Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Ecosystem Services”

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 775 records · Page 43Linked to original sources

Effects of acidic deposition and soil acidification on sugar maple trees in the Adirondack Mountains, New York

This study documents the effects of acidic deposition and soil acid-base chemistry on the growth, regeneration, and canopy condition of sugar maple (SM) trees in the Adirondack Mountains of New York. Sugar maple is the dominant canopy species throughout much of the northern hardwood forest in the State. A field study was conducted in 2009 in which 50 study plots within 20 small Adirondack watersheds were sampled and evaluated for soil acid-base chemistry and SM growth, canopy condition, and regeneration. Atmospheric sulfur (S) and nitrogen (N) deposition were estimated for each plot. Trees growing on soils with poor acid-base chemistry (low exchangeable calcium and % base saturation) that receive relatively high levels of atmospheric S and N deposition exhibited little to no SM seedling regeneration, decreased canopy condition, and short-to long-term growth declines compared with study plots having better soil condition and lower levels of atmospheric deposition. These results suggest that the ecosystem services provided by SM in the western and central Adirondack Mountain region, including aesthetic, cultural, and monetary values, are at risk from ongoing soil acidification caused in large part by acidic deposition.

New York↗

Saving our shared birds: Partners in Flight tri-national vision for landbird conservation

Landbirds are the most abundant and diverse group of birds in North America, with nearly 900 species distributed across every major terrestrial habitat. Birds are indicators of environmental health; their populations track changes in habitat, water, disease, and climate. They are providers of invaluable ecosystem services, such as pest control, seed dispersal, and pollination. As the focus of bird watching, they help generate billions of dollars for national economies. Yet, we are in danger of losing this spectacular and irreplaceable bird diversity: landbirds are experiencing significant declines, ominous threats, and shrinking habitats across a continent with growing human populations, increasing resource consumption, and changing climate. Saving Our Shared Birds presents for the first time a comprehensive conservation assessment of landbirds in Canada, Mexico, and the continental United States. This new tri-national vision encompasses the complete range of many migratory species and highlights the vital links among migrants and highly threatened resident species in Mexico. It points to a set of continent-scale actions necessary to maintain the landbird diversity and abundance that are our shared responsibility. This collaborative effort of Partners in Flight (PIF) is the next step in linking the countries of the Western Hemisphere to help species at risk and keep common birds common through voluntary partnerships—our mission since 1990. Saving Our Shared Birds builds upon PIF’s 2004 North American Landbird Conservation Plan, which presented science-based priorities for the conservation of 448 landbird species in Canada and the United States. Our three nations have expressed their commitment to cooperative conservation through numerous international treaties, agreements, and programs, including formation of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) a decade ago. The NABCI partnership recognizes that effective conservation requires a concerted effort within each country, as well as a tri-national strategy to address issues throughout the full life cycles of our birds. Today more than ever, it is urgent for the people of Canada, Mexico, and the United States to work together to keep common birds common, prevent extinction of our bird species at greatest risk, and ensure the diversity and abundance of birdlife across North America and throughout the hemisphere, far into the future. Saving Our Shared Birds shows the way forward.

Report↗

A new map of global ecological land units — An ecophysiographic stratification approach

In response to the need and an intergovernmental commission for a high resolution and data-derived global ecosystem map, land surface elements of global ecological pattern were characterized in an ecophysiographic stratification of the planet. The stratification produced 3,923 terrestrial ecological land units (ELUs) at a base resolution of 250 meters. The ELUs were derived from data on land surface features in a three step approach. The first step involved acquiring or developing four global raster datalayers representing the primary components of ecosystem structure: bioclimate, landform, lithology, and land cover. These datasets generally represent the most accurate, current, globally comprehensive, and finest spatial and thematic resolution data available for each of the four inputs. The second step involved a spatial combination of the four inputs into a single, new integrated raster dataset where every cell represents a combination of values from the bioclimate, landforms, lithology, and land cover datalayers. This foundational global raster datalayer, called ecological facets (EFs), contains 47,650 unique combinations of the four inputs. The third step involved an aggregation of the EFs into the 3,923 ELUs. This subdivision of the Earth’s surface into relatively fine, ecological land areas is designed to be useful for various types of ecosystem research and management applications, including assessments of climate change impacts to ecosystems, economic and non-economic valuation of ecosystem services, and conservation planning.

