March 2015

Advancing Science in the BLM:

An Implementation Strategy
Production services provided by: 

Bureau of Land Management

National Operations Center

Information and Publishing Services Section

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225

Suggested citation: 

Kitchell, K., S. Cohn, R. Falise, H. Hadley, M. Herder, K. Libby, K. Muller, T. Murphy, M. Preston, M.J. Rugwell, and 

S. Schlanger. 2015. Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC.

BLM/WO/GI-15/002+1222
Advancing Science in the BLM:

An Implementation Strategy

Authors:

Katherine Kitchell (Project Lead), Montana Associate State Director

Billings, Montana

Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources

Alaska State Office, Anchorage, Alaska

Roxanne Falise, Division of Resource Services Chief

National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado

Heidi Hadley, National Science Advisor

Washington Office, Washington, DC

Michael Herder, Associate District Manager

Ely District Office, Ely, Nevada

Kathie Libby, Program and Management Analyst

Washington Office, Washington, DC

Kit Muller, Landscape Approach Lead

Washington Office, Washington, DC

Ted Murphy, Alaska Associate State Director

Anchorage, Alaska

Matthew Preston, Science Advisor

National Landscape Conservation System, Washington, DC

Mary Jo Rugwell, Wyoming Associate State Director

Cheyenne, Wyoming

Sarah Schlanger, Associate Monument Manager

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Kanab, Utah

March 2015
ii Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Table of Contents

Introduction  

Findings 

Implementation Strategy Goals 

Conclusion 

Science Action Plan  

Appendix 1: Case Studies that Exemplify the Principles and Practices of 

Effective Scientific Integration in the BLM .

Appendix 2: Bureau of Land Management National Science Committee .

Appendix 3: Bibliography and Suggested Reading .
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 1

Resource Decisions

Science

(data, studies, models

and processes)

Multiscale 

Monitoring

(statistical

sampling)

Management

Actions

(past and

present)

Adaptive

Management

(new

information)

Multiscale

Analysis

(assumptions,

uncertainty) Multiscale 

Objectives

(desired

condition)

Science Integration

DOI and BLM

Priorities

Laws,

Regulations,

and Policies

Public Input

Political Context

Science

Professional

Sta Input

Consistency

Across

Boundaries

Feasibility of

Implementation

(Dollars and Capacity)

Planning

Authorizations

Mitigation

Stewardship/Conservation

Adaptation

Introduction

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (FLPMA) directs the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to manage the public lands 

for multiple use and sustained yield so as to ensure 

the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s 

public lands for the use and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. Carrying out this mission 

is increasingly complex and visible in a world of 

rapid and dynamic change, presenting the BLM 

with difficult choices that will affect how the land 

will look for generations to come. The intricacy of 

natural and cultural systems, combined with public 

expectations and legal dictates, make it essential 

for the BLM to continue to be “science-informed,” 

supporting its current culture in which missionoriented science enables managers and staff to 

apply science in decisionmaking and adaptive 

management, at every level and in every program.

Science is the knowledge and study of the world 

based on facts learned through experiments and 

systematic observations. A wide range of biophysical 

and socioeconomic sciences are applicable to the 

BLM’s decisionmaking. Throughout all the work 

processes the BLM employs to achieve various 

resource management outcomes, science and 

science-based tools should play a continual role 

in addition to many other inputs, such as legal 

and policy requirements, public opinion, and 

professional expertise (see Figure 1). When properly 

balanced with all of the other inputs of resource 

decisions, science informs decisions such as sitespecific grazing permits, permits to drill and mine, 

landscape-scale planning, regional mitigation 

strategies, and adaptive management.

Figure 1. Contributors to the BLM decisionmaking process, with science 

as one of the many inputs

To help integrate science into multiple-use land 

management decisions in a consistent manner, 

the BLM invests in several science-based strategies 

and activities that provide multiscale insight to 

both the agency and the public. Products of these 

strategies and activities, including the Assessment, 
2 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy; rapid 

ecoregional assessments (REAs); and the Geospatial 

Services Strategic Plan, build on existing successes 

and expand a decisionmaker’s access to important 

information essential for landscape management.

As the BLM continues to develop a landscape-scale 

approach to management, consistent scientific 

data and tools will enhance the BLM’s ability to 

work across traditional administrative boundaries 

to respond to broad-based issues. For example, 

consistent scientific data and tools are a key aspect 

of the BLM’s efforts to manage Greater Sage-Grouse 

habitat, identify healthy lands focal areas, and 

develop regional mitigation strategies. As the BLM’s 

planning process evolves with Planning 2.0, strong, 

sound scientific data will need to underpin the BLM’s 

planning efforts even more than in the past.

Recognizing the increasing importance of scienceinformed decisions, the BLM performed an 

assessment of science activities and opportunities 

in 2012 and 2013. In 2014, BLM Director Neil 

Kornze asked a team (Advancing Science 

Integration Strategy Team—ASIST) to develop 

an implementation strategy to support the BLM’s 

leadership and resource specialists as they apply 

science in their everyday work. The ASIST members 

consulted with the BLM Executive Leadership Team 

(ELT), Field Committee, Deputy State Directors for 

resources and minerals programs, and Washington 

Office (WO) Division Chiefs throughout the 

development of this strategy.
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 3

Findings

The ASIST members validated that effective and 

consistent integration of the best available science 

in decisionmaking is becoming more and more 

essential for public land management in an era 

of changing climate, landscape-scale planning, 

large dataset development, advanced technology, 

increased public expectations, and diverse legal 

challenges.

Generally, the BLM entrusts its resource specialists 

to keep abreast of how scientific understanding 

is evolving in their respective disciplines and 

to incorporate science into their work. The 

ASIST members found numerous examples 

(see Appendix1) in which the BLM is effectively 

embracing science-land management integration. 

These examples serve as a foundation to advance 

science into all aspects of land management and 

become models for effective integration of science 

as a consistent practice throughout the BLM. 

Additionally, the BLM should expand and fully 

embrace scientific partnerships, as the BLM does 

not have the capacity, nor would it be wise, to go it 

alone.

To be most effective in achieving its mission, the 

BLM should continue efforts to advance a culture 

that makes it a priority for employees to remain 

current on the most up-to-date science and the 

latest research of their peers and deliberately 

obtain and apply relevant science to all programs 

and projects. Managers and staff should have 

the tools and data necessary to apply the best 

available science in decisionmaking and adaptive 

management, and the public should gain a much 

better understanding of the related science if the 

BLM is routinely transparent about assumptions, 

objectives, and uncertainties in the analyses.

To advance a more effective and consistent use of 

science, the ASIST members recognized the need 

for the BLM to integrate science into the core of its 

actions and to provide the resources, training, and 

partnerships to ensure that scientific information is 

accessible. In other words, the BLM should ensure 

effective and consistent science integration into 

the BLM’s core work processes (Implementation 

Strategy, Goal 1) and ensure that relevant, timely 

scientific information is accessible to BLM staff and 

managers (Implementation Strategy, Goal 2). These 

two implementation strategy goals are described in 

detail in the next section of this document.

The ASIST members also acknowledged that 

advancing science in the BLM does not stand alone. 

This implementation strategy reinforces several 

components of the BLM’s publication “Winning the 

Challenges of the Future: A Road Map for Success in 

2016” by placing an emphasis on data, monitoring, 

and adaptive management; investing in geospatial 

data and tools; and empowering the scientific 

capacity of BLM employees and partnerships. 

Furthermore, this strategy is closely connected with 

several other BLM priorities, including Planning 

2.0, regional mitigation strategies, and the Greater 

Sage-Grouse planning effort. And lastly, this 

implementation strategy complements and will be 

coordinated with other ongoing science strategies, 

such as those adopted by the National Landscape 

Conservation System (NLCS) and the Joint Fire 

Science Program. 
4 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Implementation Strategy Goals

GOAL 1: Ensure effective and consistent 

science integration into the BLM’s core work 

processes.

