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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and responding to global change

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a nonregulatory Federal science agency with national scope and responsibilities, is uniquely positioned to serve the Nation’s needs in understanding and responding to global change, including changes in climate, water availability, sea level, land use and land cover, ecosystems, and global biogeochemical cycles. Global change is among the most challenging and formidable issues confronting our Nation and society. Scientists agree that global environmental changes during this century will have far-reaching societal implications (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the face of these challenges, the Nation can benefit greatly by using natural science information in decisionmaking. Since the passage of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the USGS has made substantial scientific contributions to understanding the interactive living and nonliving components of the Earth system. USGS natural science activities have led to fundamental advances in observing and understanding climate and land-cover change and the effects these changes have on ecosystems, natural-resource availability, and societal sustainability. Most of these major advances were pursued in partnership with other organizations within and outside the Department of the Interior. The inherent value of partnerships with other U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies and natural-resource managers is emphasized in all aspects of the planning and implementation of this Science Strategy for the coming decade. Over the next 10 years, the USGS will make substantial contributions to understanding how Earth systems interact, respond to, and cause global change. The USGS will work with science partners, decisionmakers, and resource managers at local to international levels (including Native American tribes) to improve understanding of past and present change; develop relevant forecasts; and identify those lands, resources, and communities most vulnerable to global change processes. Science will play an essential role in helping communities and land and resource managers understand local to global implications, anticipate effects, prepare for changes, and reduce the risks associated with decisionmaking in a changing environment. USGS partners and stakeholders will benefit from the data, predictive models, and decision-support products and services resulting from the implementation of this strategy. This Science Strategy recognizes core USGS strengths that are applied to key societal problems. It establishes seven goals for USGS global change science and strategic actions that may be implemented in the short term (1–5 years) and the longer term (5–10 years) to improve our understanding of the following areas of inquiry: Rates, causes, and impacts of past global changes; The global carbon cycle; Biogeochemical cycles and their coupled interactions; Land-use and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; Droughts, floods, and water availability under changing land-use and climatic conditions; Coastal response to sea-level rise, climatic change, and human development; and Biological responses to global change. In addition to the seven thematic goals, we address the central role of monitoring in accordance with the USGS Science Strategy recommendation that global change research should rely on existing “…decades of observational data and long-term records to interpret consequences of climate variability and change to the Nation’s biological populations, ecosystems, and land and water resources” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 19). We also briefly describe specific needs and opportunities for coordinating USGS global change science among USGS Mission Areas and address the need for a comprehensive and sustained communications strategy.

Circular↗
USGS2008

Effects of spatial heterogeneity on butterfly species richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA

We investigated butterfly responses to plot-level characteristics (plant species richness, vegetation height, and range in NDVI [normalized difference vegetation index]) and spatial heterogeneity in topography and landscape patterns (composition and configuration) at multiple spatial scales. Stratified random sampling was used to collect data on butterfly species richness from seventy-six 20 ?? 50 m plots. The plant species richness and average vegetation height data were collected from 76 modified-Whittaker plots overlaid on 76 butterfly plots. Spatial heterogeneity around sample plots was quantified by measuring topographic variables and landscape metrics at eight spatial extents (radii of 300, 600 to 2,400 m). The number of butterfly species recorded was strongly positively correlated with plant species richness, proportion of shrubland and mean patch size of shrubland. Patterns in butterfly species richness were negatively correlated with other variables including mean patch size, average vegetation height, elevation, and range in NDVI. The best predictive model selected using Akaike's Information Criterion corrected for small sample size (AICc), explained 62% of the variation in butterfly species richness at the 2,100 m spatial extent. Average vegetation height and mean patch size were among the best predictors of butterfly species richness. The models that included plot-level information and topographic variables explained relatively less variation in butterfly species richness, and were improved significantly after including landscape metrics. Our results suggest that spatial heterogeneity greatly influences patterns in butterfly species richness, and that it should be explicitly considered in conservation and management actions. ?? 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

Biodiversity and Conservation↗
USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

