SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Management Science”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 613 records · Page 34Linked to original sources

USGS2015

Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases

Welcome to a new version of the “Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases.” Unlike the previous printed versions of this publication, this new version is being developed as a “living“ electronic publication. Content will periodically be added and (or) updated as warranted, and it will always be reviewed by scientific experts (“peer reviewed”) before it is released. Thus, this publication will never be completed, and readers should download revised versions of specific chapters, glossaries, and the appendixes whenever they visit the publication Web site. The purpose of this manual is to provide information that will enhance the ecological understanding and comfort level of nonspecialists so that they can address various aspects of wildlife disease within the context of wildlife conservation and management. Other readers, from students to science professionals, may also find the information presented to be of interest and value. Constructive suggestions from readers will help guide adjustments as this project progresses. We begin this new manual with introductory contextual and historical background about the convergence of wildlife disease with wildlife management as a wildlife conservation concern (section A, chap. 1). The remainder of the publication is focused on pragmatic information and considerations for addressing various aspects of wildlife disease. Section B focuses on concepts associated with disease surveillance and response to outbreaks, and section C deals with specific techniques for disease surveillance and investigation. Section D, “Diseases of Wild Birds,” and others that follow will address diseases of concern in various species groups. Electronic links facilitate timely access to a wide variety of supplemental information and processes relevant to content in this new version of the “Field Manual of Wildlife Diseases.”

Techniques and Methods↗

USGS2013

U.S. Department of the Interior South Central Climate Science Center strategic science plan, 2013--18

The Department of the Interior (DOI) recognizes and embraces the unprecedented challenges of maintaining our Nation’s rich natural and cultural resources in the 21st century. The magnitude of these challenges demands that the conservation community work together to develop integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies that collectively address the impacts of climate change and other landscape-scale stressors. On September 14, 2009, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar signed Secretarial Order 3289 (amended February 22, 2010) entitled, “Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources.” The Order establishes the foundation for two partner-based conservation science entities to address these unprecedented challenges: Climate Science Centers (CSCs and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs). CSCs and LCCs are the Department-wide approach for applying scientific tools to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to its impacts on tribes and the land, water, ocean, fish and wildlife, and cultural-heritage resources that DOI manages. Eight CSCs have been established and are managed through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC); each CSC works in close collaboration with their neighboring CSCs, as well as those across the Nation, to ensure the best and most efficient science is produced. The South Central CSC was established in 2012 through a cooperative agreement with the University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech University, Louisiana State University, the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, and NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab; hereafter termed the ”Consortium” of the South Central CSC. The Consortium has a broad expertise in the physical, biological, natural, and social sciences to address impacts of climate change on land, water, fish and wildlife, ocean, coastal, and cultural resources. The South Central CSC will provide scientific information, tools, and techniques that managers and other parties interested in land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources can use to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate change, actively engaging LCCs and other partners in translating science into management decisions. This document is the first Strategic Science Plan for the South Central CSC (2013-18). Using the January 2011 DOI guidance as a model, this document (1) describes the role and interactions of the South Central CSC among partners and stakeholders including Federal, State, and non-governmental organizations throughout the region; (2) describes a concept of what the center will provide to its partners; (3) defines a context for climate impacts in the south central United States; and (4) establishes the science priorities the center will address through research. Science priorities are currently organized as immediate or future research needs; however, this document is intended to be reevaluated and modified as partner needs change and as scientific work progresses.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2020

Drought early warning and forecasting

Drought risk management involves three pillars: drought early warning, drought vulnerability and risk assessment, and drought preparedness, mitigation, and response. This book collects in one place a description of all the key components of the first pillar, and describes strategies for fitting these pieces together. The best modern drought early warning systems incorporate and integrate a broad array of environmental information sources: weather station observations, satellite imagery, land surface and crop model simulations, and weather and climate model forecasts, and analyze this information in context-relevant ways that take into account exposure and vulnerability. Drought Early Warning and Forecasting: Theory and Practice assembles a comprehensive overview of these components, providing examples drawn from the Famine Early Warning Systems Network and the United States Drought Monitor. This book simultaneously addresses the physical, social, and information management aspects of drought early warning, and informs readers about the tools, techniques, and conceptual models required to effectively identify, predict, and communicate potential drought-related disasters. This book is a key text for postgraduate scientists and graduate and advanced undergraduate students in hydrology, geography, earth sciences, meteorology, climatology, and environmental sciences programs. Professionals dealing with disaster management and drought forecasting will also find this book beneficial to their work.

