SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Sustainability Science”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources

USGS2006

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

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

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virgin↗

USGS2021

Putting people first: Using social science to reduce risk

Wildland-urban interface residents, who occupy the areas where wildlands meet and mix with human development, are both contributors to and recipients of the disastrous effects of wildland fires. They contribute through fire starts, flammable homes, unmitigated properties, opposition to mitigation on nearby public lands, and land use planning efforts. We argue that successful, sustainable wildland fire solutions are only possible if the WUI residents are engaged. In this article, we describe an evidence-based quantitative social science model to illustrate how to put people at the center of wildland fire solutions. Our hope is to spur greater use of social science in evidence-based wildland fire programs.

Wildfire Magazine↗

USGS2025

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

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

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2026

Fisheries sustainability: Perceptions from the ninth World Fisheries Congress

The World Fisheries Congress (WFC) is one of the largest global gatherings of fisheries professionals and scientists. It is held every 4 years with the purpose of sharing ideas and perspectives about new research, emerging issues, scientific breakthroughs, and governance related to fisheries science, industry, conservation, and management. The ninth WFC, held in Seattle (USA) in 2024, focused on fish and fisheries at the food–water–energy nexus and understanding fisheries sustainability from diverse perspectives. Fisheries sustainability is a goal shared globally that faces challenges across spatial scales from the implementation of good governance and accelerating anthropogenic pressures. Leveraging the unique opportunity to gain insights from WFC delegates, this study assesses perceptions of fisheries sustainability from diverse representation across career stage, geographic region, and professional and cultural backgrounds. Survey results show that respondents (i.e., WFC delegates who chose to take the survey) perceived limited progress towards fisheries sustainability, often with a variable and unclear definition of what sustainability entails. Fish were primarily valued from a provisioning resource perspective, with environmental aspects of fisheries management and conservation seen as the area with the most progress and the greatest needs, rather than economic or social dimensions of fisheries.

Fisheries↗

USGS2014

Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social well-being of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use of science in public decision making to inform investment in green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas. The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks plan, establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The Green City, Clean Waters initiative, the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green infrastructure. The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership programs: America’s Great Outdoors, initiated to promote conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways. A second goal of the symposium was to advance a research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations. There is also need for additional focused research toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater understanding of how best to inform local decision making in this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Approaching these local and regional plans from a holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future research.

Pennsylvania↗

USGS2017

Networking our science to characterize the state, vulnerabilities, and management opportunities of soil organic matter

Soil organic matter (SOM) supports the Earth's ability to sustain terrestrial ecosystems, provide food and fiber, and retains the largest pool of actively cycling carbon. Over 75% of the soil organic carbon (SOC) in the top meter of soil is directly affected by human land use. Large land areas have lost SOC as a result of land use practices, yet there are compensatory opportunities to enhance productivity and SOC storage in degraded lands through improved management practices. Large areas with and without intentional management are also being subjected to rapid changes in climate, making many SOC stocks vulnerable to losses by decomposition or disturbance. In order to quantify potential SOC losses or sequestration at field, regional, and global scales, measurements for detecting changes in SOC are needed. Such measurements and soil-management best practices should be based on well established and emerging scientific understanding of processes of C stabilization and destabilization over various timescales, soil types, and spatial scales. As newly engaged members of the International Soil Carbon Network, we have identified gaps in data, modeling, and communication that underscore the need for an open, shared network to frame and guide the study of SOM and SOC and their management for sustained production and climate regulation.

