Developing structured science syntheses for use in NEPA analyses and decision making in the Bureau of Land Management

Understanding potential environmental effects of proposed planning and management actions is a core responsibility of public lands management and is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages a large area of public lands in the United States and conducts many environmental impact analyses every year. Science information is foundational to this process.

Decision makers in the BLM and other public land management agencies rely on science and analytical tools to understand potential effects of proposed actions on people, animals, plants, watersheds, climate, and many other resources. However, comprehensive reviews of science relevant to agency decisions can be challenging. Agency staff often have limited time available to compile and synthesize existing science and data. In addition, staff regularly face new and diverse sets of management issues and may not always have the specific background, training, or expertise needed to synthesize information about a given issue or topic.

As a result, the BLM has identified a need to explore ways to help facilitate the integration of science information into its decisions and NEPA analyses.

To help address this need, an ongoing program of work has compiled and summarized recent, peer-reviewed science and data about priority topics such as sage-grouse (for example, Carter and others, 2020; Maxwell and others, 2023; Teige and other, 2023) and invasive grasses (for example, Poor and others, 2021). USGS and BLM have also worked together to synthesize existing science on major topics (for example, Hanser and others, 2018). In this project, we are developing a new type of product—science syntheses structured specifically to inform NEPA analyses on public lands.

Project Goal

Our goals are to produce multiple science syntheses, develop clear instructions for developing science syntheses, and begin to build a library of science syntheses on priority topics for resource managers in the BLM.

Approach

Scientists and managers at the USGS Fort Collins Science Center, BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center, and USGS Land Management Research Program are collaborating to write several initial science syntheses (see list below).

As we develop these initial syntheses, we are gathering feedback from BLM staff about the organization, content, format, and potential uses of the syntheses. We also plan to conduct a formal feedback process with BLM staff about challenges and benefits to the use of these syntheses in NEPA analyses. The feedback and review processes are helping to refine the pilot syntheses, inform the development of subsequent syntheses, and maximize the usefulness of this new product for public land managers.

We will ultimately use our experience with these initial syntheses and agency feedback to write clear guidance and instructions for developing structured science syntheses for NEPA analyses. We will then apply the process by continuing to work with managers and science partners to create a library of science syntheses about priority management topics.

Anticipated benefits

Structured science syntheses package science information in a new way, with the intention of helping to bridge the research-management gap for public lands management (Carter and others, 2020). These syntheses can provide the BLM and other land management agencies with tailored, practical science products that can directly inform their NEPA analyses. In addition, by working to build a library of science syntheses over time, we will be providing resource managers with tailored products that they can use to readily inform a suite of complex, emergent, and high-priority public land management issues.

Interagency Science-Management Partnership

The USGS, BLM, and FWS are working together to coproduce this project to create practical, actionable science that informs planning, policy, and management decisions on public lands (see BLM’s Coproduction Toolkit for more information on coproduction).