Book↗

USGS2022

INHABIT: A web-based decision support tool for invasive plant species habitat visualization and assessment across the contiguous United States

Narrowing the communication and knowledge gap between producers and users of scientific data is a longstanding problem in ecological conservation and land management. Decision support tools (DSTs), including websites or interactive web applications, provide platforms that can help bridge this gap. DSTs can most effectively disseminate and translate research results when producers and users collaboratively and iteratively design content and features. One data resource seldom incorporated into DSTs are species distribution models (SDMs), which can produce spatial predictions of habitat suitability. Outputs from SDMs can inform management decisions, but their complexity and inaccessibility can limit their use by resource managers or policy makers. To overcome these limitations, we present the Invasive Species Habitat Tool (INHABIT), a novel, web-based DST built with R Shiny to display spatial predictions and tabular summaries of habitat suitability from SDMs for invasive plants across the contiguous United States. INHABIT provides actionable science to support the prevention and management of invasive species. Two case studies demonstrate the important role of end user feedback in confirming INHABIT’s credibility, utility, and relevance.

PLoSOne↗

USGS2012

Fort Collins Science Center-Fiscal year 2011 science accomplishments

The Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) is a multi-disciplinary research and development center of the U.S. Geological Survey located in Fort Collins, Colorado. FORT research focuses on the needs of land- and water-management bureaus within the U.S. Department of the Interior, other Federal agencies, and State, Tribal, and non-government organizations. We emphasize a multi-disciplinary science approach to provide information for natural resource management decisionmaking. Our vision is to maintain and continuously improve the integrated, collaborative, world-class research needed to inform effective, science-based land management. The 2011 science accomplishments report provides an executive summary highlighting key achievements, an appendix of 68 one-page accomplishment descriptions organized by U.S. Geological Survey Mission Area, and a complete list of publications and other products generated in FY2011. The executive summary includes a table cross-referencing all major FY11 accomplishments with the various Mission Areas each supports.

Colorado↗

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↗

USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey 2024 Rocky Mountain Region Science Exchange—Showcasing cutting-edge science to adapt to extreme weather events and stakeholder needs

Introduction The Rocky Mountains and the Colorado River Basin in the Western United States are complex, interconnected systems that sustain a large variety of species, including tens of millions of humans. These regions face risks from drought, wildfires, invasive plant and animal species, and habitat reduction. Working with many stakeholders, scientists can help to characterize these risks by providing data and analytical tools to inform land and water resource management decisions. The U.S. Geological Survey 2024 Rocky Mountain Region (Region 7) Science Exchange Workshop, held in April 2024, focused on cutting-edge science techniques, evaluating complex interconnected risks, and coproducing science with science partners and stakeholders. These science topics and communication strategies can be used for developing data, interpretations, and decision support tools needed to provide science that resource managers and other stakeholders can use to better understand complex, dynamic natural systems and develop management strategies to plan for and adapt to risks that threaten human communities and natural ecosystems.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2020

Vegetation sampling and management

What is the utility of vegetation measurements for wildlife managers? In the prairie, savanna, tundra, forest, steppe, and wetland regions of the world, mixtures of plant species provide wildlife with food, cover and, in some circumstances, water; the 3 essential habitat elements necessary to sustain viable wildlife populations. We define habitat in reference to use of a vegetation type by an animal (e.g., deer habitat) and vegetation type when referring to differences in vegetation stands (e.g., marsh vegetation type versus tall grass prairie vegetation type; Hall et al. 1997). In strict definition, the variety of wildlife using plants ranges from snails and voles (Microtus spp.) to bison (Bison bison) and elephants (Loxodonta spp.) in uplands and from mosquitoes and ducks to muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus) and manatees (Trichechus manatus) in wetlands. Through evolutionary processes, some wildlife species are totally dependent on vegetation for all annual life requirements, whereas other species use vegetation only for cover or food. Regardless of the role of vegetation in the sustenance of wildlife, any management or research project that requires evaluation of wildlife and vegetation type relationships on a unit of land will necessitate some form of vegetation measurement. The term vegetation can refer to a single plant or species on a specific site or a community in the landscape. Vegetation may occur naturally or be introduced, and may be live or dead. Uses of vegetation measurements are many: (1) evaluation of vegetation response to management practices, (2) estimation of carrying capacity and/or forage production, (3) characterization of cover and habitat components for an endangered species, or (4) long-term monitoring of the general trend of plant vigor or vegetation type condition. Surveying and measuring quantity and quality of vegetation within habitats are basic to wildlife research and management. Grassland, shrubland, and woodland vegetation types are comprised of populations in which individual plants are usually too numerous to inventory completely. Consequently, wildlife biologists usually use sampling techniques to make inferences about the total plant population within a given vegetation type. Vegetation sampling methodologies have evolved within several ecological disciplines (e.g., plant ecology, forestry, rangeland science) and for a variety of management or research objectives (e.g., estimating forage for ungulates, describing habitat use by passerine birds). Description of every method that has been used to sample vegetation is beyond the scope of this chapter. We describe how to measure vegetation structure, which Dansereau (1957) defined as the spatial organization (distribution) of individuals that form a stand. We have organized this chapter into a description of basic methods of vegetation sampling with examples of how those methods have been applied or modified in wildlife research and management. We assume the investigator/reader has adequate knowledge of the concepts of wildlife ecology, primary habitat requirements of wildlife species under study, and ability to systematically identify the species of wildlife and vascular plants within the geographical area of investigation.

