Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40643629›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2025

Climate Consideration in Environmental Effects Analyses on Federal Public Lands in the United States.

Sarah E Whipple, Sarah K Carter, Tait K Rutherford, Samuel E Jordan, Richard J Lehrter, Christopher T Domschke, Megan A Gilbert, Julian Reyes, Ella M Samuel, Karen M Schank and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Sarah E WhippleU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO, USA. swhipple@usgs.gov.ORCID 0000-0001-9280-1195
Sarah K CarterU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3778-8615
Tait K RutherfordU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4314-1519
Samuel E JordanU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6074-3330
Richard J LehrterContractor with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Operations Center, Denver Federal Center, Bldg. 50, Denver, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5760-9269
Christopher T DomschkeBLM, Colorado State Office, Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR, USA.
Megan A GilbertBLM, Headquarters, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC, USA.
Julian ReyesBLM, Headquarters, 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC, USA.
Ella M SamuelU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fort Collins Science Center, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5085-7369
Karen M SchankBLM, Oregon/Washington State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR, USA.
John C TullUSGS Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center, 1000 Valley Rd., Reno, NV, USA.
David J A WoodBLM, Montana/Dakotas State Office, 5001 Southgate Dr., Billings, MT, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4315-5160

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

Indexed as

Climate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesEnvironmental PolicyGreenhouse GasesUnited StatesGreenhouse GasesBureau of Land Managementenvironmental assessmentsenvironmental effects analysesNational Environmental Policy Act

Identifiers

PMID40643629
PMCPMC12457520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.