USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Challenge”

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 955 records · Page 53Linked to original sources
USGS2020

Science to support water-resource management in the upper Roanoke River watershed

Flooding, excessive sedimentation, and high bacteria counts are among the most challenging water resource issues affecting the Upper Roanoke River watershed. These issues threaten public safety, impair the watershed’s living resources, and threaten drinking water supplies, though mitigation is costly and difficult to manage. Urban development, land disturbance, and changing climatic patterns continue to challenge watershed managers who are tasked with protecting and improving the water quality of the Upper Roanoke River watershed. The U.S. Geological Survey helps watershed managers meet these demands by providing high-quality data and analyses designed to inform watershed restoration activities.

Virginia↗
USGS2020

Water priorities for the Nation—U.S. Geological Survey Integrated Water Availability Assessments

The United States faces growing challenges to its water supply, infrastructure, and aquatic ecosystems because of population growth, climate change, floods and droughts, and aging water delivery systems. To help address these challenges, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Mission Area has established new strategic priorities that capitalize on the operational and scientific strengths of the USGS to address these complex societal issues. The USGS Integrated Water Availability Assessment Program within the Water Resources Mission Area will provide nationally consistent assessments of water available for human and ecological needs and identify factors that limit water availability. Integrated Water Availability Assessments will assess current conditions, long-term trends, factors responsible for current conditions and observed trends, and provide forecasts of future changes at national and regional scales.

Conterminous United States↗
USGS2021

Water priorities for the Nation—USGS Integrated Water Science basins

The United States faces growing challenges to its water supply, infrastructure, and aquatic ecosystems because of population growth, climate change, floods, and droughts. To help address these challenges, the U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Mission Area is integrating recent advances in monitoring, research, and modeling to improve assessments of water availability throughout the United States. A key part of this effort is the intensive study of 10 Integrated Water Science (IWS) basins across the Nation between 2019 and 2028. The goal is to study 10 IWS basins that are representative of large geographic regions across the United States and that encompass a variety of potential threats to the amount and quality of water across the Nation. Lessons learned from these smaller IWS basins (10,000–20,000 square miles in size) about the interactions among climate, human effects, surface water, groundwater, water quality, and water supply and demand will be used to help quantify and forecast water availability in the larger regions and ultimately the Nation.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

U.S. Geological Survey Rocky Mountain Region 2022 science exchange, showcasing interdisciplinary and state-of-the-art USGS science

Introduction The Rocky Mountains and the Colorado River Basin in the Western United States represent complex, interconnected systems that sustain a number of species, including tens of millions of humans. These systems face several challenges, including worsening drought, altered wildfire regimes, climate change, and the spread of invasive species. These factors can exacerbate one another, further contributing to habitat loss and affecting species of conservation concern. Characterizing and managing these challenges require interdisciplinary communities of scientists to develop information and decision-support tools that can inform holistic land and water management solutions. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Rocky Mountain Region 2022 Science Exchange focused on the use of interdisciplinary and state-of-the-art science being conducted by USGS scientists in the region to address these complex problems. The USGS Rocky Mountain Regional Office organized its first Science Exchange in 2017 to share scientific information between leaders and early career scientists throughout the region. Science Exchanges held in 2018 and 2020 focused on drought science relevant to the region and the Earth Monitoring, Analyses, and Prediction (EarthMAP) concept, which is designed to facilitate interdisciplinary, timely, and actionable science related to drought in the Colorado River Basin and other areas. Based on the emerging need for more holistic approaches to address increasingly complex natural resource issues that affect society, the Region hosted a virtual fourth Science Exchange for three days in April 2022. This event focused on barriers and bridges to interdisciplinary science and highlighted studies from the Region to inspire collaboration across disciplines. Presentations described recent and ongoing research that applied collaborative and state-of-the-art methods to address problems in the fields of geology, hydrology, ecology, and natural hazards. Science collaboration and outreach to all levels of stakeholders are vital elements needed for providing timely and actionable data, interpretations, analytical tools, and products. These presentations led to active online chats and panel discussions and showcased interdisciplinary science and advanced methods that may inform and lead to more effective, holistic management decisions as the Western United States adapts to ongoing and future changes.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2023

The 3D Elevation Program—Supporting Maine’s economy

Introduction Inland flooding, sea-level rise, and pollution pose challenges for Maine’s infrastructure and natural resources. A highly detailed, three-dimensional (3D) model of the Earth’s surface is allowing the State of Maine to address these challenges in an increasingly comprehensive and timely manner. In addition, highly accurate elevation data facilitate land development, forest management, agricultural practices, and wildlife conservation, all of which are key pillars of Maine’s economy. Critical applications that meet the State’s management needs depend on light detection and ranging (lidar) data that provide a highly detailed 3D model of the Earth’s surface and aboveground features.

