USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Management Science”

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

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

At least 883 records · Page 49Linked to original sources
USGS2018

Quantifying uncertainty and tradeoffs in resilience assessments

Several frameworks have been developed to assess the resilience of social-ecological systems, but most require substantial data inputs, time, and technical expertise. Stakeholders and practitioners often lack the resources for such intensive efforts. Furthermore, most end with problem framing and fail to explicitly address trade-offs and uncertainty. To remedy this gap, we developed a rapid survey assessment that compares the relative resilience of social-ecological systems with respect to a number of resilience properties. This approach generates large amounts of information relative to stakeholder inputs. We targeted four stakeholder categories: government (policy, regulation, management), end users (farmers, ranchers, landowners, industry), agency/public science (research, university, extension), and NGOs (environmental, citizen, social justice) in four North American watersheds, to assess social-ecological resilience through surveys. Conceptually, social-ecological systems are comprised of components ranging from strictly human to strictly ecological, but that relate directly or indirectly to one another. They have soft boundaries and several important dimensions or axes that together describe the nature of social-ecological interactions, e.g., variability, diversity, modularity, slow variables, feedbacks, capital, innovation, redundancy, and ecosystem services. There is no absolute measure of resilience, so our design takes advantage of cross-watershed comparisons and therefore focuses on relative resilience. Our approach quantifies and compares the relative resilience across watershed systems and potential trade-offs among different aspects of the social-ecological system, e.g., between social, economic, and ecological contributions. This approach permits explicit assessment of several types of uncertainty (e.g., self-assigned uncertainty for stakeholders; uncertainty across respondents, watersheds, and subsystems), and subjectivity in perceptions of resilience among key actors and decision makers and provides an efficient way to develop the mental models that inform our stakeholders and stakeholder categories.

Ecology and Society↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey ecosystems science strategy—Advancing discovery and application through collaboration

