Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

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 919 records · Page 51Linked to original sources
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↗
USGS2016

Facilitating the inclusion of nonmarket values in Bureau of Land Management planning and project assessments—Final report

Executive Summary This report summarizes the results of a series of field-based case studies conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to (1) evaluate the use of nonmarket values in Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning and project assessments, (2) update existing technical resources for measuring those values, and (3) provide guidance to field staff on the use of nonmarket values. Four BLM pilot sites participated in this effort: Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado, Red Cliffs and Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Areas in Utah, BLM’s Taos Field Office in New Mexico, and BLM's Tuscarora Field Office in Nevada. The focus of the case studies was on practical applications of nonmarket valuation. USGS worked directly with BLM field staff at the pilot sites to demonstrate the process of considering nonmarket values in BLM decisionmaking and document the questions, challenges, and opportunities that arise when tying economic language to projects. As part of this effort, a Web-based toolkit, available at https://my.usgs.gov/benefit-transfer/ , was updated and expanded to help facilitate benefit transfers (that is, the use of existing economic data to quantify nonmarket values) and qualitative discussions of nonmarket values. A total of 53 new or overlooked nonmarket valuation studies comprising 494 nonmarket value estimates for various recreational activities and the preservation of threatened, endangered, and rare species were added to existing databases within this Benefit Transfer Toolkit. In addition, four meta-regression functions focused on hunting, wildlife viewing, fishing, and trail use recreation were developed and added to the Benefit Transfer Toolkit. Results of this effort demonstrate that there are two main roles for nonmarket valuation in BLM planning. The first is to improve the decisionmaking process by contributing to a more comprehensive comparison of economic benefits and cost when evaluating resource tradeoffs for National Environmental Policy Act analyses. The second is to use economic language and information on economic values, either qualitative or quantitative, to improve the ability to communicate the economic significance of the resources provided by BLM-managed lands. Findings also indicate that the use of existing economic data to quantify nonmarket values (that is, benefit transfer) poses unique challenges because of the scarcity of both resource data and existing valuation studies focused on resources and sites managed by BLM. This highlights the need for improvements in the collection of resource data at BLM sites, especially visitor use data, as well as an opportunity for BLM’s Socioeconomics Program to strategically identify priority areas, in terms of both resources and geographic locations, where primary valuation studies could be conducted and the results used for future benefit transfers. Finally, whereas qualitative discussions of nonmarket values do not facilitate the comparison of monetized values, they can provide a manageable next step forward in providing more comprehensive information on nonmarket values for BLM plans and project assessments.

Open-File Report↗
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↗
USGS2018