Maine↗
USGS2002

Research plan for lands administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior in the Interior Columbia Basin and Snake River Plateau

This document presents a long-term research strategy designed to address current and future research needs for management of Department of the Interior-administered ecosystems in the Intermountain West. Although the research plan was developed in the context of the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, the plan addresses many high-priority issues facing land managers throughout the Intermountain West. These issues pose management challenges that may be addressed with applied research both currently and in upcoming decades. Possessing a particular focus on semiarid ecosystems, the plan is a collection of research questions under five categories of research emphases: 1) restoration; 2) rangeland health; 3) aquatic-terrestrial connections; 4) development of monitoring and evaluation protocols; and 5) species and habitats at risk. The goal of the research strategy is to provide ideas for integrating emerging scientific understanding into future management in order to restore and maintain long-term ecosystem health and ecological integrity; provide consistent management direction over broad spatial and temporal scales; emphasize adaptive management over the long term; restore and maintain habitats for plant and animal species; and support economic and social needs of people, without compromising the above goals. Research questions are prioritized into three categories based on the immediacy of their need, feasibility of addressing the question rigorously under varying funding budgets, and magnitude of risk posed by not addressing the issue. The research strategy is intended to support and integrate with existing management efforts and strategies. As such, it melds observational studies with experimental manipulation, treating management actions as experiments whenever feasible. The research strategy focuses on disturbance processes and events that have been the primary drivers of change, to provide a predictive model for future changes. These drivers include fire, nonnative plants, herbivory, roads and associated human influences, and climate change. Whereas management in the western United States has striven to move from an inefficient species-based approach to a habitat-based approach, the plan focuses on ecosystem function and ecological processes as critical measures of habitat response. Because of the large amount and contiguity of public lands in the western United States, the region presents both a compelling opportunity to implement landscape-level science and a challenge to underst

Information and Technology Report↗
USGS2001

Energy resources and changing land use, Front Range of Colorado: AAPG-EMD field trip guide, in association with the 2001 AAPG-EMD annual meeting

Over the past 30 years, communities in the Northern Front Range of Colorado have experienced tremendous urban and commercial growth rivaling or surpassing that in most other parts of the United States. Much of this growth coincides with areas underlain by critically needed natural resources (such as oil, natural gas, construction aggregate (stone, sand, and gravel), and water), thus presenting serious challenges for city, county, and state planners as well as producers of these natural resources. With projections for as much as a 51 percent increase in population in Colorado over the next 25 years (Colorado Department of Local Affairs, 2001), it is likely that these challenges will increase. This field trip will blend petroleum and coal geology with discussions of urban development to highlight the interplay between growth in the Front Range and energy resource production. On the trip we will also explore the effects of past production on land use. A total of 6 stops will be made in various locations around the Front Range area.

Colorado↗
USGS2006

History of the Fort Collins Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The U.S. Geological Survey’s Fort Collins Science Center ("the Center") has been a nucleus of research, technology development, and associated scientific activities within the Department of the Interior for more than 30 years. The Center’s historical activities are deeply rooted in federal biological resources research and its supporting disciplines, particularly as they relate to the needs of the U.S. Department of the Interior and its resource management agencies. The organizational framework and activities of the Center have changed and adapted over the years in response to shifts in the scientific issues and challenges facing the U.S. Department of the Interior and with the development of new strategies to meet these challenges. Thus, the history of the Center has been dynamic. The Center has been nested within the U.S. Geological Survey since 1996. From 1993 to 1996 the Center was a major unit of the National Biological Service (named the National Biological Survey at its inception). This was a period of great organizational flux. During that time the Center comprised multiple field stations and science functions that prior to 1993 had been scattered among the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1993, certain biological research components of these agencies were assigned to join with the National Ecology Research Center, formerly one of the major research and development hubs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This was the year when biological resources research in the U.S. Department of the Interior was consolidated by the Secretary of the Interior, who in an April 1993 memo explaining his intentions wrote, "Our Department has, without doubt, the best biologists in the world." Soon after formation of the new agency, the Center was re-named the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, reflecting its geographic location within the new Midcontinent administrative region of the National Biological Service (the other three original administrative regions were the eastern, western, and southern). The change in name to the Fort Collins Science Center took place in 2002, soon after the center moved to new facilities on the Colorado State University Natural Resources Research Campus. At various times during the period when it was part of the National Biological Service (1993–96), the Center served as the administrative and programmatic home base for a wide number of science activities in numerous Western states (table 1). This reflected the previous fragmentation of biological and related science efforts across resource management agencies in the U.S. Department of the Interior. The organization of the 2 Center within the National Biological Service was a manifestation of the desire of the Secretary of the Interior to consolidate its biological science activities in administratively independent entities that would ensure that the science retained its objectivity. Congress later recognized the need to maintain a hierarchical independence between biological science and resource management in the Department. However, Congress also saw that the U.S. Geological Survey, with its long history of objective science support to the nation in geology, water resources, geography, and remote sensing, was a suitable alternative home for these biological science functions. Thus, in 1996 Congress transferred the biological resources functions of the National Biological Service to the U.S. Geological Survey. Detailed overviews and opinions about the history and policy issues surrounding the formation and subsequent fate of the National Biological Service can be found elsewhere (for example Cohn, 1993, 2005; Kaufman, 1993; Kreeger, 1994; Pulliam, 1995, 1998a,b; Reichhardt, 1994; Wagner, 1999)

