Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

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 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources
USGS2016

The integrated rangeland fire management strategy actionable science plan

The Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy (hereafter Strategy, DOI 2015) outlined the need for coordinated, science-based adaptive management to achieve long-term protection, conservation, and restoration of the sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) ecosystem. A key component of this management approach is the identification of knowledge gaps that limit implementation of effective strategies to meet current management challenges. The tasks and actions identified in the Strategy address several broad topics related to management of the sagebrush ecosystem. This science plan is organized around these topics and specifically focuses on fire, invasive plant species and their effects on altering fire regimes, restoration, sagebrush and greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and climate and weather.

Report↗
USGS2017

Citizen science can improve conservation science, natural resource management, and environmental protection

Citizen science has advanced science for hundreds of years, contributed to many peer-reviewed articles, and informed land management decisions and policies across the United States. Over the last 10 years, citizen science has grown immensely in the United States and many other countries. Here, we show how citizen science is a powerful tool for tackling many of the challenges faced in the field of conservation biology. We describe the two interwoven paths by which citizen science can improve conservation efforts, natural resource management, and environmental protection. The first path includes building scientific knowledge, while the other path involves informing policy and encouraging public action. We explore how citizen science is currently used and describe the investments needed to create a citizen science program. We find that: Citizen science already contributes substantially to many domains of science, including conservation, natural resource, and environmental science. Citizen science informs natural resource management, environmental protection, and policymaking and fosters public input and engagement. Many types of projects can benefit from citizen science, but one must be careful to match the needs for science and public involvement with the right type of citizen science project and the right method of public participation. Citizen science is a rigorous process of scientific discovery, indistinguishable from conventional science apart from the participation of volunteers. When properly designed, carried out, and evaluated, citizen science can provide sound science, efficiently generate high-quality data, and help solve problems.

Biological Conservation↗
USGS2011

Integrating science and resource management in Tampa Bay, Florida

Tampa Bay is recognized internationally for its remarkable progress towards recovery since it was pronounced "dead" in the late 1970s. Due to significant efforts by local governments, industries and private citizens throughout the watershed, water clarity in Tampa Bay is now equal to what it was in 1950, when population in the watershed was less than one-quarter of what it is today. Seagrass extent has increased by more than 8,000 acres since the mid-1980s, and fish and wildlife populations are increasing. Central to this successful turn-around has been the Tampa Bay resource management community's long-term commitment to development and implementation of strong science-based management strategies. Research institutions and agencies, including Eckerd College, the Florida Wildlife Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Mote Marine Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, University of South Florida, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, local and State governments, and private companies contribute significantly to the scientific basis of our understanding of Tampa Bay's structure and ecological function. Resource management agencies, including the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Agency on Bay Management, the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Surface Water Improvement and Management Program, and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, depend upon this scientific basis to develop and implement regional adaptive management programs. The importance of integrating science with management has become fully recognized by scientists and managers throughout the region, State and Nation. Scientific studies conducted in Tampa Bay over the past 10–15 years are increasingly diverse and complex, and resource management programs reflect our increased knowledge of geology, hydrology and hydrodynamics, ecology and restoration techniques. However, a synthesis of this research and its integration into resource management has not been prepared for Tampa Bay since the mid-1980s. The need for an up-to-date synthesis of Tampa Bay science and management has resulted in the production of this document. The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a 5-year Tampa Bay Integrated Science Study, and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program updated the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay in 2006. These efforts build upon results of the many research and management studies and programs summarized here.

Florida↗
USGS2026

Spatial behavior of socially isolated wild pigs (Sus scrofa) following sounder removal via trapping