Executive Summary Ecosystem science is critical to making informed decisions about natural resources that can sustain our Nation’s economic and environmental well-being. Resource managers and policymakers are faced with countless decisions each year at local, regional, and national levels on issues as diverse as renewable and nonrenewable energy development, agriculture, forestry, water supply, and resource allocations at the urban-rural interface. The urgency for sound decisionmaking is increasing dramatically as the world is being transformed at an unprecedented pace and in uncertain directions. Environmental changes are associated with natural hazards, greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing demands for water, land, food, energy, mineral, and living resources. At risk is the Nation’s environmental capital, the goods and services provided by resilient ecosystems that are vital to the health and wellbeing of human societies. Ecosystem science—the study of systems of organisms interacting with their environment and the consequences of natural and human-induced change on these systems—is necessary to inform decisionmakers as they develop policies to adapt to these changes. This Ecosystems Science Strategy is built on a framework that includes basic and applied science. It highlights the critical roles that U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners can play in building scientific understanding and providing timely information to decisionmakers. The strategy underscores the connection between scientific discoveries and the application of new knowledge, and it integrates ecosystem science and decisionmaking, producing new scientific outcomes to assist resource managers and providing public benefits. We envision the USGS as a leader in integrating scientific information into decisionmaking processes that affect the Nation’s natural resources and human well-being. The USGS is uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in ecosystem science. With its wide range of expertise, the Bureau can bring holistic, cross-scale, interdisciplinary capabilities to the design and conduct of monitoring, research, and modeling and to new technologies for data collection, management, and visualization. Collectively, these capabilities can be used to reveal ecological patterns and processes, explain how and why ecosystems change, and forecast change over different spatial and temporal scales. USGS science can provide managers with options and decision-support tools to use resources sustainably. The USGS has long-standing, collaborative relationships with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other partners in the natural sciences, in both conducting science and applying the results. The USGS engages these partners in cooperative investigations that otherwise would lack the necessary support or be too expensive for a single bureau to conduct. The heart of this strategy is a framework for USGS ecosystems science that focuses on five long-term goals, which are seen as interconnected components that reinforce our vision of the USGS providing science that is at the forefront of decisionmaking: Improve understanding of ecosystem structure, function, and processes. The focus for this goal is an understanding of how ecosystems work, including the dynamics of species, their populations, interactions, and genetics, and how they change across spatial and temporal scales. Advance understanding of how drivers influence ecosystem change. The challenges here are explaining the drivers of ecosystem change, their spatio-temporal patterns, their uncertainties and interactions, and their influence on ecosystem processes and dynamics. Improve understanding of the services that ecosystems provide to society. Here the emphasis is on the measurement of environmental capital and ecosystem services, and the identification of sources and patterns of change in space and time. Develop tools, technologies, and capacities to inform decisionmaking about ecosystems. This includes developing new technologies and approaches for conducting applications-oriented ecosystem science. A principal challenge will be how to quantify uncertainty and incorporate it in decision analysis. Apply science to enhance strategies for management, conservation, and restoration of ecosystems. These challenges include development of novel approaches to monitoring, assessment, and restoration of ecosystems; new methods to address species of concern and communities at risk; and innovations in decision analysis and support to address imminent ecosystem changes or those that are underway. Closely integrated with the five goals are four strategic approaches that provide the path forward for the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. These approaches cross-cut all of the goals and are seen as essential to the implementation of this strategy: Assess information needs for ecosystem science through enhanced partnerships. Work with the DOI and other agencies and institutions to identify, design, and implement priority decision-driven ecological research. Promote the use of interdisciplinary ecosystem science. Design and conduct interdisciplinary process-oriented research in ecosystem science. Enhance modeling and forecasting. Build models to forecast ecosystem change, assess future management scenarios, and reduce uncertainties through an adaptive learning process. Support decisionmaking. Use quantitative approaches to assess the vulnerabilities of ecosystems, habitats, and species, and evaluate strategies for adaptation, restoration, and sustainable management. Following the four strategic approaches are a set of proposed actions that represent a sampling of specific USGS activities that align with this strategy and that address the Nation’s most pressing environmental needs. The strategy emphasizes coordination of activities across the USGS mission areas pursuant to these goals. Ecosystem science is inherently interdisciplinary and requires a broad perspective that incorporates the biological and physical sciences, climate science, information technology, and scientific capacity in mission areas across the Bureau. With its emphasis on coordination, this strategy can provide a critical underpinning for integrated science efforts with scientists from multiple mission areas of the USGS working together. Of course, the USGS will continue to conduct discipline-specific and interdisciplinary investigations, and both will continue to be vital parts of the ecosystem science portfolio. Finally, the strategy stresses the importance of coordination with other Federal agencies and organizations in the natural resources community. The USGS collaborates with resource agencies in the DOI and other organizations throughout the world to meet societal needs for species and ecosystem management. Working with these agencies and organizations, the USGS will play a key role in guiding sound decisionmaking during the next decade by advancing the scientific foundation for sustaining the natural resources that diverse, productive, resilient ecosystems provide.

Circular↗
USGS2007

Surface-Water Quality-Assurance Plan for the USGS Wisconsin Water Science Center

This surface-water quality-assurance plan documents the standards, policies, and procedures used by the Wisconsin Water Science Center of the U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Discipline, for activities related to the collection, processing, storage, analysis, management, and publication of surface-water data. The roles and responsibilities of Water Science Center personnel in following these policies and procedures including those related to safety and training are presented.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Research Units Program—A hawk’s view of 2024

Introduction The U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (USGS CRU) program was established in 1935 and codified by Congress in 1960 to enhance graduate education in wildlife and fisheries sciences and to facilitate research and technical assistance among natural resource agencies and universities on fisheries and wildlife management topics of mutual concern. The success of the CRU program lies in its cooperative approach. State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies determine where focused, science-based studies for wildlife and natural resource management for societal benefit are needed. The CRU scientists conduct applied research to contribute results to inform and aid partners in determining best practices for managing resources. Each Unit is a unique partnership among the U.S. Geological Survey, a host university, one or more State agencies, the Wildlife Management Institute, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2021

