Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Action”

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

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

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
USGS2026

Resources to inform the 2026 Colorado Climate Preparedness Roadmap: Compound hazards and associated public health implications

Changing environmental conditions are increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather and environmental hazards, including heat waves, wildfires, drought, reduced water quality, and degraded air quality from ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter pollution (AghaKouchak et al., 2020; Bolinger et al., 2024; Colorado Health Institute, 2023a; Fann et al., 2015; IPCC, 2023a; Nagamoto et al., 2024; Nolte et al., 2018, 2021; Zscheischler et al., 2020). Strong scientific evidence indicates that climate change will increase risks to public health and safety throughout the 21st century, particularly through compound climate events (AghaKouchak et al., 2020; Cascio, 2018; Childs et al., 2022; Ebi, 2025; IPCC, 2023a, 2023b; Ma et al., 2024; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Reid et al., 2016; Reid & Maestas, 2019; Simpson et al., 2023; van den Hurk et al., 2023; Volckens, 2024; Zscheischler et al., 2018, 2020). Compound hazards, which are co-occurring or sequential hazards such as heat waves occurring alongside drought, wildfire, and poor air quality from smoke, can amplify public health risks beyond the effects of individual hazards alone (Marlier et al., 2026; Zscheischler et al., 2020). In Colorado, compound climate events with clear implications for public health are already evident (see “Core definitions” section for additional context on compound climate events). Recent statewide assessments have documented increasing heat waves, drought, and wildfires linked to rising temperatures, while emerging data show that climate change is reversing decades of air quality improvements through increased O3 and fine particulate matter pollution due to wildfire, and increased aerosolized topsoil (i.e., dust) due to drought (Bolinger et al., 2024; Childs et al., 2022; Fann et al., 2015; Ghanbari et al., 2023; Larsen et al., 2022; Nolte et al., 2018, 2021; Volckens, 2024). These environmental shifts are associated with increases in eye and kidney-health related concerns, heat-related illness, exacerbations of asthma and other respiratory conditions, increased risk of infectious disease, cardiovascular stress, and mental health impacts, with disparities in risk for children, older adults, outdoor workers, and communities with existing health and economic vulnerabilities (Baraghoshi et al., 2023; Butler-Dawson et al., 2026; Cascio, 2018; Cleland et al., 2022; Colorado Health Institute, 2023a; Grover et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2023; Ma et al., 2024; Macaluso et al., 2024; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Patnaik et al., 2024; Peters et al., 2019; Reid et al., 2016; Reid & Maestas, 2019). The state is actively pursuing strategies to mitigate the risks of these compound climate events on the public, including expanding climate and health surveillance, strengthening early-warning systems and public communication around smoke and air quality, and developing integrated policy agendas that link climate mitigation, adaptation, and health equity (CDPHE, 2025; Colorado Health Institute, 2023b; Zemaitis & Bailey, 2024). For example, state and partner organizations have articulated cross-sector goals to prepare for health impacts related to extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, drought, declines in water quality, and poor air quality, including updating workplace safety protocols, enhancing community-based resilience, adapting clinical care assessments to include climate-related stressors, and improving access to mental and behavioral health services following climate-related disasters (Colorado Health Institute, 2023b; CDPHE, 2025; Zemaitis & Bailey, 2024). To better prepare for current risks and make informed decisions, more information is needed, including methods to analyze historical and projected conditions in near real time, characterize interactions among compound hazards, and translate climate and air quality science into actionable guidance for public health agencies, health care systems, and communities across Colorado (Ebi, 2025; Marlier et al., 2026; National Academy of Medicine, 2025; Simpson et al., 2023; Zscheischler et al., 2018). For this report, we focus on extreme heat and outdoor air quality (ozone [O3] and fine particulate matter [PM2.5]) as the main compound hazards causing compound climate events, given that 1) the state of Colorado has experienced poor air quality for some time, 2) these climate events are affecting large population numbers, and 3) there is capacity to consider and respond to these climate-driven events.

Colorado↗
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↗
USGS2020

Assessing the state of water resource knowledge and tools for future planning in the lower Rio Grande-Rio Bravo Basin

The Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Basin (hereinafter referred to as the Rio Grande) is a transboundary basin, with the Rio Grande forming the border between the United States and Mexico for approximately 2,034 km. The waters of the Rio Grande serve as a critical drinking source for 13 million people, connecting numerous population centers representing diverse backgrounds and cultures along its length. Cross-border ecosystems and communities make water management strategies particularly challenging. With different regulations and societal interests in the two countries, developing effective water-management strategies is challenging and requires the coordination of diverse interested parties representing different government agencies, institutions, and stakeholder groups with varying and sometimes conflicting objectives. To better evaluate the human and environmental water needs (environmental flows) of this constrained river system, an improved understanding of past and present water management objectives, policies, allocation practices, and water use is needed.

