Christine M. Hunter | Search USGS

USGS2014

Optimal water depth management on river-fed National Wildlife Refuges in a changing climate

The prairie pothole region (PPR) in the north-central United States and south-central Canada constitutes the most important waterfowl breeding area in North America. Projected long-term changes in precipitation and temperature may alter the drivers of waterfowl abundance: wetland availability and emergent vegetation cover. Previous studies have focused on isolated wetland dynamics, but the implications of changing precipitation on managed, river-fed wetlands have not been addressed. Using a structured decision making (SDM) approach, we derived optimal water management actions for 20 years at four river-fed National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in North and South Dakota under contrasting increasing/decreasing (+/−0.4 %/year) inflow scenarios derived from empirical trends. Refuge pool depth is manipulated by control structures. Optimal management involves setting control structure heights that have the highest probability of providing a desired mix of waterfowl habitat, given refuge capacities and inflows. We found optimal seasonal control structure heights for each refuge were essentially the same under increasing and decreasing inflow trends of 0.4 %/year over the next 20 years. Results suggest managed pools in the NWRs receive large inflows relative to their capacities. Hence, water availability does not constrain management; pool bathymetry and management tactics can be greater constraints on attaining management objectives than climate-mediated inflow. We present time-dependent optimal seasonal control structure heights for each refuge, which are resilient to the non-stationary precipitation scenarios we examined. Managers can use this information to provide a desired mixture of wildlife habitats, and to re-assess management objectives in reserves where pool bathymetry prevents attaining the currently stated objectives.

Climatic Change↗

USGS2009

Rebuttal of "Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit"

Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior's listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces 38 (5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were "unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers." We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.

Interfaces↗