BACKGROUND The rapid expansion of wild pig ( Sus scrofa ) populations across North America, coupled with increased concern over disease transmission, has intensified the need for effective management strategies. Trapping is widely regarded as the most effective control method; however, trapping events often fail to capture entire sounders. The behavioral responses of untrapped individuals following partial sounder removal remain poorly understood, potentially undermining management efficiency. We evaluated the spatiotemporal movement responses of wild pigs that became socially isolated following trapping events. RESULTS We deployed GPS collars on 18 female wild pigs from multiple sounders and quantified post-trapping movement patterns using distance from trap site, step length, persistence velocity, space covered and overlap area over a 30-day period. Movement responses were highly variable among individuals, but wild pigs travelled an average of 1.2 km from the trap, with a maximum observed distance of 6.37 km. Space-use overlap was limited, and range sizes remained relatively stable. Individuals originating from sounders with a greater proportion of females moved farther from the trap, whereas wild pigs in better body condition exhibited lower movement velocities. CONCLUSION Socially isolated wild pigs generally remained close to trap sites following partial sounder removal and rarely dispersed from the area. This behavioral pattern suggests a predictable post-trapping window during which untrapped individuals remain spatially accessible. These findings provide critical empirical support for adaptive trapping strategies, indicating that follow-up removal efforts can be effectively concentrated near original trap locations to improve management efficiency and reduce the risk of population persistence or disease spread. © 2026 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Alabama↗
USGS2025

Points of consensus on catch-and-release: Considerations for science, ethics, and fisheries management

Catch-and-release (C&R), whether via regulations or voluntary actions, is typically employed with the intent of reducing ­fishing mortality while maintaining recreational angling opportunities (Isermann & Paukert, 2010), but there has been significant discourse about the relative importance of individual-level (see Cooke et al., 2025) vs. population-level (see Corsi et al., 2025) effects of C&R. We hope to offer the angling, scientific, and management communities some points of consensus from which this multifaceted dialogue on C&R can productively build. We preface this by noting that our collective views were informed by this process and the opportunity to share and learn from each other. What is apparent from this exercise is the value of embracing a holistic, cooperative approach. From a regulatory perspective, C&R is typically implemented in high-effort fisheries that are popular due to the quality of the fishing. Catch-and-release regulations are also applied in fisheries where populations have declined and fishing mortality is thought or, most appropriately, known to be a limiting factor for the population. When practiced voluntarily, anglers engaging in C&R can be characterized by high avidity and specialization, and angling is often a central component of their identity (e.g., Fisher, 1997). Due to their passion, avid anglers tend to spotlight the ethical, scientific, and regulatory considerations of C&R. As such, there is a need in fisheries management and science to understand in what situations these considerations transcend biological scales and how to navigate the gamut of voluntary actions and regulatory mandates. In this essay, we offer a distillation of the emergent consensus concepts that we hope managers and researchers will consider at both individual and population scales for legal, ethical, and scientific deliberations.

Fisheries↗
USGS2022

Adaptation strategies and approaches for managing fire in a changing climate

As the effects of climate change accumulate and intensify, resource managers juggle existing goals and new mandates to operationalize adaptation. Fire managers contend with the direct effects of climate change on resources in addition to climate-induced disruptions to fire regimes and subsequent ecosystem effects. In systems stressed by warming and drying, increased fire activity amplifies the pace of change and scale of severe disturbance events, heightening the urgency for management action. Fire managers are asked to integrate information on climate impacts with their professional expertise to determine how to achieve management objectives in a changing climate with altered fire regimes. This is a difficult task, and managers need support as they incorporate climate adaptation into planning and operations. We present a list of adaptation strategies and approaches specific to fire and climate based on co-produced knowledge from a science–management partnership and pilot-tested in a two-day workshop with natural resource managers and regional stakeholders. This “menu” is a flexible and useful tool for fire managers who need to connect the dots between fire ecology, climate science, adaptation intent, and management implementation. It was created and tested as part of an adaptation framework used widely across the United States and should be applicable and useful in many fire-prone forest ecosystems.

Climate↗
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↗
USGS2017

A concept for performance management for Federal science programs

The demonstration of clear linkages between planning, funding, outcomes, and performance management has created unique challenges for U.S. Federal science programs. An approach is presented here that characterizes science program strategic objectives by one of five “activity types”: (1) knowledge discovery, (2) knowledge development and delivery, (3) science support, (4) inventory and monitoring, and (5) knowledge synthesis and assessment. The activity types relate to performance measurement tools for tracking outcomes of research funded under the objective. The result is a multi-time scale, integrated performance measure that tracks individual performance metrics synthetically while also measuring progress toward long-term outcomes. Tracking performance on individual metrics provides explicit linkages to root causes of potentially suboptimal performance and captures both internal and external program drivers, such as customer relations and science support for managers. Functionally connecting strategic planning objectives with performance measurement tools is a practical approach for publicly funded science agencies that links planning, outcomes, and performance management—an enterprise that has created unique challenges for public-sector research and development programs.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