The ASIST members recognize the need to make 

the practice of integrating science into core work 

processes a more consistent part of BLM culture. 

Through the development of the Activity Based 

Costing system, the BLM identified nine basic 

work processes; six of these work processes have 

an essential nexus to the BLM’s science-land 

management integration, including:

• Assess condition and status.

• Perform planning.

• Authorize use.

• Implement BLM actions.

• Manage compliance.

• Perform monitoring.

Through ASIST’s review of scientific literature and 

many successful examples of science integration 

in land management, five principles and practices 

emerged that, if adopted, can help guide the BLM 

to more systematic and effective integration of 

science into these core work processes. They require 

a close working relationship between managers and 

technical specialists to access and interpret relevant 

scientific information.

Principles and Practices

1. Use the best available scientific knowledge 

relevant to the problem or decision being 

addressed, relying on peer-reviewed literature 

when it exists.

Use of the “best available science” has been 

the standard for the BLM. As data and scientific 

literature become more accessible via websites 

for resource specialists in the field, it becomes 

easier for the BLM to strive for a more careful 

and deliberate approach when determining the 

applicability of available data and science for the 

management question at hand. To the extent 

possible, the BLM relies on scientific knowledge 

and scientific data that have been rigorously 

peer reviewed by independent and qualified 

reviewers.

2. Recognize the dynamic and interrelated nature 

of socioecological systems within which the BLM 

operates.

The BLM is responsible for managing pieces 

and blocks of large, dynamic, and interrelated 

socioecological systems at multiple scales. 

A change in any aspect of one or more 

components of these systems can have 

cascading impacts on the rest of the web of 

relationships. BLM resource specialists very often 

factor in the interconnectedness of the people 

and the landscapes when designing projects or 

writing the analysis in National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and planning documents. 

Ample tools exist to help understand, 

simplify, visualize, and communicate these 

interconnected systems, and the BLM will 

strive to consistently use these tools in its 

decisionmaking processes.

3. Acknowledge, describe, and document 

assumptions and uncertainties.

Perfect scientific understanding, perfect 

datasets, and perfect models do not exist 

for most of the management questions 

facing resource managers. However, when 

scientific tools are applied, such as predictive 

models, statistically determined confidence 

intervals, and risk analysis, the BLM is able to 

more accurately depict anticipated effects 

and describe assumptions and uncertainties. 

Clear documentation of the assumptions 

and unknowns are important in the BLM’s 

internal and external communications, in 

addition to when evaluating the effectiveness 

of actions over time. Moreover, the more 

resource managers acknowledge, describe, 

and document assumptions and uncertainties, 

the easier it will be to focus new scientific 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 5

investigations and implement adaptive 

management.

4. Use quantitative data when it exists, in 

combination with internal and external 

professional scientific expertise.

Quantitative data are collected systematically 

and in statistically valid manners and used for 

many purposes. These data are useful at local 

levels and can also be rolled up to understand 

conditions regionally and nationally. Data are 

collected in concert with other agencies and 

external partners. These high-quality data 

serve as one core tenet of the decisionmaking 

process. Data are made publically available 

to the greatest extent possible, in order to 

allow for transparency and to provide an 

opportunity for the BLM’s science partners to 

use the data for additional purposes and to 

improve the quality of the data over time. As 

BLM scientists and resource specialists and 

external partners are talented, educated, and 

have a sophisticated understanding of the 

landscape, their collective professional expertise 

are important complements to these datasets. 

For example, internal and external professional 

expertise is vital for identifying relevant datasets 

and reconciling conflicting data or scientific 

conclusions.

5. Use transparent and collaborative methods that 

consider diverse perspectives.

BLM resource specialists and various partners 

bring strong scientific knowledge to the table 

during decisionmaking processes. When the 

BLM capitalizes on this type of knowledge, 

the BLM’s understanding of the landscape is 

strengthened. Partnerships among agencies, 

academia, and the public increase opportunities 

to develop a vast array of information and 

technological tools that help improve the 

understanding of the environment for all parties 

involved. Some of these tools include interactive 

geospatial platforms, conceptual models, and 

diverse datasets. The BLM embraces these 

partnerships as foundational to internal and 

external collaborative processes.

Goal 2: Ensure that relevant, timely scientific 

information is accessible to BLM staff and 

managers. 

It is widely recognized that there is a continuously 

growing reservoir of land management-related 

science, but it can be difficult to access in a timely 

manner and is often challenging to translate into 

management applications. ASIST members found 

that when the best available science is visible, 

accessible, and understandable, BLM professionals 

put it to use. The BLM and its science partners 

can do a better job of sharing information about 

relevant scientific findings, demonstrating the 

application and integration of science into BLM 

work, and focusing scientific undertakings on the 

most compelling management questions.

Some key elements of applying science to BLM 

core work processes include educating BLM 

employees on the most current science, staying 

abreast of emerging science, and teaching how 

to apply this knowledge. To accomplish this, the 

BLM should reinvest in employees and showcase 

their successes, internally and externally, in 

science-land management integration. As the 

public challenges the BLM to use the best available 

science, developing protocols and maintaining 

employee expertise will enable the BLM to evaluate 

and determine the best available science for the 

management decision being made or problem 

being solved.

Because the BLM sometimes relies on outside 

entities to develop and deliver science, cultivating 

and sustaining science partnerships is vital. 

The BLM can build on the many fine examples 

of such partnerships that help frame scientific 

investigations, that are responsive to management 

questions, and that use current technologies such 

as geospatial analyses and web-based information 

sharing to deliver science results. Interactive and 

ongoing partnerships that foster dialogue and realtime information sharing between managers and 

scientists have proven to be most effective. The BLM 

should continue to engage in partnerships that align 

science activities with BLM management needs 

and produce results that can be readily accessed, 

interpreted, and applied by BLM managers and staff.
6 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

To leverage the BLM’s limited resources along 

with those of its science partners and to wisely 

invest in employee development, it will continue 

to be important for the BLM to identify and 

communicate priority science needs. This has 

been an elusive undertaking for the BLM and will 

take committed leadership to reach measurable 

improvement. Science leadership within the 

BLM will be established through designation of a 

National Science Committee tied to the ELT (see 

Appendix 2). This committee will have a role in 

developing geographic or project-oriented science 

plans and strategies, such as those pioneered on 

National Conservation Lands, and strengthening 

communities of practice through existing science 

partnerships and additional forums for science 

information sharing. 

Data and the use of modern technologies for 

managing data to be dynamic, accessible, and 

usable underpin the ability to integrate science 

into management decisions. By continuing to 

invest in and improve the BLM’s outcomes in 

data management and technology, the goals of 

advancing science will be better realized. 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 7

Conclusion

The BLM can make significant strides in advancing 

science by committing to two focused goals and 

a series of associated implementation strategies 

and actions that will build science principles 

and practices into daily work at all levels of the 

organization. With a focused commitment toward 

implementation of the plan, the best available 

science can become more visible, accessible, and 

useful for BLM managers. The BLM can build upon 

many successes and lessons learned from creative 

and capable employees who have pioneered and 

demonstrated effective integration of science into 

daily work at all scales (see Appendix 1). 

As the BLM achieves its goals and more consistently 

applies the principles and practices of scienceinformed land management, decisionmakers 

will routinely, and with greater ease, consult 

and contemplate the best available scientific 

understanding when undergoing a decisionmaking 

process. With increased transparency in the 

application of science to inform management 

decisions, “lack of science” will less likely be a focal 

point for litigation, and science will be more clearly 

documented in NEPA analyses. BLM leadership and 

employees will strive to stay current with up-todate science and collaborate with existing science 

partners to deliberately pursue, communicate, and 

use science as a part of daily work. The BLM can 

become a more visible leader in advancing science 

as science-informed land management becomes 

more transparent across the entire agency.
8 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Science Action Plan

Goal 1: Ensure effective and consistent 

science integration into the BLM’s core work 

processes.

