of government and the private sector.

Environmental Science & Technology↗
USGS2024

Climate change

Amphibian ecology and distribution are strongly correlated with climate. Regional patterns of amphibian biodiversity are intimately linked to temperature, evapotranspiration rate, and clines in humidity. While amphibians are and will continue to be adversely affected by recent and projected changes in climate, research suggests that adaptation may happen more slowly than the expected rate of environmental shifts. Here, we review conservation-relevant aspects of both realised and potential impacts of climate change, and outline options for amphibian conservation planning and management. Recent advances in our understanding of climate change impacts on amphibians have primarily stemmed from ecological modelling and direct assessment of climatic tolerances and dispersal capacities through physiological assays, landscape genetics, and dispersal tracking. Anthropogenic climate change has already altered amphibian assemblages and their impacts on ecosystem functioning and services. Because of known and hypothesised ecological tolerances, many amphibians might have reached or exceeded most limits in their ability to adapt to or tolerate further climate change, however the uncertainties are substantial. Implementation of conservation planning and action can help to forestall severe impacts of environmental shifts. Scientific research and science-based decision-making and policy development have already lagged; the current pace of conservation planning and action may not allow for effective identification of threats and mitigation. An increased response rate could help to avert further loss of amphibian biodiversity and decay of ecosystem services. The lack of basic field research in natural habitats continues to be an underlying challenge. We suggest priority areas of research to include the development of biologically realistic predictive models of amphibian response to climate change, field verification of model estimates and key parameters, population monitoring across multiple sites and taxa, and a combination of efforts within and across ecosystems to understand how impacts of climate change can be better mitigated.

Book chapter↗
USGS2022

The gap between experts, farmers and non-farmers on perceived environmental vulnerability and the influence of values and beliefs

Science has played a mixed role in guiding conservation and sustainability-oriented decision-making by individuals, policymakers, institutions, and governments. Not all science-based conservation and sustainability initiatives that address issues facing humanity and ecosystems and global problems have gained public support. Conservation decisions and policy prescriptions are and may be based on perceptions about and experiences with the environment, local land use, and ecosystems that may not align with or be grounded in science or evidence from experts in the field. Values, beliefs, and perceptions associated with nature play a critical role in how individuals view biodiversity conservation, sustainability, and natural resource management . This study first examines the gap between experts (scientists and other field experts) and the public (farmers and non-farmers) about the state of water and land resources, wildlife and associated habitats, and aquatic biodiversity in the Smoky Hill River Watershed in western Kansas. Second, the study examines the role that values and beliefs play in shaping environmental perceptions for farmers and non-farmers. Analysis confirms that a gap between experts and farmers/non-farmers does exist, especially with respect to the state of the Ogallala Aquifer, playas, rivers and streams, lakes and reservoirs, native grasslands, wildlife habitats, farmland, native fish populations, and wildlife species. Ordered-logistic regression analyses, meanwhile, indicate that farmer and non-farmer perceptions about the state of the local environment are influenced by traditional and self-interested values, as well as environmental values and beliefs, but less so by religiosity and political ideology. Despite broad takeaways, results exhibited heterogeneity across the farmer and non-farmer subpopulations. If environmental professionals cannot align ecological data, stakeholders’ values/perceptions, and policies, then the existing body of technical research and management on sustainability in natural and social sciences may be of little value.

Journal of Environmental Management↗
USGS2022

Perspectives on challenges and opportunities at the restoration-policy interface in the U.S.A.

As we advance into the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, understanding the relationship between science, management, and policy is increasingly important given the paucity of research evaluating the ability of existing policy to address contemporary environmental challenges. Despite their inherent interdependence, restoration ecology as a scientific discipline, ecological restoration as a practice, and the policies driving restoration efforts do not always represent a unified force. Accenting the policies and practices within the United States, we present our perspective on challenges associated with this disunion, including those linked to social dimensions of restoration and limitations associated with existing policy. We provide a review of existing federal policy in the United States and synthesize suggestions that have emerged in the literature to fortify connections between restoration science and policy. We also describe social challenges to meeting restoration goals, including barriers surrounding power dynamics, trust, and communication, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We propose potential solutions that exist in transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing, and evidence-based, balanced decision-making that equally considers varying perspectives. With the understanding that current conservation practices are not enough to mitigate environmental degradation, we focus on streamlining problem-solving strategies to support restoration and face the widespread ecological issues of today.