Open-File Report↗
USGS2007

Applying radar technology to migratory bird conservation and management: Strengthening and expanding a collaborative

Executive Summary Understanding the factors affecting migratory bird and bat populations during all three phases of their life cycle—breeding, nonbreeding, and migration—is critical to species conservation planning. This includes the need for information about these species’ responses to natural challenges, as well as information about the effects of human activities and structures. Habitats and other resources critical to migrants during passage and stopover are being destroyed, degraded, and threatened by human activities. Birds and bats are also uniquely susceptible to human use of the airspace. Wind turbines, communication and power transmission towers, and other tall structures, known to cause bird and bat mortality, are being erected or proposed in increasing numbers across the country. In addition, the potential for bird/aircraft collisions poses human safety threats. Management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry currently lack the information they need to meet their missions and statutory responsibilities. The biological data available from various radar technologies offer a unique opportunity to learn more about the spatiotemporal distribution patterns, flight characteristics, and habitat use of “aero-fauna.” Recognizing the opportunities presented by radar technologies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and university partners collaborated first on individual projects and then in a broader, informal “collaborative” to coordinate their radar-related research and work together to develop the suite of products needed for conservation of birds and bats. Having produced two summary documents (Sojda and others, 2005; Ruth and others, 2005), the next objective was to convene a workshop for researchers, management and regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The focus of this initial workshop was on strengthening the existing USGS-USFWS-university partnership and expanding the “collaborative” to include new Federal agency partners. The subject matter was centered on discussing available technologies, appropriate applications, management-related needs, and ways to strengthen collaborative research and conservation efforts. The workshop opened with presentations about the history of the “radar collaborative,” a description of the workshop objectives and focuses, and a summary of resource management and regulatory needs. Scientific presentations describing current research projects or subjects followed, given by USGS scientists, as well as scientists from other Federal agencies, academia, conservation and ornithological organizations, and a private contracting firm. Presenters addressed a wide variety of management issues including siting of wind-power facilities, bird/aircraft collisions, effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on bird migration, bird use of Conservation Reserve Program land, defining bird migration patterns at a broad regional scale, and associating migrant birds with their stopover habitats. Presentations described a variety of radar technologies including NEXRAD weather surveillance radar, modified mobile marine radar, military tracking radar, pencil beam radar, and dual polarization radar, as well as complementary techniques and analysis methods such as acoustic monitoring, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and individual-based modeling. Key issues, themes, and questions identified during the open discussions that followed fell into five main categories: (1) agency needs and challenges; (2) radar technology and applications—technical questions and issues; (3) tools and resources for managers and researchers; (4) standardization of protocols; and (5) collaborative opportunities. Participants identified the following management, regulatory, or business issues facing them which may be addressed with radar technologies: tall structures; wind turbines; identification and protection of key habitats; assessment of management activities; and bird/aircraft strikes. Participants frequently expressed the need for specific information about which radar technologies are best used for answering particular questions. User groups emphasized the importance of clear, defensible scientific information on which they can base their activities. In turn, researchers emphasized their need for clearly defined, specific questions from managers so that they can design and conduct the required research. Discussions about technical issues requiring further research and collaboration included target identity, ground-truthing, linking migrants to habitat, and standardized protocols for applied research. Workshop participants identified and endorsed a series of seven action items that would promote collaboration and begin to address key issues identified at the workshop: Action Item #1 : Establish a working subgroup to address large-scale surveillance radar standardization issues. Action Item #2 : Establish a working subgroup to address small-scale radar standardization issues. Action Item #3 : Bring management and regulatory agencies together to identify the three most important information needs for each key management issue relating to radar technologies. Action Item #4 : Develop Fact Sheet(s) to provide information about radar technology applications to migratory bird and bat conservation issues. Action Item #5 : Create a “radar collaborative” Website to provide information about radar biology applications, contacts, publications, and so forth. Action Item #6 : Formalize and expand the USGS-USFWS “radar collaborative.” Action Item #7 : Advance basic research, such as target identity and validation, which will support and improve our abilities to apply radar technologies to conservation objectives. There was considerable interest in expanding the “radar collaborative” to include those agencies, organizations, and industries represented at the workshop. It was felt that the publication of the workshop proceedings, implementation of action items, and additional future meetings or workshops will be crucial in strengthening the “radar collaborative” effort and promoting the use of these valuable technologies for conserving migratory species.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

A Chronosequence Feasibility Assessment of Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Records within the Intermountain Western United States - Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program - Project 08-S-08

