Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Science Action”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey climate and land use change science strategy—A framework for understanding and responding to global change

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), a nonregulatory Federal science agency with national scope and responsibilities, is uniquely positioned to serve the Nation’s needs in understanding and responding to global change, including changes in climate, water availability, sea level, land use and land cover, ecosystems, and global biogeochemical cycles. Global change is among the most challenging and formidable issues confronting our Nation and society. Scientists agree that global environmental changes during this century will have far-reaching societal implications (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2009). In the face of these challenges, the Nation can benefit greatly by using natural science information in decisionmaking. Since the passage of the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990, the USGS has made substantial scientific contributions to understanding the interactive living and nonliving components of the Earth system. USGS natural science activities have led to fundamental advances in observing and understanding climate and land-cover change and the effects these changes have on ecosystems, natural-resource availability, and societal sustainability. Most of these major advances were pursued in partnership with other organizations within and outside the Department of the Interior. The inherent value of partnerships with other U.S. Global Change Research Program agencies and natural-resource managers is emphasized in all aspects of the planning and implementation of this Science Strategy for the coming decade. Over the next 10 years, the USGS will make substantial contributions to understanding how Earth systems interact, respond to, and cause global change. The USGS will work with science partners, decisionmakers, and resource managers at local to international levels (including Native American tribes) to improve understanding of past and present change; develop relevant forecasts; and identify those lands, resources, and communities most vulnerable to global change processes. Science will play an essential role in helping communities and land and resource managers understand local to global implications, anticipate effects, prepare for changes, and reduce the risks associated with decisionmaking in a changing environment. USGS partners and stakeholders will benefit from the data, predictive models, and decision-support products and services resulting from the implementation of this strategy. This Science Strategy recognizes core USGS strengths that are applied to key societal problems. It establishes seven goals for USGS global change science and strategic actions that may be implemented in the short term (1–5 years) and the longer term (5–10 years) to improve our understanding of the following areas of inquiry: Rates, causes, and impacts of past global changes; The global carbon cycle; Biogeochemical cycles and their coupled interactions; Land-use and land-cover change rates, causes, and consequences; Droughts, floods, and water availability under changing land-use and climatic conditions; Coastal response to sea-level rise, climatic change, and human development; and Biological responses to global change. In addition to the seven thematic goals, we address the central role of monitoring in accordance with the USGS Science Strategy recommendation that global change research should rely on existing “…decades of observational data and long-term records to interpret consequences of climate variability and change to the Nation’s biological populations, ecosystems, and land and water resources” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, p. 19). We also briefly describe specific needs and opportunities for coordinating USGS global change science among USGS Mission Areas and address the need for a comprehensive and sustained communications strategy.

