Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Peer J”

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.

95 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment: Restoration topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are substantial management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions, and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed 10 needs (hereinafter “Needs”) identified under the Restoration topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs for improving restoration success in degraded sagebrush rangelands. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (“Next Steps”) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (that is, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 371 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Restoration topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: the development of methods to improve seeding success of native plants after fire; evaluation of short- and long-term plant responses relative to biotic and abiotic factors following restoration treatments; assessments of long-term effects on ecosystem processes following conifer removal treatments and development of decision support tools to aid in conifer management; determination of the costs of restoration treatments relative to the benefits to sage-grouse occupancy, survival, and populations; and assessments of the factors which contribute to soil degradation and development of soil enhancement methods that enhance seed germination and seedling survival while resisting nonnative plants. Needs that were not addressed well included: the development of methods for the rapid recovery of sagebrush and native herbaceous plants following wildfire and determination of whether treatments benefit sage-grouse and mitigate impacts from fires; determination of thresholds for successful restoration across a range of environmental conditions and development of decision support tools to assist with restoration effectiveness monitoring; and development and evaluation of the utility of seed transfer zones. The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2023

Integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan completion assessment — Sagebrush and sage-grouse topic, 2015–20

Loss and degradation of sagebrush rangelands due to an accelerated invasive annual grass-wildfire cycle and other stressors are significant management, conservation, and economic issues in the western United States. These sagebrush rangelands comprise a unique biome spanning 11 states, support over 350 wildlife species, and provide important ecosystem services that include stabilizing the economies of western communities. Impacts to sagebrush ecosystem processes over large areas due to the annual grass-wildfire cycle necessitated the development of a coordinated, science-based strategy for improving efforts to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of sagebrush rangelands, which was framed in 2015 under the Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (IRFMS). Central to this effort was the development of an Actionable Science Plan (Plan) that identified 37 priority science needs (Needs) for informing the actions proposed under the 5 topics (Fire, Invasives, Restoration, Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse, Climate and Weather) that were part of the collective focus of the IRFMS. Notable keys to this effort were identification of the Needs co-produced by managers and researchers, and a focus on resulting science being “actionable.” Substantial investments aimed at fulfilling the Needs identified in the Plan have been made since its release in 2016. While the state of the science has advanced considerably, the extent to which knowledge gaps remain relative to identified Needs is relatively unknown. Moreover, new Needs have likely emerged since the original strategy as results from actionable science reveal new questions and possible (yet untested) solutions. A quantifiable assessment of the progress made on the original science Needs can identify unresolved gaps and new information that can help inform prioritization of future research efforts. This report details a systematic literature review that evaluated how well peer-reviewed journal articles and formal technical reports published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, addressed nine needs (hereinafter, “Needs”) identified under the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic in the Plan. The topic outlined research Needs broadly focused on understanding sagebrush rangelands and population dynamics important for the conservation and management of sage-grouse and other sagebrush-reliant wildlife species. We established the level of progress towards addressing each Need following a standardized set of criteria, and developed summaries detailing how research objectives nested within Needs identified in the Plan (‘Next Steps’) were either addressed well, partially addressed or remain outstanding (in other words, addressed poorly) in the literature through 2020. Our searches resulted in the inclusion of 333 science products that at least partially addressed a Need identified in the Sagebrush and Sage-Grouse topic. The Needs that were well and partially addressed included: development of biome-wide mapping techniques that provide regularly updated grassland and shrubland vegetation layers (Need 4); generation of spatially explicit greater sage-grouse habitat suitability and population models (Need 5); identification of greater sage-grouse seasonal habitats (Need 6); identification of thresholds for the extent of threats, especially conifer expansion, above which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species cannot persist (Need 8); and studies of sagebrush community dynamics as those relate to management and restoration of sagebrush rangelands (Need 9). Needs addressed poorly included: investigations of factors conducive and restrictive to greater sage-grouse movement patterns and population connectivity (Need 1); investigations of livestock and other large ungulate (for example, feral horse) grazing effects on greater sage-grouse populations and habitats (Need 2); identification of thresholds of disturbance (especially renewable energy developments) below which greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush reliant species are not impacted (Need 3); and studies of habitat relationships for sagebrush-reliant species other than greater sage-grouse, songbirds, and small mammals (Need 7). The information provided in this assessment will assist updating the Plan along with other science strategies.