Department of the Interior (DOI) bureaus have invested heavily (for example, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) spent more than $60 million in fiscal year 2007) in seeding vegetation for emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation of non-forested arid lands over the past 10 years. The primary objectives of these seedings commonly are to (1) reduce the post-fire dominance of non-native annual grasses, such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and red brome (Bromus rubens); (2) minimize the probability of recurrent fire; and (3) ultimately produce desirable vegetation characteristics (for example, ability to recover following disturbance [resilience], resistance to invasive species, and a capacity to support a diverse flora and fauna). Although these projects historically have been monitored to varying extents, land managers currently lack scientific evidence to verify whether seeding arid and semiarid lands achieves desired objectives. Given the amount of resources dedicated to post-fire seeding projects, a synthesis of information determining the factors that result in successful treatments is critically needed. Although results of recently established experiments and monitoring projects eventually will provide useful insights for the future direction of emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation programs, a chronosequence approach evaluating emergency stabilization and burned area rehabilitation treatments (both referenced hereafter as ESR treatments) over the past 30 years could provide a comprehensive assessment of treatment success across a range of regional environmental gradients. By randomly selecting a statistically robust sample from the population of historic ESR treatments in the Intermountain West, this chronosequence approach would have inference for most ecological sites in this region. The goal of this feasibility study was to compile and examine historic ESR records from BLM field offices across the Intermountain West to determine whether sufficient documentation existed for a future field-based chronosequence project. We collected ESR records and data at nine BLM field offices in four States (Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah) and examined the utility of these data for the development of a chronosequence study of post-fire seeding treatments from multiple sites and different ages (since seeding) throughout the Intermountain West. We collected records from 730 post-fire seeding projects with 1,238 individual seeding treatments. Records from each project ranged from minimal reporting of the project's occurrence to detailed documentation of planning, implementation, and monitoring. Of these 1,238 projects, we identified 468 (38 percent) that could potentially be used to implement a field-based chronosequence study. There were 206 ground-seeding treatments and 262 aerial-seeding treatments within this initial population, not including hand plantings. We also located a considerable number of additional records from other potential field offices that would be available for the chronosequence study but have yet to be compiled for this feasibility report. There are a number of potential challenges involved in going forward with a field-based chronosequence study derived from data collected at these nine BLM offices. One challenge is that not all seed mixtures in ESR project files have on-the-ground confirmation about what was sown or rates of application. Most projects, particularly records before 2000, just list the planned or purchased seed mixtures. Although this could potentially bias assessments of factors influencing establishment rates of individual species for treatments conducted before 2000, a chronosequence study would not be intended to assess success solely at the species-level. Treatment success would be evaluated based on the establishment of healthy vegetation communities, such as the abundance and density of perennial species, regardless of their lifeforms (grasses, fo

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

NBII-SAIN Data Management Toolkit

The Strategic Plan for the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Informatics Program (2005-2009) recognizes the need for effective data management: Though the Federal government invests more than $600 million per year in biological data collection, it is difficult to address these issues because of limited accessibility and lack of standards for data and information...variable quality, sources, methods, and formats (for example observations in the field, museum specimens, and satellite images) present additional challenges. This is further complicated by the fast-moving target of emerging and changing technologies such as GPS and GIS. Even though these technologies offer new solutions, they also create new informatics challenges (Ruggiero and others, 2005). The USGS National Biological Information Infrastructure program, hereafter referred to as NBII, is charged with the mission to improve the way data and information are gathered, documented, stored, and accessed. The central objective of this project is a direct reflection of the purpose of NBII as described by John Mosesso, Program Manager of the U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Informatics Program-GAP Analysis: At the outset, the reason for bringing about NBII was that there were significant amounts of data and information scattered all over the U.S., not accessible, in incompatible formats, and that NBII was tasked with addressing this problem...NBII's focus is to pull data together that truly matters to someone or communities. Essentially, the core questions are: 1) what are the issues, 2) where is the data, and 3) how can we make it usable and accessible (John Mosesso, U.S. Geological Survey, oral commun., 2006). Redundancy in data collection can be a major issue when multiple stakeholders are involved with a common effort. In 2001 the U.S. General Accounting Office (USGAO) estimated that about 50 percent of the Federal government's geospatial data at the time was redundant. In addition, approximately 80 percent of the cost of a spatial information system is associated with spatial data collection and management (U.S. General Accounting Office, 2003). These figures indicate that the resources (time, personnel, money) of many agencies and organizations could be used more efficiently and effectively. Dedicated and conscientious data management coordination and documentation is critical for reducing such redundancy. Substantial cost savings and increased efficiency are direct results of a pro-active data management approach. In addition, details of projects as well as data and information are frequently lost as a result of real-world occurrences such as the passing of time, job turnover, and equipment changes and failure. A standardized, well documented database allows resource managers to identify issues, analyze options, and ultimately make better decisions in the context of adaptive management (National Land and Water Resources Audit and the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council on behalf of the Australian National Government, 2003). Many environmentally focused, scientific, or natural resource management organizations collect and create both spatial and non-spatial data in some form. Data management appropriate for those data will be contingent upon the project goal(s) and objectives and thus will vary on a case-by-case basis. This project and the resulting Data Management Toolkit, hereafter referred to as the Toolkit, is therefore not intended to be comprehensive in terms of addressing all of the data management needs of all projects that contain biological, geospatial, and other types of data. The Toolkit emphasizes the idea of connecting a project's data and the related management needs to the defined project goals and objectives from the outset. In that context, the Toolkit presents and describes the fundamental components of sound data and information management that are common to projects involving biological, geospatial, and other related data