Lower Rio Grande-Río Bravo Basin↗
USGS2021

Delivering real-time water hazard information through human-centered design

On Memorial Day, 2015, catastrophic flooding throughout central Texas resulted in the loss of 13 lives and caused millions of dollars in damages (Furl 2018). The flooding exposed the need for water resource managers, first responders, and the public to have better real-time access to streamflow gaging stations and weather information. In 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed the Texas Water Dashboard (Dashboard) to combine datasets produced by multiple agencies and display them in a single web-mapping application.

Texas↗
USGS2020

Identifying and assessing priority transboundary aquifers along the United States- Mexico border

Many of the 15 million inhabitants along the United States-Mexico border derive fresh water from transboundary aquifers straddling and extending far beyond the political boundary separating the two countries. The previous lack of a large-scale cooperative and structured data collection effort and groundwater management strategy for the region has left border communities with little information on current and future groundwater supplies. In 2006, the U.S. Federal Government enacted the United States – Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act (Public Law 109–448) to address this issue.

Chihuahua, New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2020

A socio-environmental geodatabase for integrative research in the transboundary Rio Grande/Río Bravo basin

Management of water resources in the transboundary Rio Grande/Río Bravo Basin (the Basin) presents challenges for state and Federal entities in the United States and Mexico making management decisions on shared water resources. Damming, channelization, water availability, and allocation are governed by water rights and water-sharing agreements. Data and information sharing are important aspects of transboundary cooperation, but differences in format, content, spatial and temporal resolution, and language hinder collaboration. In addition, data on the kinds and geographic distribution of water governance and management institutions across the Basin have not been consistently documented. Existing data disparities parallel the hydrological and social fragmentation of the Basin. Seeking to underscore the interdependence between social and environmental processes in the Basin, anthropologists and modelers collaborated to develop a socio-environmental geodatabase. This geodatabase is a first step in modeling the social components of decision making and their connectivity to environmental processes across the Basin. The geodatabase is available in an open-access domain and contains geospatial data related to water and land governance, hydrology, water use and hydraulic infrastructure, socioeconomics, and the biophysical environment necessary to advance the understanding of basin dynamics. Having these data documented and compiled in a central location serves as a resource to help decision makers better understand upstream and downstream social-environmental characteristics. This knowledge is useful for developing sustainable water management policies in a region where water resources are increasingly under pressure from climatic, environmental, and human-related changes.

Chihuahua, New Mexico, Texas↗
USGS2016

Groundwater science relevant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement: A status report

When the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) was signed in 1972 by the Governments of Canada and the United States (the “Parties”) (Environment Canada, 2013a), groundwater was not recognized as important to the water quality of the Lakes. At that time, groundwater and surface water were still considered as two separate systems, with almost no appreciation for their interaction. When the GLWQA was revised in 1978 (US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2012), groundwater contamination, such as that reported at legacy industrial sites such as those at Love Canal near the Niagara River, was squarely in the news. Consequently, the potential impacts of contaminated groundwater from such sites on Great Lakes water quality became a concern (Beck, 1979), and Annex 16 was added to the agreement, to address “pollution from contaminated groundwater” (Francis, 1989). However, no formal process for reporting under this annex was provided. The GLWQA Protocol in 1987 modified Annex 16 and called for progress reports beginning in 1988 (USEPA, 1988). The Protocol in 2012 provided a new Annex 8 to address groundwater more holistically (Environment 2 Canada, 2013b). Annex 8 (Environment Canada, 2013b) commits the Parties to coordinate groundwater science and management actions; as a first step, to “publish a report on the relevant and available groundwater science” by February 2015 (this report); and to “identify priorities for science activities and actions for groundwater management, protection, and remediation…” The broader mandate of Annex 8 is to (1) “identify groundwater impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (2) “analyze contaminants, including nutrients in groundwater, derived from both point and non-point sources impacting the Waters of the Great Lakes;” (3) “assess information gaps and science needs related to groundwater to protect the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes;” and (4) “analyze other factors, such as climate change, that individually or cumulatively affect groundwater’s impact on the quality of the Waters of the Great Lakes.” A binational Annex 8 Subcommittee was formed to lead efforts to fulfill the mandate of this annex (members listed on p. i of this report). In turn, this subcommittee has recruited a task team to prepare this report (listed as authors of each chapter). This report addresses all of the above four objectives, based on a compilation of the “relevant and available groundwater science.” Specifically, the second objective (to “analyze contaminants”) is addressed by incorporating information obtained in ongoing monitoring and research activities conducted by the Parties, and by various other members of the Great Lakes Executive Committee.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, ↗
USGS2018