western United States↗
USGS2021

Climate change vulnerability assessment for the California coastal national monument—Trinidad and Point Arena-Stornetta units

Executive Summary The California Coastal National Monument protects islets, reefs, and rock outcropping habitats in six onshore units, including the Trinidad and Point Arena-Stornetta Units. The California Coastal National Monument provides crucial habitat for resident and migratory species of seabirds, marine mammals, and invertebrates, which includes several federally listed threatened and endangered species. Also, the California Coastal National Monument encompasses important tribal, cultural, and historical sites along the coastline of California. We used three approaches to assess the climate change vulnerability of the Trinidad and Point Arena-Stornetta Units: (1) a qualitative approach using peer-reviewed literature and previous work done in the Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the North-central California Coast and Ocean (Hutto and others, 2015), (2) interactive workshops with local stakeholders to identify specific resources, and (3) spatial analysis to estimate sea-level rise vulnerability for the rocky shoreline and key resources within the units. Information from stakeholder workshops held (in 2017) in the cities of Point Arena and Trinidad identified climate change impacts as an important management concern for the resilience, health, and ecosystem services of the California Coastal National Monument units. Impacts that were identified included sea-level rise, changes in precipitation and fog, warming oceans, and loss of species (birds, fisheries, marine mammals). Boat surveys were done for each unit to estimate the number of rocky features and the biota using the rocks. At the Trinidad Unit, 138 rocks were surveyed and 17 different wildlife species were observed, whereas at the Point Arena-Stornetta Unit, 40 rocks were surveyed and 10 different wildlife species were observed. Individual rocky features surveyed within the units were then ranked on sea-level rise exposure and vulnerability scales with 1 being the least vulnerable/exposed and 5 the most. Forty-nine and fifty-eight percent of surveyed rocks had a sea-level rise exposure ranking of 4 or 5 (high) for the Trinidad Unit and Point Arena-Stornetta Units respectively. Forty-eight percent of offshore rocks had a sea-level rise vulnerability score of 3 or greater (high) for the Trinidad Unit, and forty-three percent of rocks had a vulnerability score of 3 or greater for the Point Arena-Stornetta Unit. When examining guild use of vulnerable rocks (vulnerability score greater than 3), at the Trinidad Unit alcid species (here defined as common murres and pigeon guillemots) were observed on only 28 percent of vulnerable rocks, shorebirds on 30 percent, sea lions on 40 percent, gulls on 43 percent, seabirds on 58 percent, and mammals on 75 percent, whereas at the Point Arena-Stornetta Unit alcid species were observed on 0 percent of vulnerable rocks, gulls on 33 percent, seabirds on 57 percent, and mammals on 50 percent. Sea-level rise has the potential to submerge small low-relief offshore rocks and make them uninhabitable for birds and marine mammals but could provide more intertidal and subtidal rocky habitats. We found that nearly half of the offshore rocks at both sites are vulnerable and have the potential to realize this outcome; however, the larger and tall-relief rocks at these sites are less vulnerable to sea-level rise and are expected to continue to provide habitat for avian species.

