Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science and Public Policy”

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

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

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
USGS2015

Agencies collaborate, develop a cyanobacteria assessment network

Cyanobacteria are a genetically diverse group of photosynthetic microorganisms that occupy a broad range of habitats on land and water all over the world. They release toxins that can cause lung and skin irritation, alter the taste and odor of potable water, and cause human and animal illness. Cyanobacteria blooms occur worldwide, and climate change may increase the frequency, duration, and extent of these bloom events. Rapid detection of potentially harmful blooms is essential to protect humans and animals from exposure. Information about potential for exposure, such as bloom duration, frequency, and extent, is especially critical for developing environmental management decisions during periods of limited resources and funding. The National Research Council (NRC) report Exposure Science in the 21st Century suggested that effectively assessing and mitigating exposures requires techniques for rapid measurement of a stressor, such as an algal bloom, across diverse geographic, temporal, and biologic scales (e.g., various bloom concentrations) and an enhanced infrastructure to address threats [ NRC , 2012]. The report specifically calls for approaches that use diverse information, such as satellite remote sensing, to identify and understand exposures that may pose a threat to ecosystems or human health. A collaborative effort integrates the work of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to provide an approach for using satellite ocean color capabilities in U.S. fresh and brackish water quality management decisions. The overarching goal of this collaborative project is to detect and quantify cyanobacteria blooms using satellite data records in order to support the environmental management and public use of U.S. lakes and reservoirs. Satellite remote sensing tools may enable policy makers and environmental managers to assess the sustainability of watershed ecosystems and the services they provide, now and in the future. Satellite technology allows us to develop early-warning indicators of cyanobacteria blooms at the local scale while maintaining continuous national coverage.

Eos, Earth and Space Science News↗
USGS2010

Seismic hazard assessment: Issues and alternatives

Seismic hazard and risk are two very important concepts in engineering design and other policy considerations. Although seismic hazard and risk have often been used inter-changeably, they are fundamentally different. Furthermore, seismic risk is more important in engineering design and other policy considerations. Seismic hazard assessment is an effort by earth scientists to quantify seismic hazard and its associated uncertainty in time and space and to provide seismic hazard estimates for seismic risk assessment and other applications. Although seismic hazard assessment is more a scientific issue, it deserves special attention because of its significant implication to society. Two approaches, probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) and deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA), are commonly used for seismic hazard assessment. Although PSHA has been pro-claimed as the best approach for seismic hazard assessment, it is scientifically flawed (i.e., the physics and mathematics that PSHA is based on are not valid). Use of PSHA could lead to either unsafe or overly conservative engineering design or public policy, each of which has dire consequences to society. On the other hand, DSHA is a viable approach for seismic hazard assessment even though it has been labeled as unreliable. The biggest drawback of DSHA is that the temporal characteristics (i.e., earthquake frequency of occurrence and the associated uncertainty) are often neglected. An alternative, seismic hazard analysis (SHA), utilizes earthquake science and statistics directly and provides a seismic hazard estimate that can be readily used for seismic risk assessment and other applications. ?? 2010 Springer Basel AG.

Pure and Applied Geophysics↗
USGS2010

Evolution of Ore Deposits and Technology Transfer Project: Isotope and Chemical Methods in Support of the U.S. Geological Survey Science Strategy, 2003-2008