Restoration Ecology↗
USGS2016

The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment

The cumulative effects of increasing human use of the ocean and coastal zone have contributed to a rapid decline in ocean and coastal resources. As a result, scientists are investigating how multiple, overlapping stressors accumulate in the environment and impact ecosystems. These investigations are the foundation for the development of new tools that account for and predict cumulative effects in order to more adequately prevent or mitigate negative effects. Despite scientific advances, legal requirements, and management guidance, those who conduct assessments—including resource managers, agency staff, and consultants—continue to struggle to thoroughly evaluate cumulative effects, particularly as part of the environmental assessment process. Even though 45 years have passed since the United States National Environmental Policy Act was enacted, which set a precedent for environmental assessment around the world, defining impacts, baseline, scale, and significance are still major challenges associated with assessing cumulative effects. In addition, we know little about how practitioners tackle these challenges or how assessment aligns with current scientific recommendations. To shed more light on these challenges and gaps, we undertook a comparative study on how cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is conducted by practitioners operating under some of the most well-developed environmental laws around the globe: California, USA; British Columbia, Canada; Queensland, Australia; and New Zealand. We found that practitioners used a broad and varied definition of impact for CEA, which led to differences in how baseline, scale, and significance were determined. We also found that practice and science are not closely aligned and, as such, we highlight opportunities for managers, policy makers, practitioners, and scientists to improve environmental assessment.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review↗
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↗
USGS2012

The U.S. Geological Survey Ecosystem Science Strategy, 2012-2022 - Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policy-makers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, state, tribal, territorial, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and non-renewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decision-making is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and well-being of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decision-makers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that USGS scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decision-makers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge. The strategy integrates ecosystem science and decision-making, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play an important role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the agency can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the DOI and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and its application. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework and vision for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected and reinforcing components: • Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. • Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. • Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. • Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decision-making about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. • Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: • Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. • Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. • Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. • Support decision-making. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct both discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role over the next decade in advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Quantifying uncertainty and tradeoffs in resilience assessments

Several frameworks have been developed to assess the resilience of social-ecological systems, but most require substantial data inputs, time, and technical expertise. Stakeholders and practitioners often lack the resources for such intensive efforts. Furthermore, most end with problem framing and fail to explicitly address trade-offs and uncertainty. To remedy this gap, we developed a rapid survey assessment that compares the relative resilience of social-ecological systems with respect to a number of resilience properties. This approach generates large amounts of information relative to stakeholder inputs. We targeted four stakeholder categories: government (policy, regulation, management), end users (farmers, ranchers, landowners, industry), agency/public science (research, university, extension), and NGOs (environmental, citizen, social justice) in four North American watersheds, to assess social-ecological resilience through surveys. Conceptually, social-ecological systems are comprised of components ranging from strictly human to strictly ecological, but that relate directly or indirectly to one another. They have soft boundaries and several important dimensions or axes that together describe the nature of social-ecological interactions, e.g., variability, diversity, modularity, slow variables, feedbacks, capital, innovation, redundancy, and ecosystem services. There is no absolute measure of resilience, so our design takes advantage of cross-watershed comparisons and therefore focuses on relative resilience. Our approach quantifies and compares the relative resilience across watershed systems and potential trade-offs among different aspects of the social-ecological system, e.g., between social, economic, and ecological contributions. This approach permits explicit assessment of several types of uncertainty (e.g., self-assigned uncertainty for stakeholders; uncertainty across respondents, watersheds, and subsystems), and subjectivity in perceptions of resilience among key actors and decision makers and provides an efficient way to develop the mental models that inform our stakeholders and stakeholder categories.

Ecology and Society↗