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making - Proceedings of a Workshop

The analytical framework for understanding ecosystem services in conservation, resource management, and development decisions is multidisciplinary, encompassing a combination of the natural and social sciences. This report summarizes a workshop on 'Developing an Analytical Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' which focused on the analytical process and on identifying research priorities for assessing ecosystem services, their production and use, their spatial and temporal characteristics, their relationship with natural systems, and their interdependencies. Attendees discussed research directions and solutions to key challenges in developing the analytical framework. The discussion was divided into two sessions: (1) the measurement framework: quantities and values, and (2) the spatial framework: mapping and spatial relationships. This workshop was the second of three preconference workshops associated with ACES 2008 (A Conference on Ecosystem Services): Using Science for Decision Making in Dynamic Systems. These three workshops were designed to explore the ACES 2008 theme on decision making and how the concept of ecosystem services can be more effectively incorporated into conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions. Preconference workshop 1, 'Developing a Vision: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on April 15, 2008, in Cambridge, MA. In preconference workshop 1, participants addressed what would have to happen to make ecosystem services be used more routinely and effectively in conservation, restoration, resource management, and development decisions, and they identified some key challenges in developing the analytical framework. Preconference workshop 3, 'Developing an Institutional Framework: Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Decision Making,' was held on October 30, 2008, in Albuquerque, NM; participants examined the relationship between the institutional framework and the use of ecosystem services in decision making.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Southeast Regional Assessment Project for the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey

The Southeastern United States spans a broad range of physiographic settings and maintains exceptionally high levels of faunal diversity. Unfortunately, many of these ecosystems are increasingly under threat due to rapid human development, and management agencies are increasingly aware of the potential effects that climate change will have on these ecosystems. Natural resource managers and conservation planners can be effective at preserving ecosystems in the face of these stressors only if they can adapt current conservation efforts to increase the overall resilience of the system. Climate change, in particular, challenges many of the basic assumptions used by conservation planners and managers. Previous conservation planning efforts identified and prioritized areas for conservation based on the current environmental conditions, such as habitat quality, and assumed that conditions in conservation lands would be largely controlled by management actions (including no action). Climate change, however, will likely alter important system drivers (temperature, precipitation, and sea-level rise) and make it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain recent historic conditions in conservation lands into the future. Climate change will also influence the future conservation potential of non-conservation lands, further complicating conservation planning. Therefore, there is a need to develop and adapt effective conservation strategies to cope with the effects of climate and landscape change on future environmental conditions. Congress recognized this important issue and authorized the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center (NCCWSC; http://nccw.usgs.gov/) in the Fiscal Year 2008. The NCCWSC will produce science that will help resource management agencies anticipate and adapt to climate change impacts to fish, wildlife, and their habitats. With the release of Secretarial Order 3289 on September 14, 2009, the mandate of the NCCWSC was expanded to address climate change-related impacts on all Department of the Interior (DOI) resources. The NCCWSC will establish a network of eight DOI Regional Climate Science Centers (RCSCs) that will work with a variety of partners to provide natural resource managers with tools and information that will help them anticipate and adapt conservation planning and design for projected climate change. The forecasting products produced by the RCSCs will aid fish, wildlife, and land managers in designing suitable adaptive management approaches for their programs. The DOI also is developing Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) as science and conservation action partnerships at subregional scales. The USGS is working with the Southeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to develop science collaboration between the future Southeast RCSC and future LCCs. The NCCWSC Southeast Regional Assessment Project (SERAP) will begin to develop regional downscaled climate models, land cover change models, regional ecological models, regional watershed models, and other science tools. Models and data produced by SERAP will be used in a collaborative process between the USGS, the FWS (LCCs), State and federal partners, nongovernmental organizations, and academia to produce science at appropriate scales to answer resource management questions. The SERAP will produce an assessment of climate change, and impacts on land cover, ecosystems, and priority species in the region. The predictive tools developed by the SERAP project team will allow end users to better understand potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise on terrestrial and aquatic populations in the Southeastern United States. The SERAP capitalizes on the integration of five existing projects: (1) the Multi-State Conservation Grants Program project "Designing Sustainable Landscapes," (2) the USGS multidisciplinary Science Thrust project "Water Availability for Ecological Needs," (3) the USGS Southeast Pilot Project "Climate Change in the Southeastern U.S. and its Impacts on Bird Distributions and Habitats," (4) a sea-level rise impacts study envisioned jointly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and (5) two USGS sea-level rise impact assessment projects that address inundation hazards and provide probabilistic forecasts of coastal geomorphic change. The SERAP will expand on these existing projects and include the following tasks, which were initiated in summer 2009: * Regionally downscaled probabilistic climate-change projections * Integrated coastal assessment * Integrated terrestrial assessment * Multi-resolution assessment of potential climate change effects on biological resources: aquatic and hydrologic dynamics * Optimal conservation strategies to cope with climate change The SERAP seeks to formally integrate these tasks to aid conservation planning and design so that ecosystem management decisions can be optimized for providing desirable outcomes across a range of species and environments. The following chapters detail SERAP's efforts in providing a suite of regional climate, watershed, and landscape-change analyses and develop the interdisciplinary framework required for the biological planning phases of adaptive management and strategic conservation. The planning phase will include the identification of conservation alternatives, development of predictive models and decision support tools, and development of a template to address similar challenges and goals in other regions. The project teams will explore and develop ways to link the various ecological models arising from each component. The SERAP project team also will work closely with members of the LCCs and other partnerships throughout the life of the project to ensure that the objectives of the project meet resources mangers needs in the Southeast.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