Book chapter↗

USGS1981

Remote sensing: a tool for park planning and management

Remote sensing may be defined as the science of imaging or measuring objects from a distance. More commonly, however, the term is used in reference to the acquisition and use of photographs, photo-like images, and other data acquired from aircraft and satellites. Thus, remote sensing includes the use of such diverse materials as photographs taken by hand from a light aircraft, conventional aerial photographs obtained with a precision mapping camera, satellite images acquired with sophisticated scanning devices, radar images, and magnetic and gravimetric data that may not even be in image form. Remotely sensed images may be color or black and white, can vary in scale from those that cover only a few hectares of the earth's surface to those that cover tens of thousands of square kilometers, and they may be interpreted visually or with the assistance of computer systems. This article attempts to describe several of the commonly available types of remotely sensed data, to discuss approaches to data analysis, and to demonstrate (with image examples) typical applications that might interest managers of parks and natural areas.

Parks↗

USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey landscape science strategy 2020–2030

Across our Nation, multiple Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments are working with stakeholders and landowners to restore, conserve, and manage lands and resources to benefit fish, wildlife, and people. One of the largest Federal efforts is led by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), with multiple DOI agencies working to conserve and manage public lands, resources, and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of current and future generations. As a science provider within the DOI, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has an important role in developing actionable science products that can inform decision making on public lands and across all of our Nation’s landscapes. Our landscapes and resources are undergoing continual change from a complex and interacting suite of stressors that include traditional and nontraditional land uses, a changing climate, a dynamic economy, and a culturally diverse and ever-changing society. Landscape science seeks to understand how the physical, biological, and social components of ecosystems and landscapes interact with each other and are affected by these stressors across local to global scales. The USGS has developed this landscape science strategy to focus and strengthen the agency’s efforts to inform critical conservation, restoration, and management decisions for American landscapes. The strategy directly supports the overarching 21st-century science strategy of the USGS and expands our perspective and focus on partnerships, including with internal, external, traditional, and nontraditional partners. The vision for USGS landscape science is to integrate multiple disciplines and approaches to create and deliver relevant, timely, and scientifically sound products that enable our partners to make informed decisions about how to manage complex interacting natural and human systems across changing American landscapes. This strategy seeks to leverage the expertise, data, analytical capacity, and tools of the agency and to strengthen integration of science efforts across programs and scales. A cornerstone of the strategy is working closely with landowners and resource managers to identify the science that is needed to inform management actions, and then working collaboratively with those same partners to coproduce science and data products that are timely, practical, and useful for their decision making. Many individual efforts within the USGS already embrace landscape science ideas and practices. With the development of this strategy, we are seeking to build on these efforts and to focus agency attention and expertise on expanding, connecting, and institutionalizing core practices and approaches for landscape science that produces actionable science products and tools that decision makers can use to help conserve and manage American landscapes.