Principal functions of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mineral Resources Program are providing assessments of the location, quantity, and quality of undiscovered mineral deposits, and predicting the environmental impacts of exploration and mine development. The mineral and environmental assessments of domestic deposits are used by planners and decisionmakers to improve the stewardship of public lands and public resources. Assessments of undiscovered mineral deposits on a global scale reveal the potential availability of minerals to the United States and other countries that manufacture goods imported to the United States. These resources are of fundamental relevance to national and international economic and security policy in our globalized world economy. Performing mineral and environmental assessments requires that predictions be made of the likelihood of undiscovered deposits. The predictions are based on geologic and geoenvironmental models that are constructed for the diverse types of mineral deposits from detailed descriptions of actual deposits and detailed understanding of the processes that formed them. Over the past three decades the understanding of ore-forming processes has benefited greatly from the integration of laboratory-based geochemical tools with field observations and other data sources. Under the aegis of the Evolution of Ore Deposits and Technology Transfer Project (referred to hereinafter as the Project), a 5-year effort that terminated in 2008, the Mineral Resources Program provided state-of-the-art analytical capabilities to support applications of several related geochemical tools to ore-deposit-related studies. The analytical capabilities and scientific approaches developed within the Project have wide applicability within Earth-system science. For this reason the Project Laboratories represent a valuable catalyst for interdisciplinary collaborations of the type that should be formed in the coming years for the United States to meet its natural-resources and natural-science needs. This circular presents an overview of the Project. Descriptions of the Project laboratories are given first including descriptions of the types of chemical or isotopic analyses that are made and the utility of the measurements. This is followed by summaries of select measurements that were carried out by the Project scientists. The studies are grouped by science direction. Virtually all of them were collaborations with USGS colleagues or with scientists from other governmental agencies, academia, or the private sector.

Circular↗
USGS2018

Executive summary. In Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report

Central to life on Earth, carbon is essential to the molecular makeup of all living things and plays a key role in regulating global climate. To understand carbon’s role in these processes, researchers measure and evaluate carbon stocks and fluxes. A stock is the quantity of carbon contained in a pool or reservoir in the Earth system (e.g., carbon in forest trees), and a flux is the direction and rate of carbon’s transfer between pools (e.g., the movement of carbon from the atmosphere into forest trees during photosynthesis). This document, the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2), examines the patterns of carbon stocks and fluxes—collectively called the “carbon cycle.” Emphasis is given to these patterns in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture and energy) and ecosystems (e.g., forests and coastal waters) and to the response of the carbon cycle to human activity. The purpose of SOCCR2 is to assess the current state of the North American carbon cycle and to present recent advances in understanding the factors that influence it. Concentrating on North America—Canada, the United States, and Mexico—the report describes carbon cycling for air, land, inland waters (streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs), and coastal waters (see Figure ES.1, p. 23). The questions framing the publication A U.S. Carbon Cycle Science Plan (Michalak et al., 2011) inspired development of three slightly modified questions that guide SOCCR2’s content and focus on North America in a global context: How have natural processes and human actions affected the global carbon cycle on land, in the atmosphere, in the ocean and other aquatic systems, and at ecosystem interfaces (e.g., coastal, wetland, and urban-rural)? How have socioeconomic trends affected atmospheric levels of the primary carbon-containing gases, carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)? How have species, ecosystems, natural resources, and human systems been impacted by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, associated changes in climate, and carbon management decisions and practices? SOCCR2 synthesizes the most recent understanding of carbon cycling in North America, assessing new carbon cycle findings and information, the state of knowledge regarding core methods used to study the carbon cycle, and future research needed to best inform carbon management and policy options. Focusing on scientific developments in the decade since the First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR1; CCSP 2007), SOCCR2 summarizes the past, current, and projected state of carbon sources, sinks, and natural processes, as well as contributions by human activities. In addition to CO2 and CH4, the report sometimes discusses nitrous oxide (N2O), a GHG associated with activities and processes that affect fluxes of carbon gases.1 SOCCR2 also describes improvements in analysis tools; developments in decision support; and new insights into ecosystem carbon cycling, human causes of changes in the carbon cycle, and social science perspectives on carbon. Since publication of SOCCR1, coordinated research from agencies in the three North American countries has enabled innovative observational, analytical, and modeling capabilities to further advance understanding of the North American carbon cycle (see Appendix D: Carbon Measurement Approaches and Accounting Frameworks, p. 834). Some of the report’s main conclusions, based on the Key Findings of each chapter, are highlighted in Box ES.1, Main Findings of SOCCR2, p. 24.