Strategy 1.1. Adopt, publish, and communicate 

the five principles and practices for more 

consistent science integration into land 

management core work processes. 

Actions:

1. Implement a rollout plan to familiarize all 

employees with the principles and practices of 

successful science integration. The plan could 

include products such as videos/webinars, BLM 

Daily feature articles, a fact sheet, an instruction 

memorandum, and an endorsement message 

from the BLM Director and ELT.

Lead: ASIST and the Communications 

Directorate (WO-600)

Timeframe: 2nd quarter FY 2015

2. Conduct a pilot NEPA analysis that showcases 

the application of the five principles and 

practices of successful science integration 

and undergoes appropriate peer review, in 

partnership with a key BLM science provider. 

This pilot could serve as a model for future NEPA 

analyses as well as demonstrate how to establish 

a strong scientific basis for the monitoring, 

adaptive management, and mitigation that 

result from NEPA analyses.

Lead: Division of Decision Support, Planning, 

and NEPA (WO-210), National Operations Center, 

and a BLM state (to be determined)

Timeframe: FY 2015

3. Incorporate the principles and practices 

of successful science integration into BLM 

program-specific policies and processes 

including: planning, regional mitigation, 

monitoring, NEPA, Healthy Lands Initiative, 

Joint Fire Science Program, range, fuels, 

fire, NLCS, wildlife, minerals, realty, etc. The 

National Science Committee (see Appendix 

2) will oversee coordination across initiatives 

and programs and track progress of the 

implementation schedule.

Lead: Renewable Resources and Planning 

Directorate (WO-200); Energy, Minerals, and 

Realty Management Directorate (WO-300); and 

NLCS and Community Partnerships Directorate 

(WO-400) Deputy Assistant Directors and 

Division Chiefs will develop and implement a 

schedule.

Timeframe: FY 2015 through FY 2017

4. Produce a technical guide and associated online 

training modules with explanations on how 

the five principles and practices of science are 

applied in land management. This guide will 

showcase effective examples of science-land 

management integration involving partnerships 

at various scales.

Lead: National Operations Center Division 

of Resource Services, in conjunction with the 

National Training Center. Oversight provided by 

the National Science Committee.

Funding Consideration: Consider short-term 

funding for additional capacity to support this 

effort.

Timeframe: FY 2015 through FY 2017

5. Develop a comprehensive science manual to 

provide the BLM with the policy necessary to 

effectively coordinate and implement scienceinformed land management in the BLM.

Lead: Renewable Resources and Planning 

Directorate (WO-200) and NLCS and Community 

The following action plan is a timely and realistic approach for the BLM to strengthen the building 

blocks for science integration and internalize best practices across the agency. Leadership 

commitment to these actions will advance science-informed land management and make 

significant progress toward meeting the two goals described in this implementation strategy.
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 9

Partnerships Directorate (WO-400) science 

coordinators, with support and oversight from 

the National Science Committee. 

Timeframe: Complete by 4th quarter FY 2016.

Strategy 1.2. Promote continuity of the 

science-land management integration culture 

throughout the agency and over time.

Actions:

1. Establish a National Science Committee (see 

Appendix 2) tied to the ELT to advance the 

science-land management integration culture, 

actively coordinate across the BLM’s science 

activities (e.g., Joint Fire Science Program, 

National Conservation Lands science strategies, 

etc.), interface with external science partners 

(e.g., Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units, 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, and 

other science agencies), and bring operational 

leadership to all components of this strategy. 

Lead: ELT

Timeframe: 2nd quarter FY 2015

2. Promote the establishment of scientifically 

trained science coordinators/advisors in each 

state and in the WO-300 Directorate (either 

full time or collateral duty) to develop and 

communicate new policies and procedures, 

communicate science-land management 

integration successes, and help identify and 

communicate science needs priorities. 

Lead: ELT and Field Committee members at their 

discretion

Funding Consideration: Consider allocating 

funding to support this function through WO 

directives in FY 2017, and leverage BLM money 

with Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

money. 

Timeframe: Ongoing. Designate individuals by 

the end of FY 2016.

Goal 2: Ensure that relevant, timely scientific 

information is accessible to BLM staff and

managers.

Strategy 2.1. Communicate and translate new 

science results and science-land management 

integration successes. 

Actions:

1. Establish the BLM “Science One-Stop” website 

to more broadly and consistently communicate 

relevant science results, examples of scienceland management integration, and science 

partnerships on a routine basis (e.g., access to 

relevant scientific journals, monthly science 

Wednesdays on the BLM Daily, webinars, online 

monthly/quarterly BLM science publications, 

technical notes, science-land management 

integration resources/links). Systematically 

implement these online through a 3-year 

work plan to communicate science results 

and highlights. This would be accomplished 

by working closely with science providers 

(e.g., Joint Fire Science Program, Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives, Climate Science 

Centers, U.S. Geological Survey, Cooperative 

Ecosystem Studies Units, etc.). Scientific journal 

access is also available through the BLM Library 

(www.blm.gov/library/) and the DOI Library 

(www.doi.gov/library/electronic/index.cfm).

Lead: National Operations Center (with the 

National Science Committee)

Timeframe: Continue to evolve from the BLM 

Library website. Complete 3-year plan by 4th 

quarter FY 2015.

2. Develop standard language that can be 

incorporated into partner agreements and 

contracts that require data management 

plans and science results. The standard 

language should clearly establish that products 

address management questions, should be 

understandable to managers, and should be 

applicable to land management.

Lead: Renewable Resources and Planning 

Directorate (WO-200) and NLCS and Community 

Partnerships Directorate (WO- 400) science 

coordinators, in collaboration with contract 
10 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

specialists. Develop and distribute language and 

guidance via an information bulletin.

Timeframe: FY 2015

Strategy 2.2. Strengthen communities of 

practice, employee skills, and partnerships.

Actions:

1. Promote BLM state and regional science 

roundtables/forums through Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives and existing 

scientific meetings to share new science results, 

share successes of science integration, showcase 

effective partnerships, establish internal 

advocacy and enthusiasm for science, and 

continue to build partnerships. This could be 

further advanced by allocating funding through 

a competitive funding process overseen by the 

National Science Committee and funded out of 

the WO.

Lead: State Directors/Deputy State Directors

Funding Consideration: Consider funding 

three competitive proposals each year (FY 2017 

through FY 2020).

Timeframe: Ongoing and as opportunities arise

2. Recommit to employee technical training 

and staff attendance at scientific meetings 

and conferences to maintain currency and 

knowledge of best available science and build 

connections with their professional communities 

of practice. This could be facilitated through 

incentives, awards, direction in the annual work 

plan directives, and messaging through the BLM 

Director and ELT.

Lead: National Science Committee, WO program 

leaders, and all supervisors

Timeframe: Initiate in FY 2016 program 

directives.

3. At the national level, reinstitute routine 

coordination with the U.S. Geological Survey 

(DOI’s science agency) to communicate the 

BLM’s priority science needs, develop joint 

budget proposals, and leverage limited 

resources toward BLM priorities. Initiate via 

a 2-day workshop with the BLM and USGS 

leadership to reestablish relationships and 

draft a framework (possibly a memorandum of 

understanding) for coordination.

Lead: Renewable Resources and Planning 

Directorate (WO-200) and NLCS and Community 

Partnerships Directorate (WO-400) science 

coordinators, in conjunction with the National 

Science Committee

Timeframe: Initiate 2nd quarter FY 2015; 

complete framework by 4th quarter FY 2015.