Greater sage-grouse science (2015–17)—Synthesis and potential management implications

Executive Summary The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter called “sage-grouse”), a species that requires sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), has experienced range-wide declines in its distribution and abundance. These declines have prompted substantial research and management investments to improve the understanding of sage-grouse and its habitats and reverse declines in distribution and population numbers. Over the past two decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has responded to eight petitions to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with the completion of the most recent listing determination in September 2015. At that time, the USFWS determined that the sage-grouse did not warrant a listing, primarily because of the large scale science-based conservation and planning efforts completed or started by Federal, State, local agencies, private landowners, and other entities across the range. The planning efforts culminated in the development of the 2015 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments, which provided regulatory certainty and commitment from Federal land-management agencies to limit, mitigate, and track anthropogenic disturbance and implement other sage-grouse conservation measures. After these policy decisions, the scientific community has continued to refine and expand the knowledge available to inform implementation of management actions, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those actions, and continue developing an overall understanding of sage-grouse populations, habitat requirements, and their response to human activity and other habitat changes. The development of science has been driven by multiple prioritization documents including the “Greater Sage-Grouse National Research Strategy” (Hanser and Manier, 2013) and, most recently, the “Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan” (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016). In October 2017, after a review of the 2015 Federal plans relative to State sage-grouse plans, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3353, the BLM issued a notice of intent to consider whether to amend some, all, or none of the 2015 land use plans. At that time, the BLM requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inform this effort through the development of an annotated bibliography of sage-grouse science published since January 2015 and a report that synthesized and outlined the potential management implications of this new science. Development of the annotated bibliography resulted in the identification and summarization of 169 peer-reviewed scientific publications and reports. The USGS then convened an interagency team (hereafter referred to as the “team”) to develop this report that focuses on the primary topics of importance to the ongoing management of sage-grouse and their habitats. The team developed this report in a three-step process. First, the team identified six primary topic areas for discussion based on the members’ collective knowledge regarding sage-grouse, their habitats, and threats to either or both. Second, the team reviewed all the material in the “Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Research on Greater Sage-Grouse Published since January 2015” to identify the science that addressed the topics. Third, team members discussed the science related to each topic, evaluated the consistency of the science with existing knowledge before 2015, and summarized the potential management implications of this science. The six primary topics identified by the team were: Multiscale habitat suitability and mapping tools Discrete anthropogenic activities Diffuse activities Fire and invasive species Restoration effectiveness Population estimation and genetics

Open-File Report↗
USGS2020

Bridging the research-management gap: Landscape ecology in practice on public lands in the western United States

The field of landscape ecology has grown and matured in recent decades, but incorporating landscape science into land management decisions remains challenging. Many lands in the western United States are federally owned and managed for multiple uses, including recreation, conservation, and energy development. We argue for stronger integration of landscape science into the management of these public lands. We open by outlining the relevance of landscape science for public land planning, management, and environmental effects analysis, including pertinent laws and policies. We identify challenges to integrating landscape science into public land management, including the multijurisdictional nature and complicated spatial pattern of public lands, the capacity of agencies to identify and fill landscape science needs, and public perceptions about the meaning of landscape approaches to management. We provide several recent examples related to landscape monitoring, restoration, reclamation, and conservation in which landscape science products were developed specifically to support decision-making. We close by highlighting three actions - elevating the importance of science-management partnerships dedicated to coproducing actionable landscape science products, identifying where landscape science could foster efficiencies in the land-use planning process, and developing scenario-based landscape models for shrublands - that could improve landscape science support for public land planners and managers.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New↗
USGS2024

Climate science and adaptation planning support for State Wildlife Action Plans in the North Central region

Final report for an NC CASC project to identify needs and provide support for states in the North Central region and Idaho to integrate climate science and adaptation into their State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs). Our objectives were to: 1) engage with state wildlife agencies in the North Central region to identify their needs for climate-informed planning support and 2) collaboratively develop products that will help them better integrate climate adaptation strategies into SWAPs.