Circular↗

USGS2026

Colocating artificial intelligence data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands—A science synthesis and spatial analysis to inform decision making

Executive Summary Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries and economies, creating an urgent need to strategically plan for the energy and infrastructure required to support increasing AI use. U.S. Federal agencies and bureaus have been directed to explore ways to accelerate permitting, development, and deployment of energy resources and AI technologies, including encouraging the colocation of energy infrastructure and data centers. To inform these initiatives, this report synthesizes relevant scientific information and presents a spatial analysis of existing energy infrastructure and data centers on or near U.S. Federal public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of this science synthesis and spatial analysis is to provide the BLM with foundational information for considering potential colocation of data centers with energy infrastructure on Federal public lands to support evidence-based decisions. Additionally, this report provides insight into current (2025) and potential future energy demands by providing projections of a range of potential future environmental conditions relevant to maintaining industry-recommended cooling temperature standards necessary for efficient data center operations. As a part of this effort, a rapid response literature review was conducted of the best available science on the topic of data center development and energy infrastructure in July–August 2025, supplemented by additional resources recommended by U.S. Federal agency and bureau subject matter experts (hereafter experts; including the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory of the Rockies) and peer reviewers. To better understand current conditions relevant to AI data center development, a spatial analysis was conducted across Alaska and 11 States in the Western United States, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, all of which contain extensive BLM-managed surface lands (hereafter referred to as “BLM lands”) that could be considered for the colocation of energy infrastructure and AI data centers. This effort identified BLM lands within 10 miles of existing transmission lines, consistent with methods used in previous BLM programmatic environmental impact statements. This report describes the types of data centers operating within the United States, which vary in ownership, size, technology, and proximity to end users. This report then outlines the primary considerations of data center development, including reliable energy supply, natural resources (such as water availability to support cooling requirements), and relevant policy and regulatory considerations. Energy supply considerations are pivotal for data center operation. Between 2014 and 2018, data centers in the United States accounted for nearly 2 percent of the Nation’s total electricity consumption, and data center energy consumption is projected to increase from 2 to 6.7–12 percent of total U.S. electricity use by 2028. These energy requirements necessitate careful consideration of energy supply when considering potentially suitable locations for data center development. Experts anticipate that an increase in renewable energy generation will likely support most potential future power demand needs, including for data centers, followed by increases in natural gas, nuclear, and geothermal energy production. Additional capacity in the form of battery storage will likely not generate electricity, but may improve the reliability and flexibility of supply, helping to ensure that growing data center loads can be met. However, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the United States will need, on average, 57 percent more energy transmission infrastructure by 2035 to account for the growing power demand introduced by development such as data centers. Cooling server equipment in data centers requires large amounts of electricity and water, and this demand can be exacerbated by hot and humid conditions. Energy efficient water-based cooling technologies may reduce electricity consumption onsite but require more water consumption. This additional water demand has the potential to increase water stress and competition with other users. As such, developing data centers will likely need a thorough assessment of current and potential future water availability, as well as consideration of how water demand may change across other sectors. Data center development involves policy and regulatory considerations, as projects must undergo environmental review and authorization processes that can take 18–24 months. Coordinating these environmental reviews and authorizations with other energy development projects, such as building new transmission lines, may cause additional delays. Recent efforts by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior aim to expedite environmental reviews and authorizations and improve coordination across agencies. The spatial analysis identified 771 existing AI data centers and more than 3,300 power plants. The spatial analysis found that 6 percent of AI data centers and 22 percent of power plants in the Western United States were on or within 1 mile of BLM lands, and California had the largest number of facilities. Most existing AI data centers were near high-voltage transmission lines and close to power plants, supporting efficient energy delivery. More than 90,000,000 acres of BLM lands were within 10 miles of existing high-voltage transmission lines, representing 38 percent of BLM lands in the study area. Available transmission infrastructure and the overlap with BLM lands varied by State, and Alaska had limited overlap compared to the rest of the Western United States. To operate most efficiently, data center temperatures must be at or below 80.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This analysis of future temperature and precipitation projections indicated increasing cooling demands for data centers, particularly in Arizona, California, and Nevada, where rising temperatures are expected to increase energy and operational costs while potentially stressing current regional electrical grid infrastructure. This report highlights relevant energy supply, natural resources, and regulatory considerations for data center development on BLM lands. This report does not provide a comprehensive ecological, regulatory, land suitability, or permitting analysis. The factors described here are contextual considerations only and are not intended to identify, rank, quantify, or recommend optimal areas for data center colocation. This spatial analysis focused solely on energy considerations relevant to data centers and did not consider water availability, critical habitats, BLM National Conservation Lands, areas of cultural or historical significance, and other sensitive resources. These topics are recognized as critical but were not within the scope of this science synthesis and spatial analysis.