4. Strengthen BLM engagement with science 

partners at all levels of the agency by explicitly 

designating science liaisons with partners 

(such as Cooperative Ecosystem Studies 

Units, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, 

universities, etc.).

Lead: Members of the Deputy State Director’s 

group (WO Division Chiefs and Deputy State 

Directors for Resources and Minerals)

Timeframe: Ongoing

5. Strengthen BLM scientific engagement with 

the public by piloting a citizen science program 

with the NLCS, with the aim of instilling citizen 

science as standard practice across the BLM.

Lead: NLCS and Community Partnerships 

Directorate (WO-400) science coordinator

Timeframe: Ongoing

Strategy 2.3. Identify and prioritize the changing 

needs of scientific information. 

Actions:

1. Identify and prioritize science needs annually, 

and make recommendations to the ELT and WO 

on funding priorities.

Lead: National Science Committee, in 

conjunction with Deputy State Directors/WO 

Division Chiefs

Funding Considerations: Continue to allow 

for discretionary investments in science at the 

regional, state, and field office levels. Once the 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 11

National Science Committee has developed 

an effective prioritization process, consider 

allocating funding from across subactivities in 

support of science priorities recommended to 

the ELT.

Timeframe: Initiate with FY 2016 annual work 

plan and budget.

2. Establish clear priorities for the National 

Operations Center Division of Resource Services, 

and recommend funding allocations as the 

division coordinates and provides capacity 

to work across administrative boundaries at 

landscape scales (e.g., Sage-Grouse Cumulative 

Effects Analysis and Baseline Environmental 

Report, REAs, AIM Strategy, regional mitigation 

strategies).

Lead: National Science Committee, in 

conjunction with Deputy State Directors/WO 

Division Chiefs

Timeframe: Initiate with FY 2016 annual work 

plan and budget.

Strategy 2.4. Strengthen technology and

data support. 

Actions:

1. Support the BLM’s GIS Transformation Project, 

the outcome of which is to serve geospatial 

data in a web-based environment founded on a 

common architecture and made readily available 

to the public and BLM partners and employees. 

To the greatest extent possible, the BLM will 

use and leverage already existing datasets and 

web-based analytical tools developed by the 

scientific community. 

Lead: Geospatial Steering Committee

Timeframe: Continue ongoing efforts.

2. Advance tools and knowledge for growing 

remote sensing technologies to increase 

access to multiscale data and information (e.g., 

unmanned aerial systems, satellite imagery, and 

3D close range photogrammetry).

Lead: Renewable Resources and Planning 

Directorate (WO-200), National Operations 

Center, and states

Timeframe: Continue ongoing efforts.

3. Continue the development of national data 

standards and datasets, and identify gaps 

needed for science-based conceptual models 

and analyses.

Lead: Data Advisory Committee

Timeframe: Continue ongoing efforts.

Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 13

Appendix 1:

Case Studies that Exemplify the Principles and

Practices of Effective Scientific Integration in the BLM

The brief descriptions of projects and activities in this appendix provide a snapshot of a few of the many 

examples of science integration across the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The purpose of showcasing 

these case studies is not to provide a recipe for how science could or should be applied; rather, the intent is 

to give the reader a flavor for how science serves an important role in the successful management of diverse 

programs across many geographical areas. Links to additional articles and publications related to the case 

studies can be found in Appendix 3: Bibliography and Suggested Reading. 

CASE STUDY #1

PROJECT NAME

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar 

Energy Zone

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the BLM finalized a solar energy program plan (“Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar 

Energy Development in Six Southwestern States”) for utilityscale (20 megawatt or greater) solar energy development 

on BLM lands in six southwestern states: Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.

Under the program, the BLM categorized lands excluded from 

development (about 79 million acres) and identified locations 

well suited for utility-scale production of solar energy (solar 

energy zones, or SEZs) where the BLM proposes to prioritize 

development (about 285,000 acres). The program encourages 

development within the SEZs, although development may 

occur outside of the SEZs under special circumstances.

Regardless of where development takes place, the BLM requires developers to design projects to avoid, 

minimize, and compensate for adverse impacts on resources of concern.

PROJECT SUMMARY

In support of the solar energy program plan, the BLM developed a regional mitigation strategy for the 

Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone in southern Nevada to guide the application of avoidance, minimization, and 

compensatory mitigation for impacts from solar energy development in Dry Lake. This prototype mitigation 

strategy is being used to guide similar regional mitigation strategies for the additional SEZs in the six western 

states. 

The process used in developing the mitigation strategy and the strategy itself exemplify the principles and 

practices identified in “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy.”
14 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Use the best available scientific knowledge relevant to the problem or decision being addressed, relying on 

peer-reviewed literature when it exists.

The peer-reviewed scientific information contained in the BLM’s rapid ecoregional assessment (REA) 

substantially informed the development of the regional mitigation strategy. The REA data was the most 

thorough and applicable of the available scientific data and provided an important regional perspective. 

REA data layers on land cover and landscape intactness formed the baseline condition in the SEZ. REA data 

layers also helped identify problematic regional trends for specific resources and subsequently informed 

determinations about which resources warranted compensatory mitigation. 

Recognize the dynamic and interrelated nature of the socioecological systems within which the BLM operates.

The BLM developed systems-based conceptual models of ecosystem interactions. These models helped build 

an understanding of the role that resources, individually and together, play in the function of the relevant 

ecological, social, and cultural systems. These models helped BLM staff and stakeholder partners understand 

how resource impacts of solar energy development will impact the ecological, social, and cultural systems of 

the Dry Lake area. The models also helped identify the mitigation actions necessary to offset those resource 

impacts and the monitoring necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the mitigation actions. The BLM used an 

iterative process with its stakeholders in developing the models. 

Acknowledge, describe, and document assumptions and uncertainties.

The models used to support the regional mitigation strategy documented the BLM’s assumptions about 

the relevant ecosystem interactions in a very open and public manner. As the models were built through an 

iterative process, there was an explicit acknowledgment of uncertainty in the BLM’s understanding. That is, 

understanding how hydrology affects soil, which in turn affects vegetation. This takes an immense amount 

of ecological understanding, some of which has yet to be researched. Therefore, the BLM openly discussed 

these unknown aspects and relied on hypotheses (i.e., educated guesses) of these relationships to inform the 

understanding. As more information is gathered, the models can be refined and improved.

Use quantitative data when it exists, in combination with internal and external professional scientific expertise.

By using the BLM’s REAs as the primary data source, the regional mitigation strategy relies explicitly on 

quantitative data. Expert opinion helped inform the conceptual model and important resource conditions 

and trends as a supplement to the quantitative understanding. For example, expert opinion was essential for 

defining the ecological relationships where there were gaps in scientific understanding.

Use transparent and collaborative methods that consider diverse perspectives.

The process to develop the regional mitigation strategy involved extensive outreach and engagement with 

all interested stakeholders and included four workshops, several web-based meetings, and opportunities 

to comment on preliminary and draft versions of methodologies and strategies. Workshops included field 

visits and discussions of regional conditions and trends, the use of mapping tools and data, and monitoring. 

All presentations (and additional information) from the workshops and webinars were posted on a public 

website. The BLM’s data (e.g., the REAs) were available to all stakeholders, and the BLM welcomed submissions 

of data from the stakeholders.
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 15

CASE STUDY #2

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE 

CONSERVATION PLANNING EFFORT

The Greater Sage-Grouse conservation 

planning effort and subsequent 

implementation is a collaborative 

process that applies the principles and 

practices of “Advancing Science in the 

BLM: An Implementation Strategy.” 

The overall objective of the planning 

effort was for the BLM and the U.S. 

Forest Service to respond to explicit 

management questions about managing 

lands and land uses to conserve 

Greater Sage-Grouse and its habitat. 