Report↗
USGS2024

Amphibian and reptile conservation in the United States of America

Wildlife stewardship is of utmost importance in the United States, where management for sustainable natural resources is extended to native species including amphibians and reptiles. The U.S. wildlife conservation framework is a nested system of authorities regulating species and habitats, science-based management and policy decisions, and adaptive management as new knowledge is applied to improve outcomes of population- and habitat-management actions. Yet the approach has evolved through time, from single-species management of game species to the conservation of entire ecosystems and the biodiversity they support. Today, the mismatch of conservation ideals with conservation capacity puts nongame species like amphibians and reptiles in the crosshairs for losses due to insufficient resources to address growing numbers of threats. Despite these challenges, optimism prevails, as the management and conservation of U.S. herpetofauna is an increasing priority of the public, with considerable investment into habitat restoration, species-specific threat mitigation, research, public outreach, and education. Herein, we outline key elements of U.S. herpetological conservation efficacy: (1) a web of legal authorities governing the management of U.S. herpetofauna and their habitats; (2) a network of people and organizations that work toward filling priority knowledge gaps by conducting scientific research and that are actively engaged in the science-management interface for species-to-ecosystem level conservation decision-making, and (3) a learning framework of adaptive management within the legal landscape (“lawscape”) and for improving effectiveness of conservation actions. Lastly, the human dimension of species conservation in the U.S. is emerging, where bottom-up local efforts are having success in addition to state- and regional-scale approaches. We propose U.S. herpetological conservation priorities under three themes: threats, research, and human dimensions (people). Together these multifaceted efforts are contributing to advances in the maintenance of U.S. amphibian and reptile diversity. The success of these efforts is notable and could be viewed as a model system, where lessons learned may apply elsewhere.

Book chapter↗
USGS2025

Climate consideration in environmental effects analyses on federal public lands in the United States

Effects of a changing climate, including drought, wildfire, and invasive species encroachment, are evident on public lands across the United States. Decision making on Federal public lands requires analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and there are guidelines for considering climate in NEPA analyses. To better understand how climate most recently has been considered, we analyzed a stratified random sample of 130 environmental assessments (EAs) completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) from 2021 to 2023 across the contiguous United States. We assessed whether EAs considered (1) potential effects of the proposed action on climate (2) potential climate effects on the proposed action, and (3) potential climate effects on resources of concern. We also identified whether EAs included data and science about climate or greenhouse gas emissions, and which datasets and documents were cited. We used two approaches: automated keyword searches and document analysis. Thirty-seven percent of EAs considered the potential effects of the proposed action on climate, 8% considered the potential effects of climate on the proposed action, and 4% of individual resource analyses considered the potential effects of climate on the resource. EAs in the ‘oil and gas development,’ ‘renewable energy,’ and ‘forestry and timber management’ proposed action categories most frequently considered the potential effects of climate and used climate data and science. Our findings suggest an opportunity for scientists to work more closely with public land managers to identify available data and science for considering climate in environmental effects analyses and to provide science delivery mechanisms that can facilitate the consideration and use of climate science in decision making.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2024

Toward a US framework for continuity of satellite observations of Earth's climate and for supporting societal resilience

There is growing urgency for improved public and commercial services to support a resilient, secure, and thriving United States (US) in the face of mounting decision-support needs for environmental stewardship and hazard response, as well as for climate change adaptation and mitigation. Sustained space-based Earth observations are critical infrastructure to support the delivery of science and decision-support information with local, national, and global utility. This is reflected in part through the United States' sustained support of a suite of weather and land-imaging satellites. However, outside of these two areas, the US lacks an overarching, systematic plan or framework to identify, prioritize, fund, and implement sustained space-based Earth observations to meet the Nation's full range of needs for science, government policy, and societal support. To aid and accelerate the discussion on our nation's needs, challenges and opportunities associated with sustained critical space-based Earth observations, the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) sponsored a multi-week think-tank study to offer ways forward. Based on this study, the KISS study team suggests the establishment of a robust coordination framework to help address US needs for sustained Earth observations. This coordination framework could account for: (a) approaches to identify and prioritize satellite observations needed to meet US needs for science and services, (b) the rapidly evolving landscape of space-based Earth viewing architecture options and technology improvements with increasing opportunities and lower cost access to space, and (c) the technical and programmatic underpinnings required for proper and comprehensive data stewardship to support a wide range of research and public services.