Book↗

San Pedro River Aquifer Binational Report

The United States and Mexico share waters in a number of hydrological basins and aquifers that cross the international boundary. Both countries recognize that, in a region of scarce water resources and expanding populations, a greater scientific understanding of these aquifer systems would be beneficial. In light of this, the Mexican and U.S. Principal Engineers of the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) signed the “Joint Report of the Principal Engineers Regarding the Joint Cooperative Process United States-Mexico for the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program" on August 19, 2009 (IBWC-CILA, 2009). This IBWC “Joint Report” serves as the framework for U.S.-Mexico coordination and dialogue to implement transboundary aquifer studies. The document clarifies several details about the program such as background, roles, responsibilities, funding, relevance of the international water treaties, and the use of information collected or compiled as part of the program. In the document, it was agreed by the parties involved, which included the IBWC, the Mexican National Water Commission (CONAGUA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Universities of Arizona and Sonora, to study two priority binational aquifers, one in the San Pedro River basin and the other in the Santa Cruz River basin. This report focuses on the Binational San Pedro Basin (BSPB). Reasons for the focus on and interest in this aquifer include the fact that it is shared by the two countries, that the San Pedro River has an elevated ecological value because of the riparian ecosystem that it sustains, and that water resources are needed to sustain the river, existing communities, and continued development. This study describes the aquifer’s characteristics in its binational context; however, most of the scientific work has been undertaken for many years by each country without full knowledge of the conditions on the other side of the border. The general objective of this study is to use new and existing research to define the general hydrologic framework of the Binational San Pedro Aquifer (BSPA), to gather hydrogeological and other relevant data in preparation for future work such as an updated groundwater conceptual model and budget and to establish the basis for a binational numerical model. The specific objectives are as follows: Understand the current state of knowledge with respect to climate, geology, soils, land cover, land use, and hydrology of the aquifer in its binational context; Compile and create a database of scientific information from both countries; Identify data gaps and identify what data would be necessary to update, in a subsequent phase, the hydrologic model of the aquifer system, including surface- and groundwater interactions on a binational level. The BSPB is one of the most studied basins in the region, and a database of publications has been compiled as part of this project. Previous studies include topics that range from geophysics and hydrogeology to biology and ecosystem services. The economic drivers on each side of the border are quite different. In the Arizona 4 portion of the basin military and tourism dominate while in the Sonoran portion, mining is the most important industry. Water management is also different in the two countries. In Mexico, primary authority for management of water resources devolves from the federal government. In the United States, primary authority rests with the states except in cases of interstate surface waters. Binational waters are not currently jointly managed by the two countries except in cases where treaties have been negotiated such as for the Rio Grande and Colorado Rivers. Thus, there is currently no binational coordination or treaty governing the management of groundwater.

Report↗

Developing an outcome-based biodiversity metric in support of the field to market project: Final report