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, ↗
USGS2013

Structured decision making

Wildlife management is a decision-focused discipline. It needs to integrate traditional wildlife science and social science to identify actions that are most likely to achieve the array of desires society has surrounding wildlife populations. Decision science, a vast field with roots in economics, operations research, and psychology, offers a rich set of tools to help wildlife managers frame, decompose, analyze, and synthesize their decisions. The nature of wildlife management as a decision science has been recognized since the inception of the field, but formal methods of decision analysis have been underused. There is tremendous potential for wildlife management to grow further through the use of formal decision analysis. First, the wildlife science and human dimensions of wildlife disciplines can be readily integrated. Second, decisions can become more efficient. Third, decisions makers can communicate more clearly with stakeholders and the public. Fourth, good, intuitive wildlife managers, by explicitly examining how they make decisions, can translate their art into a science that is readily used by the next generation.

Book chapter↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey science for the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—2018 annual report

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) was established in 2007 as a collaborative interagency partnership to develop and implement science-based conservation actions. During the past 11 years, partners from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), State and Federal land management agencies, universities, and the public have collaborated to implement a long-term (more than 10 years) science-based program that assesses and enhances the quality and quantity of wildlife habitats in the southwest Wyoming region while facilitating responsible development. The USGS WLCI Science Team completes scientific research and develops tools that inform and support WLCI partner planning, decision making, and on-the-ground management actions. In fiscal year 2018, the USGS initiated 3 new projects and continued efforts on 21 ongoing science and web-development projects. The first new project was initiated to support Secretarial Order 3362 which calls on the USGS to assist Western States in mapping big-game migration corridors and developing new mapping tools. During 2018, the USGS hosted a workshop in Laramie, Wyoming, which included more than 70 State and Federal wildlife experts from Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming. Most of the mapping and migration tool curricula used in the workshop were derived from prior WLCI studies and mapping efforts of big-game migration movement in habitats undergoing large-scale energy development. The second new project was in response for WLCI partners to better understand sedimentation and hydrogeomorphic processes in a cold-desert headwater and the third new project was designed to improve our approach for people to access, manage, and analyze WLCI data and WLCI resource information. The USGS published 18 products (including peer-reviewed journal articles, USGS series publications, and data releases) and provided more than a dozen professional oral and poster presentations at scientific meetings and numerous informal presentations to WLCI partners at meetings and workshops. This report summarizes the objectives and status of each project and highlights the USGS 2018 accomplishments and products.

Wyoming↗
USGS2025

Collaborative drought science planning in the Colorado River Basin

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is using collaborative, interdisciplinary planning to develop data and tools needed to optimize the management of water resources and land use by resource management agencies during an ongoing, multidecadal drought in the Colorado River Basin. The USGS Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team works to build relationships with resource management agencies and other stakeholders who can benefit from the use of USGS data and products. In 2023, the Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology team hosted a series of collaborative workshops to bring together representatives of resource management agencies and other stakeholders (any person or entity with interests in a resource or location) with USGS program managers, scientists, and multidisciplinary subject matter experts to codevelop concepts for interdisciplinary drought science and technology projects to address pressing needs related to drought in the Colorado River Basin. Workshop participants identified current and recent scientific data that could be shared through a centralized online data portal. Workshop participants also identified drought science and technology needs and developed project concepts to address those science needs. Participants categorized project concepts based on their potential to develop short-, mid-, and long-term drought science data and tools, provide for the spatial or temporal expansion of ongoing USGS science projects, and address high-priority science needs. Participants developed nine project concepts: (1) understanding shifting ecohydrologic baselines, (2) San Juan River Basin synthesis, (3) incorporating dynamic land cover into hydrologic models, (4) aridification compared to drought, (5) surface water-groundwater interactions, (6) cascading effects of drought on dust, (7) cascading effects of drought on water availability, (8) cascading effects of drought on socioeconomic factors, and (9) the value of water in the Colorado River Basin. This report provides an overview of the 2023 Codesign Workshop Series, synthesized outcomes from workshop materials and discussions, and science project concepts that emerged from the collaborative meetings that will continue to be refined into science project proposals through codevelopment processes. This report also highlights lessons learned and next steps needed to receive feedback and testing of the USGS Science Collaboration Portal, continue collaboration to develop detailed specifics and steps for short-term wins, develop interdisciplinary project proposals, and implement science planning and studies.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2013

It's time for bold new approaches to link delta science and policymaking

California’s Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is widely recognized as a highly damaged ecosystem. The Delta is also emblematic of a growing sense worldwide that society needs to do a better job of using scientific knowledge to guide conservation and resource management policies. Fortunately, we now have an unprecedented opportunity to get it right in building structures that support effective science–policy linkages in the Delta. By adopting bold steps to implement a “one Delta, one science” approach for a new Delta Science Plan, California can become a leading example of how to tackle the global problem of rapid ecological change and biodiversity loss. In this essay, we first describe the current paradox—continued environmental declines despite considerable investments in science and policy actions—and the high stakes of gambling with failure. Next, we explore why it is so hard to use scientific knowledge to design and implement policies that meet society’s sustainability goals. We then outline promising ways to overcome these obstacles, drawing on recent experiences. We conclude with thoughts on how to leverage this experience to develop a bold new approach to Delta science.