A draft decision framework for the National Park Service Interior Region 5 bison stewardship strategy

The Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative calls for its bureaus to plan and implement collaborative American bison conservation and to ensure involvement by tribal, state, and local governments and the public in that conservation. Four independently managed and geographically separated National Park Service (NPS) units in Interior Region 5 (IR5) preserve bison and other components of a formerly contiguous Great Plains landscape. Management of bison in IR5 parks has historically been specific to each park, and livestock and range management science informed much of the decision making. In the past two decades, NPS has shifted away from managing bison from this livestock-based perspective towards a wildlife stewardship approach, including ensuring their long-term adaptive potential and considering them as just one part of a complex ecosystem. This shift requires a more holistic and cooperative approach to stewardship that is challenging not only because of limitations in funding and fluctuations in leadership priorities, but also because of the constraints imposed by the parks’ relatively small, fenced areas. The IR5 NPS Bison Stewardship Strategy (“Strategy”) will help the NPS to meet its responsibilities in cooperative stewardship of bison. The Strategy will serve to organize and consolidate the NPS’s legal and policy responsibilities within a framework of collectively defined values and objectives to support the careful and transparent decision-making processes that both guide and transcend park-specific planning. This report describes a preliminary decision framework for the Strategy, including the context, the fundamental objectives, and a range of alternative strategies developed and considered through two workshops and a series of conference calls with NPS personnel, stakeholders, and outside experts with an interest in IR5 NPS bison stewardship. Although not the Strategy itself, this framework serves as the Strategy’s starting point and identifies 14 fundamental objectives, falling in four major themes: Persistence of Wild and Healthy Bison 1. Maximize the long-term persistence of bison in IR5 parks 2. Maximize the long-term adaptive capacity of bison in North America 3. Maximize the wildness of the bison herds 4. Maximize humane treatment of bison, while allowing natural processes to occur Supporting Tribal Buffalo Culture 5. Improve relationships, trust, and communication with Tribes to enhance shared stewardship of bison within and beyond IR5 6. Maximize the number of live, healthy bison that can be transferred to tribal herds Persistence of Native Ecological Communities and Processes 7. Maximize structural and compositional heterogeneity of native prairie plant communities across space and time within each park 8. Maximize the abundance and diversity of animal species of special concern 9. Minimize the loss of native grassland within each park 10. Minimize the abundance of exotic plants in the park landscape 11. Maximize riparian area and wetland integrity Public Outreach 12. Maximize the number of healthy, wild bison that are visible to the public 13. Maximize the safety of visitors 14. Maximize public understanding of the past, present, and future of bison and Native Americans in the Great Plains The terms “minimize” and “maximize” in these objectives describe the desired direction for each individual objective. Finding the right balance among these objectives and any others identified in further work is one of the central challenges in developing the Strategy. To that end, this report also demonstrates and describes potential methods for evaluating how well alternative strategies would achieve each of the fundamental objectives.

Natural Resource Report↗
USGS2022

Optimizing management of invasions in an uncertain world using dynamic spatial models

Dispersal drives invasion dynamics of nonnative species and pathogens. Applying knowledge of dispersal to optimize the management of invasions can mean the difference between a failed and a successful control program and dramatically improve the return on investment of control efforts. A common approach to identifying optimal management solutions for invasions is to optimize dynamic spatial models that incorporate dispersal. Optimizing these spatial models can be very challenging because the interaction of time, space, and uncertainty rapidly amplifies the number of dimensions being considered. Addressing such problems requires advances in and the integration of techniques from multiple fields, including ecology, decision analysis, bioeconomics, natural resource management, and optimization. By synthesizing recent advances from these diverse fields, we provide a workflow for applying ecological theory to advance optimal management science and highlight priorities for optimizing the control of invasions. One of the striking gaps we identify is the extremely limited consideration of dispersal uncertainty in optimal management frameworks, even though dispersal estimates are highly uncertain and greatly influence invasion outcomes. In addition, optimization frameworks rarely consider multiple types of uncertainty (we describe five major types) and their interrelationships. Thus, feedbacks from management or other sources that could magnify uncertainty in dispersal are rarely considered. Incorporating uncertainty is crucial for improving transparency in decision risks and identifying optimal management strategies. We discuss gaps and solutions to the challenges of optimization using dynamic spatial models to increase the practical application of these important tools and improve the consistency and robustness of management recommendations for invasions.

