Using public litigation records to identify priority science needs for managing public lands

Ecology and Society: a journal of integrative science for resilience and sustainability

article

Alison C. Foster¹  Sarah K. Carter¹  Travis S. Haby²  Leigh D. Espy³  Malia K. Burton⁴ 

[1] U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center;Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center;Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States State Office;Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office

关键词: Bureau of Land Management;    coproduction;    environmental analysis;    legal;    National Environmental Policy Act;    science priorities;   

DOI  :  10.5751/ES-13708-280111

学科分类：生物科学（综合）

来源: Resilience Alliance Publications

【 摘 要 】

Relevant science is essential for effective natural resource decision making, including on public lands managed by the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM), that cover 1/10th of the United States. Most of the BLM’s management decisions require analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, and the use of science in these decisions is often challenged. Using coproduction, we assembled an interagency team of scientists and resource managers to develop a method for using public litigation to identify priority science needs for the BLM. We searched publicly available case documents finalized from 2015–2019 in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico within federal courts and the DOI Office of Hearings and Appeals, and identified 108 case documents that involved challenges to the BLM’s use of science. We retained 48 case documents that contained at least one challenge about the BLM’s use of science for a specific resource. We categorized all challenges in each case document according to the proposed action, affected resource, type of science challenged (data about resources, science relevant to potential impacts, methods for analyzing potential impacts, and mitigation actions), and specific nature of the challenge (e.g., challenging direct effects analysis). We identified priority science needs based on the frequency of challenges, the number of states where similar challenges occurred, whether the BLM lost the challenge, and whether the case was remanded. Top needs related to oil and gas development actions and included science about effects on air quality and climate, water, and socioeconomics; data for air quality and climate; and methods for analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources and air quality and climate. The BLM can use this information to prioritize actions (e.g., funding new research or science syntheses) to strengthen its science foundation for decision-making.

【 授权许可】

Others