Scientific Investigations Report↗

USGS2013

Partnering for science: proceedings of the USGS Workshop on Citizen Science

What U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) programs use citizen science? How can projects be best designed while meeting policy requirements? What are the most effective volunteer recruitment methods? What data should be collected to ensure validation and how should data be stored? What standard protocols are most easily used by volunteers? Can data from multiple projects be integrated to support new research or existing science questions? To help answer these and other questions, the USGS Community of Data Integration (CDI) supported the development of the Citizen Science Working Group (CSWG) in August 2011 and funded the working group’s proposal to hold a USGS Citizen Science Workshop in fiscal year 2012. The stated goals for our workshop were: raise awareness of programs and projects in the USGS that incorporate citizen science, create a community of practice for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, provide a forum to discuss the challenges of—and opportunities for—incorporating citizen science into USGS projects, and educate and support scientists and managers whose projects may benefit from public participation in science.To meet these goals, the workshop brought together 50 attendees (see appendix A for participant details) representing the USGS, partners, and external citizen science practitioners from diverse backgrounds (including scientists, managers, project coordinators, and technical developers, for example) to discuss these topics at the Denver Federal Center in Colorado on September 11–12, 2012. Over two and a half days, attendees participated in four major plenary sessions (Citizen Science Policy and Challenges, Engaging the Public in Scientific Research, Data Collection and Management, and Technology and Tools) comprised of 25 invited presentations and followed by structured discussions for each session designed to address both prepared and ad hoc "big questions." A number of important community support and infrastructure needs were identified from the sessions and discussions, and a subteam was formed to draft a strategic vision statement to guide and prioritize future USGS efforts to support the citizen science community. Attendees also brainstormed proposal ideas for the fiscal year 2013 CDI request for proposals: one possible venue to support the execution of the vision.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2017

A path to actionable climate science: Perspectives from the field

The U.S. Department of the Interior Climate Science Centers (CSCs) work with natural and cultural resource managers and scientists to gather information and build tools needed to help fish, wildlife, and ecosystems adapt to the impacts of climate change. The CSCs prioritize the delivery of actionable science products (e.g., synthesized scientific information, maps, decision support tools, etc.) that are focused on key management priorities and co-produced by teams of scientists and managers. In the specific case of the Northwest CSC, we have been successful at promoting and supporting the co-production of actionable climate science at the individual project level, but it has been more difficult to replicate this success at the regional program level. Here we identify the most significant challenges in satisfying this mandate and propose the creation of a Science Advisory Panel to provide improved interface between resource managers and scientists engaged with the Northwest CSC.

Environmental Management↗

USGS2012

U.S. Geological Survey community for data integration: data upload, registry, and access tool

As a leading science and information agency and in fulfillment of its mission to provide reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ensures that all scientific data are effectively hosted, adequately described, and appropriately accessible to scientists, collaborators, and the general public. To succeed in this task, the USGS established the Community for Data Integration (CDI) to address data and information management issues affecting the proficiency of earth science research. Through the CDI, the USGS is providing data and metadata management tools, cyber infrastructure, collaboration tools, and training in support of scientists and technology specialists throughout the project life cycle. One of the significant tools recently created to contribute to this mission is the Uploader tool. This tool allows scientists with limited data management resources to address many of the key aspects of the data life cycle: the ability to protect, preserve, publish and share data. By implementing this application inside ScienceBase, scientists also can take advantage of other collaboration capabilities provided by the ScienceBase platform.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2006

U.S. Geological Survey Chesapeake Bay Studies: Scientific Solutions for a Healthy Bay and Watershed

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the science agency for the Department of Interior (DOI), has the critical role of providing objective science to document and understand ecosystem change in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed. The human population in the Bay watershed , which grew from 8.1 million in 1950 to almost 16 million in 2000, has resulted in degraded water quality, loss of habitat, and declines in fish and bird populations. USGS scientists are leaders in understanding cause and effect of human activities and natural changes on water quality and the health of the ecosystem. The USGS interacts with resource managers and policy makers to use the science to adapt approaches for implementation, and assess effectiveness of, management actions for ecosystem conservation, restoration, and sustainability. Since the mid-1980s, the USGS has been an active partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) , a multi-agency partnership led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, working to achieve the restoration goals set forth in the Chesapeake 2000 agreement . This agreement established over 100 restoration commitments to be addressed by 2010. In 2005, which was the mid-point of the agreement, there was growing concern at all levels of government and by the public that ecological conditions in the Bay and its watershed had not significantly improved. The slow rate of improvement, coupled with the projected impact of human-population increase in the Bay watershed (fig. 1) , implied that many desired ecological conditions will not be achieved by 2010. To address these challenges, the USGS wrote a new science plan for 2006-2011 , and is synthesizing key findings to highlight the accomplishments from science activities for 2000-2005.