U.S. Geological Survey Community for Data Integration 2017 Workshop Proceedings

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Community for Data Integration (CDI) Workshop was held May 16–19, 2017 at the Denver Federal Center. There were 183 in-person attendees and 35 virtual attendees over four days. The theme of the workshop was “Enabling Integrated Science,” with the purpose of bringing together the community to discuss current topics, shared challenges, and steps forward to advance integrated science at the USGS. The CDI welcomed several keynote speakers, including Bill Werkheiser, USGS Acting Director; Kevin T. Gallagher, USGS Associate Director of the Core Science Systems Mission Area; Bruce Caron, Earth Science Information Partners Community Architect; and Tim Quinn, Chief of the USGS Office of Enterprise Information. Their presentations focused on the importance of collaborative, cross-disciplinary, and open science and the role of the CDI in identifying and supporting new opportunities in these areas for the USGS and its partners. In addition to the stated theme, the workshop agenda was driven by the needs of the CDI, with topics highlighting current resources and technologies that could help attendees in their daily work. Topical sessions were proposed by CDI members and included subjects such as data citation, information technology architecture, legacy data, real-time data, and many more. Plenary speakers from the community talked about USGS activities in data science, elevation and hydrography data integration, advanced scientific computing solutions, cloud computing, data-management training, and data-sharing agreements. Two panels addressed the role of the CDI in enabling integrated science and examples of CDI-supported projects in action. Breakout discussions focused on the workshop theme of “Enabling Integrated Science” and covered five topics: Data and Data Integration, Modeling, Computing Capacity, Science Data Integration, and User Needs and Experience. Sessions on each topic identified actions that could bring the USGS and the broader Earth science community closer to the goal of making integrated science commonplace. The breakouts produced recommendations with the broad themes of improving communication and connections across the USGS, reducing duplication and increasing knowledge transfer, increasing training and testbed opportunities to learn and experiment, and creating community-supported standards to enable better integration and interoperability. The DataBlast poster and live demonstration session showcased 36 projects from around the CDI and included recent CDI-funded projects as well as other USGS and partner initiatives that were related to data and software integration and discovery. Importantly, the CDI workshop provided a forum for scientists, technologists, data and resource managers, program managers, and others to convene face to face to discuss common methods, interests, challenges, and solutions related to scientific data and technologies. As a result of this rare convergence, new connections were made across disciplines, backgrounds, and geographical locations, seeding future activities and collaborations. Sharing of ideas from all attendees was encouraged through the use of a mobile application to collect real-time questions and feedback from the audience The primary outcomes of the workshop are the recommendations from the breakout sessions titled “Roadmap Discussions on Enabling Integrated Science” and from the topical sessions detailed in these proceedings. These sessions, as well as the plenary discussions, identified new areas of collaboration and learning that the CDI will facilitate, such as data science, software development, scientific modeling practices, and user needs and experience. The CDI will build on the results of the workshop to guide its future topics, events, and funding opportunities to support an integrated science capacity for the USGS.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Modeling resource selection of bobcats (Lynx rufus) and vertebrate species distributions in Orange County, southern California

For nature reserves in urban settings, wildlife and wildlife habitats may be affected by recreational activities and intensive, adjacent development. Sustaining biodiversity in such reserves is a challenge for land and natural resource managers, but identification of core areas and key resources for wildlife species may help in planning for current and emerging threats. To help identify core areas and resources, we conducted spatial analyses and predictive modeling of vertebrate distributions for a network of nature reserves in densely populated Orange County, California. We primarily focused on bobcats ( Lynx rufus ), a species with a strong association with natural habitat. Bobcat space use has been correlated with broad, simple land-use categories, but relatively little is known about the influence of greater landscape complexity on habitat suitability for bobcats. To examine habitat selection by bobcats, we developed spatial data layers representing environmental factors that might influence this species, and we used previously collected Global Positioning System tracking data for 30 male and 21 female bobcats to indicate bobcat response to complex landscape factors. We examined these inputs using Resource Selection Function (RSF) modeling and developed spatially explicit models of the probability of bobcat use (selection or avoidance) of landscape characteristics. RSF models highlighted the general importance of reserve habitat for bobcats, but suggested that female bobcats were more dependent that male bobcats on habitat within designated reserves. Male bobcats, which range more widely than female bobcats, were associated with undeveloped areas both within and outside reserves. Small areas were present outside reserves that seemed to provide additional suitable habitat or movement areas for bobcats, potentially through restoration, connectivity, or reduced edge effects. Although bobcat RSFs suggested areas of high value to this species and potentially other species, taxa can differ greatly in their resource-selection and spatial requirements. Thus, for several species of reptiles, amphibians, and birds, we adapted species distribution models based on occurrence data to examine the response of other vertebrates to the landscape. To identify potential High-Value Areas (HVAs) for single or multiple species, we then developed a step-wise filtering process that can be applied to a series of spatial data layers. We provide examples of alternative decision models for HVAs that capture different elements of biodiversity and a range of management considerations. As landscape and management challenges change, these spatial layers and decision rules can be adjusted based on new information. Our approach thus establishes a general framework for identifying high-value habitat that can be used for current management decisions and refined in the future, depending on management interests and goals and the availability of suitable quality data or adequate surrogate information.