California↗
USGS2023

Using public litigation records to identify priority science needs for managing public lands

Relevant science is essential for effective natural resource decision making, including on public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that cover 1/10th of the United States. Most of the BLM’s management decisions require analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of science in these decisions is often challenged. Using coproduction, we assembled an interagency team of scientists and resource managers to develop a method for using public litigation to identify priority science needs for the BLM. We searched publicly available case documents finalized from 2015–2019 in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico within federal courts and the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identified 108 case documents that involved challenges to the BLM’s use of science. We retained 48 case documents that contained at least one challenge about the BLM’s use of science for a specific resource. We categorized all challenges in each case document according to the proposed action, affected resource, type of science challenged (data about resources, science relevant to potential impacts, methods for analyzing potential impacts, and mitigation actions), and specific nature of the challenge (e.g., challenging direct effects analysis). We identified priority science needs based on the frequency of challenges, the number of states where similar challenges occurred, whether the BLM lost the challenge, and whether the case was remanded. Top needs related to oil and gas development actions and included science about effects on air quality and climate, water, and socioeconomics; data for air quality and climate; and methods for analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources and air quality and climate. The BLM can use this information to prioritize actions (e.g., funding new research or science syntheses) to strengthen its science foundation for decision-making.

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming↗
USGS2022

The researcher's lament: Why do they ignore my science?

The researcher's lament is shared by many environmental and conservation scientists who complain about the little support they receive for their research proposals during the review and selection process. Understandably, any hopes of having their anticipated scientific findings applied toward the formulation of environmental management decisions or natural resource policy action are shattered. They attribute this lack of endorsement to shortcomings and limitations among decision makers and proposal selection officials when, in many cases, the rejection of project proposals is often a function of a handful of self-inflicted failures by applied scientists who anchor themselves stubbornly to doomed approaches. Familiar deficiencies in their research proposals perpetuate the disconnect between the enterprise of science and real-world resource management challenges. Researchers themselves can affect conditions that turn up the appetite for their scientific endeavors as a more meaningful component of the decision-making process, namely, to stage and deliver science that is more readily "actionable." Perhaps it is time for them to consider a course correction to improve the viability of their actionable science proposals. A few basic steps may help rejigger the science planning process in this direction and, consequently, help avoid the researcher's lament. The likelihood of gaining support during the proposal review and award adjudication process, and securing practical application of scientific products, increases when the products are (1) the result of active engagement of researchers with decision makers; (2) better connected to social and political priorities; (3) clearly designed to inform specific management decisions; and (4) tailored to fit the needs of targeted end users. These considerations and activities exist beyond the comfort zone of many environmental or conservation scientists. Yet, those who adopt them will spend less time lamenting rejection and become more influential in the production of actionable knowledge.

Ecosphere↗
USGS2016

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative—A case study in partnership development

The Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative (WLCI) is a successful example of collaboration between science and natural resource management at the landscape scale. In southwestern Wyoming, expanding energy and mineral development, urban growth, and other changes in land use over recent decades, combined with landscape-scale drivers such as climate change and invasive species, have presented compelling challenges to resource managers and a diverse group of Federal, State, industry, and non-governmental organizations, as well as citizen stakeholders. To address these challenges, the WLCI was established as a collaborative forum and interagency partnership to develop and implement science-based conservation actions. About a decade after being established, this report documents the establishment and history of the WLCI, focusing on the path to success of the initiative and providing insights and details that may be useful in developing similar partnerships in other locations. Not merely retrospective, the elements of the WLCI that are presented herein are still in play, still evolving, and still contributing to the resolution of compelling conservation challenges in the Western United States. The U.S. Geological Survey has developed many successful longstanding partnerships, of which the WLCI is one example. “As the Nation’s largest water, earth, and biological science and civilian mapping agency, the U.S. Geological Survey collects, monitors, analyzes, and provides scientific understanding about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems. The diversity of our scientific expertise enables us to carry out large-scale, multi-disciplinary investigations and provide impartial scientific information to resource managers, planners, and other customers” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2016).

Wyoming↗