Earth's Future↗
USGS1998

Integrating across scales: Effectively applying science for the successful conservation of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) is an excellent species on which to focus synthetic, integrative investigations because it is an economically important species that captures the public imagination, is heavily impacted by humans, uses several ecosystems over its life, and is the subject of a large body of extant literature. The following 24 papers were solicited to provide the biological basis for effective and innovative approaches that biologists, managers, and social scientists can use to develop policies that sustain Atlantic salmon and related species. Together these papers highlight the need for and benefits of (a) synthesizing within populations, (b) choosing the appropriate scale, (c) comparing across populations using rigorous, focused, question-oriented methods, (d) integrating across disciplines, (e) incorporating the human perspective, (f) linking multiple ecosystems, and (g) applied problem solving. To show how Atlantic salmon can guide research and conservation efforts for other species in other systems, we review the justification for the supplement and summarize the defining concepts that emerge from the volume.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
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↗
USGS2022

Documenting the multiple facets of a subsiding landscape from coastal cities and wetlands to the continental shelf

Land subsidence is a settling, sinking, or collapse of the land surface. In the southeastern United States, subsidence is frequently observed as sinkhole collapse in karst environments, wetland degradation and loss in coastal and other low-lying areas, and inundation of coastal urban communities. Human activities such as fluid extraction, mining, and overburden alteration can cause or exacerbate subsidence, which can result in damage to infrastructure and resources. Subsidence is a hazard that takes place throughout the United States; however, a systematic approach to recognize and develop informed responses to the drivers of subsidence has not yet been fully established. To address this problem, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Southeast Region (SER) funded the gathering of a team of interdisciplinary USGS scientists to promote scientific collaboration. Southeast Region scientists welcomed scientists from other regions (see table 1.1 in Appendix 1) in September 2018 at the St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) in Florida for the first workshop of the Subsidence Flex Team (SFT) (see Appendix 2 for agenda). The SFT set out to review subsidence-related research and technology and develop a unifying framework for describing the processes and hazards associated with land subsidence. A more comprehensive understanding of subsidence hazards could help to inform regional vulnerability assessments that would prove invaluable to the public, community developers, policy makers, and resource managers in both inland and coastal states. The SFT analyzed USGS strengths and weaknesses to identify existing infrastructure and capabilities that could be leveraged to create a comprehensive and far-reaching subsidence-monitoring and mitigation program. Over the course of the 2-day workshop, interdisciplinary understandings of the processes and hazards related to subsidence were explored through individual presentations and group discussion. With all perspectives considered, the SFT recommended that subsidence-related research develop scientific approaches and metrics by which the subsidence component can be isolated and quantified in order to protect both the environment and human infrastructure from harm.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi↗
USGS2008

Documentation for the 2008 update of the United States National Seismic Hazard Maps

The 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the United States and are applied in seismic provisions of building codes, insurance rate structures, risk assessments, and other public policy. This update of the maps incorporates new findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the United States that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. The USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project developed these maps by incorporating information on potential earthquakes and associated ground shaking obtained from interaction in science and engineering workshops involving hundreds of participants, review by several science organizations and State surveys, and advice from two expert panels. The new probabilistic hazard maps represent an update of the 2002 seismic hazard maps developed by Frankel and others (2002), which used the methodology developed for the 1996 version of the maps (Frankel and others, 1996). Algermissen and Perkins (1976) published the first probabilistic seismic hazard map of the United States which was updated in Algermissen and others (1990). The National Seismic Hazard Maps represent our assessment of the “best available science” in earthquake hazards estimation for the United States (maps of Alaska and Hawaii as well as further information on hazard across the United States are available on our Web site at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/ ).