Our objective was to create a metric that would calculate the relative impact of common commercial agricultural practices on terrestrial vertebrate richness. We sought to define impacts in fields (including field borders) of the southeastern region’s commercial production of corn, wheat, soy, and cotton. The metric is intended to serve as an educational tool, allowing producers to see how operational decisions made at the field level impact overall vertebrate species richness and to explore decision impacts to targeted species groups (e.g. game, pest, or beneficial species). Agricultural landscapes are often mistakenly thought to be unsuitable habitat for most species. However, as demonstrated by results reported here, even large-scale, conventional agricultural producers are potentially important partners in biodiversity conservation. Many vertebrate species do inhabit agricultural landscapes, benefitting from the provision of water, food, or shelter within cultivated fields and their immediate borders (e.g., Holland et al. 2012). In the Southeastern US, of the 613 terrestrial vertebrate species modeled by the Southeast Gap Analysis Program (SEGAP) (http://www.basic.ncsu.edu/segap/index.html), 263 utilize row crop and associated agricultural land cover classes as potential habitat (Box 1). While some species may be sensitive to certain operational practices (e.g., tillage, pest management, or field border management practices), others are generally tolerant, and some may benefit either directly or indirectly. For example, field margins and ditches often serve as semi-natural habitats providing foraging resources and shelter for vertebrates and are shown to positively influence species richness and abundance (Billeter et al. 2007; Herzon & Helenius 2008; Marshall & Moonen 2002; Shore et al. 2005; Weibull et al. 2003; Wuczyńskia et al. 2011). Biodiversity responses are, therefore, complex, as an individual species’ responses to agricultural production practices depends on that animal’s resource specialization, mobility, and life history strategies (Jeanneret et al. 2003a, b; Jennings & Pocock 2009). The knowledge necessary to define the biodiversity contribution of agricultural lands is specialized, dispersed, and nuanced, and thus not readily accessible. Given access to clearly defined biodiversity tradeoffs between alternative agricultural practices, landowners, land managers and farm operators could collectively enhance the conservation and economic value of agricultural landscapes. Therefore, Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture and The Nature Conservancy jointly funded a pilot project to develop a biodiversity metric to integrate into Field to Market’s existing sustainability calculator, The Fieldprint Calculator (http://www. fieldtomarket.org/). Field to Market: The Keystone Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture is an alliance among producers, agribusinesses, food companies, and conservation organizations seeking to create sustainable outcomes for agriculture. The Fieldprint Calculator supports the Keystone Alliance’s vision to achieve safe, accessible, and nutritious food, fiber and fuel in thriving ecosystems to meet the needs of 9 billion people in 2050. In support of this same vision, our project provides proof-of-concept for an outcome-based biodiversity metric for Field to Market to quantify biodiversity impacts of commercial row crop production on terrestrial vertebrate richness. Little research exists examining the impacts of alternative commercial agricultural practices on overall terrestrial biodiversity (McLaughlin & Mineau 1995). Instead, most studies compare organic versus conventional practices (e.g. Freemark & Kirk 2001; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004), and most studies focus on flora, avian, or invertebrate communities (Jeanneret et al. 2003a; Maes et al. 2008; Pollard & Relton 1970). Therefore, we used an expert-knowledge-based approach to develop a metric that predicts expected impacts to shelter and forage resources, individual species, and overall biodiversity (species richness). This approach is modeled after an ecosystems services concept (WRI 2005), except that we examine services (i.e., resources) provided to vertebrate wildlife rather than service provided to the human population. SEGAP predicts species that are potentially present in an area given landscape-scale habitat availability, configuration, and context (e.g., patch size, proximity to resources, connectivity, potential for disturbance). Based on the prediction of species that may be potentially present, the impacts of management decisions within fields and around their borders can be analyzed based on the impact of those practices to the availability of species’ resources. The final metric provides an index of a producer’s relative impact, but perhaps even more importantly, the underlying database allows producers to explore details such as which species are most impacted or how alternative decisions would impact their score.

Technical Bulletin↗

Key water issues now facing our nation

Challenges to sustaining sufficient and high-quality water for human consumption, industry, farms, energy production, and ecosystem services continue to intensify in many parts of the Nation. We face four key water issues that call for support from the science and engineering communities.

AWRA Water Blog↗

Variability within nearshore ecosystems of the Gulf of Alaska

Nearshore marine habitats, which represent the interface among air, land and sea, form a critical component of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) ecosystem. As an interface, the nearshore facilitates transfer of water, nutrients and biota between terrestrial and oceanic systems, creating zones of high productivity. The nearshore provides a variety of ecosystem services, including (1) nursery grounds for a wide variety of marine invertebrates and fishes (e.g., crabs, salmon, and herring), (2) nesting and pupping habitats for many pelagic marine predators (e.g., sea bird nesting colonies and pinniped rookeries), (3) important feeding habitats for high trophic level pelagic predators (e.g., killer whales), (4) habitat for resident nearshore species (including sea otters, harbor seals, shorebirds, sea ducks, nearshore fishes, and marine invertebrates), many of which are important sources of commercial and subsistence harvests, and (5) recreational, commercial and subsistence opportunities for human populations (Figure 1-1). The canopy forming kelps and eel grass beds found in the nearshore provide primary production and structure to nursery habitats, and also can dissipate wave energy thus reducing coastal erosion, and serve as a carbon “sink” capable of storing substantial amounts of atmospheric CO 2 (Wilmers et al. 2012).