Scientific information and spatial data 

were synthesized at various scales and 

integrated into a large-scale planning 

project to address the threats to the species and its habitat. The table on the next page outlines the primary 

management questions, demonstrates how the best available science was incorporated throughout the core 

work processes, and identifies the scale from which scientific information was used and applied in analyses. 

Documents and reports referenced in the table can be accessed through links provided in Appendix 3. 

In addition to incorporating scientific information from several reports to inform management alternatives 

and decisions, the BLM took a systems approach by focusing on biologically significant units rather than 

traditional administrative boundaries. Objectives were analyzed and determined in the context of priority 

habitats, sage-grouse management zones, and populations as defined by interagency teams. A wide range 

of conservation measures contained in the various alternatives in the NEPA documents were analyzed in a 

geospatial data-rich process to determine the effects of the actions and cumulative effects to sage-grouse. 

The assumptions and uncertainties were clearly acknowledged and because there are known gaps in the 

science and understanding, the BLM, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborated to 

establish science-based monitoring methods that are cross-program, standardized, scalable, and defensible. 

These were incorporated into a Greater Sage-Grouse Monitoring Framework which will facilitate the 

collection of quantitative data and improve the understanding of the habitat condition and trends. As 

plans are implemented, the collaborative and transparent methods will better position the BLM and its land 

management partners to apply effective mitigation regionally and adapt management as necessary. 
16 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Table. Outline displaying how primary management questions and science were applied to the Greater Sage-Grouse conservation planning effort

Management Questions Applied Science Work Process Scale

What are the threats to 

sage-grouse?

1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listing decision identifies threats 

based on literature.

ASSESS Rangewide

2. BLM and state agencies delineate priority habitat based on lek data. ASSESS Rangewide

3. The BLM and U.S. Geological Survey provide an environmental baseline 

report, displaying location and magnitude of threats and the EIS-affected 

environment. 

ASSESS Broad/Mid, Rangewide

How can the BLM 

ameliorate threats?

4. The National Technical Team (BLM and USFWS) provide alternatives to 

ameliorate threats.

PLANNING Rangewide

5. For the EIS effects analysis, evaluate alternatives to conservation objectives. PLANNING Populations

6. Provide the EIS cumulative effects analysis with biological context. PLANNING WAWFA

7. The EIS record of decision provides the BLM’s decisions regarding 

allocations, opportunities, and constraints. 

PLANNING Local, Regional

Are BLM decisions meeting 

objectives?

8. The BLM, USFWS, and U.S. Forest Service provide monitoring framework 

methods for sagebrush and disturbance monitoring at multiple scales.

IMPLEMENTATION Multiscale

9. The BLM, USFWS, and states provide a regional mitigation strategy, which 

balances threats and tradeoffs across a landscape. 

IMPLEMENTATION Multiscale

10. BLM, states: Adaptive Management and EIS. Science-based conceptual 

models, triggers, and thresholds. 

IMPLEMENTATION Multiscale
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 17

CASE STUDY #3

PROJECT NAME

Adaptive Grazing Management 

in Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area

PROJECT SUMMARY

The BLM’s resource management 

plan for Las Cienegas National 

Conservation Area includes an 

adaptive biological planning 

process that relies on monitoring 

data to inform grazing management. This adaptive process exemplifies the principles and practices identified 

in “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy.”

Use the best available scientific knowledge relevant to the problem or decision being addressed, relying on 

peer-reviewed literature when it exists.

The biological planning process for grazing management at Las Cienegas is based upon monitoring data 

collected in the conservation area—data on precipitation, ecological site condition, riparian and aquatic 

condition, and vegetation trends. The BLM has refined collection protocols over time to meet best scientific 

principles and to become better connected to the understanding gained from the conceptual model. 

Recognize the dynamic and interrelated nature of the socioecological systems within which the BLM operates.

A systems-based conceptual model is used to guide the understanding of the semidesert grasslands that 

comprise Las Cienegas in order to inform the BLM and stakeholders about the connection on the landscape 

and to make sense of monitoring data.

Acknowledge, describe, and document assumptions and uncertainties.

As the biological planning process is cyclical in nature and based on adaptive management principles, 

acknowledging assumptions and uncertainties is a necessary part of the process. Furthermore, the use of 

a conceptual model is a very effective form of documenting the BLM’s assumptions about the ecological 

processes working on the landscape.

Use quantitative data when it exists, in combination with internal and external professional scientific expertise.

Quantitative monitoring data are at the core of the process, but these data are interpreted and understood 

based on the collective professional expertise of the BLM and stakeholders.

Use transparent and collaborative methods that consider diverse perspectives.

While the responsibility for management actions remains with the BLM, the Las Cienegas biological planning 

process is built around stakeholder engagement, with stakeholders helping to set and refine goals and 

objectives and collect and interpret data. More specifically, under the auspices of the Arizona Resource 

Advisory Council, a diverse team of stakeholders helps the BLM review data and provide recommendations on 

proposed management actions.
18 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

CASE STUDY #4

PROJECT NAME

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative: 

LaBarge Mule Deer Habitat Case Study

BACKGROUND

Southwestern Wyoming has seen the pace 

of energy and urban development increase 

significantly in the 21st century with a 

potential of diminishing wildlife habitat, 

recreational opportunities, and quality of 

life. The need to address these and other 

landscape-level changes prompted federal, 

state, and local agencies to create the 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 

(WLCI) in 2007. The initiative is a long-term 

science-based program designed to enhance 

wildlife habitat, maintain open spaces, and 

facilitate responsible energy development and 

other land uses.

The initiative spans the entire southwestern 

corner of Wyoming and is primarily driven by 

a number of local project development teams. 

These teams use the best available science 

and professional expertise to cooperatively 

implement projects to address identified 

needs for wildlife habitat and other resources 

on a landscape scale. Although planned and 

implemented locally, projects are designed 

using a systems approach so that they fit 

within an overall science framework and are compatible with work being undertaken by other local working 

groups under the larger umbrella of the WLCI.

Projects are also designed to benefit a diversity of species, including sage-grouse. Through continual learning, 

adaptive management, and cooperation, project participants can modify the work as needed to ensure their 

efforts meet local project goals, as well as contribute to the overall objectives of the initiative.

Local project development teams may include scientists, biologists, range managers, district conservation 

staff, landowners, county commissioners, and other interested parties. The idea is to move away from smaller, 

isolated conservation projects and to, instead, design local cooperative projects that contribute to shared 

objectives and broad-scale ecological benefits.

PROJECT SUMMARY

The LaBarge habitat improvement project developed by the Sublette Project Development Team is a prime 

example of a project that applied the principles and practices described in “Advancing Science in the BLM: 

An Implementation Strategy.” The purpose of the project is to seek to understand and reverse declines in the 

Focus areas for Wyoming Range mule deer crucial winter range

habitat projects near Big Piney and LaBarge in western Wyoming.
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 19

LaBarge mule deer population by addressing habitat needs throughout its range. The population’s range 

spans about 200 square miles, from upper elevation summer habitat, through transitional ranges, to lower 

elevation winter habitat near the town of LaBarge. Portions of this migratory route have been affected by 

energy development and other land uses. During the past decade, the mule deer population and mule deer 

habitat have been declining, but the reasons are not understood.

One key component of the LaBarge habitat improvement project is assessing the condition of mountain 

shrub patches (i.e., mountain mahogany, serviceberry, chokecherry, and sagebrush) and the influence of 

targeted vegetation treatments on the LaBarge mule deer population. Shrub patches are heavily browsed 

and not regenerating in some areas. The role of oil and gas operations, as well as other land uses, in mule deer 

behavior or population declines remains unknown. 