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2026

Strengthening ties between the U.S. Geological Survey and Interstate Fisheries Commissions

Fish inhabiting marine coastal and Great Lakes waters of the United States forage, migrate, and reproduce without regard to human-made boundaries. In the mid-20th century, the 32 states along the U.S. coasts and Great Lakes recognized the growing need for coordinated, interjurisdictional fisheries management and formed four interstate or international fisheries commissions through federal legislation. While distinct in their authorities, each commission shares functions to support their regional partners, including coordinating fisheries science and supporting information sharing. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is a federal bureau focused exclusively on science with substantial fisheries research capacity. This empowers USGS to serve as an independent broker of scientific information, which is greatly appreciated by decision-making agencies. The USGS does not maintain broad infrastructure for engaging partners across regions. Therefore, collaboration between the USGS and fisheries commissions ensures that USGS fisheries science helps address the most pressing interjurisdictional management priorities. The USGS has worked with fisheries commissions for decades to a greater or lesser extent in each of the four coastal regions: Atlantic, Pacific, Gulf, and Great Lakes. In 2020, the USGS began efforts to cohesively strengthen these partnerships across the regions. In 2024, leadership from four USGS fisheries science centers and headquarters met with the four fisheries commissions in person for the first time during the American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. During the gathering, the new Interstate Fisheries Commissions–USGS Partnership developed coordination mechanisms and identified shared science priorities where the USGS capacity best aligns with the science needs of the commissions. Here we describe the history of collaboration between the USGS and fisheries commissions and the emerging interregional partnership.

Fisheries↗

USGS1998

Science for watershed decisions on abandoned mine lands; review of preliminary results, Denver, Colorado, February 4-5, 1998

From the Preface: There are thousands of abandoned or inactive mines on or adjacent to public lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service. Mine wastes from many of these abandoned mines adversely affect resources on public lands. In 1995, an interdepartmental work group within the Federal government developed a strategy to address remediation of the many abandoned mines on public lands. This strategy is based on using a watershed approach to address the abandoned mine lands (AML) problem. The USGS, working closely with the Federal land-management agencies (FLMAs), is key for the success of this watershed approach. In support of this watershed approach, the USGS developed an AML Initiative with pilot studies in the Boulder River in Montana and the Animas River in Colorado. The goal of these studies is to design and implement a reliable strategy that will supply the scientific information to the FLMAs so that land managers can develop efficient and cost-effective remediation of AML. The symposium 'Science for Watershed Decisions on Abandoned Mine Lands: Review of Preliminary Results' held in Denver, Colorado, on February 4-5, 1998, provided the FLMAs a first look at the techniques, data, and interpretations being generated by the USGS pilot studies. This multidisciplined effort already is proving very valuable to land managers in making science-based AML cleanup decisions and will continue to be of increasing value as additional and more complete information is obtained. Ongoing interaction between scientists and land managers is essential to insure the efficient continuation and success of AML cleanup efforts.

Colorado↗

USGS2014

Landscape and climate science and scenarios for Florida

The Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative (PFLCC) is part of a network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that extend from Alaska to the Caribbean. LCCs are regional-applied conservation-science partnerships among Federal agencies, regional organizations, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private stakeholders, universities, and other entities within a geographic area. The goal of these conservation-science partnerships is to help inform managers and decision makers at a landscape scale to further the principles of adaptive management and strategic habitat conservation. A major focus for LCCs is to help conservation managers and decision makers respond to large-scale ecosystem and habitat stressors, such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and water scarcity. The purpose of the PFLCC is to facilitate planning, design, and implementation of conservation strategies for fish and wildlife species at the landscape level using the adaptive management framework of strategic habitat conservation—integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation. Florida faces a set of unique challenges when responding to regional and global stressors because of its unique ecosystems and assemblages of species, its geographic location at the crossroads of temperate and tropical climates, and its exposure to both rapid urbanization and rising sea levels as the climate warms. In response to these challenges, several landscape-scale science projects were initiated with the goal of informing decision makers about how potential changes in climate and the built environment could impact habitats and ecosystems of concern in Florida and the Southeast United States. In June 2012, the PFLCC, North Carolina State University, convened a workshop at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Science Center in St. Petersburg to assess the results of these integrated assessments and to foster an open dialogue about science gaps and future research needs.

Florida↗