Report↗

Conceptual model for invasive bivalve control on wetland productivity

Tidal wetlands were the historically dominant features of many coastal regions around the world, including the San Francisco Estuary (Callaway et al. 2011; Whipple et al. 2012). These mosaics of varied interconnected habitats (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993) provide a host of ecosystem services, including biodiversity maintenance, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality improvement, flood abatement, and carbon sequestration (Rabenhorst 1995; Costanza et al. 1997; Bottom et al. 2005; Zedler and Kercher 2005; Barbier et al. 2010). They also support human activities and values such as recreation and aesthetic appreciation (Barbier et al. 2010; Milligan and Kraus-Polk 2016). Despite their critical functions, many wetland landscapes have been destroyed or irreparably altered, either incidentally or intentionally, by human activities (Holland et al. 2004; Zedler and Kercher 2005; Callaway et al. 2011; Cloern and Jassby 2012; Whipple et al. 2012; Schile et al. 2014). San Francisco Estuary (SFE) (see Figure 1) tidal wetlands were largely converted to other land uses in the late 1800s and early 1900s, with the extent of loss and new use varying by region. Wetland losses in the North, Central, and South San Francisco bays and Suisun Bay ranged from 70 percent to 93 percent to accommodate agricultural uses, salt production, managed waterfowl habitat, and urban development (Callaway et al. 2011). Landscape transformation within the most inland portion of the SFE, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), was even more dramatic. Overall, today’s Delta contains 97 percent less freshwater tidal wetland than its historical state and nearly double the open water area (Whipple et al. 2012). The majority of the modern Delta consists of agricultural tracts protected from tidal waters by human-made dikes or levees, which are commonly armored with riprap. The de-watered, rich peat soils of these created islands have supported abundant agricultural production, but have oxidized, compacted, and blown away in the process, causing significant subsidence (Deverel and Leighton 2010). Occasional levee failures turn islands into lakes; a few large shallow lakes remain after accidental levee breaches were not repaired (Whipple et al. 2012).

California↗

Efficiently approximating the Pareto frontier: Hydropower dam placement in the Amazon basin

Real–world problems are often not fully characterized by a single optimal solution, as they frequently involve multiple competing objectives; it is therefore important to identify the so-called Pareto frontier, which captures solution trade-offs. We propose a fully polynomial-time approximation scheme based on Dynamic Programming (DP) for computing a polynomially succinct curve that approximates the Pareto frontier to within an arbitrarily small  > 0 on treestructured networks. Given a set of objectives, our approximation scheme runs in time polynomial in the size of the instance and 1/. We also propose a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) scheme to approximate the Pareto frontier. The DP and MIP Pareto frontier approaches have complementary strengths and are surprisingly effective. We provide empirical results showing that our methods outperform other approaches in efficiency and accuracy. Our work is motivated by a problem in computational sustainability concerning the proliferation of hydropower dams throughout the Amazon basin. Our goal is to support decision-makers in evaluating impacted ecosystem services on the full scale of the Amazon basin. Our work is general and can be applied to approximate the Pareto frontier of a variety of multiobjective problems on tree-structured networks.

Conference Paper↗

Climate, disturbance, and vulnerability to vegetation change in the Northwest Forest Plan Area

Climate change is expected to alter the composition, structure, and function of forested ecosystems in the United States (Vose et al. 2012). Increases in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide [CO2]) and temperature, as well as altered precipitation and disturbance regimes (e.g., fire, insects, pathogens, and windstorms), are expected to have profound effects on biodiversity, socioeconomics, and the delivery of ecosystem services within the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP, or Plan) area over the next century (Dale et al. 2001, Franklin et al. 1991). The ecological interactions and diversity of biophysical settings in the region are complex. The effects of climate change on ecological processes will occur through a variety of mechanisms at a range of spatial scales and levels of biological organization, ranging from the physiological responses of individual plants to the composition and structure of stands and landscapes (Peterson et al. 2014a). Understanding and incorporating how climate change projections and the potential ecological effects and uncertainties differ within the region (e.g., Deser et al. 2012) is essential for developing adaptation and mitigation strategies.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

Report on the workshop ‘Next Steps in Developing Nature Futures’