Circular↗
USGS2021

Navigating the science-policy interface

As a wildlife population ecologist who wants to conduct useful science, I find the Endangered Species Act (ESA), like other federal wildlife statutes, an intriguing read. The topic is in my wheelhouse—fish, wildlife, and plants, with a focus at the population and species levels. There is an emphasis on science, in fact, the “best scientific and commercial data available.” And there are intriguing questions: what threats does a species face? What habitat would be critical for its survival? Could any federal actions put the species or critical habitat in greater peril? I am not alone in this attraction. Hundreds of scientists continue to consider the types of scientific analysis suggested by the ESA. The enthusiasm is palpable. If the first cursory read of the ESA is intriguing to me as a scientist, the second close read is tantalizing—I realize that something very attractive is just out of reach. I know how to estimate the probability of extinction, but I do not know what “in danger of extinction” means. I know how to evaluate the incremental change in status that might arise from some level of proposed take, but I do not know what “is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence” of a species means. The standards expressed in the statute are not stated in purely scientific terms. Thus, ESA decisions cannot be based solely on science, and require additional policy interpretation. Clarity about these policy interpretations—even awareness that they are needed—can be hard to find, leaving a gap between what I can provide as a scientist and what an ESA decision maker needs. This awareness of the interaction between science and policy is also occurring in the larger field of conservation science, where there has been an increasing recognition of a research-implementation gap, the need for actionable science, and the promise of translational ecology. All of these terms emphasize that science alone does not result in action; instead, action arises out of decisions that are informed both by science and by values. At the interface of science and policy, a scientist can deliver relevant knowledge, and a decision maker can explain the policy context in which that science is needed. As a scientist wanting to conduct useful science, I crave this two-way conversation. But how can this conversation be structured in a meaningful and appropriate way? In this chapter, I explore how decision analysis can be used to navigate the science-policy interface for ESA decisions. Decision analysis is a large, well-established field that studies how decisions are made and how they could be made, with explicit attention given to clarifying and separating the values-based and science-based elements of a decision; identifying the impediments that make a decision difficult; and providing tools to overcome those impediments. There have been concerted efforts to apply formal decision analysis to ESA decisions, but the practice is not yet widespread across both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (the Services). The chapter begins with an introduction to decision analysis and how it seeks to bridge the science-policy interface. In subsequent sections, I explore how a decision analyst might frame listing and reclassification decisions, recovery planning, section 7 consultation, budget allocations, and a few other ESA decisions, with an emphasis on two questions: for each type of decision, what policy clarifications does the decision maker need to make; and knowing the policy context, what type of scientific assessment is needed. In the final discussion, I identify common themes among the types of decisions, and offer thoughts on how decision analysis could be more widely used to integrate science into ESA decisions.

Book chapter↗
USGS2005

Geography for a Changing World - A science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey, 2005-2015

This report presents a science strategy for the geographic research of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2005-2015. The common thread running through the vision, mission, and science goals presented in the plan is that USGS geographers will provide national leadership to understand coupled human-environmental systems in the face of land change and will deliver pertinent information to decisionmakers on the vulnerability and resilience of these systems. We define land change science as the study of the human and environment dynamics that give rise to changed land use, cover, and surface form. A number of realities shape the strategic context of this plan: The Department of Interior Strategic Plan focuses on meeting society’s resource needs and sustaining the Nation’s life support systems, underscoring the importance of characterizing and understanding coupled human-environmental systems. In redefining its mission in the mid-1990s, the USGS envisions itself as an integrated natural science and information agency. The USGS will assume a national leadership role in the use of science to develop knowledge about the web of relations that couple biophysical and human systems and translate this knowledge into unbiased, reliable information that meets important societal information needs. The following trends will influence USGS geography-oriented science activities over the next decade. Most of the emerging earth science issues that the USGS will address are geographic phenomena. A growing international concern for aligning society’s development activities with environmental limits has led to an articulation of a science agenda associated with global environmental change, vulnerability, and resilience. Earth science investigations have evolved toward the study of very large areas, and the resulting huge volumes of data are challenging to manage and understand. Finally, scientists and the public face the challenge of gaining intelligent insights about geographic and environmental processes from these data, with the ultimate goal of guiding resource-management decisions. The first four science goals in the plan support understanding the human and environmental dynamics of land change. Each science goal has an associated set of strategic actions to achieve the goal. These goals and actions are consistent with national science priorities and the Department of Interior and USGS missions, take advantage of existing expertise, and lead to the strengthening of critical geographic research capacities that do not exist in other USGS disciplines.