As a wildlife population ecologist who wants to conduct useful science, I find the Endangered Species Act (ESA), like other federal wildlife statutes, an intriguing read. The topic is in my wheelhouse—fish, wildlife, and plants, with a focus at the population and species levels. There is an emphasis on science, in fact, the “best scientific and commercial data available.” And there are intriguing questions: what threats does a species face? What habitat would be critical for its survival? Could any federal actions put the species or critical habitat in greater peril? I am not alone in this attraction. Hundreds of scientists continue to consider the types of scientific analysis suggested by the ESA. The enthusiasm is palpable. If the first cursory read of the ESA is intriguing to me as a scientist, the second close read is tantalizing—I realize that something very attractive is just out of reach. I know how to estimate the probability of extinction, but I do not know what “in danger of extinction” means. I know how to evaluate the incremental change in status that might arise from some level of proposed take, but I do not know what “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of a species means. The standards expressed in the statute are not stated in purely scientific terms. Thus, ESA decisions cannot be based solely on science, and require additional policy interpretation. Clarity about these policy interpretations—even awareness that they are needed—can be hard to find, leaving a gap between what I can provide as a scientist and what an ESA decision maker needs. This awareness of the interaction between science and policy is also occurring in the larger field of conservation science, where there has been an increasing recognition of a research-implementation gap, the need for actionable science, and the promise of translational ecology. All of these terms emphasize that science alone does not result in action; instead, action arises out of decisions that are informed both by science and by values. At the interface of science and policy, a scientist can deliver relevant knowledge, and a decision maker can explain the policy context in which that science is needed. As a scientist wanting to conduct useful science, I crave this two-way conversation. But how can this conversation be structured in a meaningful and appropriate way? In this chapter, I explore how decision analysis can be used to navigate the science-policy interface for ESA decisions. Decision analysis is a large, well-established field that studies how decisions are made and how they could be made, with explicit attention given to clarifying and separating the values-based and science-based elements of a decision; identifying the impediments that make a decision difficult; and providing tools to overcome those impediments. There have been concerted efforts to apply formal decision analysis to ESA decisions, but the practice is not yet widespread across both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The chapter begins with an introduction to decision analysis and how it seeks to bridge the science-policy interface. In subsequent sections, I explore how a decision analyst might frame listing and reclassification decisions, recovery planning, section 7 consultation, budget allocations, and a few other ESA decisions, with an emphasis on two questions: for each type of decision, what policy clarifications does the decision maker need to make; and knowing the policy context, what type of scientific assessment is needed. In the final discussion, I identify common themes among the types of decisions, and offer thoughts on how decision analysis could be more widely used to integrate science into ESA decisions.

Book chapter↗
USGS2005

Geography for a Changing World - A science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005-2015

This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.

Circular↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Colorado River Basin science and technology collaboration meetings on drought (2021)—Synthesis of findings

Ongoing, prolonged, and severe drought and water overuse during the first two decades of the 21st century have reduced water supplies of the Colorado River Basin, with effects cascading to ecosystems and human communities throughout the basin. In June and July 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology initiative team held a series of 12 collaboration meetings with USGS scientists and managers to discuss complicated, integrated science challenges and solutions related to drought in the Colorado River Basin. These Science and Technology collaboration meetings were structured to identify challenges experienced by meeting participants when working on complex problems, explore opportunities for coproducing scientific information, and envision future collaborative programs that leverage new technology. The 12 meetings were attended by 79 USGS staff representing 43 unique affiliations (for example, USGS science centers, mission areas, and regional offices). Meeting participants submitted 865 individual responses to six general discussion prompt topics (“Challenges,” “Knowledge Gaps,” “Existing Capabilities,” “Strategies and Actions,” “Example Applications,” and “Next Steps”) using a structured online collaboration tool. However, specific questions or tasks from each general discussion prompt varied by meeting topic. Terms from the USGS Thesaurus ( https://apps.usgs.gov/thesaurus/ ) and USGS Data Lifecycle Model ( https://www.usgs.gov/data-management/data-lifecycle ) were used to identify and summarize participant responses relevant to science integration, stakeholder engagement, and information management technology. From these responses, opportunities for the Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology initiative to facilitate science integration in the Colorado River Basin are highlighted in this report, including (a) pursuing specific interdisciplinary research topics that require integrating knowledge across spatial and temporal scales, (b) connecting scientists across disciplines, (c) reducing barriers to stakeholder engagement, (d) identifying new technologies, and (e) facilitating data access. Multiple strategies for designing future Science and Technology collaboration meetings are also outlined in this circular to better collect and analyze participant responses.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2020

Integrating climate change considerations into natural resource planning—An implementation guide

Executive Summary Climate change vulnerability assessments and associated adaptation strategies and actions connect existing climate science with possible effects on natural resources and highlight potential responses. However, these assessments, which are commonly generated for large regional areas, suggest management options in general terms without guidance for choosing among strategies and actions under specific circumstances. Meanwhile, land and resource management plans1 often address smaller geographies, and management actions must address specific rather than general situations. Thus, there is a need for tools that enable managers to bridge the gap by downscaling assessments, plans, and data generated at regional scales to identify adaptation actions and strategies appropriate for smaller management units and project-level planning. To address this need, we have developed a tool–the Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT)–that helps resource managers use climate science and assessments, along with local knowledge, to identify those adaptation strategies and actions most appropriate for a given site or situation. Specifically, we provide: Guidance for acquiring and using downscaled climate change projections; Procedures for using these data to answer Critical Questions to make site-specific determinations of the appropriate management approach (specifically, resistance, resilience, transition, realignment, or no action); Lists of potential adaptation strategies and actions appropriate to the chosen management approach; and Supplemental information regarding adaptation strategies and actions to help managers choose among them. The CAIT is meant to help managers integrate climate change science and assessments into management decisions. The CAIT also serves as a way for managers to document how they have incorporated climate change information into their decision-making and why certain actions were selected over others. A particular strength of the CAIT is that it leads to potential solutions (that is, adaptation strategies and actions) without inflexibly prescribing actions. This flexibility enables managers to incorporate other factors and constraints to create workable management plans and projects that strengthen their ability to achieve long-term conservation goals.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