The workshop ‘New Narratives for Nature: operationalizing the IPBES Nature Futures Scenarios’ was organised by the IPBES task force on scenarios and models and hosted by the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), with support from the research team on “Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services through an Integrated Social-Ecological Systems Approach (PANCES)” based at the University of Tokyo, the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), and the United Nations University, with generous financial support from the Ministry of the Environment of Japan. Due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak, most task force members participated through virtual means, with a subset of task force members meeting in person in Japan. The aim of the workshop was to build on the Nature Futures Framework (NFF) and on the ‘nature futures’ participatory scenario-development work initiated by the IPBES expert group on scenarios and models in the first IPBES work programme. This workshop aims to further elaborate the pre-workshop scenario narratives and to enrich discussions on the NFF. The workshop also served to start working on a more detailed task force work plan. These aims were achieved through: • Task force sessions on the further formulation of the Nature Futures narratives. • Task force sessions on the cross-comparison of draft narratives and the further elaboration of the historical-present narrative. • Organisational sessions to begin the drafting of sub-deliverable-specific work plans. • In parallel to the task force workshop, collaborative sessions between the task force and Japanese researchers took place to discuss the application of the Nature Futures Framework at the national scale, using existing national level scenarios from Japan. • A public seminar, in Japan, for a wider audience introducing the scenarios and models task force’s work, the concept of the Nature Futures Framework, and fostered discussions on the concept of transformative change. Summary of outputs of the workshop in Japan • 6 NEW scenario narratives drafts – an evolution of the pre-workshop work using the narrative templates, into a more coherent set of narratives fitting their locations in the Nature Futures Framework, including some illustrative visualisations. • A cross-comparison table – to identify the core similarities and differences across the 6 new narratives (including single narrative-between-narrative comparisons). • A discussion on how to continue further development, requiring identifying pathways to complete the 6 new narratives. • 1 historical-to-present narrative draft – also an evolution of work done prior to the workshop. The task force has yet to synthesize and shorten this draft, ensuring linkages with topics detailed in the 6 new narratives into a more digestible level. • Elaboration of a follow-up plan for further development of the narratives, post-workshop, through a “buddy” system of in-depth online discussions per and between narratives. • 1 Japan case study – on fitting national level scenarios into the Nature Futures Framework. A summary will be shared by the team who worked closely on this with the PANCES partners, which we expect will give interesting insights to the cross-scale application of the Nature Futures Framework. • Detailed work plan implementation drafts (ongoing post workshop in sub-groups).

Report↗

Climate change refugia

Climate change is affecting the distribution, abundance, and persistence of species and ecosystems around the world. As natural resource managers are tasked with maintaining and protecting species and ecosystems from the effects of a changing climate, options for minimizing impacts are needed. Options for climate adaptation—the policy and management actions taken to minimize negative effects of climate change—include transition, resilience, and resistance strategies (Millar et al. 2007). Transition or “response” strategies focus on allowing inevitable changes to certain attributes of an ecosystem or species (e.g, species composition or ranges), while maintaining ecosystem function and/or desired ecosystem services.

Report↗

A climate risk management screening and assessment review for Madagascar’s Country Development Cooperation Strategy

Madagascar, a country rich in natural capital and biodiversity but with high levels of poverty, food insecurity, and population growth, faces a number of development challenges, including obtaining sustained financial support from external sources and building internal capacity to address the poor environmental, health, and socio-economic conditions. Climate change poses an increasing threat to achieving development goals and is usually considered in development plans and project designs. However, there have been numerous challenges in the effective implementation of those plans, particularly in the sustained engagement of the communities to undertake adaptive actions but also due to insufficient scientific information to inform management decisions. To support the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in the incorporation of Climate Risk Management into their Country Development Cooperation Strategy, we synthesized the best available information on current and future climate change impacts. Climate risks in Madagascar include increasing temperatures, reduced and more variable precipitation, more frequent droughts, more intense cyclones, and rising sea levels. We synthesized the observed and projected impacts of these climatic changes on water resources, agriculture, coastal and terrestrial ecosystems and ecosystem services, fisheries, and human health. Through interviews with stakeholders in Madagascar, we also discerned ongoing and potential climate adaptation and mitigation activities and information gaps (production, access, exploitation, processing, dissemination of information). The information gathered can be used by USAID, NGOs, and other organizations on how to better incorporate climate risks into development strategies and projects in Madagascar.

Project Summary↗

Preserving soil organic carbon in prairie wetlands of central North America

Wetlands of the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) in the Great Plains of central North America are numerous, densely distributed, and have highly productive plant and animal communities (Photo 49). When in a natural, unaltered condition, these wetlands store relatively large amounts of organic carbon in their soils (Photo 50). Human alterations, such as extensive drainage and land-use conversion for agriculture (Figure 7), have been linked with the loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) and associated emission of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), as well as impacts to other ecosystem services provided by these wetlands, such as wildlife and waterfowl habitat, plant biodiversity, flood mitigation, groundwater recharge, nutrient removal and retention, and recreation (Gleason et al., 2011). It has been estimated that more than half of the wetlands of the PPR have been lost due to drainage and other disturbances, with losses approaching 90 percent in some areas (Dahl, 2014; Serran et al., 2018). The goal of this case study was to identify land-management strategies that are consistent with maintaining and increasing SOC stocks of PPR wetlands. Two overarching strategies generally are promoted to preserve and enhance SOC stocks of PPR wetlands: avoided drainage and rewetting or restoration. Avoided drainage involves protecting natural, unaltered wetlands from impacts of human actives with the purpose of retaining wetland functions and services such as carbon storage. Rewetting or restoration involves reestablishing natural hydrology and land use with the purpose of enhancing wetland functions and services that were previously lost due to human activities. Avoided drainage provides immediate and long-lasting benefits, while replenishing SOC through rewetting and restoration requires many decades. Both strategies are associated with higher methane (CH 4 ) emissions but lower CO 2 and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions.