Circular↗
USGS2025

U.S. Geological Survey Colorado River Basin science and technology collaboration meetings on drought (2021)—Synthesis of findings

Ongoing, prolonged, and severe drought and water overuse during the first two decades of the 21st century have reduced water supplies of the Colorado River Basin, with effects cascading to ecosystems and human communities throughout the basin. In June and July 2021, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology initiative team held a series of 12 collaboration meetings with USGS scientists and managers to discuss complicated, integrated science challenges and solutions related to drought in the Colorado River Basin. These Science and Technology collaboration meetings were structured to identify challenges experienced by meeting participants when working on complex problems, explore opportunities for coproducing scientific information, and envision future collaborative programs that leverage new technology. The 12 meetings were attended by 79 USGS staff representing 43 unique affiliations (for example, USGS science centers, mission areas, and regional offices). Meeting participants submitted 865 individual responses to six general discussion prompt topics (“Challenges,” “Knowledge Gaps,” “Existing Capabilities,” “Strategies and Actions,” “Example Applications,” and “Next Steps”) using a structured online collaboration tool. However, specific questions or tasks from each general discussion prompt varied by meeting topic. Terms from the USGS Thesaurus ( https://apps.usgs.gov/thesaurus/ ) and USGS Data Lifecycle Model ( https://www.usgs.gov/data-management/data-lifecycle ) were used to identify and summarize participant responses relevant to science integration, stakeholder engagement, and information management technology. From these responses, opportunities for the Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology initiative to facilitate science integration in the Colorado River Basin are highlighted in this report, including (a) pursuing specific interdisciplinary research topics that require integrating knowledge across spatial and temporal scales, (b) connecting scientists across disciplines, (c) reducing barriers to stakeholder engagement, (d) identifying new technologies, and (e) facilitating data access. Multiple strategies for designing future Science and Technology collaboration meetings are also outlined in this circular to better collect and analyze participant responses.

Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,↗
USGS2020

Integrating climate change considerations into natural resource planning—An implementation guide

Executive Summary Climate change vulnerability assessments and associated adaptation strategies and actions connect existing climate science with possible effects on natural resources and highlight potential responses. However, these assessments, which are commonly generated for large regional areas, suggest management options in general terms without guidance for choosing among strategies and actions under specific circumstances. Meanwhile, land and resource management plans1 often address smaller geographies, and management actions must address specific rather than general situations. Thus, there is a need for tools that enable managers to bridge the gap by downscaling assessments, plans, and data generated at regional scales to identify adaptation actions and strategies appropriate for smaller management units and project-level planning. To address this need, we have developed a tool–the Climate Adaptation Integration Tool (CAIT)–that helps resource managers use climate science and assessments, along with local knowledge, to identify those adaptation strategies and actions most appropriate for a given site or situation. Specifically, we provide: Guidance for acquiring and using downscaled climate change projections; Procedures for using these data to answer Critical Questions to make site-specific determinations of the appropriate management approach (specifically, resistance, resilience, transition, realignment, or no action); Lists of potential adaptation strategies and actions appropriate to the chosen management approach; and Supplemental information regarding adaptation strategies and actions to help managers choose among them. The CAIT is meant to help managers integrate climate change science and assessments into management decisions. The CAIT also serves as a way for managers to document how they have incorporated climate change information into their decision-making and why certain actions were selected over others. A particular strength of the CAIT is that it leads to potential solutions (that is, adaptation strategies and actions) without inflexibly prescribing actions. This flexibility enables managers to incorporate other factors and constraints to create workable management plans and projects that strengthen their ability to achieve long-term conservation goals.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2023

Seventy questions of importance to the conservation of the North Central grasslands of the United States in a changing climate

Successful conservation of ecosystems in a changing climate requires actionable research that directly supports the rethinking and revising of management approaches to address changing risks and opportunities. As an important first step toward actionable research, we reviewed and synthesized grassland management-related documents to identify broadly shared questions that, if answered, would help to support collective conservation of the grasslands in the northern Great Plains of the United States in a changing climate. A Management Priorities Working Group reviewed 183 grassland-relevant management documents and identified 70 questions. Feedback was iteratively provided by a Climate and Ecology Working Group, an Advisory Committee, and representatives from grassland management agencies and organizations. The identified questions generally fall under 15 topics: land conversion; restoration; disturbance regimes; woody encroachment; herbaceous invasives; grazing; water quality, quantity, and availability; animal species; private land; public understanding; legal and policy changes; economic incentives; coordination across management entities; accessibility of science and tools; and novel ways of thinking. These questions can inform a research agenda for researchers looking to conduct actionable science in the Great Plains grassland ecosystems. Both the approach and the questions presented here can also be adapted and applied in other regions and ecosystems.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota,↗
USGS2013