Global Change Biology↗

USGS2021

Toward improved decision-support tools for Delta Smelt management actions

The Collaborative Science and Adaptive Management Program (CSAMP) has endorsed a goal of reversing the recent downward trajectory of the Delta Smelt population within 5-10 generations, with the long-term aim of establishing a self-sustaining population. An ambitious agenda of management actions is planned, and more management actions are being considered. This White Paper furthers one of the recommendations in the 2019 Delta Smelt Science Plan – the need to predict the potential ecological effects of taking a management action. Existing statistical models can be highly informative in assessing the response of Delta Smelt to changing system conditions and management actions. However, management actions can shift or alter conditions in ways that models based on analysis of historical data may not be able to represent, and short-term or localized effects may be missed with models designed to assess effects at the population level. Decision support tools (DSTs) are computer-based tools developed to assist decision-making, often combining computationally intensive analysis and spatial mapping of environmental relationships. DSTs can be used in planning processes that evaluate an array of actions, such as in Structured Decision Making (SDM), where DSTs are needed to compare among alternatives. DSTs can also be used to explore the potential effects of different approaches to implementing management actions. The goal of this White Paper is to identify plausible options for DSTs that could be developed for future use to evaluate management actions that seek to either reverse the decline of Delta Smelt or minimize or mitigate the effects of other water management actions. Different types of management actions lead to different needs for DSTs. This White Paper was developed using three types of actions currently being considered to enhance the Delta Smelt population: Supplementation with Hatchery Fish, Summer-Fall Habitat, and Food Enhancement actions. These three management actions target different parts of the estuary and different processes, with a variety of possible metrics to gauge performance. Three DSTs are proposed that collectively address management questions related to the management actions considered, with each requiring a slightly different set of processes to be included and producing an array of outputs at varying spatial and temporal scales: DST 1. Modeling Fish Movement, Survival, and Reproduction Across Their Range. This DST can address management questions that require information about Delta Smelt spatial distribution and movement. • DST 1 could be used to compare conditions with and without management actions in place, how the management action performs among different types of water years (with varied flow and associated abiotic conditions), and to assess relative change with different variations and strategies of the management actions. • DST 2. Changes in Habitat Conditions and Delta Smelt Response. This DST is intended to evaluate combinations of conditions that are considered to provide suitable habitat for Delta Smelt, and Delta Smelt response. Delta Smelt habitat is generally described as open water with low salinity (0 to 6), turbidity of at least 12 NTU, suitable temperature conditions, and sufficient food availability to support growth. • DST 3. Regional Effects of Food Subsidy. This DSTs seeks to evaluate effectiveness of food enhancement actions by providing information on responses of the immediate targets of the action (i.e., phytoplankton or zooplankton) and tracing those to projected growth responses of Delta Smelt. There is not a single DST that adequately addresses management questions relevant to all management actions, although there is some overlap in the management questions each of the three DSTs can address. For each of the DSTs a substantial foundation of models and approaches already exists and modeling has already been applied to several of the management actions described. However, a number of outstanding issues remain for further development of the proposed DSTs. These are summarized in this White Paper together with potential approaches that could be applied or tested. Some components for the DSTs are already available and thus development could be relatively easy. However, for several of the topics identified there are gaps in knowledge that currently limit formulation of model structure and process representations. This presents challenges to readily incorporate some needed mechanisms into the models. Eleven next steps, aligned with relevant DSTs, are outlined. The next steps vary in their complexity or technical ‘lift’ required. Many build on existing work, or methods and approaches that have already been developed or are underway, while others require additional thinking to establish a viable approach. Some interim utility for decisions could be gained during initial development of the DSTs with further features added over time. Development of a DST requires engagement of both managers and scientists. Identifying the outputs and resolution needed for management purposes early in development of any DST is essential for effective pursuit of next steps and suitable approaches to address challenges. Dialog between managers and technical experts also informs what process-based simulation can do, and what tradeoffs are acceptable to meet a given purpose. To further develop the DSTs outlined here for application in the estuary requires: - Engagement of a committed group of technical experts with appropriate expertise. - The development of a coordinated workplan including appropriate project management and tracking. - Dialog between potential users (i.e., managers and policy makers) and technical experts. - Resources to pursue DST development including personnel and computational resources. This White Paper demonstrates the potential for moving toward DSTs for a variety of management actions in support of Delta Smelt that include mechanistic representations of physical and biological processes. Through focused effort from technical experts, managers and policy makers, DSTs can be developed to provide quantitative predictions of management effects on the ecosystem, targeting the changes the management actions seek to achieve, how these effects compare to ambient conditions, and how the effects vary among water year types or with timing and location of actions. Importantly, solid foundations exist which can be leveraged, refined, and built upon to specifically inform current and future management decisions.