USGS global change science strategy: A framework for understanding and responding to climate and land-use change

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Global Change Science Strategy expands on the Climate Variability and Change science component of the USGS 2007 Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges: USGS Science in the Coming Decade” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). Here we embrace the broad definition of global change provided in the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–606,104 Stat. 3096–3104)—“Changes in the global environment (including alterations in climate, land productivity, oceans or other water resources, atmospheric chemistry, and ecological systems) that may alter the capacity of the Earth to sustain life”—with a focus on climate and land-use change. There are three major characteristics of this science strategy. First, it addresses the science required to broadly inform global change policy, while emphasizing the needs of natural-resource managers and reflecting the role of the USGS as the science provider for the Department of the Interior and other resource-management agencies. Second, the strategy identifies core competencies, noting 10 critical capabilities and strengths the USGS uses to overcome key problem areas. We highlight those areas in which the USGS is a science leader, recognizing the strong partnerships and effective collaboration that are essential to address complex global environmental challenges. Third, it uses a query-based approach listing key research questions that need to be addressed to create an agenda for hypothesis-driven global change science organized under six strategic goals. Overall, the strategy starts from where we are, provides a vision for where we want to go, and then describes high-priority strategic actions, including outcomes, products, and partnerships that can get us there. Global change science is a well-defined research field with strong linkages to the ecosystems, water, energy and minerals, natural hazards, and environmental health components of the USGS Science Strategy (2007). When science strategies that cover these other components are developed, coordinated implementation will be necessary to achieve Bureau-level synergies and optimize capabilities and expertise. In October 2010, USGS realigned its management and budget structure to implement its 2007 Science Strategy. The new organizational structure, in which “Global Change” is one of seven key mission areas, lends itself to the advancement of the established six strategic goals. USGS global change science is formally represented by the “Climate and Land-Use Change” Mission Area in the FY 2012 budget (USGS, 2011). This plan was developed by the USGS Global Change Science Strategy Planning Team (SSPT) appointed by the USGS Director on March 4, 2010 and charged with developing a Global Change Science Strategy for the coming decade (McNutt, 2010). USGS managers and science staff are the main audience for this science strategy. This document is also intended to serve as the foundation for consistent USGS collaboration and communication with partners and stakeholders.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Partnering for science: proceedings of the USGS Workshop on Citizen Science

What U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) programs use citizen science? How can projects be best designed while meeting policy requirements? What are the most effective volunteer recruitment methods? What data should be collected to ensure validation and how should data be stored? What standard protocols are most easily used by volunteers? Can data from multiple projects be integrated to support new research or existing science questions? To help answer these and other questions, the USGS Community of Data Integration (CDI) supported the development of the Citizen Science Working Group (CSWG) in August 2011 and funded the working group’s proposal to hold a USGS Citizen Science Workshop in fiscal year 2012. The stated goals for our workshop were: raise awareness of programs and projects in the USGS that incorporate citizen science, create a community of practice for the sharing of knowledge and experiences, provide a forum to discuss the challenges of—and opportunities for—incorporating citizen science into USGS projects, and educate and support scientists and managers whose projects may benefit from public participation in science.To meet these goals, the workshop brought together 50 attendees (see appendix A for participant details) representing the USGS, partners, and external citizen science practitioners from diverse backgrounds (including scientists, managers, project coordinators, and technical developers, for example) to discuss these topics at the Denver Federal Center in Colorado on September 11–12, 2012. Over two and a half days, attendees participated in four major plenary sessions (Citizen Science Policy and Challenges, Engaging the Public in Scientific Research, Data Collection and Management, and Technology and Tools) comprised of 25 invited presentations and followed by structured discussions for each session designed to address both prepared and ad hoc "big questions." A number of important community support and infrastructure needs were identified from the sessions and discussions, and a subteam was formed to draft a strategic vision statement to guide and prioritize future USGS efforts to support the citizen science community. Attendees also brainstormed proposal ideas for the fiscal year 2013 CDI request for proposals: one possible venue to support the execution of the vision.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2013

Native Prairie Adaptive Management: a multi region adaptive approach to invasive plant management on Fish and Wildlife Service owned native prairies