Ecological Applications↗
USGS2019

User guide to the FireCLIME Vulnerability Assessment (VA) Tool: A rapid and flexible system for assessing ecosystem vulnerability to climate-fire interactions

Decisionmakers need better methods for identifying critical ecosystem vulnerabilities to changing climate and fire regimes. Climate-wildfire-vegetation interactions are complex and hinder classification and projection necessary for development of management strategies. One such vulnerability assessment (VA) is FireCLIME VA, which allows users to compare management strategies under various climate scenarios and gauge the potential effectiveness of those strategies for reducing undesirable impacts of climate on wildfire regimes and resulting impacts of wildfire on natural ecosystems. Developed as part of the SW FireCLIME science-management partnership, FireCLIME is meant to be quick, flexible, and amendable to a range of data inputs (literature review, expert, and modeling or monitoring activities), allowing users to easily compare various fire-climate outcomes for one or more ecosystems of interest. Users can use literature, hypothetical scenarios, or quantitative data to implement the FireCLIME VA tool. This tool, unlike other vulnerability assessment, is best used iteratively to explore a range of possible scenarios and management strategies.

Report↗
USGS2024

The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy

President Biden has been clear that the ocean is central to life on Earth. As he has proclaimed, “the ocean powers millions of jobs; feeds and sustains us; and is a rejuvenating source of inspiration, exploration, and recreation.” The Biden-Harris Administration has worked hard to fulfill the President’s goal to protect and conserve at least 30% of U.S. waters by 2030. The ocean faces increased threats from warming, overfishing, increased acidity, and loss of biodiversity. It is now more important than ever to sustain the many benefits that the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes provide, including food, a favorable climate, recreation, physical and mental health, and for many, a sense of cultural identity. Ocean life represents an irreplaceable heritage, the foundation of a habitable planet, and a vast trove of resources. Keeping our ocean healthy requires reliable information on the changing status of these living organisms, the drivers of biodiversity change, and options for effectively addressing those drivers. Over 2 million species are estimated to live in the ocean, yet only about 240,000 species have been described by scientists. Most of the ocean’s benefits result from those diverse species interacting with one another and the environment they create. To protect and conserve the ocean, we as a nation need to make better use of existing knowledge and prioritize acquiring new biodiversity knowledge to enable better policy and management decisions. The ability to monitor ocean species and habitats has expanded dramatically over the past decade, with innovations in technology, genomics, taxonomy, big data management and sharing, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Yet large fractions of the U.S. ocean remain almost unknown. The National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (strategy) reflects the urgent need to leverage these advances. The goals of this strategy must be guided by the nation’s diverse voices and ways of knowing, in order to maximize effective and equitable stewardship of the ocean’s diverse life and its benefits to people. The strategy is intended as a guiding document for government to advance three overarching goals: ● Goal 1: Drive delivery of ocean biodiversity knowledge at the national scale. Objectives include developing an Implementation Plan for achieving the strategy’s three goals; establishing a coordination mechanism to manage the implementation; and documenting gaps in biodiversity knowledge and the benefits of ocean biodiversity to people and economies. ● Goal 2: Strengthen tools and institutions to deliver ocean biodiversity knowledge. Objectives include establishing a robust information pipeline to support indicators and dynamic maps of ocean biodiversity, from the coasts to the deep sea. This pipeline should include expanded observing systems and comprehensive data management; science and technology solutions to accelerate the availability of biodiversity information; and plans to leverage previous investments to rebuild and expand the nation’s human capital and infrastructure to sustain foundational taxonomy and biodiversity science. ● Goal 3: Protect, conserve, restore, and sustainably use ocean biodiversity. Objectives include expanding the collection, delivery, and use of biodiversity knowledge to inform actions that advance ocean protection, conservation, restoration, and sustainable development. Government should lead in establishing and incentivizing diverse partnerships across scales and sectors to implement those actions and should educate and involve the public to discover and value the nation’s diverse ocean life. Achieving these goals will require commitments across society: new federal and private investments, coordination across sectors to address climate and equity challenges, and engagement of Indigenous Knowledge holders and frontline communities as full partners throughout planning and implementation. The Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST) IWG-Biodiversity will begin developing an Implementation Plan to describe and direct specific actions to implement the strategy. Successful implementation of the strategy will harmonize and expand collection and delivery of timely knowledge on ocean life to all of society. The strategy will also enable evidence-based management and protection of the ocean. Advancing the strategy will build human and institutional capital and partnerships that support both existing mandates and new needs to rebuild and sustain biodiversity, achieve healthy ocean ecosystems, and manage living resources. Implementing the strategy will deliver knowledge for monitoring, modeling, forecasting, and assessments that support food security, public health, and cultural values, and that more effectively protect, conserve, and restore nature.