U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Strategy

This fact sheet describes the Water Science Strategy, presented in detail in Circular 1383-G, "U.S. Geological Survey Water Science Strategy--Observing, Understanding, Predicting, and Delivering Water Science to the Nation." This fact sheet looks at the relevant issues facing society and describes the strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This fact sheet presents the vision of water science for the U.S. Geological Survey and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of the Nation. The fact sheet describes the five goals of the Water Science Strategy. Nine priority actions also are presented, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions contained within Circular 1383-G. The fact sheet concludes with a discussion of the intended outcomes of the Water Science Strategy.

Fact Sheet↗
USGS2025

Scientific opportunities in the National Landscape Conservation System

The National Landscape Conservation System consists of unique and beautiful places across America’s landscapes where identified resources and values are protected and science is highlighted. The mission of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management and is often referred to as the agency’s National Conservation Lands, is to conserve, protect, and restore nationally significant landscapes for their cultural, ecological, and scientific values. This clear inclusion of science in the NLCS mission sets the stage for individual units to serve as places of learning, teaching, discovery, and innovation. Science is an integral part of managing the National Conservation Lands, and science conducted within and across the more than 900 units that make up the NLCS can inform and influence conservation and public land management well beyond its boundaries. Here, we highlight seven core aspects of National Conservation Lands that present valuable science opportunities: (1) the scientific values for which individual units are designated; (2) the many other resources, objects, and values within units; (3) the value of units as “control” sites for understanding the effects of activities such as mineral extraction that commonly occur elsewhere on multiple-use public lands but are often prohibited within National Conservation Lands; (4) the value of units for studying the effects of activities such as recreation that regularly occur and may be intensified on National Conservation Lands; (5) the high visibility of units, which draws strong interest and engagement from scientists, partners, and the public; (6) the functioning of the units as a network managed for a common purpose, which provides an opportunity to explore cross-cutting science questions across widely varying contexts and geographies; and (7) the opportunities units provide to promote and apply Indigenous Knowledge to scientific research to manage natural and cultural resources. Because of all of these characteristics, National Conservation Lands can serve as hubs for basic and applied science that can inform management of all public lands and resources into the future. We highlight these science opportunities through examples from existing units and suggest two actions that could help further science activities and impact on National Conservation Lands.

Parks Stewardship Forum↗
USGS2019

Interactions between resident risk perceptions and wildfire risk mitigation: Evidence from simultaneous equations modeling

Fire science emphasizes that mitigation actions on residential property, including structural hardening and maintaining defensible space, can reduce the risk of wildfire at a home. Accordingly, a rich body of social science literature investigates the determinants of wildfire risk mitigation behaviors of residents living in fire-prone areas. Here, we investigate relationships among wildfire hazards, residents’ risk perceptions, and conditions associated with mitigation actions using a combination of simulated wildfire conditions, household survey responses, and professionally assessed parcel characteristic data. We estimate a simultaneous model of these data that accounts for potential direct feedbacks between risk perceptions and parcel-level conditions. We also compare the use of self-reported versus assessed parcel-level data for estimating these relationships. Our analysis relies on paired survey and assessment data for approximately 2000 homes in western Colorado. Our simultaneous model demonstrates dual-directional interactions between risk perceptions and conditions associated with mitigation actions, with important implications for inference from simpler approaches. In addition to improving general understanding of decision-making about risk and natural hazards, our findings can support the effectiveness of publicly supported programs intended to encourage mitigation to reduce society’s overall wildfire risk.

