Search USGS⌕ Search

Geology topics

Amanda E. Cravens

Publications and source records attributed to Amanda E. Cravens.

41 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
USGS2018

How and why Upper Colorado River Basin land, water, and fire managers choose to use drought tools (or not)

On the Western Slope of Colorado, variable climate and precipitation conditions are typical. Periods of drought—which may be defined by lack of water, high temperatures, low soil moisture, or other indicators—cause a range of impacts across sectors, including water, land, and fire management. The Western Slope’s Upper Colorado River Basin (UCRB) was one of the first pilot areas in which the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) implemented a drought early warning system (DEWS) in 2009. NIDIS presently supports eight regional DEWS; as of 2016, the UCRB DEWS has been incorporated into an expanded Intermountain West (IMW) DEWS. The selection of the UCRB for an initial DEWS reflects the regional importance of drought information for managing water supply for agriculture and other uses, and the need for effective decision support related to drought. Additionally, new drought information products were developed specifically for the UCRB DEWS, and a number of others have been created since 2009, adding to the preexisting toolkit for drought decision making. The various elements of the UCRB drought early warning system can be expected to be more or less suitable for the needs of different decision makers. As a result, the UCRB makes an ideal case study to examine the use of scientific information products and tools in which the broad decision context (managing drought) is defined, but information needs of current and prospective users vary. Thus decision makers will make varied choices about which of the available tools to use or not use, depending on the particular management and institutional context in which they work. This report investigates the factors that affect the choices of decision makers about whether and how to use particular information sources, products, and tools. The investigation focused on the following research questions: What decisions do managers make related to drought in the Upper Colorado region and particularly the Western Slope of Colorado? About which impacts of drought are they most concerned? What indicators and information products do decision makers rely on to manage for the impacts of drought in this region? How do decision makers find out about and choose between available drought information sources, products, and tools? What gaps (if any) do they perceive in currently available drought information and tools? Studies of decision support tools or information sources often concentrate on the known users of a given tool(s). Such an approach can yield useful information; it provides rich insight into the experiences of users and can suggest design modifications to make existing tools more effective. Yet it is not an effective approach to capture the perspectives and needs of prospective tool users or to investigate the factors that affect whether or not someone chooses to use tools in the first place. To overcome this challenge, in this study the author instead used a geographically based sampling strategy in which a range of natural resource managers from preidentified Federal management units and selected State agencies on the Western Slope were considered prospective users of tools. Prospective users were then asked to describe in an open-ended fashion what information and tools they do or do not use and why. This approach allowed for respondents to report both use and nonuse of tools, and thus the ability to identify factors that influence information and tool use choices by managers.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2018

Rivers are social–ecological systems: Time to integrate human dimensions into riverscape ecology and management

Incorporation of concepts from landscape ecology into understanding and managing riverine ecosystems has become widely known as riverscape ecology. Riverscape ecology emphasizes interactions among processes at different scales and their consequences for valued ecosystem components, such as riverine fishes. Past studies have focused strongly on understanding the ecological processes in riverscapes and how human actions modify those processes. It is increasingly clear, however, that an understanding of the drivers behind actions that lead to human modification also merit consideration, especially regarding how those drivers influence management efficacy. These indirect drivers of riverscape outcomes can be understood in the context of a diverse array of social processes, which we collectively refer to as human dimensions. Like ecological phenomena, social processes also exhibit complex interactions across spatiotemporal scales. Greater emphasis on feedbacks between social and ecological processes will lead scientists and managers to more completely understand riverscapes as complex, dynamic, interacting social–ecological systems. Emerging applications in riverscapes, as well as studies of other ecosystems, provide examples that can lead to stronger integration of social and ecological science. We argue that conservation successes within riverscapes may not come from better ecological science, improved ecosystem service analyses, or even economic incentives if the fundamental drivers of human behaviors are not understood and addressed in conservation planning and implementation.

WIREs Water↗
USGS2018

Ecological drought: Accounting for the non-human impacts of water shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA

Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.

Montana↗
USGS2017

Crossing boundaries in a collaborative modeling workspace

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

Society and Natural Resources↗