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Monitoring recreation on federally managed lands and waters—Visitation estimation

Federally managed public lands and waters attract millions of visitors each year, generating significant economic benefits for surrounding communities. Accurate visitation data are crucial for guiding policy decisions and managing resources effectively. This report explores the methods employed by agencies to collect and use data on recreational visitation to Federal lands and waters. Visitation estimation practices across seven agencies are reviewed, revealing similarities such as the use of automated counters for on-site data collection, alongside differences in reporting frequencies, visit definitions, and public access to data. Emerging technologies, including social media, mobile device activity, and community science, are also evaluated for their potential to improve visitation estimation. Although these technologies offer promising opportunities, they come with challenges such as data biases, the need for calibration, costs, and privacy concerns. The report concludes with opportunities to enhance data collection, coordination, and accessibility, ensuring more efficient resource management and informed decision making.

Scientific Investigations Report↗
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↗
USGS2022

When do climate services achieve societal impact? Evaluations of actionable climate adaptation science

To cope with complex environmental impacts in a changing climate, researchers are increasingly being asked to produce science that can directly support policy and decision making. To achieve such societal impact, scientists are using climate services to engage directly with stakeholders to better understand their needs and inform knowledge production. However, the wide variety of climate-services outcomes—ranging from establishing collegial relationships with stakeholders to obtaining specific information for inclusion into a pre-existing decision process—do not directly connect to traditional methods of measuring scientific impact (e.g., publication citations, journal impact factor). In this paper, we describe how concepts from the discipline of evaluation can be used to examine the societal impacts of climate services. We also present a case study from climate impacts and adaptation research to test a scalable evaluation approach. Those who conduct research for the purposes of climate services and those who fund applied climate research would benefit from evaluation from the beginning of project development. Doing so will help ensure that the approach, data collection, and data analysis are appropriately conceived and executed.

Sustainability↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

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

Circular↗
USGS2012

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

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

Open-File Report↗
USGS2015

A survey of Bureau of Land Management employees on collaboration and alternative dispute resolution

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been actively expanding its capacity to work cooperatively with other agencies, Tribes, the public, and other stakeholders using collaborative and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches. In 1997, the BLM created the BLM’s Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Program (Collaboration/ADR Program) to centralize, strengthen, and coordinate these efforts. Specifically, the Collaboration/ADR Program is charged with developing ADR policies; ensuring that statutory and regulatory requirements are met; and providing training, resources, and direct support for collaboration and ADR in the BLM. At the request of the Collaboration/ADR Program, the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the U.S. Geological Survey, located in the Fort Collins Science Center, conducted an online survey of BLM employees in early 2013 to address four overarching questions: What information sources and assistance resources are BLM employees currently accessing to fill their conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration needs? What are the perceived information and resource needs of BLM employees associated with conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What information and resources can the BLM Collaboration/ADR Program provide to fill BLM employee needs? What is the BLM employee level of knowledge associated with conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? What are the attitudes and perceptions of BLM employees toward conflict/dispute resolution and collaboration? This report describes the findings of this online survey and will assist the BLM’s Collaboration and ADR Oversight Committee in developing the Strategic Plan for the Collaboration/ADR Program. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to advance collaboration in the BLM and to increase the capacity of the Collaboration/ADR Program to support collaborative efforts on the ground. In March 2013, a user-specific link to the online survey was sent via email to all current BLM employees ( n = 6,734) that could potentially have had experience in collaboration and conflict resolution based on their job series. The links took the respondents to a webpage where the survey was administered. Email reminders were sent at weekly intervals thereafter. When the survey closed in May 2013, the response rate was 45 percent (3,161 employees). Of these, only 14 percent (427 respondents) indicated that they did not have direct experience with collaboration or ADR, and were unlikely to gain experience in the future. Because these respondents were not the target population of this survey, they were branched to the demographic questions at the end of the survey and were not included in any further analyses. The remaining 86 percent (2,734 respondents) indicated that either they did have direct experience with collaboration and (or) ADR, or that they might gain experience with one or both in the future. Below we highlight some of the key findings from their survey responses (refer to the Results section for a comprehensive report of the survey findings).

Open-File Report↗