Report↗
USGS2018

Recent advances in environmental flows science and water management—Innovation in the Anthropocene

The implementation of environmental flow regimes offers a promising means to protect and restore riverine, wetland and estuarine ecosystems, their critical environmental services and cultural/societal values. This Special Issue expands the scope of environmental flows and water science in theory and practice, offering 20 papers from academics, agency researchers and non‐governmental organisations, each with fresh perspectives on the science and management of environmental water allocations. Contributions confront the grand challenge for environmental flows and water management in the Anthropocene—the urgent need for innovations that will help to sustain the innate resilience of social–ecological systems under dynamic and uncertain environmental and societal futures. Basin‐scale and regional assessments of flow requirements mark a necessary advance in environmental water science in the face of rapid changes in water‐resource management activities worldwide (e.g. increases in dams, diversions, retention and reuse). Techniques for regional‐scale hydrological and ecohydrological modelling support ecological risk assessment and identification of priority flow management and river restoration actions. Changing flood–drought cycles, long‐term climatic shifts and associated effects on hydrological, thermal and water quality regimes add enormous uncertainty to the prediction of future ecological outcomes, regardless of environmental water allocations. An improved capacity to predict the trajectories of ecological change in rivers degraded by legacies of past impact interacting with current conditions and future climate change is essential. Otherwise, we risk unrealistic expectations from restoration of river and estuarine flow regimes. A more robust, dynamic and predictive approach to environmental water science is emerging. It encourages the measurement of process rates (e.g. birth rate, colonisation rate) and species traits (e.g. physiological requirements, morphological adaptations) as well as ecosystem states (e.g. species richness, assemblage structure), as the variables representing ecological responses to flow variability and environmental water allocations. Another necessary development is the incorporation of other environmental variables such as water temperature and sedimentary processes in flow–ecological response models. Based on contributions to this Special Issue, several recent compilations and the wider literature, we identify six major scientific challenges for further exploration, and seven themes for advancing the management of environmental water. We see the emerging frontier of environmental flows and water science as urgent and challenging, with numerous opportunities for reinvigorated science and methodological innovation in the expanding enterprise of environmental water linked to ecological sustainability and social well‐being.

Freshwater Biology↗
USGS2017

Crossing boundaries in a collaborative modeling workspace

There is substantial literature on the importance of bridging across disciplinary and science–management boundaries. One of the ways commonly suggested to cross boundaries is for participants from both sides of the boundary to jointly produce information (i.e., knowledge co-production). But simply providing tools or bringing people together in the same room is not sufficient. Here we present a case study documenting the mechanisms by which managers and scientists collaborated to incorporate climate change projections into Colorado’s State Wildlife Action Plan. A critical component of the project was the use of a collaborative modeling and visualization workspace: the U.S. Geological Survey’s Resource for Advanced Modeling (RAM). Using video analysis and pre/post surveys from this case study, we examine how the RAM facilitated cognitive and social processes that co-produced a more salient and credible end product. This case provides practical suggestions to scientists and practitioners who want to implement actionable science.