U.S. Geological Survey wildland fire science strategic plan, 2021–26

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildland Fire Science Strategic Plan defines critical, core fire science capabilities for understanding fire-related and fire-responsive earth system processes and patterns, and informing management decision making. Developed by USGS fire scientists and executive leadership, and informed by conversations with external stakeholders, the Strategic Plan is aligned with the needs of the fire science stakeholder community–fire, land, natural resource, and emergency managers from Federal, State, Tribal, and community organizations, as well as members of the scientific community. The Strategic Plan is composed of four integrated priorities, each with associated goals and specific strategies for accomplishing the goals: Priority 1: Produce state-of-the-art, actionable fire science; Priority 2: Engage stakeholders in science production and science delivery; Priority 3: Effectively communicate USGS fire science capacity, products, and information to a broad audience; and Priority 4: Enhance USGS organizational structure and advance support for fire science. The priorities of this Strategic Plan define the USGS’s commitment to producing and delivering cutting edge fire science, information, and decision-support tools in support of national, regional, and local priorities and stakeholder needs.

Circular↗
USGS2024

U.S. Geological Survey Mississippi River Science Forum—Summary of data and science needs and next steps

The U.S. Geological Survey hosted a Mississippi River Science Forum with Federal agencies; Tribal, State, and local governments located in States that border the Mississippi River; academia; and other interested stakeholders. The purpose of the forum was to share current (2023) science; identify data gaps and areas of concern; and to prioritize next steps needed to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters along the Mississippi River. The forum was a directive for the U.S. Geological Survey in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Public Law 117—103, 136 Stat. 49). Participants and stakeholders that attended the Mississippi River Science Forum indicated the following. A Mississippi River Science Committee could bring together the voices of all stakeholders, including Federal agencies; State, local, and Tribal governments; academia; nongovernmental organizations; business and industry; and other interested parties. This committee would also work with (but not replace) Mississippi River Basin entities already in place and establish effective communication to identify and address Basin-wide management needs and to develop holistic solutions for those needs. A Mississippi River science plan could expand on the science and data gaps identified by the Forum. This plan could guide data collection and help resource managers develop and implement restoration initiatives within the Basin, recognizing that addressing these needs will require substantial resources. The science committee, working with other entities in the basin, should develop data standards for the Mississippi River Basin that allow stakeholders to utilize comparable data to address their needs. These standards would include data findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. This report highlights data gaps and areas of concern discussed during the forum, and it identifies needs to advance the goals of improving water quality, restoring habitat and natural systems, improving navigation, eliminating aquatic invasive species, and building local resilience to natural disasters with specific emphasis on data collection and measurement, and scientific investigation. The report also summarizes stakeholder input and feedback and outlines next steps identified by forum participants.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Fort Collins Science Center- Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch : Integrating social, behavioral, economic and biological sciences

The Fort Collins Science Center's Policy Analysis and Science Assistance (PASA) Branch is a team of approximately 22 scientists, technicians, and graduate student researchers. PASA provides unique capabilities in the U.S. Geological Survey by leading projects that integrate social, behavioral, economic, and biological analyses in the context of human-natural resource interactions. Resource planners, managers, and policymakers in the U.S. Departments of the Interior (DOI) and Agriculture (USDA), State and local agencies, as well as international agencies use information from PASA studies to make informed natural resource management and policy decisions. PASA scientists' primary functions are to conduct both theoretical and applied social science research, provide technical assistance, and offer training to advance performance in policy relevant research areas. Management and research issues associated with human-resource interactions typically occur in a unique context, involve difficult to access populations, require knowledge of both natural/biological science in addition to social science, and require the skill to integrate multiple science disciplines. In response to these difficult contexts, PASA researchers apply traditional and state-of-the-art social science methods drawing from the fields of sociology, demography, economics, political science, communications, social-psychology, and applied industrial organization psychology. Social science methods work in concert with our rangeland/agricultural management, wildlife, ecology, and biology capabilities. The goal of PASA's research is to enhance natural resource management, agency functions, policies, and decision-making. Our research is organized into four broad areas of study.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

Leveraging the strengths of citizen science and structured surveys to achieve scalable inference on population size