Project collaborators assembled the best available science, taking advantage of a wealth of data and intensive 

monitoring from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, the Wyoming Range Mule Deer Habitat Project, 

and numerous assessments. These assessments include a 20-year mountain shrub monitoring project by the 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, a comprehensive landscape habitat assessment conducted by the 

Teton Science Schools, and the mapping and modeling of mountain shrub patches by the U.S. Geological 

Survey.

Data from these studies will help partners revise and prescribe vegetation treatments targeted to optimize 

access to the nutrients mule deer need during seasonal and life stages. The analysis also will help identify 

possible future mitigation actions for energy companies or other land users operating within or near 

important habitat areas. 

The BLM and Wyoming Game and Fish Department are already assessing and monitoring the vegetation 

treatments, which include prescribed burns and mechanical techniques to diversify sagebrush stand structure 

and increase understory herbaceous plants, remove cheatgrass at lower elevations, and regenerate aspen at 

higher elevations. Two levels of effectiveness monitoring are used: (1) at a project level, after treatment has 

been implemented, to see how vegetation responded and if mule deer and other animals are using the forage; 

and (2) at a landscape level, looking for indicators of habitat condition and regeneration of shrubs on treated 

and untreated mountain shrub patches. Future monitoring will include mapping oil and gas development 

clusters to help determine what, if any, influence they may have on migration patterns.

Team members of the LaBarge habitat improvement plan acknowledge that assumptions and uncertainties 

will continue to exist but will be reduced over time as effectiveness monitoring continues and new data are 

collected. Local team members and BLM resource specialists continue to integrate science activities with 

conservation planning and decisionmaking, working with the U.S. Geological Survey, Wyoming Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Wyoming, and others. Appendix 3 provides links to documents 

with more specific detail.
20 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

CASE STUDY #5

PROJECT NAME

Biological Soil Crust Forum, Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument

PROJECT SUMMARY

Public scoping for a monument 

management plan amendment 

to address livestock grazing at 

Grand Staircase-Escalante National 

Monument identified gaps in basic 

knowledge about biological soil 

crusts or cryptogamic soils, one 

of the monument’s key resources. 

The monument developed a 

unique approach—a Biological 

Soil Crust Forum—that combined 

elements of joint fact finding, 

collaborative issue identification, 

and public involvement to create 

an environment of enhanced trust 

and shared understanding that 

has enabled the planning process 

to move ahead. The Biological Soil 

Crust Forum, a 1-day, three-session 

audience-participation event in 

which a panel of five experts fielded 

questions from stakeholders and 

from a public audience, focused on biological soil crust distribution, condition, and potential for restoration. 

The “science forum” process could be adapted for use in other situations in which scientific understanding of 

key resources is not broadly shared, is scant, or is rapidly evolving. This project exemplifies the principles and 

practices identified in “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy.”

Use the best available scientific knowledge relevant to the problem or decision being addressed, relying on 

peer-reviewed literature when it exists.

The science forum approach gave the monument the opportunity to share information on biological soil 

crusts with a broad audience composed of ranchers and permittees; land managers; county and state agency 

representatives, including planners and resource specialists; BLM resource specialists; environmental groups 

and conservationists; and the numerous individuals and organizations that had provided extensive comments 

regarding the critical nature of biological soil crusts during public scoping. Many scoping comments drew the 

BLM’s attention to peer-reviewed literature; others relied on information about biological soil crusts drawn 

from personal experience and observation, unpublished research, and ongoing field studies. The peerreviewed literature available on biological soil crusts did not always address the management questions the 

BLM faces in managing the monument; the science forum approach allowed the BLM and the public to ask the 

literature authors questions directly. 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 21

Acknowledge, describe, and document assumptions and uncertainties.

The science forum concept acknowledges, describes, and documents assumptions and uncertainties 

explicitly through the collaborative development of management questions and the act of addressing critical 

management questions in a public forum. The forum approach gives the BLM the opportunity to be very 

upfront about the value, limits, and underpinnings of the scientific knowledge currently available on narrowly 

focused topics.

Use quantitative data when it exists, in combination with internal and external professional scientific expertise.

The science forum approach is one method for building professional expertise among BLM staff; the forum 

“leverages” scientific understanding and staff by tapping into a pool of expertise that is acknowledged to 

include the “best available” scientists when there is insufficient “best available science” to resolve public 

concerns over data. 

Use transparent and collaborative methods that consider diverse perspectives.

The process the monument used to develop the biological soil crust forum relied on collaboration and public 

participation in four arenas: identifying the issue, identifying relevant management questions, identifying 

appropriate expertise, and sharing expertise in a public forum. 

1. Use a collaborative approach to issue identification. The issue revolved around whether or not livestock 

grazing could be managed to meet the goals of preserving the monument’s important ecological values in 

general and protecting the fragile cryptobiotic crusts in particular. The public scoping process brought this 

issue to the forefront. 

2. Use a collaborative approach to identify critical management questions necessary for the development of a 

robust suite of management alternatives. The monument worked with stakeholders, cooperating agencies, soil 

scientists, land managers, and livestock grazing permittees to craft questions addressing what the BLM now 

knows about the distribution and condition of biological soil crusts in the planning area, what the BLM knows 

about how crusts respond to disturbance and to restoration, and what the BLM would like to know about 

biological soil crusts for the management of livestock grazing in the years ahead. These questions were shared 

with scientific experts, including those who eventually were selected to serve as panel experts during the 

forum itself. 

3. Use a collaborative approach to identify scientific experts. The panel of five scientific experts on biological 

soil crust was developed by and agreed upon among the stakeholders, a team identified by the cooperating 

agencies, key ranchers and grazing permit holders, and the monument staff. The panel included universitybased scientists and scientists based in other agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. 

Forest Service; all had conducted field studies on the monument or in very similar settings, published research 

in peer-reviewed journals, or made presentations at national conferences, and all held PhDs in soil science, 

lichenology, or a closely related field. 

4. Ensure public involvement in the forum. The forum was held in a public meeting space at a local library and 

was broadcast live using the BLM National Training Center live-streaming expertise. The public attending the 

forum, both in person and via webcast/livestream, was invited to submit written questions during each of the 

three sessions; the panel of five scientists fielded these questions live during the forum. The public attending 

the forum in person was also invited to address any lingering questions to the panel on camera immediately 

following the final session of the day. Altogether, the panel fielded more than 50 questions during the forum, 

including questions that were shared with the panel in advance and questions that came in during the 

sessions. The entire forum was recorded and captured digitally and is available for reference by the BLM and 

the public. 
22 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Appendix 2:

Bureau of Land Management 

 National Science Committee

In June 2014, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM’s) Executive Leadership Team (ELT) approved the 

establishment of a National Science Committee (NSC) as the focal group to execute the ideas put forth in the 

document titled “Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy” (Implementation Strategy).

Vision

The BLM is a resource management agency that uses science as one of the critical inputs in its decisionmaking 

processes at every level. BLM managers and specialists deliberately obtain and apply mission-oriented science 

in every office, in every program, and in every project. 

Mission Statement

The mission of the NSC is to lead the BLM’s ongoing efforts to advance science and integrate science into daily 

work as a sound and defensible foundation for informing the BLM’s decisionmaking. In accordance with the 

Implementation Strategy, the NSC embraces the two following goals:

1. Ensure effective and consistent science integration into the BLM’s core work processes.

2. Ensure that relevant, timely scientific information is accessible to BLM staff and managers.

Purpose and Jurisdiction:

The NSC will: 

1. Oversee progress of the Science Action Plan as outlined in the Implementation Strategy. Biannually 

report progress to the ELT.

2. Make recommendations to the ELT regarding funding allocations to advance science in the BLM.

3. Advise and make recommendations to BLM management and staff on how scientific knowledge can 

be integrated into work processes, policies, and priorities. 

4. Facilitate development of policy, technical references, information sharing tools, and training to 

support the advancement of science within the BLM.