Society and Natural Resources↗
USGS2022

Perspectives on challenges and opportunities at the restoration-policy interface in the U.S.A.

As we advance into the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration, understanding the relationship between science, management, and policy is increasingly important given the paucity of research evaluating the ability of existing policy to address contemporary environmental challenges. Despite their inherent interdependence, restoration ecology as a scientific discipline, ecological restoration as a practice, and the policies driving restoration efforts do not always represent a unified force. Accenting the policies and practices within the United States, we present our perspective on challenges associated with this disunion, including those linked to social dimensions of restoration and limitations associated with existing policy. We provide a review of existing federal policy in the United States and synthesize suggestions that have emerged in the literature to fortify connections between restoration science and policy. We also describe social challenges to meeting restoration goals, including barriers surrounding power dynamics, trust, and communication, as well as divergent incentives, perspectives, and values. We propose potential solutions that exist in transdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge sharing, and evidence-based, balanced decision-making that equally considers varying perspectives. With the understanding that current conservation practices are not enough to mitigate environmental degradation, we focus on streamlining problem-solving strategies to support restoration and face the widespread ecological issues of today.

Restoration Ecology↗
USGS2021

Assessing the impact of an online climate science community: The Early Career Climate Forum

Online science communities can serve as powerful platforms for advancing scientific knowledge, capacity, and outreach by increasing collaboration and information sharing among geographically distant peers, practitioners, and the public. Here, we examine the value and role of the Early Career Climate Forum (ECCF), a climate-focused online science community that is based in the United States and is dedicated to training and providing support to the next generation of climate scientists. In a survey of community users and contributors, we find that the ECCF played a unique role in providing users access to career resources as well as climate-related research and insights. Respondents also indicated that the ECCF provides them with a strong sense of community and a sense of hope for the future of climate science research. These findings highlight the importance of online science communities in shaping and supporting the next generation of scientists and practitioners working at the science–management interface on climate change issues.

Weather, Climate and Society↗
USGS2016

Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP)—A map-based resource linking scientific studies and associated geospatial information about dam removals

The removal of dams has recently increased over historical levels due to aging infrastructure, changing societal needs, and modern safety standards rendering some dams obsolete. Where possibilities for river restoration, or improved safety, exceed the benefits of retaining a dam, removal is more often being considered as a viable option. Yet, as this is a relatively new development in the history of river management, science is just beginning to guide our understanding of the physical and ecological implications of dam removal. Ultimately, the “lessons learned” from previous scientific studies on the outcomes dam removal could inform future scientific understanding of ecosystem outcomes, as well as aid in decision-making by stakeholders. We created a database visualization tool, the Dam Removal Information Portal (DRIP), to display map-based, interactive information about the scientific studies associated with dam removals. Serving both as a bibliographic source as well as a link to other existing databases like the National Hydrography Dataset, the derived National Dam Removal Science Database serves as the foundation for a Web-based application that synthesizes the existing scientific studies associated with dam removals. Thus, using the DRIP application, users can explore information about completed dam removal projects (for example, their location, height, and date removed), as well as discover sources and details of associated of scientific studies. As such, DRIP is intended to be a dynamic collection of scientific information related to dams that have been removed in the United States and elsewhere. This report describes the architecture and concepts of this “metaknowledge” database and the DRIP visualization tool.

Open-File Report↗
USGS1972

Applications of the generalized information processing system (GIPSY)

The Generalized Information Processing System (GIPSY) stores and retrieves variable-field, variable-length records consisting of numeric data, textual data, or codes. A particularly noteworthy feature of GIPSY is its ability to search records for words, word stems, prefixes, and suffixes as well as for numeric values. Moreover, retrieved records may be printed on pre-defined formats or formatted as fixed-field, fixed-length records for direct input to other-programs, which facilitates the exchange of data with other systems. At present there are some 22 applications of GIPSY falling in the general areas of bibliography, natural resources information, and management science, This report presents a description of each application including a sample input form, dictionary, and a typical formatted record. It is hoped that these examples will stimulate others to experiment with innovative uses of computer technology.

Open-File Report↗