Alberta, Iowa, Manitoba, Minnesota, Montana, North↗

Introduced mangroves along the coast of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i may represent novel habitats for megafaunal communities

Mangrove forests are prevalent along tropical/subtropical coastlines and provide valuable ecosystem services including coastline stabilization, storm impact reduction, and enhanced coastal productivity. However, mangroves were absent from the Hawaiian Islands and their introduction to Moloka‘i in 1902 has provided an opportunity to examine their unique influence on coastal landscapes. Previous studies indicate an inability of native detritivores to utilize tannin-rich substrates, yielding poor cycling of mangrove-derived detritus in Hawaiian tidal zones. We hypothesize that in addition to altering detrital inputs, introduced mangroves facilitate the persistence of introduced species in the Hawaiian coastal zone by providing novel habitat for juvenile megafauna. To determine whether mangrove-dominated tidal zones harbor megafaunal assemblages distinct from open sandflats, we sampled in two mangrove (M1 and M2) and two adjacent sandflat (S1 and S2) sites along the southern coast of Moloka‘i, where the most mature mangrove forests occur in Hawai‘i. There were no statistical differences in total abundances between M1 and M2 or S1 and S2; therefore, results from individual deployments were pooled across the sites in order to conduct between-habitat (mangrove vs. sandflat) comparisons. Our mangrove study site had significantly higher abundances of megafauna, including several shrimp and crab species, compared to the sandflat site. The community composition within the mangrove site differed from the sandflat site, including higher abundances of non-native mangrove crabs ( Scylla serrata ), as well as native fish Bathygobius cocosensis and crustaceans ( Thalamita crenata , Palaemon pacificus , P. debilis ) than in the sandflat site, indicating that the mangrove site may provide niches for both invasive and native species. In addition, mean body length for several similar species was smaller in the mangrove site than in the sandflat site, suggesting that these mangroves may be providing a habitat for juvenile species. While our study was spatially limited to two mangrove and two adjacent sandflat sites, our results suggest that introduced mangroves in Moloka‘i may support small-bodied, native, and non-native megafauna, influencing coastal Hawaiian trophic dynamics. Our case study provides a baseline for megafaunal fish and invertebrate communities present prior to non-native mangrove removal as well as for monitoring potential community changes following expansion of mangrove habitats due to climate change.

Hawaii↗

Cascadia Margin cold seeps: Subduction zone fluids, gas hydrates, and chemosynthetic habitats