Much of the native prairie managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the northern Great Plains is extensively invaded by the introduced cool-season grasses, smooth brome ( Bromus inermis ) and Kentucky bluegrass ( Poa pratensis ). Management to suppress these invasive plants has had poor to inconsistent success. The central challenge to managers is selecting appropriate management actions in the face of biological and environmental uncertainties. In partnership with the FWS, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) developed an adaptive decision support framework to assist managers in selecting management actions under uncertainty and maximizing learning from management outcomes. This joint partnership is known as the Native Prairie Adaptive Management (NPAM) initiative. The NPAM decision framework is built around practical constraints faced by FWS refuge managers and includes identification of the management objective and strategies, analysis of uncertainty and construction of competing decision models, monitoring, and mechanisms for model feedback and decision selection. Nineteen FWS field stations, spanning four states of the PPR, have participated in the initiative. These FWS cooperators share a common management objective, available management strategies, and biological uncertainties. Though the scope is broad, the initiative interfaces with individual land managers who provide site-specific information and receive updated decision guidance that incorporates understanding gained from the collective experience of all cooperators. We describe the technical components of this approach, how the components integrate and inform each other, how data feedback from individual cooperators serves to reduce uncertainty across the whole region, and how a successful adaptive management project is coordinated and maintained on a large scale. During an initial scoping workshop, FWS cooperators developed a consensus management objective: increase the composition of native grasses and forbs on native sod while minimizing cost. Cooperators agreed that decision guidance should be provided annually and should account for local, real-time vegetation conditions observed on the ground. Over the course of development, two prototypes of the decision framework were considered. The final framework recognized four alternative actions that managers could take in any given year: (1) Graze—targeted use of grazing ungulates to achieve defoliation, (2) Burn—application of prescribed fire as the single form of defoliation, (3) Burn/Graze—a combination treatment, and (4) Rest—no action. The study area included northern mixed-grass and tallgrass prairie. Native vegetation in mixed–grass prairie has a strong cool-season component and thus the dominant native species have a phenology similar to that of smooth brome and Kentucky bluegrass, making management of those species challenging. In contrast, tallgrass prairie has a strong warm-season native component, leading to an existence of cool-season windows, periods of time in the fall and spring when cool‐season invasive grass species are actively growing and vulnerable to damage via select management actions, but warm‐season grass species are not active and are thus less susceptible to damage via the same actions. This dichotomy between prairie types necessitated the development of separate but parallel decision support systems for mixed-grass and tallgrass biomes. Management units are parcels of native prairie that receive a single management treatment at any one time over their entire extent. At any particular time, the vegetation state of each management unit is characterized by the amount of cover of native grasses and forbs and the type of invasive grass that is dominant. In addition, each unit has a defoliation state which reflects the number of years since the last defoliation event and an index to how intensively the unit was managed during the previous 7 years. State-transition models are used to predict the state of a management unit in year t+1 from its state in year t and a prescribed management action that was applied between the two monitoring events. Alternative models are built around key uncertainties that make choice of a management action difficult. Three uncertainties revolve around whether the effect of management actions depends on (1) type of dominant invader, (2) past defoliation history, and (3) level of invasion. Two additional uncertainties are considered when choosing a management action for tallgrass units: (4) the effectiveness of grazing within the cool-season window as a surrogate for burning when smooth brome is the dominant invader, and (5) the differential effect of active management outside the window as compared to rest. Because data on the probability of transitioning from one state to another under the various models were lacking, expert opinion and elicitation were used to parameterize the models. In addition, cooperators participated in elicitation exercises to extract their beliefs regarding the value of having native prairie compared to the cost of achieving it. Quantifying the subjective expression of utility in this way allowed for mathematical representation of the management objective into an objective function. By maximizing the objective function, cumulative utility is maximized, leading to the identification of a sequence of decisions that will achieve the management objective. The NPAM system adopted a vegetation monitoring protocol that was rapid, inexpensive, and familiar to many of the cooperators. The monitoring protocol served three purposes: (1) determining current vegetation and defoliation states of each unit, (2) evaluating progress toward the management objective, and (3) assessing predictive performance of the alternative models. The management year runs from September 1 to August 31. Management can be applied anytime during that period and monitoring takes places from late June to mid-August. Cooperators enter vegetation data and management information into a centralized database by August 25 of each year. Given the current state of the system (vegetation and defoliation states) and the current understanding of the system (or the belief state), identifying the current best management decision is a matter of looking up the combination (that is, system state and belief state) in the appropriate (mixed-grass or tallgrass) optimal decision table. Given complete uncertainty at the outset of decision-making, initial assignment of equal belief weights to each model was believed reasonable. The decisions in the optimal decision table that correspond to the current belief state constitute the current optimal decision policy. By August 31 of each year, individual cooperators are provided with a recommended management action for each of their management units for the upcoming management year. Upon receiving the management recommendations for their units, managers consider the recommendation, along with other relevant information, and at some point during the year one of the management alternatives is carried out. This iterative cycle of making and implementing a management decision, predicting the response, monitoring the outcome, comparing predicted and observed outcomes, updating model weights, and recommending a management action for the next cycle is expected to result in an accumulation of weight on a representative model of system dynamics, thereby increasing understanding needed to effectively manage native prairies. The NPAM system is now entering its second full year of complete operation, and represents one of only a few fully implemented applications of adaptive management within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. NPAM is truly unique in that it originated from the ground up as a result of the leadership and steadfastness of several refuge biologists and managers confronted with a common problem. These biologists recognized that working together across a large landscape presented perhaps the best opportunity for halting and reversing the invasion of native grasslands by non-native cool-season grasses. Importantly, the NPAM system encapsulates the collective thinking and experience of tens if not hundreds of individuals who have battled this vexing problem for much of their careers. The NPAM initiative is rooted in principles of adaptive management, thereby affording the opportunity for grassland managers to pursue management objectives while acquiring information to reduce uncertainty and improve future management. The project introduced a number of technical innovations that will serve as templates for conservation efforts throughout and beyond the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. First, NPAM is an on-the-ground implementation of active adaptive management—possibly the first of its kind in conservation management—in which recommended management actions result from a prospective analysis of future learning (Williams, 1996). Second, by the use of dynamic optimization, NPAM demonstrates how decisions can be made that take into account possible future transitions of the system. Third, NPAM demonstrates how models of partial controllability are an effective means of accommodating unpredictable circumstances that cause a manager to follow a different course than was intended. Finally, the database developed for NPAM is an unparalleled system that enables the rapid integration of data from the field for the generation of ‘just-in-time’ management recommendations. In all, NPAM provides an example of how a science-management partnership can be forged to achieve large-scale conservation objectives.