White Paper↗

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↗

USGS2006

Interdisciplinary science in support of environmental health along the United States-Mexico border

The diverse, fragile ecosystems of the borderlands have been pushed beyond sustainable levels due to rapid population growth and land-use changes. Water shortages and pollution, poor air quality, increased soil salinities, residual pesticides and heavy metal contaminants are some of the many stressors that are degrading the quality of life in the borderlands. The relationship between human health and environmental quality challenges public officials, medical professionals, and resource managers on both sides of the border in their efforts to provide for and maintain healthy communities. To help understand the relationship between environmental and human health, the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Border Environmental Health Initiative (BEHI) created an Internet Map Service (IMS) with binational georeferenced data. The goal is to have seamless integration of borderwide datasets at regional and local scales that can lend understanding of the linkages between the condition of the physical environment and public health issues.

Fact Sheet↗

USGS2021

Coastal and marine science of the U.S. Geological Survey in St. Petersburg, Florida

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) St. Petersburg Coastal and Marine Science Center (SPCMSC) in St. Petersburg, Florida, investigates processes that form and alter coastal and marine environments and the implications of these processes related to natural hazards, resource sustainability, and environmental change. The center is one of three facilities serving the mission of the USGS Coastal and Marine Hazards and Resources Program, an initiative authorized by Congress in 1962 that serves as the primary Federal program for marine geology and physical science research and is responsible for the Nation’s entire coastal and marine landscape. The center’s staff conducts scientific research around the globe to describe and deepen understanding of the processes that influence coastal and marine ecosystems, such as sandy beaches and barrier islands, salt marshes and estuaries, coral reefs, and the open ocean from the continental shelf to the deep sea. The center includes a diverse workforce of scientists, technicians, administrators, analysts, and technology and information specialists. This team works collaboratively to conduct and share robust scientific research. This document provides a glimpse into the center’s work to better understand the processes shaping coastal and marine environments across the Nation.

Florida↗

USGS2025

Detroit River becoming a crucible for boundary organization experimentation

The Detroit River has a long history of human use and abuse, resulting in public outcry over water pollution and resource degradation. This public outcry helped catalyze the enactment of many laws and the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement which led to enhanced research, monitoring, and water pollution control. As pollution from industries and municipal wastewater treatment plants came under control and progress was made in management of single species, the focus shifted to a more comprehensive ecosystem approach that accounted for all the sources of pollution and targeted restoring ecosystem health with resilience. Over time, the Detroit River became a “proving ground” or crucible for experimenting with boundary organizations to overcome geographical, political, institutional, and disciplinary boundaries and strengthen science-policy-management linkages for ecosystem-based management. This study identified 15 boundary organizations functioning in the Detroit River watershed and evaluated two case studies – St. Clair-Detroit River System Initiative and State of the Strait Conferences. Key lessons learned from this study include: 1) establishing boundary organizations, promoting cooperative learning, and building capacity for boundary-spanning are essential for use of an ecosystem approach; 2) boundary spanning requires specific skills, experience, and improved linkages between research and practice; 3) the 15 boundary organizations provide a unique opportunity to collaborate in a community of practice to share knowledge, foster cooperative learning, enhance problem-solving, build trust, and demonstrate leadership; and 4) continued actionable science, investment in capacity building, and cooperative learning are essential to meet long-term goals of sustainability.