Fire↗
USGS2022

Addressing stakeholder science needs for integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin

Stakeholders need scientific data, analysis, and predictions of how drought the will impact the Colorado River Basin in a format that is continuously updated, intuitive, and easily accessible. The Colorado River Basin Actionable and Strategic Integrated Science and Technology Pilot Project was formed to demonstrate the effectiveness of addressing complex problems through stakeholder involvement and use of 21st century technology to deliver integrated science. By identifying stakeholders and their science needs, the project team is better able to prioritize integrated science and design science delivery systems to support better adaptation and management measures for the long-term drought occurring in this basin. The project team is conducting outreach and coordination with stakeholders to meet the current and future science and technology needs in the basin and fulfill the USGS vision of integrated drought science throughout the Basin. As the USGS works to streamline the approach for sharing integrated drought science in the Colorado River Basin, the project is looking for input, involvement, and collaboration to ensure the science provided works for stakeholders.

Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyomi↗
USGS2021

Culturally diverse expert teams have yet to bring comprehensive linguistic diversity to intergovernmental ecosystem assessments

Multicultural representation is a stated goal of many global scientific assessment processes. These processes aim to mobilize a broader, more diverse knowledge base and increase legitimacy and inclusiveness of these assessment processes. Often, enhancing cultural diversity is encouraged through involvement of diverse expert teams and sources of knowledge in different languages. In this article, we examine linguistic diversity, as one representation of cultural diversity, in the eight published assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). Our results show that the IPBES assessment outputs are disproportionately filtered through English-language literature and authors from Anglophone countries. To incorporate more linguistic diversity into global ecosystem assessment processes, we present actionable steps for global science teams to recognize and incorporate non-English-language literature and contributions from non-Anglophones. Our findings highlight the need for broad-scale actions that enhance inclusivity in knowledge synthesis processes through balanced representation of different knowledge holders and sources.

One Earth↗
USGS2023

The RACE for freshwater biodiversity: Essential actions to create the social context for meaningful conservation

Freshwater habitats are experiencing two to three times the rate of biodiversity loss of terrestrial and marine habitats. As status quo actions within the conservation community are not reversing the downward trajectory for freshwater biodiversity, we propose four actions to shift the narrative such that freshwater biodiversity is no longer invisible and overlooked, but rather explicitly recognized, valued, and protected: (1) Reshape our relationship with freshwater habitats and biodiversity, (2) Appreciate indigenous knowledge systems relating to freshwater habitats, (3) Connect science more directly to action, and (4) Elevate freshwater habitats as a unique “domain” that requires explicit recognition in conservation planning (RACE). We highlight roles that both freshwater scientists and the wider conservation community can play in implementing the four actions such that the “RACE” can be won.

Conservation Science and Practice↗
USGS2012

Strategic directions for U.S. Geological Survey water science, 2012-2022 - Observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science to the Nation