Seventy questions of importance to the conservation of the North Central grasslands of the United States in a changing climate

Successful conservation of ecosystems in a changing climate requires actionable research that directly supports the rethinking and revising of management approaches to address changing risks and opportunities. As an important first step toward actionable research, we reviewed and synthesized grassland management-related documents to identify broadly shared questions that, if answered, would help to support collective conservation of the grasslands in the northern Great Plains of the United States in a changing climate. A Management Priorities Working Group reviewed 183 grassland-relevant management documents and identified 70 questions. Feedback was iteratively provided by a Climate and Ecology Working Group, an Advisory Committee, and representatives from grassland management agencies and organizations. The identified questions generally fall under 15 topics: land conversion; restoration; disturbance regimes; woody encroachment; herbaceous invasives; grazing; water quality, quantity, and availability; animal species; private land; public understanding; legal and policy changes; economic incentives; coordination across management entities; accessibility of science and tools; and novel ways of thinking. These questions can inform a research agenda for researchers looking to conduct actionable science in the Great Plains grassland ecosystems. Both the approach and the questions presented here can also be adapted and applied in other regions and ecosystems.

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

U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Strategy

This fact sheet describes the Water Science Strategy, presented in detail in Circular 1383-G, "U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Strategy--Observing, Understanding, Predicting, and Delivering Water Science to the Nation." This fact sheet looks at the relevant issues facing society and describes the strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This fact sheet presents the vision of water science for the U.S. Geological Survey and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of the Nation. The fact sheet describes the five goals of the Water Science Strategy. Nine priority actions also are presented, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions contained within Circular 1383-G. The fact sheet concludes with a discussion of the intended outcomes of the Water Science Strategy.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Scientific opportunities in the National Landscape Conservation System

The National Landscape Conservation System consists of unique and beautiful places across America’s landscapes where identified resources and values are protected and science is highlighted. The mission of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and is often referred to as the agency’s National Conservation Lands, is to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes for their cultural, ecological, and scientific values. This clear inclusion of science in the NLCS mission sets the stage for individual units to serve as places of learning, teaching, discovery, and innovation. Science is an integral part of managing the National Conservation Lands, and science conducted within and across the more than 900 units that make up the NLCS can inform and influence conservation and public land management well beyond its boundaries. Here, we highlight seven core aspects of National Conservation Lands that present valuable science opportunities: (1) the scientific values for which individual units are designated; (2) the many other resources, objects, and values within units; (3) the value of units as “control” sites for understanding the effects of activities such as mineral extraction that commonly occur elsewhere on multiple-use public lands but are often prohibited within National Conservation Lands; (4) the value of units for studying the effects of activities such as recreation that regularly occur and may be intensified on National Conservation Lands; (5) the high visibility of units, which draws strong interest and engagement from scientists, partners, and the public; (6) the functioning of the units as a network managed for a common purpose, which provides an opportunity to explore cross-cutting science questions across widely varying contexts and geographies; and (7) the opportunities units provide to promote and apply Indigenous Knowledge to scientific research to manage natural and cultural resources. Because of all of these characteristics, National Conservation Lands can serve as hubs for basic and applied science that can inform management of all public lands and resources into the future. We highlight these science opportunities through examples from existing units and suggest two actions that could help further science activities and impact on National Conservation Lands.

Parks Stewardship Forum↗
USGS2019

Interactions between resident risk perceptions and wildfire risk mitigation: Evidence from simultaneous equations modeling

Fire science emphasizes that mitigation actions on residential property, including structural hardening and maintaining defensible space, can reduce the risk of wildfire at a home. Accordingly, a rich body of social science literature investigates the determinants of wildfire risk mitigation behaviors of residents living in fire-prone areas. Here, we investigate relationships among wildfire hazards, residents’ risk perceptions, and conditions associated with mitigation actions using a combination of simulated wildfire conditions, household survey responses, and professionally assessed parcel characteristic data. We estimate a simultaneous model of these data that accounts for potential direct feedbacks between risk perceptions and parcel-level conditions. We also compare the use of self-reported versus assessed parcel-level data for estimating these relationships. Our analysis relies on paired survey and assessment data for approximately 2000 homes in western Colorado. Our simultaneous model demonstrates dual-directional interactions between risk perceptions and conditions associated with mitigation actions, with important implications for inference from simpler approaches. In addition to improving general understanding of decision-making about risk and natural hazards, our findings can support the effectiveness of publicly supported programs intended to encourage mitigation to reduce society’s overall wildfire risk.