Priority Geographic Area: The outer continental shelf and upper continental slope from Canada/U.S. border offshore Washington State to the Mendocino Fracture Zone (Northern California), entirely within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), from the outermost shelf to at least 2000 m water depth (Figure 1). Description of Priority Area: Since 2015, over a thousand water column gas plumes originating at seafloor gas seeps have been discovered landward of the Cascadia deformation front (e.g., Embley et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2015, 2019; Merle and Embley, 2016; NA-95 Cruise Report, 2018; Riedel et al., 2018), adding to those that had long been known on Hydrate Ridge (e.g., Heeschen et al., 2003; Tréhu et al., 2004). The recently-discovered seeps stretch from offshore Vancouver Island to the Mendocino Fracture Zone and from the outer shelf to ~2000 m water depth, occurring both landward and seaward of the nominal limit for gas hydrate stability zone on the upper continental slope (Figure 1). Hundreds of seeps likely remain undiscovered. Water column imaging is incomplete both within the target geographic area and farther seaward, between the 2000 m isobath and the deformation front, which is the subject of an imaging study described in a white paper by Watt et al. The recently-discovered Cascadia Margin cold seeps partially overlap an important active margin gas hydrate province (Spence et al., 2001; Tréhu et al., 2003, 2004), as well as an area where sediments on the North American plate are folded and faulted and affected by fluids generated in the subduction complex beneath the Cascadia forearc (e.g., Saffer and Tobin, 2011). Several Ocean Drilling Program expeditions have focused on hydrate systems offshore Vancouver and Oregon (e.g., Riedel et al., 2009; Tréhu et al., 2004) and on the connection between the shallow and deep hydrogeologic systems. Cabled observatories now continuously monitor physical, chemical, and venting processes on south Hydrate Ridge (OOI; e.g., Philip et al., 2016a) and offshore Vancouver Island (NEPTUNE; e.g. Römer et al., 2016). Outside of these well-studied gas hydrate areas, a subset of the recently-discovered Cascadia seeps, including some that we visited with R/V Falkor in 2019 (e.g., https://schmidtocean.org/cruise/methane-seeps-at-edge-of-hydrate-stability/), also likely emit methane associated with shallow subseafloor gas hydrate systems. Other seeps are delivering not only methane, but also deep-derived gases (Baumberger et al., 2018, 2020) to the seafloor. Many Cascadia Margin seeps have also been recognized at water depths too shallow (e.g., 175 m) to be connected to gas hydrate dynamics. These seeps are postulated to be emitting gas and fluids that originated deep in accretionary wedge before migrating up normal faults generated during forearc extension associated with large earthquakes (Johnson et al., 2019). Only a small fraction of the recently discovered U.S. Cascadia Margin water column gas plumes has so far been verified by ROVs (Hercules from E/V Nautilus in 2016 and 2018; SuBastian from R/V Falkor in 2018 and 2019) to correspond to seafloor seeps. Careful scientific mapping, investigation, and sampling at the seeps have also been limited (e.g., Baumberger et al., 2018, 2020; Merle and Embley, 2016; Seabrook et al., 2018; Greinert et al. 2019). This white paper focuses on expanding exploration of already-identified U.S. Cascadia Margin cold seeps through a multipronged and multidisciplinary discovery program that could be accomplished with a variety of NOAA assets. The goals of the proposed exploration activities are to develop high-resolution maps of seep fields from deep ocean vehicles; to verify (and sample) seafloor gas emissions at the locations of water column plumes for compositional and isotopic studies; to map, sample, and conduct analyses on chemosynthetic communities and deep-sea coral habitats near seep sites to document species distributions and habitats as a function of depth and latitude along the margin; to collect seep geologic samples that can constrain the timing of methane emissions through geochronology; and to record environmental data (e.g., CTD) near the seafloor and in the water column above the seeps. Seafloor mapping using shipboard systems (multibeam/backscatter) would be needed to characterize seafloor features near seep sites. Water column imaging (EK60/80 and/or multibeam WCD data) conducted before and after seafloor explorations would capture active methane plumes and constrain temporal variations in seep emissions (e.g., Kannberg et al., 2013; Philip et al., 2016a, 2016b), which are known to vary on time scales as rapid as tidal cycles on this margin (e.g., Römer et al., 2016). What are the characterization and data needs in this area? Check all that apply: __x_ Biology, Geology, Physical Oceanography, Chemistry ___ Marine Archaeology ___ Other Provide a list or brief description of the data needed within this area, from your perspective: 1. Water column backscatter to image active gas plumes 2. High-resolution multibeam bathymetry, seafloor backscatter, and shallow sub-bottom imaging 3. Visual characterization and ground truthing of potential seeps, including high-resolution mapping and photography from near-seafloor vehicles; collection of seep-associated species, corals, sediments, authigenic carbonates, gases, and seawater Describe relevance to national security, conservation, and/or the economy: The Cascadia margin seeps provide significant ecosystem services, including habitat for commercially important fishes and support for diversity along the continental margin. Methane seeps are also biological hotspots for krill, plankton, and crustaceans, which in turn sustain higher trophic levels (e.g., whales). Methane-derived authigenic carbonates serve as a hard substrate for deep-sea corals and sponges on millennial time scales. The studies proposed here will elucidate the relationship among seep environments, deep-sea corals, sponges, fisheries, and other organisms and provide new insight into subduction zone and hydrate-associated fluids in this important seismogenic zone. The studies address fishery management concerns and inform future conservation of sensitive species (e.g., deep-sea corals) and benthic habitats. From your perspective, what makes this area unique? The Cascadia Margin seeps are a critical component of the leaky margin that stretches from Baja California to the Aleutian Arc along the Pacific coastline of North America. Cold seeps have been intensely studied on the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Atlantic passive margins with a focus on chemosynthetic communities, deep-sea corals, and leakage of microbially-generated and/or thermogenic hydrocarbons; however, the recently-discovered Cascadia Margin seeps, as well as active margin seep systems in general, remain more poorly characterized. Such seeps not only contribute to the ocean carbon cycle (e.g., Pohlman et al., 2011), thereby fueling the base of the food chain in these settings, but also emit subduction zone fluids that provide clues about processes within the seismogenic zone and the accretionary complex. The Cascadia seeps area allows both biological (e.g., benthic habitats, coral distributions) and physical processes (e.g., generation of subduction zone fluids) to be studied along both depth (perpendicular to the deformation front) and latitudinal gradients.