Executive Summary This report expands the Water Science Strategy that was begun in the USGS Science Strategy, “Facing Tomorrow’s Challenges—U.S. Geological Survey Science in the Decade 2007–2017” (U.S. Geological Survey, 2007). The report looks at the relevant issues facing society and develops a strategy built around observing, understanding, predicting, and delivering water science for the next 5 to 10 years by building new capabilities, tools, and delivery systems to meet the Nation’s water-resource needs. This report begins by presenting the vision of water science for the USGS and the societal issues that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the water resources of our Nation. The essence of the Water Strategic Science Plan is built on the concept of “water availability,” defined as spatial and temporal distribution of water quantity and quality, as related to human and ecosystem needs, as affected by human and natural influences . The report also describes the core capabilities of the USGS in water science—the strengths, partnerships, and science integrity that the USGS has built over its 130-year history. Nine priority actions are presented in the report, which combine and elevate the numerous specific strategic actions listed throughout the report. Priority actions were developed as a means of providing the audience of this report with a list for focused attention, even if resources and time limit the ability of managers to address all of the strategic actions in the report. Priority actions focus on the following: Improve integrated science planning for water. Expand and enhance water-resource monitoring networks. Characterize the water cycle through development of state-of-the-art 3-D/4-D hydrogeologic framework models at multiple scales. Clarify the linkage between human water use (engineered hydrology) and the water cycle (natural hydrology). Advance ecological flow science. Provide flood-inundation science and information. Develop rapid deployment teams for water-related emergencies. Conduct integrated watershed assessment, research, and modeling. Deliver water data and analyses to the Nation. The body of the report is presented as a hierarchal set of 5 goals, 14 objectives, and 27 strategic actions that the USGS should undertake to advance water science through year 2022. The goals deal with: Providing society the information it needs regarding the amount and quality of water in all components of the water cycle at high temporal and spatial resolution, nationwide; Advancing our understanding of processes that determine water availability; Predicting changes in the quantity and quality of water resources in response to changing climate, population, land use, and management scenarios; Anticipating and responding to water-related emergencies and conflicts; and Delivering timely hydrologic data, analyses, and decision-support tools seamlessly across the Nation to support water-resource decisions. Scientific information produced on water resources would be without value if it were not communicated to society in a fashion that can inform decisions and actions. Therefore, the chapter following the goals describes how the USGS should inform, involve, and educate society about the science it produces. This includes discussions on local outreach and the use of social media for effective communication. This report concludes with a chapter devoted to the crosscutting science issues of the Water Mission Area with the other USGS Mission Areas: Climate and Land Use Change, Core Science Systems, Ecosystems, Energy and Minerals, Environmental Health Science, and Natural Hazards. Not one of these Mission Areas stands alone—all must work together and integrate their actions to fulfill the USGS science mission for the future. This final chapter identifies the important linkages that must be realized and maintained for this integration to occur.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2025

Sampling dragonflies for mercury analysis in Grand Canyon National Park, 2018–2024: A contribution of the Dragonfly Mercury Project

The Dragonfly Mercury Project is a collaborative initiative that utilizes dragonfly larvae as biosentinels to monitor mercury concentrations across 180 national parks and other protected lands, including Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA). These indicators serve as surrogates for environmental risk and can indicate where fish consumption could pose health risks through exposure to mercury. From 2018–2024, citizen scientists and staff from the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey helped collect close to 400 larvae from 25 GRCA sites across nearly 300 river miles, revealing mercury concentrations ranging 3.0–1337 ng/g (parts per billion) dry weight. Results were available for 20 sites. Upon comparing mercury concentrations to an impairment index, most sites were classified as low or no risk for ecological impairment, though 10% (2 sites) exceeded moderate or severe risk benchmarks (Pete’s Pocket and Buck Farm Canyon, respectively). Sources of mercury to GRCA likely stem from a combination of atmospheric deposition, upstream discharge from Lake Powell, and other watershed contributions. In addition, food web dynamics, underlying water chemistry, and environmental disturbances (e.g., floods) contribute to mercury mobilization, production, and bioaccumulation. Report findings provide a baseline for connecting ongoing science in the Colorado River watershed, informing management actions, and enhancing public engagement through citizen science.

Arizona↗
USGS2016

Ecological requirements for pallid sturgeon reproduction and recruitment in the Missouri River—A synthesis of science, 2005 to 2012