Detroit River↗

USGS2022

Harnessing island–ocean connections to maximize marine benefits of island conservation

Islands support unique plants, animals, and human societies found nowhere else on the Earth. Local and global stressors threaten the persistence of island ecosystems, with invasive species being among the most damaging, yet solvable, stressors. While the threat of invasive terrestrial mammals on island flora and fauna is well recognized, recent studies have begun to illustrate their extended and destructive impacts on adjacent marine environments. Eradication of invasive mammals and restoration of native biota are promising tools to address both island and ocean management goals. The magnitude of the marine benefits of island restoration, however, is unlikely to be consistent across the globe. We propose a list of six environmental characteristics most likely to affect the strength of land–sea linkages: precipitation, elevation, vegetation cover, soil hydrology, oceanographic productivity, and wave energy. Global databases allow for the calculation of comparable metrics describing each environmental character across islands. Such metrics can be used today to evaluate relative potential for coupled land–sea conservation efforts and, with sustained investment in monitoring on land and sea, can be used in the future to refine science-based planning tools for integrated land–sea management. As conservation practitioners work to address the effects of climate change, ocean stressors, and biodiversity crises, it is essential that we maximize returns from our management investments. Linking efforts on land, including eradication of island invasive mammals, with marine restoration and protection should offer multiplied benefits to achieve concurrent global conservation goals.

PNAS↗

USGS2007

Facing tomorrow’s challenges—U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 2007–2017

Executive Summary In order for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to respond to evolving national and global priorities, it must periodically reflect on, and optimize, its strategic directions. This report is the first comprehensive science strategy since the early 1990s to examine critically major USGS science goals and priorities. The development of this science strategy comes at a time of global trends and rapidly evolving societal needs that pose important natural-science challenges. The emergence of a global economy affects the demand for all resources. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of a new model for managing Federal lands—ecosystem-based management. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program predicts that the next few decades will see rapid changes in the Nation’s and the Earth’s environment. Finally, the natural environment continues to pose risks to society in the form of volcanoes, earthquakes, wildland fires, floods, droughts, invasive species, variable and changing climate, and natural and anthropogenic toxins, as well as animal-borne diseases that affect humans. The use of, and competition for, natural resources on the global scale, and natural threats to those resources, has the potential to impact the Nation’s ability to sustain its economy, national security, quality of life, and natural environment. Responding to these national priorities and global trends requires a science strategy that not only builds on existing USGS strengths and partnerships but also demands the innovation made possible by integrating the full breadth and depth of USGS capabilities. The USGS chooses to go forward in the science directions proposed here because the societal issues addressed by these science directions represent major challenges for the Nation’s future and for the stewards of Federal lands, both onshore and offshore. The six science directions proposed in this science strategy are summarized in the following paragraphs. The ecosystems strategy is listed first because it has a dual nature. It is itself an essential direction for the USGS to pursue to meet a pressing national and global need, but ecosystem-based approaches are also an underpinning of the other five directions, which all require ecosystem perspectives and tools for their execution. The remaining strategic directions are listed in alphabetical order.

Circular↗

USGS2015

The water-energy nexus: An earth science perspective

Water availability and use are closely connected with energy development and use. Water cannot be delivered to homes, businesses, and industries without energy, and most forms of energy development require large amounts of water. The United States faces two significant and sometimes competing challenges: to provide sustainable supplies of freshwater for humans and ecosystems and to ensure adequate sources of energy for future generations. This report reviews the complex ways in which water and energy are interconnected and describes the earth science data collection and research that can help the Nation address these important challenges. The earth sciences have been a cornerstone in developing our current understanding of the water-energy nexus. A full understanding of the nexus, however, is limited by uncertainty in our knowledge of fundamental issues, such as the quantity of freshwater that is available, the amount of water that is used in energy development, the effects that emerging energy development technologies have on water quality and quantity, and the amount of energy required to treat and deliver freshwater. Enhanced data collection and research can improve our understanding of these important issues and thereby lay the groundwork for informed resource management. Relevant earth science issues analyzed and discussed herein include freshwater availability; water use; ecosystems health; assessment of saline water resources; assessment of fossil-fuel, uranium, and geothermal resources; subsurface injection of wastewater and carbon dioxide and related induced seismicity; climate change and its effect on water availability and energy production; byproducts and waste streams of energy development; emerging energy-development technologies; and energy for water treatment and delivery.