Population size is a key metric for management and policy decisions, yet wildlife monitoring programmes are often limited by the spatial and temporal scope of surveys. In these cases, citizen science data may provide complementary information at higher resolution and greater extent. We present a case study demonstrating how data from the eBird citizen science programme can be combined with regional monitoring efforts by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to produce high-resolution estimates of golden eagle abundance. We developed a model that uses aerial survey data from the western United States to calibrate high-resolution annual estimates of relative abundance from eBird. Using this model, we compared regional population size estimates based on the calibrated eBird information with those based on aerial survey data alone. Population size estimates based on the calibrated eBird information had strong correspondence to estimates from aerial survey data in two out of four regions, and population trajectories based on the two approaches showed high correlations. We demonstrate how the combination of citizen science data and targeted surveys can be used to (a) increase the spatial resolution of population size estimates, (b) extend the spatial extent of inference and (c) predict population size beyond the temporal period of surveys. Findings based on this case study can be used to refine policy metrics used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and inform permitting regulations (e.g. mortality/harm associated with wind energy development). Policy implications : Our results demonstrate the ability of citizen science data to complement targeted monitoring programmes and improve the efficacy of decision frameworks that require information on population size or trajectory. After validating citizen science data against survey-based benchmarks, agencies can harness strengths of citizen science data to supplement information needs and increase the resolution and extent of population size predictions.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗
USGS2021

Identifying policy-relevant indicators for assessing landscape vegetation patterns to inform planning and management on multiple use public lands

Understanding the structure and composition of landscapes can empower agencies to effectively manage public lands for multiple uses while sustaining land health. Many landscape metrics exist, but they are not often used in public land decision-making. Our objectives were to (1) develop and (2) apply a process for identifying a core set of indicators that public land managers can use to understand landscape-level resource patterns on and around public lands. We first developed a process for identifying indicators that are grounded in policy, feasible to quantify using existing data and resources, and useful for managers. We surveyed landscape monitoring efforts by other agencies, gathered science and agency input on monitoring goals, and quantified the prevalence of potential indicators in agency land health standards to identify five landscape indicators: amount, distribution, patch size, structural connectivity, and diversity of vegetation types. We then conducted pilot applications in four bureau of land management (BLM) field offices in Arizona, California, and Colorado to refine procedures for quantifying the indicators and assess the utility of the indicators for managers. Results highlighted the dominance of upland and the limited extent of riparian/wetland vegetation communities, moderate connectivity of priority vegetation patches, and lower diversity of native vegetation types on BLM compared to non-BLM lands. Agency staff can use the indicators to inform the development of quantitative resource management objectives in land use plans, evaluate progress in meeting those objectives, quantify potential impacts of proposed actions, and as a foundation for an all-lands approach to landscape-level management across public lands.

Environmental Management↗
USGS2021

Scientific contributions of the Mangrove Macrobenthos and Management (MMM) conference series, 2000-2019

The conservation of mangrove forests has become an important international policy priority in recent decades, and is mirrored by a large increase in research interest. Multiple disciplines now use mangroves as a study system, from molecular biology to social science. The variety of research conducted in mangroves is exemplified by the Mangrove Macrobenthos & Management (MMM) conference series, the world's largest gathering of researchers and practitioners dedicated to the science and conservation of the mangrove ecosystem. Established in 2000, MMM is a useful barometer with which to identify and measure research trends over the last 20 years. This study describes the history of the MMM conference series, and analyses the research presented in this series as a potential proxy of how the broader mangrove research field has changed through time. Presentations in early MMM conferences were dominated by macrobenthos studies, reflective of the origins of MMM as a forum specifically for mangrove macrobenthos research. However, later conferences have come to reflect the broader interests of the mangrove research field, and have tracked the emergence of blue carbon and other ecosystem services. Mangrove forests continue to be a rich and diverse ecosystem of study, and future MMM conferences will continue to provide a platform for impactful research and management.