This report is intended to synthesize the state of the scientific understanding of pallid sturgeon ecological requirements to provide recommendations for future science directions and context for Missouri River restoration and management decisions. Recruitment of pallid sturgeon has been low to non-existent throughout its range. Emerging understanding of the genetic structure of pallid sturgeon populations sets a broad framework for species and river management decisions, including decisions about managing the future genetic diversity of the species, but also decisions about where and what type of river restoration actions will be effective for subpopulations of this highly migratory species. Adult pallid sturgeon may migrate hundreds of kilometers (km) to spawn and their progeny may disperse even greater distances downstream as drifting free embryos. As a result of their complex life history pallid sturgeon naturally exploit a wide range of habitats during their life cycles. The construction of dams and reservoirs has fragmented habitats and may have shifted Missouri River subpopulations downstream. Research has not identified one primary biological or ecological constraint that appears to limit populations of the pallid sturgeon. With the present (2013) state of knowledge many life stages and life-stage transitions cannot be ruled out as contributing to recruitment failure. Biological opinions in 2000 (and amended in 2003) presented the dominant hypotheses for recruitment failure that existed at that time. Emphasis was on the role of the flow regime, specifically spring flow pulses (“spring rises”), to condition spawning substrate and cue reproductive aggregations and migrations, and on low flows and additional slow, shallow-water area to serve as rearing habitat for age-0 to juvenile pallid sturgeon. Studies on spawning habitat dynamics have documented that habitat patches selected for spawning by fish in the Lower Missouri River (Missouri River downstream from Gavins Point Dam to the confluence with the Mississippi River) are dominantly on outside, revetted bends in the deepest, fastest, and most turbulent water. Studies in more natural habitat on the Yellowstone River have documented spawning in convergent flow in the middle of the channel on discrete patches of gravel within a sand-dominated channel, an arrangement that may be more effective in attracting aggregations of reproductive fish compared to the nearly continuous revetment on the Lower Missouri River. Pallid sturgeon spawn in the spring and early summer during periods of increasing day length. Water temperature consistently exerts a threshold effect for spawning at 16–18 °C. In addition, the role of water temperature is indicated by pauses and reversals in upstream migrations that have been associated with cold weather fronts that create a transient decrease in water temperature. From 2005 to 2012 on the Lower Missouri River, no obvious relations between flow pulses and fish movements and spawning behaviors have been apparent. However, pallid sturgeon tracking at the Upper Missouri–Yellowstone confluence indicates that in most years, most telemetered pallid sturgeon migrate out of the Missouri River and into the Yellowstone River in the June–July timeframe in association with the spring pulse. This pattern was disrupted in 2011 when a high flow pulse with warm temperatures and high turbidity emanated from the Milk River, followed by record releases from Fort Peck Dam, and 36–39 percent of the telemetered population migrated up the Upper Missouri. This result supports the hypothesis that sufficiently large flow pulses may trigger migration and aggregation but it is not clear that functional pulses are within reservoir management authorities. Notably, a pallid sturgeon free embryo was captured on the Upper Missouri River in 2011 and another single, genetically confirmed embryo was captured on the Yellowstone River in 2012. Research on free-embryo drift has indicated the potential for hundreds of miles of downstream dispersal. Lack of distance to accommodate the extended downstream dispersal period of free embryos on the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers is the predominant hypothesis for recruitment failure in the upper basin. Long drift distances in the Lower Missouri River may be responsible for shifting Lower Missouri River sub-populations further into the Middle Mississippi River. Physical understanding of drift processes indicates that mean velocities could be slowed through decreased discharges or increased channel hydraulic radius (width and topographic diversity) to reduce free-embryo dispersal distances. In addition, the probability that free embryos are transported into and retained in channel-margin habitats is theoretically amenable to channel re-engineering that would increase cross-channel secondary currents in bends or channel expansions. Considerable uncertainty persists, however, about whether extended drift of Lower Missouri River larvae is responsible for recruitment failure. If drift distance is limiting, it is important to discern whether it would be advisable to retain larvae within the Missouri River, and where along the river restoration projects should be placed to optimize survival and growth of age-0 and juvenile sturgeon. Longitudinal differences in female pallid sturgeon fecundity lend support to the hypothesis that recruitment failure may be due, in part, to fish having insufficient nutrition to produce the numbers of gametes needed for the population to grow, perhaps because of simultaneous declines in prey-fish populations and their habitats. Establishing a chain of causality from habitat decline, to prey-fish populations, to sturgeon diets, to sturgeon fecundity, and to pallid sturgeon population growth presents a considerable scientific challenge. In addition to the dominant hypotheses relating pallid sturgeon populations to changes in flow regime and channel morphology, other factors have been identified that might be sources of stress and contribute to recruitment failure. Among these are water quality and contaminants. Ambient water-quality monitoring on the Missouri River has demonstrated summer episodes when dissolved oxygen dips below 5 milligrams per liter, a threshold that may be stressful especially to age-0 and juvenile sturgeon. Documented cases of intersex in shovelnose and pallid sturgeon indicate that agricultural and municipal sources of endocrine disrupting chemicals also may have a role in pallid sturgeon recruitment failure. Scientific understanding of the ecological requirements of pallid sturgeon has increased almost exponentially in the last two decades, and efforts are now turning from understanding fundamental biology of the species to quantifying how population dynamics relate to potential management actions. Progress in developing the science needed to inform management actions on the Missouri River may benefit from continuation of monitoring of reproductive cycles, reproductive movements, growth, and survival of telemetry tagged adults, increased emphasis on focused, complementary field and laboratory studies of factors influencing early life history, implementation of studies to resolve the role of food limitations in growth, survival, and reproductive condition, and implementation of studies designed specifically to parameterize models linking management to populations.