• Advise BLM management and staff on scientific integrity issues.

• Pursue opportunities to develop and access relevant science for management decisions.

5. Promote science-management partnerships. 

Direction and Accountability (reports to and receives direction from)

The NSC reports to the ELT via the NSC Chairperson and the Deputy Director for Operations. An Associate State 

Director serves as the Committee Chairperson (Chair). The National Science Coordinator (WO-200) serves as 

the Co-Chairperson (Co-Chair).
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 23

Committee Membership (13 voting members, 2 external advisors)

Members:

• Associate State Director (Chair) 

• BLM National Science Coordinator (WO-200) (Co-Chair) 

• 2 Deputy Assistant Directors (DADs) from: Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200); Energy, 

Minerals, and Realty Management (WO-300); National Landscape Conservation System and 

Community Partnerships (WO-400)

• Chief of the Division of Resource Services, National Operations Center

• 1 Deputy State Director (DSD) for Resources and Minerals - selected by the DSDs group

• Joint Fire Science Program representative - selected by the National Interagency Fire Center

• Director of the National Training Center

• District Manager – selected by the Field Committee

• Field Manager – selected by the Field Committee 

• 3 BLM field-based scientists (representing renewable and nonrenewable resources)

Advisors:

• 2 external agency scientists (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, Landscape Conservation Cooperatives/U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, U.S. Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service, Department of Defense)

• Science advisors from WO-400, National Operations Center, and WO-300 (if established)

• Communications advisor from WO-600 to advise and support internal and external communications

Members serve 3-year terms in order to maintain continuity. Due to normal turnover within the

organization, it is anticipated that there will be change in membership at least annually. When a position is 

vacated, the NSC Chair will recruit a replacement for the position vacated within 3 months, with concurrence 

from the Deputy Director. Members must have approval from their supervisor.

Duties of the Chair: 

• Make final determinations on NSC agendas.

• Lead the committee in discussions and decisionmaking.

• Serve as liaison to the ELT and Field Committee, keeping them informed and making 

recommendations.

• Provide biannual reports to the ELT.

• Represent the NSC in external venues and meetings as opportunities arise.

Duties of the Co-Chair:

• Provide input on NSC meetings and agendas. 

• Alert and advise the NSC of science-related issues and events.

• Serve as liaison to and Chair of the Core Science Team, surfacing issues and recommendations from 

the Core Science Team to the NSC and vice versa.

• Receive and execute timely completion of assignments from the NSC in an agreed-upon manner.

• Represent the positions of the NSC both internally and externally.

• Serve as Chair in the Chair’s absence.
24 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Staff Support

Primary staff support (facilitator) for the NSC is provided by the Field Committee Resource Advisor. This 

support includes coordinating agendas, preparing NSC notes, documenting and tracking actions/assignments, 

coordinating with the Core Science Team, and other logistics as needed. 

Core Science Team 

The Core Science Team provides scientific and technical support to the NSC and assists with carrying out the 

NSC’s delegated work. The National Science Coordinator proposes members for the Core Science Team, and 

the NSC approves the membership. The BLM National Science Coordinator serves as both a member of and 

the Chairperson for the Core Science Team.

Subcommittees

The NSC may establish appropriate subcommittees to address issues and tasks as necessary. 

Coordinating Committees

The NSC, or as delegated to the Core Science Team, will coordinate with the following BLM science-related 

teams:

• National Operations Center Science Coordinator

• State Science Coordinators

• NLCS Science Advisory Team

• BLM Socioeconomic Team

• Joint Fire Science Program Science Coordinator

• Other relevant science-related teams

Charter Review

The charter will be reviewed by the ELT every 3 years. Minor changes will be approved at the Field Committee 

level; major changes will be recommended to the BLM Director for final approval.

Approved

___________________________________ _______________________

Director, Bureau of Land Management Date
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 25

By-Laws (Committee Operations)

Guidelines and Work Plans

The Implementation Strategy (2015) will serve as the initial action plan for the first 2 years of NSC operations. 

In subsequent years, a 2-year Science Action Plan will guide the work of the NSC. The NSC will review and 

update the plan annually.

Decisionmaking

The NSC makes decisions by consensus; if this is not feasible, decisions will be based upon a majority vote of 

the NSC members present, comprised of a minimum total of seven members. Decisions will be in the form 

of recommendations to the ELT, submitted via the Chair. They will be documented in meeting notes and 

prepared in the format of a recommendation with a rationale. Recommendations will be presented to the ELT 

for further action.

Meeting Schedule

The NSC convenes on a quarterly basis via conference call/video teleconference. They may choose to meet 

face-to-face to focus on substantial work assignments. At a minimum, the NSC will meet early in the calendar 

year to provide input regarding the preparation of the agency’s out-year budget proposals and again near the 

end of the fiscal year to prepare accomplishment reports for the ELT and determine priorities for the coming 

year. Subcommittees may meet at any time to work on specific NSC tasks.

Agenda Development 

Agendas will be developed under the leadership of the Chair, Co-chair, and Facilitator. A draft agenda will be 

developed by this core group and vetted 2 weeks prior to the meeting and vetted with the NSC members to 

add new items and adjust as needed. Background materials will be made available prior to the meeting in 

order to facilitate effective discussions and decisions.

Review and Revision of Operating Practices

These operating practices may be reviewed and revised by the NSC as needed at any time. No approvals for 

these revisions will be required.
26 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Appendix 3:

Bibliography and Suggested Reading

Publications Referenced in the Body of This Strategy

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Winning the Challenges of the Future: A Road Map for Success in 2016. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/socialmedia.Par.99057.File.dat/2016_report_ 

lowres.pdf.

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Activity Based Costing System, BLM Cost Management website. http://abc.blm.gov/

prodABC/#. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. BLM Performance: From the Field to the DOI Strategic Plan [PowerPoint slides]. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Training Center, Phoenix, AZ. http://www.ntc.

blm.gov/krc/uploads/611/ Audio_Forum_on_Performanc%20_KRC.pdf. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. Oyler-McCance, 

F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies That 

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Open-File Report 

2013–1098. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ 

of/2013/1098/OF13-1098.pdf. 

Suggested Reading and Publications Related to Case Studies 

Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone. Tech Note 444. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Southern Nevada District Office, Las Vegas, NV. http://

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.29872.File.dat/TN_444.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, DC. http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/fpeis/index.cfm. 

Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Planning Effort 

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044. BLM National Greater 

Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_ 

instruction/2012/IM_2012-044.html. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. BLM Library: Greater Sage-grouse Subject Guide. Online resource: http://www.blm.

gov/wo/st/en/info/blm-library/research/subject-guides/greater_sage-grouse_subj_guide.html. 

Manier, D.J., D.J.A. Wood, Z.H. Bowen, R.M. Donovan, M.J. Holloran, L.M. Juliusson, K.S. Mayne, S.J. Oyler-McCance, 

F.R. Quamen, D.J. Saher, and A.J. Titolo. 2013. Summary of Science, Activities, Programs, and Policies That 

Influence the Rangewide Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Open-File Report 

2013–1098. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management. http://pubs.usgs.gov/ 

of/2013/1098/OF13-1098.pdf. 

Sage-grouse National Technical Team. 2011. A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. https://www.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/projects/lup/9153/39961/41912/WySG_Tech-Team-Report-Conservation- Measure_2011.pdf. 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 27

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final 

Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. http://www.iwjv.org/sites/ 

default/files/cot-report-with-dear-interested-reader-letter.pdf. 

Adaptive Grazing Management in Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Approved Las Cienegas Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson Field Office, Tucson, AZ. http://www.blm.gov/ 

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/az/pdfs/nepa/library/resource_management.Par.73866.File.dat/LCROD-WEB.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Science and Adaptive Management at Las Cienegas National Conservation Area 

website. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS/wednesday_las_cienegas.print.html. 

Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership. http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/documents/ 

sonoitavalleypartnership.pdf. 

Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative 

Damm, P., and J. Randall. 2012. Wyoming Range Mule Deer Habitat Management Plan: Big Piney – LaBarge Area. Wyoming 

Game and Fish Department, Pinedale, WY. http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Wildlife/pdfs/WRMD_ 

HABITATPLAN_20110001869.pdf.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2013. Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative website. www.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/lcs/

projects/wlci.asp.

Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit and Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2014. Wyoming Range 

Mule Deer Project: 2014 Spring Update. University of Wyoming, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research 

Unit, Laramie, WY. Available upon request from the BLM Library. 

Suggested Reading on Related Topics (Strategies and Initiatives) 

Adaptive Management 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Missouri River Recovery Program: Effects Analysis 

website. http://moriverrecovery.usace.army.mil/mrrp/f?p=136:80:0::NO. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2008. Adaptive Management Implementation Policy. Departmental Manual, Part 522, 

Chapter 1. http://www.doi.gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/documents/3786dm.pdf. 

Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2009. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical 

Guide. U.S. Department of the Interior, Adaptive Management Working Group, Washington, DC. http://www.doi. 

gov/initiatives/AdaptiveManagement/TechGuide.pdf. 

Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy 

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Washington Office Information Bulletin No. 2012-080. Assessment, Inventory, 

and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy Update. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_ 

information/2012/IB_2012-080.html.

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Documents website. http://www.blm.

gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_ Approach/aim_documents.html. 
28 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

MacKinnon, W.C., J.W. Karl, G.R. Toevs, J.J. Taylor, M. Karl, C.S. Spurrier, and J.E. Herrick. 2011. BLM Core Terrestrial Indicators 

and Methods. Tech Note 440. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations 

Center, Denver, CO. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.83785.File. 

dat/TN_440.pdf. 

Taylor, J.J., E.J. Kachergis, G.R. Toevs, J.W. Karl, M.R. Bobo, M. Karl, S. Miller, and C.S. Spurrier. 2014. AIM-Monitoring: A 

Component of the BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy. Tech Note 445. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_notes.Par.24137.File.dat/TN_445.pdf. 

Toevs, G.R., J.J. Taylor, C.S. Spurrier, W.C. MacKinnon, and M.R. Bobo. 2011. Bureau of Land Management Assessment, 

Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy: For Integrated Renewable Resources Management. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/ib_attachments/2012.Par.53766.File.dat/IB2012- 

080_att1.pdf. 

Geospatial Services Strategic Plan 

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. Geospatial Services Strategic Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/

Planning_and_Renewable_Resources/gis.Par.33723.File.dat/Geospatial_Services_Strategic_ Plan.pdf. 

Healthy Lands Initiative 

43 CFR 4180.1, Fundamentals of rangeland health. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2004-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-2004- 

title43-vol2-sec4180-1.pdf. 

43 CFR 4180.2, Standards and guidelines for grazing administration: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-1998-title43- 

vol2/pdf/CFR-1998-title43-vol2-sec4180-2.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1998. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 98-91. Healthy Rangeland Initiative: 

Implementation of Standards and Guidelines. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. http://web.blm.gov/internal/wo-500/directives/public/fy98/im98-91.html. [Internal; accessible 

to BLM employees.]

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-124. Implementation of Land 

Health Reporting Data Standard: A New Standardized System for Reporting and Mapping Achievements in Land 

Health. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2012/IM_2012-124.html. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-124. Identification of Multiyear Funding Priorities and Consideration for Healthy Lands Focal Areas. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_ 

and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2014/IM_2014-124.html. 

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2009. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, 

Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume 1: Quick Start. Tech Ref 1734-8. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental 

Range, Las Cruces, NM. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs. Par.2949.File.

dat/TR_1734-08_Vol1.pdf. 

Herrick, J.E., J.W. Van Zee, K.M. Havstad, L.M. Burkett, and W.G. Whitford. 2009. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, 

Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. Volume 2: Design, supplementary methods, and interpretation. Tech Ref 

1734-8. USDA-ARS Jornada Experimental Range, Las Cruces, NM. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/ blm/

wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.41495.File.dat/TR_1734-08_Vol2.pdf. 
Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy 29

Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, version 4. Tech Ref 

1734-6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/

etc/medialib/blm/wo/blm_library/tech_refs.Par.10940.File.dat/TR_1734-06rev05.pdf. 

Landscape Approach 

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. The National Landscape Conservation System 15-Year Strategy 2010-2025: The 

Geography of Hope. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www. 

blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/Law_Enforcement/nlcs/strategies.Par.25079.File.dat/NLCS_Strategy.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Washington Office Information Bulletin No. 2012-058. The Bureau of Land 

Management’s Landscape Approach for Managing the Public Lands. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_ 

Bulletins/national_information/2012/IB_2012-058.html. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. National 15-Year NLCS Strategy and State Step-Down Strategies website: http://www.

blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_ special_areas/NLCS/nlcs_resources_/state_strategies.html. 

Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. 2014. Joint Fire Science Program Investment Strategy 2014. U.S. 

Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, Joint Fire Science Program, Boise, ID. http://www.firescience.gov/

documents/JFSP_Investment_ Strategy_2014.pdf. 

Planning 

Bureau of Land Management. 2005. BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Land Use Planning Handbook. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/ 

Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.38665.File.dat/h1601-1.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2008. BLM Handbook H-1790-1, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/

medialib/ blm/wo/Information_Resources_Management/policy/blm_handbook.Par.24487.File.dat/h1790-1-

2008-1.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Planning 2.0: Improving the Way We Plan Together website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/

st/en/prog/planning/planning_ overview/planning_2_0.html. 

Rapid Ecoregional Assessments 

Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-082. Use of Regional Assessments. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/ 

info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2013/IM_2013-082.html. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Rapid Ecoregional Assessments Documents website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

prog/more/Landscape_ Approach/reas/docs.html. 

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Rapid Ecoregional Assessments website: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/

Landscape_Approach/reas.html.

Bureau of Land Management. 2014. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-125. Incorporating Landscape 

Assessments into the Land Use Planning and Project-level Decision-making Processes. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, DC. http://web.blm.gov/internal/wo-500/directives/dir-14/ 

im2014-125.html. [Internal; accessible to BLM employees.]
30 Advancing Science in the BLM: An Implementation Strategy

Regional Mitigation 

Bureau of Land Management. 2013. Washington Office Instruction Memorandum 2013-142. Interim Policy, Draft – 

Regional Mitigation Manual Section - 1794. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, DC. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_ 

instruction/2013/IM_2013-142.html. 

Clement, J.P., A.d’A. Belin, M.J. Bean, T.A. Boling, and J.R. Lyons. 2014. A Strategy for Improving The Mitigation Policies 

and Practices of the Department of the Interior: A Report to The Secretary of the Interior from The Energy and 

Climate Change Task Force. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http://www.doi.gov/news/upload/ 

Mitigation-Report-to-the-Secretary_FINAL_04_08_14.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2013. Order No. 3330 of the Secretary of the Interior. Subject: Improving Mitigation 

Policies and Practices of the Department of the Interior. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. http:// 

www.doi.gov/news/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=380602. 

Scientific Integrity 

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. 2009. On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in 

Research, third ed. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine of 

the National Academies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available upon request from the BLM 

Library. 

The White House. 2009. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Scientific Integrity. 

Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executivedepartments-and-agencies-3-9-09.

The White House. 2010. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Scientific Integrity. 

Office of Science and Technology. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scientificintegrity-memo-12172010.pdf. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2011. Integrity of Scientific and Scholarly Activities. Departmental Manual, Part 305, 

Chapter 3. http://elips.doi.gov/elips/0/doc/3045/Page1.aspx.