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science↗
USGS2012

Disputes over science and dispute resolution approaches - A survey of Bureau of Reclamation employees

Water resources in parts of the Western United States are over-allocated, which intensifies the pressure to support water management decisions with strong scientific evidence. Because scientific studies sometimes provide uncertain or competing results or recommendations, science can become a source of disputes during decision-making processes. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is an important water manager in the Western United States, and Reclamation decision processes are often contested by a variety of affected constituencies. We conducted a Web-based survey of Reclamation employees to determine (1) which types of disputes over science are occurring and how common they are, (2) which approaches have been used by Reclamation to try to resolve these different types of disputes, (3) how useful Reclamation employees find these approaches at resolving these types of disputes, (4) the final outcomes of these disputes and the decision-making processes that were hindered by the disputes over science, and (5) the potential usefulness of several different types of dispute resolution resources that Reclamation could provide for employees that become involved in disputes over science. The calculated minimum response rate for the survey was 59 percent. Twenty-five percent of respondents indicated that they had been involved in a dispute over science while working at Reclamation. Native species and species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were the most common issue types reported in these disputes over science. Survey respondents indicated that they used a variety of approaches to resolve disputes over science and rated most approaches as either neutral or somewhat helpful in these endeavors. Future research is needed to determine whether there are additional variables underlying these disputes that were not measured in this survey that may identify when dispute resolution methods are most effective, or whether resolving aspects of these disputes, such as differing interpretations of science, is very difficult or impossible regardless of the dispute resolution methods used.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Spatial integration of biological and social objectives to identify priority landscapes for waterfowl habitat conservation

Waterfowl population management and habitat conservation compose one of the oldest and most successful adaptive management frameworks in the world. Since its inception, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) has emphasized strategically targeted conservation investments in regions that most affect waterfowl population dynamics. By 2012, regional conservation had progressively become more science-based and strategic: many migratory bird partnerships had initiated or completed projects on mapping and modeling waterfowl distribution and abundances using geospatial techniques. However, when developing a map depicting and titled “Areas of Greatest Continental Significance to North American Ducks, Geese, and Swans” for the 2012 NAWMP Revision, waterfowl professionals articulated the need for improved decision frameworks and use of consistent datasets for refining large-scale spatial products depicting priority areas for waterfowl and people. This report describes a framework for developing a spatial value model to support the identification of North American geographies of importance to waterfowl during the breeding and non-breeding periods and to resource users who could potentially support (financially and (or) politically) waterfowl habitat conservation. Objectives used to identify priority geographies were determined through a collaborative process of the NAWMP Science Support Team, Priority Landscapes Committee (PLC), and other experts in the fields of waterfowl biology and ecology, environmental science, and human dimensions. ArcGIS Desktop was used as the platform for managing, analyzing, combining and displaying the spatial data as well as producing new data through spatial analysis functions. Thirty-eight spatial layers were developed, and several composite spatially explicit products (maps of North America) were produced based on PLC recommendations. The composite products have extensive similarities to the 2012 NAWMP map depicting areas of greatest continental significance to North American waterfowl. There are also some differences, especially in regions of the high Arctic and in Mexico. These differences between spatial value model maps and the 2012 NAWMP output likely arose from inclusion of social objectives, reduced dependence on expert opinion to generate abundance estimates, lack of population surveys in some regions and availability of expanded survey data in other regions, and use of model-based waterfowl population estimates for some unsurveyed areas. The structured decision-making framework application in this study is discussed, and the appropriate use of the products and their limitations are outlined. Additionally, options for future improvements are presented by identifying gaps in data collection, waterfowl-habitat association assumptions, and uncertainties related to social objectives. These spatial products are intended for use by national, regional, and province/state level wildlife professionals to aid their decisions in targeting waterfowl habitat conservation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

From data to decisions: Processing information, biases, and beliefs for improved management of natural resources and environments

Our different kinds of minds and types of thinking affect the ways we decide, take action, and cooperate (or not). Derived from these types of minds, innate biases, beliefs, heuristics, and values (BBHV) influence behaviors, often beneficially, when individuals or small groups face immediate, local, acute situations that they and their ancestors faced repeatedly in the past. BBHV, though, need to be recognized and possibly countered or used when facing new, complex issues or situations especially if they need to be managed for the benefit of a wider community, for the longer-term and the larger-scale. Taking BBHV into account, we explain and provide a cyclic science-infused adaptive framework for (1) gaining knowledge of complex systems and (2) improving their management. We explore how this process and framework could improve the governance of science and policy for different types of systems and issues, providing examples in the area of natural resources, hazards, and the environment. Lastly, we suggest that an “Open Traceable Accountable Policy” initiative that followed our suggested adaptive framework could beneficially complement recent Open Data/Model science initiatives.