Minnesota;Montana;North Dakota;South Dakota↗
USGS2014

Landscape and climate science and scenarios for Florida

The Peninsular Florida Landscape Conservation Cooperative (PFLCC) is part of a network of 22 Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) that extend from Alaska to the Caribbean. LCCs are regional-applied conservation-science partnerships among Federal agencies, regional organizations, States, tribes, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), private stakeholders, universities, and other entities within a geographic area. The goal of these conservation-science partnerships is to help inform managers and decision makers at a landscape scale to further the principles of adaptive management and strategic habitat conservation. A major focus for LCCs is to help conservation managers and decision makers respond to large-scale ecosystem and habitat stressors, such as climate change, habitat fragmentation, invasive species, and water scarcity. The purpose of the PFLCC is to facilitate planning, design, and implementation of conservation strategies for fish and wildlife species at the landscape level using the adaptive management framework of strategic habitat conservation—integrating planning, design, delivery, and evaluation. Florida faces a set of unique challenges when responding to regional and global stressors because of its unique ecosystems and assemblages of species, its geographic location at the crossroads of temperate and tropical climates, and its exposure to both rapid urbanization and rising sea levels as the climate warms. In response to these challenges, several landscape-scale science projects were initiated with the goal of informing decision makers about how potential changes in climate and the built environment could impact habitats and ecosystems of concern in Florida and the Southeast United States. In June 2012, the PFLCC, North Carolina State University, convened a workshop at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Coastal and Marine Science Center in St. Petersburg to assess the results of these integrated assessments and to foster an open dialogue about science gaps and future research needs.

Florida↗
USGS2016

Science information to support Missouri River Scaphirhynchus albus (pallid sturgeon) effects analysis

The Missouri River Pallid Sturgeon Effects Analysis (EA) was commissioned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a foundation of understanding of how pallid sturgeon ( Scaphirhynchus albus ) population dynamics are linked to management actions in the Missouri River. The EA consists of several steps: (1) development of comprehensive, conceptual ecological models illustrating pallid sturgeon population dynamics and links to management actions and other drivers; (2) compilation and assessment of available scientific literature, databases, and models; (3) development of predictive, quantitative models to explore the system dynamics and population responses to management actions; and (4) analysis and assessment of effects of system operations and actions on species’ habitats and populations. This report addresses the second objective, compilation and assessment of relevant information. Scientific information on pallid sturgeon and its environment has grown substantially during the last decade. Presently available (2015) information indicates that stocked sturgeon are surviving and growing, and that wild and hatchery sturgeon are spawning in the wild. However, natural recruitment to age-1 and older has not been detected since systematic sampling began in 2005. Population models indicate the sensitivity of population growth to certain demographic variables, in particular early-life stage survival and perhaps adult fecundity. This report documents the existing population models for the pallid sturgeon, and the substantial quantities of information developed through the Pallid Sturgeon Population Assessment Program (PSPAP), the Habitat Assessment and Monitoring Program (HAMP), the Comprehensive Sturgeon Research Project (CSRP), range-wide genetics databases, and related research studies. The reference database compiled for the EA consists of over 190 peer-reviewed documents specifically related to pallid sturgeon and over 12,000 references on the Missouri River system and related species. Notwithstanding the large quantity of information available, the EA faces challenges in synthesizing the information into useful, quantitative models. In particular, critical demographic parameters for population models remain uncertain and the functional relationships between the two main categories of physical management action—changes in flow regime and reengineering channel form—and pallid sturgeon survival responses are obscure. In addition, there is an overarching uncertainty about how physical management actions interact with propagation management actions in view of evolving understanding of genetic structuring of the pallid sturgeon population. Synthesis efforts are also challenged by the fragmentation of information sources among projects and agencies; one objective of this report is to facilitate future assessments by providing documentation of what information is available and where.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North D↗