Fire↗
USGS2022

Addressing stakeholder science needs for integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin

Stakeholders need scientific data, analysis, and predictions of how drought the will impact the Colorado River Basin in a format that is continuously updated, intuitive, and easily accessible. The Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology Pilot Project was formed to demonstrate the effectiveness of addressing complex problems through stakeholder involvement and use of 21st century technology to deliver integrated science. By identifying stakeholders and their science needs, the project team is better able to prioritize integrated science and design science delivery systems to support better adaptation and management measures for the long-term drought occurring in this basin. The project team is conducting outreach and coordination with stakeholders to meet the current and future science and technology needs in the basin and fulfill the USGS vision of integrated drought science throughout the Basin. As the USGS works to streamline the approach for sharing integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin, the project is looking for input, involvement, and collaboration to ensure the science provided works for stakeholders.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗
USGS2021

Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

Multicultural representation is a stated goal of many global scientific assessment processes. These processes aim to mobilize a broader, more diverse knowledge base and increase legitimacy and inclusiveness of these assessment processes. Often, enhancing cultural diversity is encouraged through involvement of diverse expert teams and sources of knowledge in different languages. In this article, we examine linguistic diversity, as one representation of cultural diversity, in the eight published assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Our results show that the IPBES assessment outputs are disproportionately filtered through English-language literature and authors from Anglophone countries. To incorporate more linguistic diversity into global ecosystem assessment processes, we present actionable steps for global science teams to recognize and incorporate non-English-language literature and contributions from non-Anglophones. Our findings highlight the need for broad-scale actions that enhance inclusivity in knowledge synthesis processes through balanced representation of different knowledge holders and sources.

One Earth↗
USGS2023

The RACE for freshwater biodiversity: Essential actions to create the social context for meaningful conservation

Freshwater habitats are experiencing two to three times the rate of biodiversity loss of terrestrial and marine habitats. As status quo actions within the conservation community are not reversing the downward trajectory for freshwater biodiversity, we propose four actions to shift the narrative such that freshwater biodiversity is no longer invisible and overlooked, but rather explicitly recognized, valued, and protected: (1) Reshape our relationship with freshwater habitats and biodiversity, (2) Appreciate indigenous knowledge systems relating to freshwater habitats, (3) Connect science more directly to action, and (4) Elevate freshwater habitats as a unique “domain” that requires explicit recognition in conservation planning (RACE). We highlight roles that both freshwater scientists and the wider conservation community can play in implementing the four actions such that the “RACE” can be won.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2012

Strategic directions for U.S. Geological Survey water science, 2012-2022 - Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that was begun in the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Strategic Science Plan is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences . The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 130-year history. Nine priority actions are presented in the report, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions listed throughout the report. Priority actions were developed as a means of providing the audience of this report with a list for focused attention, even if resources and time limit the ability of managers to address all of the strategic actions in the report. Priority actions focus on the following: Improve integrated science planning for water. Expand and enhance water-resource monitoring networks. Characterize the water cycle through development of state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D hydrogeologic framework models at multiple scales. Clarify the linkage between human water use (engineered hydrology) and the water cycle (natural hydrology). Advance ecological flow science. Provide flood-inundation science and information. Develop rapid deployment teams for water-related emergencies. Conduct integrated watershed assessment, research, and modeling. Deliver water data and analyses to the Nation. The body of the report is presented as a hierarchal set of 5 goals, 14 objectives, and 27 strategic actions that the USGS should undertake to advance water science through year 2022. The goals deal with: Providing society the information it needs regarding the amount and quality of water in all components of the water cycle at high temporal and spatial resolution, nationwide; Advancing our understanding of processes that determine water availability; Predicting changes in the quantity and quality of water resources in response to changing climate, population, land use, and management scenarios; Anticipating and responding to water-related emergencies and conflicts; and Delivering timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision-support tools seamlessly across the Nation to support water-resource decisions. Scientific information produced on water resources would be without value if it were not communicated to society in a fashion that can inform decisions and actions. Therefore, the chapter following the goals describes how the USGS should inform, involve, and educate society about the science it produces. This includes discussions on local outreach and the use of social media for effective communication. This report concludes with a chapter devoted to the crosscutting science issues of the Water Mission Area with the other USGS Mission Areas: Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health Science, and Natural Hazards. Not one of these Mission Areas stands alone—all must work together and integrate their actions to fulfill the USGS science mission for the future. This final chapter identifies the important linkages that must be realized and maintained for this integration to occur.

Open-File Report↗