Earth's Future↗
USGS2022

Urbanization and stream ecology: Moving the bar on multidisciplinary solutions to wicked urban stream problems

Decades of research on the effects of urbanization on stream ecology have shown that urban stream problems are inherently wicked. These problems are wicked in the sense that they are difficult to solve because information is incomplete, changing, or conflicting and because finding potential solutions often requires input from stakeholders who can have conflicting and competing values. The 5 th Symposium on Urbanization and Stream Ecology (SUSE5) in February 2020 brought together diverse perspectives from scientists, managers, practitioners, and local communities. Participants at SUSE5 discussed the state of the science in urban stream ecology and worked through in-depth case studies in teams to tackle complex real-world problems in urban stream management. The papers in this special series on urbanization and stream ecology include empirical research studies and synthesis papers sparked by discussions at SUSE5 and advance multidisciplinary solutions to wicked urban stream problems.

Freshwater Science↗
USGS2003

In praise of mechanistically-rich models

Quantitative models are crucial to almost every area of ecosystem science. They provide a logical structure that guides and informs empirical observations of ecosystem processes. They play a particularly crucial role in synthesizing and integrating our understanding of the immense diversity of ecosystem structure and function. Increasingly, models are being called on to predict the effects of human actions on natural ecosystems. Despite the widespread use of models, there exists intense debate within the field over a wide range of practical and philosophical issues pertaining to quantitative modeling. This book--which grew out of a gathering of leading experts at the ninth Cary Conference--explores those issues. The book opens with an overview of the status and role of modeling in ecosystem science, including perspectives on the long-running debate over the appropriate level of complexity in models. This is followed by eight chapters that address the critical issue of evaluating ecosystem models, including methods of addressing uncertainty. Next come several case studies of the role of models in environmental policy and management. A section on the future of modeling in ecosystem science focuses on increasing the use of modeling in undergraduate education and the modeling skills of professionals within the field. The benefits and limitations of predictive (versus observational) models are also considered in detail. Written by stellar contributors, this book grants access to the state of the art and science of ecosystem modeling.

Book chapter↗
USGS2018

Decision making for mitigating wildlife diseases: From theory to practice for an emerging fungal pathogen of amphibians

Conservation science can be most effective in its decision‐support role when seeking answers to clearly formulated questions of direct management relevance. Emerging wildlife diseases, a driver of global biodiversity loss, illustrate the challenges of performing this role: in spite of considerable research, successful disease mitigation is uncommon. Decision analysis is increasingly advocated to guide mitigation planning, but its application remains rare. Using an integral projection model, we explored potential mitigation actions for avoiding population declines and the ongoing spatial spread of the fungus Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans ( Bsal ). This fungus has recently caused severe amphibian declines in north‐western Europe and currently threatens Palearctic salamander diversity. Available evidence suggests that a Bsal outbreak in a fire salamander ( Salamandra salamandra ) population will lead to its rapid extirpation. Treatments such as antifungals or probiotics would need to effectively interrupt transmission (reduce probability of infection by nearly 90%) in order to reduce the risk of host extirpation and successfully eradicate the pathogen. Improving the survival of infected hosts is most likely to be detrimental as it increases the potential for pathogen transmission and spread. Active removal of a large proportion of the host population has some potential to locally eradicate Bsal and interrupt its spread, depending on the presence of Bsal reservoirs and on the host's spatial dynamics, which should therefore represent research priorities. Synthesis and applications . Mitigation of Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans epidemics in susceptible host species is highly challenging, requiring effective interruption of transmission and radical removal of host individuals. More generally, our study illustrates the advantages of framing conservation science directly in the management decision context, rather than adapting to it a posteriori .