California↗
USGS2018

Adaptive management in native grasslands managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Implications for grassland birds

Burning and grazing are natural processes in native prairies that also serve as important tools in grassland management to conserve plant diversity, to limit encroachment of woody and invasive plants, and to maintain or improve prairies. Native prairies managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains have been extensively invaded by nonnative, cool-season species of grasses. These invasions were believed to reflect a common management history of long-term rest and little or no defoliation by natural processes (burning and grazing). To address the challenges associated with these invasive species, the FWS embraced a collaborative approach in 2008, in partnership with U.S. Geological Survey, to restore native prairies on lands managed by FWS. This approach is known as the Native Prairie Adaptive Management (NPAM) initiative and was based on the application of an adaptive decision-support framework to assist managers in selecting management actions despite uncertainty and in maximizing learning from management outcomes. The primary objective of this approach was to increase the composition of native grasses and forbs on native, unbroken sod while minimizing costs. The alternative management actions that were used to meet this objective include grazing, burning, burning and grazing, and rest (no action). A major challenge for FWS resource managers participating in the NPAM initiative was the recognition that other taxa, besides native grasses and forbs, may be affected by the alternative management practices, thus complicating the adaptive-management cycle and deepening the uncertainty. Specifically, many grassland birds are sensitive to changes in vegetation composition and structure, and thus management that alters vegetation also may affect bird populations. The primary objectives of this study were to assess the effects of alternative management actions on grassland birds on FWS-owned grasslands that are managed under the adaptive-management framework, and to assess the association of vegetation structure and composition as mechanisms for triggering grassland bird responses to management. We surveyed breeding birds and sampled vegetation on 89 native prairie NPAM units managed by the FWS during 2011–13, including 55 units in 2011, 87 units in 2012, and 87 units in 2013. The NPAM units were in 19 FWS refuge complexes and wetland management districts, including 14 complexes in FWS Region 6 (North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana) and 5 complexes in FWS Region 3 (Minnesota). Generalized linear mixed models were used to evaluate the effects of management actions on vegetation structure, vegetation composition, and densities of common bird species. Vegetation structure and composition varied among study units and years, and many of these differences were linked to specific management activities or to the recency of those activities. We recorded 110 bird species in the 89 adaptive-management units. Models of bird abundance reflected not only disturbance-derived changes in vegetation structure and species-specific vegetation preferences but also the influence of defoliation treatments. Vegetation composition was less important to grassland birds than vegetation structure; in particular, mean vertical obstruction (vegetation height-density), bare-ground cover, and litter depth positively or negatively influenced densities of some grassland bird species. The diversity of bird responses to management in this study underscores the complexity of natural grassland systems and the need for heterogeneity management in grasslands in this region.

Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota↗
USGS2019

Optimizing historical preservation under climate change—An overview of the optimal preservation model and pilot testing at Cape Lookout National Seashore

Adapting cultural resources to climate-change effects challenges traditional cultural resource decision making because some adaptation strategies can negatively affect the integrity of cultural resources. Yet, the inevitability of climate-change effects—even given the uncertain timing of those effects—necessitates that managers begin prioritizing resources for climate-change adaptation. Prioritization imposes an additional management challenge: managers must make difficult tradeoffs to achieve desired management outcomes related to maximizing the resource values. This report provides an overview of a pilot effort to integrate vulnerability (exposure and sensitivity), significance, and use potential metrics in a decision framework—the Optimal Preservation (OptiPres) Model—to inform climate adaptation planning of a subset of buildings in historic districts (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) at Cape Lookout National Seashore. The OptiPres Model uses a numerical optimization algorithm to assess the timing and application of a portfolio of adaptation actions that could most effectively preserve an assortment of buildings associated with different histories, intended uses, and construction design and materials over a 30-year planning horizon. The outputs from the different budget scenarios, though not prescriptive, provide visualizations of and insights to the sequence and type of optimal actions and the changes to individual building resource values and accumulated resource values. Study findings suggest the OptiPres Model has planning utility related to fiscal efficiency by identifying a budget threshold necessary to maintain the historical significance and use potential of historical buildings while reducing vulnerability (collectively, the accumulated resource value). Specifically, findings identify that a minimum of the industry standard ($222,000 annually for the 17 buildings) is needed to maintain the current accumulated resource value. Additionally, results suggest that additional appropriations provided on regular intervals when annual appropriations are at the industry standard are nearly as efficient as annual appropriations at twice the rate of industry standards and increase the amount of accumulated resource values to nearly the same level. However, periodic increases in funding may increase the risks posed to buildings from the probability of a natural hazard (that is, damage or loss from a hurricane). Suggestions for model refinements include developing standardized cost estimations for adaptation actions based on square footage and building materials, developing metrics to quantify the historical integrity of buildings, integrating social values data, including additional objectives (such as public safety) in the model, refining vulnerability data and transforming the data to include risk assessment, and incorporating stochastic events (that is, hurricane and wind effects) into the model.