California↗
USGS2023

Ecological effects of pinyon-juniper removal in the Western United States—A synthesis of scientific research, January 2014–March 2021

Executive Summary Increasing density of pinyon ( Pinus spp. ) and juniper ( Juniperus spp. ) woodlands (hereinafter “pinyon-juniper”), as well as expansion of these woodlands into adjacent shrublands and grasslands, has altered ecosystem function and wildlife habitat across large areas of the interior western United States. Although there are many natural and human-caused drivers of woodland infilling and expansion, restoration of sagebrush ( Artemisia spp. ) habitat through removal of pinyon-juniper is considered an urgent management objective in many locations, particularly in support of sagebrush-dependent wildlife species of conservation concern. In December 2020, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) established the Pinyon-Juniper Management Categorical Exclusion (PJCX) to expedite the regulatory process for pinyon-juniper removal projects on public lands, largely intended to benefit mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) habitats. During final preparation of this report, the BLM discontinued use of the PJCX (as of November, 2022), but the pinyon-juniper tree removal techniques assessed in this report are commonly used and understanding their effects remains relevant to land use planning. To address areas of uncertainty relative to potential ecological effects of the PJCX, we conducted a review of the peer-reviewed science literature to better understand the likely responses of vegetation, environmental (for example, soils), and wildlife variables to specific tree removal techniques permitted by the PJCX. In brief, the PJCX permitted removal of trees by either manual cutting, mechanical cutting, or mastication; allowed certain methods to redistribute or remove resulting tree biomass after treatment; and prohibited broadcast burning, roadbuilding, removal of old-growth, and seeding of non-native species. Specifically, we conducted our review to address the following questions: How will PJCX removal techniques affect plant communities, soils, and abiotic resources? How do these pinyon-juniper removal techniques affect wildlife communities, including both woodland- and sagebrush-dependent species? What are the potential ecological implications of different pinyon-juniper removal treatment types and implementation strategies (for example, treatment sizes) over time? What are the most important gaps in our scientific understanding of how treatments might affect targeted ecosystems over space and time (for example, potential effects of climate change)? To answer these questions, we considered studies related to pinyon-juniper ecosystems, focusing on research that occurred over a large portion of the interior western United States that is the primary focus of the PJCX. We also focused on papers published from 2014 onward, to avoid excessive overlap with other recent reviews on pinyon-juniper management effects. Using strict criteria, including only considering research that tested responses for statistical significance, we identified 48 papers that primarily examined treatment effects on vegetation and other environmental variables (1,709 responses), and 11 papers that addressed effects on wildlife (132 responses). Responses to the PJCX-permitted treatments were summarized as either positive (that is, a significant increase), negative (that is, a significant decrease), or non-significant (that is, no significant difference). Responses were assigned to categories (for example, Native Annual Grass/Forb Abundance) and hierarchical treatment levels. We found that there were large proportions of non-significant responses among all categories combined, with roughly half or more of all responses non-significant (48 percent for wildlife, 60 percent for vegetation-environmental), comparable to other recent systematic reviews of pinyon-juniper treatment effects. However, we also found that when there were significant responses, some important trends potentially emerged. Important undesirable outcomes included far more positive than negative responses of exotic grass and forb abundance among nearly all treatment types. Cutting treatments were also more likely to decrease biocrust cover and microbial activity. Potentially beneficial outcomes included mostly positive responses among sagebrush obligate species, including more positive than negative responses for mule deer and sage-grouse. Some treatment types (for example, mastication) also resulted in more positive than negative responses for native grasses and forbs (although, non-significant responses were the majority). We also highlighted many limitations of this review, including how responses often come from few studies, and how some response-treatment category combinations lack adequate response data. Moreover, the existing research is often insufficient to address many key questions about treatment effects, largely owing to short time-scales and limited spatial extents of observations, which do not match the size of treatments being implemented by land managers, nor capture long-term, post-treatment ecological dynamics. We also identify a lack of research that addresses key interactions that could undermine restoration objectives, including potential effects of climate change and grazing on post-treatment environments. Thus, we emphasize the importance of integrating these factors into future pinyon-juniper treatment research, and we stress the need for use of monitoring programs and research studies that partake in data collection and analysis over long durations and broad spatial scales.

Open-File Report↗
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↗