Journal of Applied Ecology↗
USGS2017

Scientific monitoring plan in support of the selected alternative of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Introduction The purpose of this document is to describe a strategy by which monitoring and research data in the natural and social sciences will be collected, analyzed, and provided to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), its bureaus, and to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Program (GCDAMP) in support of implementation of the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016a). The selected alternative identified in the LTEMP Record of Decision (ROD) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b) describes various data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation efforts to be conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC), partner agencies, and cooperators that will inform decisions about operations of Glen Canyon Dam and management of downstream resources between 2017 and 2037, the performance period of the LTEMP. General data collection, analysis, modeling, and interpretation activities are described in this science plan, whereas specific monitoring and research activities and detailed study plans are to be described in the GCDAMP’s triennial work plans (TWPs) to be developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and GCMRC with input from partner agencies and cooperators during the LTEMP period, which are to be reviewed and recommended by the GCDAMP and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The GCDAMP consists of several components, the primary committee being the Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). This Federal advisory committee is composed of 25 agencies and stakeholder groups and is chaired by the Secretary of the Interior’s designee. The AMWG makes recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior concerning operations of Glen Canyon Dam and other experimental management actions that are intended to fulfill some obligations of the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The Technical Work Group (TWG) is a subcommittee of the AMWG and provides technical advice to the AMWG. It is composed of technical and science representatives from the same agencies and stakeholder groups who serve on the AMWG. GCMRC is the primary science provider to the GCDAMP and also coordinates many aspects of the science performed by cooperators and partner agencies. The Science Advisors Program provides independent science reviews and advice at the request of the GCDAMP. The plan proposed here necessarily depends on (1) the protocol for decision-making and the requirements for scientific data reporting described in the LTEMP ROD, (2) the priorities of the GCDAMP as directed by the LTEMP ROD (see Department of the Interior, 2016b, section 6.1), (3) the priorities for monitoring and research in the conservation measures section of the Biological Opinion for the LTEMP (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2016b, LTEMP ROD attachment E), (4) the priorities for resource management and information needs established by Federal and State resource-management agencies within the GCDAMP, (5) scientific understanding about the linkage between the status of those resources and operations of Glen Canyon Dam, and (6) the need to resolve existing scientific uncertainties about the linkage between dam operations and the condition of resources. We note that resource-management prioritization is fundamentally a policy decision charged specifically to DOI for the Colorado River in Glen and Grand Canyons, as outlined most recently in the LTEMP ROD, and is not the responsibility of the GCMRC. However, it is the responsibility of the GCMRC to describe the nature of scientific understanding, the nature of scientific uncertainty, and the risk of making resourcemanagement decisions in the face of existing scientific uncertainty. The goals of science activities in the next 20 years are to inform operational decisions regarding Glen Canyon Dam operations described in the LTEMP ROD, resolve remaining scientific uncertainties, and to monitor resource trends that are affected entirely, or in part, by dam operations.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2017

The role of paleoecology in restoration and resource management—The past as a guide to future decision-making: Review and example from the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, U.S.A

Resource managers around the world are challenged to develop feasible plans for sustainable conservation and/or restoration of the lands, waters, and wildlife they administer—a challenge made greater by anticipated climate change and associated effects over the next century. Increasingly, paleoecologic and geologic archives are being used to extend the period of record of observed data and provide information on centennial to millennial scale responses to long-term drivers of ecosystem change. The development of paleoecology from an emerging field investigating past environments to a highly relevant applied science is reviewed and general examples of the application of paleoecologic research to resource management questions in diverse habitats and regions are provided. Specific examples of the application of paleoecologic research to the restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem of south Florida (U.S.A) are presented. Conducting valuable scientific research that would benefit resource management decisions, however, is not enough. Scientists and resource managers need to be engaged in collaborative discussions from the beginning of the research process to ensure that management questions are being addressed and that the science reaches the people who will benefit from the information. Paleoecology and related disciplines provide an understanding of how ecosystems and individual species function and change over time in response to both natural and anthropogenic drivers. Information on pre-anthropogenic baseline conditions is provided by paleoecologic research, but it is the detection of long-term trends and cycles that allow resource managers to set realistic goals and targets by moving away from the fixed-point baseline concept to one of dynamic landscapes that anticipates and incorporates an expectation of change into decision-making.

Florida↗