California, Oregon, Washington↗

Floodplains and climate change

Floodplains are landscape features that are periodically inundated by water from adjacent rivers (Opperman et al. 2010). Ecologically, functional floodplains are characterized by three primary elements: connectivity, flow regime, and spatial scale. Water quantity flowing over floodplains can vary greatly. Based on a flood’s effects on the floodplain, three flood categories have been defined: floodplain-activation floods, floodplain-maintenance floods, and floodplainresetting floods (Box 1). Several physical parameters determine the types of ecosystems on floodplains and the species they will support; these include temperature, water depth, water velocity, and hydrologic connectivity (Opperman et al. 2010). Natural ecosystems commonly found on floodplains include annual vegetation, forests, seasonal wetlands, and permanent ponds or wetlands (Whipple et al. 2012). Floodplains provide many valuable ecosystem services: attenuation of flood flows which reduces flood risk, filtration of surface water, recreation, fisheries, agriculture, biodiversity, food availability, and groundwater recharge, which contributes to more-sustained and cooler dry-season flows (Opperman et al. 2010). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Box 1 Floodplain-activation flood A small magnitude flood that occurs relatively frequently and produces characteristic ecological benefits such as food-web productivity and habitat creation for native fish spawning and rearing. Floodplain-maintenance flood A higher magnitude flood that, in addition to providing ecological benefits, results in geomorphic changes including bank erosion and deposition on the floodplain. Floodplain-resetting flood A very high-magnitude flood that occurs rarely and results in extensive geomorphic changes, such as the scouring of floodplain surfaces and changes in channel location due to avulsion. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

California↗

Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation in State Wildlife Action Plans and Other Management Plans

The Voluntary Guidance for States to Incorporate Climate Adaptation into State Wildlife Actions Plans and other Management Plans aims to help state fish and wildlife agencies incorporate climate change adaptation for fish and wildlife and their habitats into State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs) and other natural resource management plans. This update to the original 2009 Voluntary Guidance reflects the advancements in climate science and in our understanding and implementation of climate adaptation developed over the past 13 years. The document provides principles and tools that can be used to plan for and implement climate change adaptation, voluntary guidance for incorporating climate change into the existing required elements of SWAPs, and case studies to demonstrate adaptation strategies deployed by states in their management efforts. Climate change continues to be a significant issue for wildlife and natural systems and for the people who rely on the ecosystem services they provide. There is now a well-established and growing scientific literature on the impacts of climate change on wildlife and their habitats, including climate-driven range shifts, population changes, and even species extinctions. At the same time, efforts to address climate change impacts can be made in cooperation with efforts to address other threats, including habitat loss/fragmentation from development, introduction of invasive species, water pollution, and wildlife diseases, many of which may be exacerbated by climate change. Since climate change is a complex and often politically charged issue, it is understood that the decision to revise SWAPs, or other plans, to address climate change rests solely with each state fish and wildlife agency. All states are required to update their SWAPs by 2025 to qualify for federal funding. Although consideration of climate change is not a requirement for this revision of SWAPs, assessing the impacts of climate change and identifying species and habitats vulnerable to those impacts can help states meet the required eight elements for the revision and prepare for funding opportunities that can support climate adaptation efforts. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act, if passed by the Senate, would provide billions of dollars to states to implement SWAPs, including addressing climate change impacts on fish and wildlife. The Voluntary Guidance Document introduces and explains seven overarching principles for incorporating climate adaptation into SWAPs. These principles (found in Chapter 2) are: 1. Fully integrate climate change into SWAPs 2. Adopt forward-looking goals 3. Explicitly link actions to climate vulnerabilities 4. Manage for change, not just persistence 5. Consider broader landscapes and longer timeframes 6. Address uncertainty by considering future scenarios and use of adaptive management 7. Engage diverse partners with climate experience and expertise

Report↗