North Carolina↗
USGS2022

Climate change adaptation thinking for managed wetlands

Climate change presents new and ongoing challenges to natural resource management. To confront these challenges effectively, managers need to develop proactive adaptation strategies to prepare for and deal with the effects of climate change. We engaged managers and biologists from several midwestern U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field stations to understand recent and future climate change effects, identify adaptation barriers and opportunities, and pilot an approach for integrating adaptation thinking into management planning. To start, three structured discussions informed our understanding of how managers currently deal with climate change effects, the strategies being implemented to cope, and the barriers that limit climate change adaptation efforts. We used these insights to develop a multiday virtual workshop geared toward identifying potential adaptation strategies for managed wetlands. First, we developed a conceptual model to visualize how management actions are used to meet habitat objectives within wetland management systems. Next, we discussed how climate change may affect management actions and objectives; we used this understanding of potential effects to spatially assess vulnerability of managed wetlands to climate change. Using a scenario planning approach, we incorporated multiple potential future conditions and identified effects and adaptation strategies that could be considered for each scenario. As a result, several adaptation strategies for managed wetlands under dry and wet future scenarios were identified that can be applied when developing site-specific adaptation plans. Based on our piloted approach, we determined it would be important to have an adaptation team composed of scientists and managers to facilitate discussions, develop appropriate scenarios, and identify realistic adaptation options. We document the tools, findings, and adaptation thinking process taken to enhance adaptation efforts of managed wetlands. The adaptation thinking process can be applied to advance adaptation efforts in other habitats, ecosystems, and site-specific land management.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2023

User needs assessment for postfire debris-flow inundation hazard products

Debris flows are a type of mass movement that is more likely after wildfires, and while existing hazard assessments evaluate the rainfall intensities that are likely to trigger debris flows, no operational hazard assessment exists for identifying the areas where they will run out after initiation. Fifteen participants who work in a wide range of job functions associated with southern California postfire hazards were selected using purposive sampling for unstructured interviews about useful characteristics and needs for postfire debris-flow inundation hazard assessments. The interview guide was developed by a team of social and physical scientists following best practices for engaging with users. The guide focused on target information that could influence ongoing or not-yet-initiated research on debris-flow physics and hazard assessment methodology. Following standard methods for user needs assessment, the audio from the unstructured interviews was recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic coding scheme. Participants reported engaging with postfire debris-flow inundation as one of multiple postfire hazards and their information needs reflect this breadth. Most participants were from organizations with life and property mandates, and this focused their concerns on where debris-flow inundation could impact people’s physical safety, the ability of populations to egress, and damage to property. Common comments included, (1) the need to interpret inundation hazard assessments in the context of forecast rainfall—which are typically associated with different timeframes, 15 and 60 minutes, respectively; (2) the need to provide multiple scenarios in a hazard assessment to show how the hazard changes under different external factors such as varying rainfall intensity; and (3) the tension between fully reflecting all sources of uncertainty in identifying impacted areas and a high level of precision needed to determine evacuation zones in order to reduce evacuation fatigue. Participants saw utility in both low-resolution hazard assessments over large areas and fine-resolution targeted assessments over small areas, noting that the identification of target areas could pose an ethical challenge because some areas might be prioritized over others. Participants were concerned about the hazard posed by the continuum of postfire hydrologic hazards, including hyperconcentrated flows. Finally, participants recognized that the shrinking time window between the end of fire season and the start of the wet season in southern California makes the production, interpretation, and use of rapid postfire debris-flow inundation hazard assessments both important and challenging.

California↗