Circular↗

USGS2018

Biological and ecological science for Wisconsin—A Great Lakes and Rivers State

Wisconsin and natural resources go hand-in-hand. Tourism, which generates $ 19 billion annually and sustains about 200,000 jobs, depends on an abundance of lakes, rivers, shorelines, and woodlands for fishing, hunting, boating, and other outdoor recreation. Rivers and floodplains in the Upper Mississippi Basin, including the Mississippi River, are part of a five-State corridor that generates more than $ 300 billion annually and sustains millions of manufacturing, tourism, transportation, and agricultural jobs. Wisconsin also is a Great Lakes State with more than 800 miles of shoreline, and the fisheries of lakes Superior and Michigan deliver $ 185 million annually and provide thousands of jobs.

Wisconsin↗

USGS2018

Biological and ecological science for Ohio—The Buckeye State

Ohio is home to lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, forests, prairies, and 312 miles of Lake Erie shoreline. These resources sustain Ohio’s communities by supporting vital sectors of the economy and cultural heritage such as fishing, hunting, and other outdoor recreation. Lake Erie provides drinking water for 3 million Ohioans, supports 124,000 Ohio jobs, and generates \$1.8 billion in tourism revenue to the State. Outdoor recreation is enjoyed by nearly 60 percent of Ohio residents. Annually, it is estimated that outdoor recreation generates \$24.3 billion in consumer spending across the State, creates 215,000 jobs, and raises \$1.5 billion in State and local tax revenue.

Ohio↗

USGS2018

Habitat Needs Assessment‐II for the Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program: Linking science to management perspectives

The Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR) Program vision statement is for a healthier and more resilient Upper Mississippi River ecosystem that sustains the river’s multiple uses. To address this vision, the UMRR Program recently developed a suite of 12 indicators that quantify aspects of ecosystem health and resilience (i.e., connectivity, redundancy and diversity, and controlling variables). These indicators reflect the ability of large floodplain river ecosystems to adapt and respond to disturbances. The primary purpose of this document is to help inform the UMRR Program in selecting, designing, and evaluating future restoration projects using these indicators and professional knowledge to achieve the UMRR Program’s vision.

Report↗

USGS2019

U.S. Geological Survey sagebrush ecosystem research annual report for 2019

The sagebrush ( Artemisia spp.) ecosystem extends across a large portion of the Western United States. Affected by multiple stressors, including interactions among fire, exotic plant invasions, and human land uses, this ecosystem has experienced significant loss, fragmentation, and degradation of landscapes once dominated by sagebrush. In turn, wildlife populations have declined following these deleterious conditions. Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and industry have been galvanized by declining wildlife populations to implement management actions to confront the impacts of these stressors and insure the long-term availability of the sagebrush ecosystem for the broad range of uses critical to stakeholders in the Western United States. The sagebrush ecosystem provides habitat for over 350 species of plants and animals that are dependent on sagebrush for all or part of their annual life history. The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ) stands out as the iconic species. Sage-grouse populations occur in 11 States and require relatively large expanses of sagebrush-dominated habitat to meet all their seasonal habitat needs. Recent management actions to conserve and maintain the sagebrush ecosystem have focused on the protection and restoration of sage-grouse habitat. However, each of the 350 species has a unique life history and differing area requirements (for example, large areas for Mule deer [ Odocoileus hemionus ] and small areas for pygmy rabbit [ Brachylagus idahoensis ]), and some species, such as migratory birds, only rely the sagebrush ecosystem for part of the year (for example, Brewer’s sparrow [ Spizella breweri ]). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has a broad research program focused on the sagebrush ecosystem and these species and their response to stressors and management actions. The research is tailored specifically to inform and improve strategies for maintaining existing areas of intact sagebrush and restoring degraded landscapes. By providing the science to inform these strategies, the USGS is assisting land and resource managers at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels working towards sustainable wildlife populations and restored landscapes. The USGS provides a foundation of scientific information for use in major land and resource management decisions in the sagebrush ecosystem. These have included such actions as the preclusion of the need to list the greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act and recent revisions to Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service resource management plans. The USGS continues to build on that foundation to inform science-based decisions within the U.S. Department of the Interior and other Federal, State, and local agencies and their continued conservation, management, and restoration of the sagebrush ecosystem to help support local economies.

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