Missouri River↗
USGS2013

Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes--Proceedings of a Research Symposium, September 2012

Locally and globally, there is growing recognition of the critical roles that herring, smelt, sand lance, eulachon, and other forage fishes play in marine ecosystems. Scientific and resource management entities throughout the Salish Sea, agree that extensive information gaps exist, both in basic biological knowledge and parameters critical to fishery management. Communication and collaboration among researchers also is inadequate. Building on the interest and enthusiasm generated by recent forage fish workshops and symposia around the region, the 2012 Research Symposium on the Conservation and Ecology of Marine Forage Fishes was designed to elucidate practical recommendations for science and policy needs and actions, and spur further collaboration in support for the precautionary management of forage fish. This dynamic and productive event was a joint venture of the Northwest Straits Commission Forage Fish Program, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and The Puget Sound Partnership. The symposium was held on September 12–14, 2012, at the University of Washington, Friday Harbor Laboratories campus. Sixty scientists, graduate students, and fisheries policy experts convened; showcasing ongoing research, conservation, and management efforts targeting forage fish from regional and national perspectives. The primary objectives of this event were to: (1) review current research and management related to marine forage fish species; and (2) identify priority science and policy needs and actions for Washington, British Columbia, and the entire West Coast. Given the diversity of knowledge, interests, and disciplines surrounding forage fish on both sides of the international border, the organizing committee made a concerted effort to contact many additional experts who, although unable to attend, provided valuable insights and ideas to the symposium structure and discussions. The value of the symposium format was highlighted in the closing remarks delivered by Joseph Gaydos, SeaDoc Society and Chair of the Puget Sound Science Panel. Dr. Gaydos’ presentation referenced the 2011 paper by Murray Rudd in the journal Conservation Biology , “How research-prioritization exercises affect conservation policy.” The paper points out that policy makers and funding agencies are more likely to gain a full understanding of issues when they are presented with research findings from an aligned research program. That is, compared to unaligned research strategies, where work is not based on identified research priorities.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2024

North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center regional science plan—2023–28

The U.S. Geological Survey North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center (NC CASC), established in 2012, is part of a national network supporting climate-informed decisions that benefit wildlife and habitats. The NC CASC provides climate science for the U.S. Department of the Interior, State agencies, and Tribal nations to support effective resource management. Collaborating with the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Center network, the NC CASC addresses multiregion challenges through a partnership involving the U.S. Geological Survey and additional regional partners. Input is collected from an Advisory Committee of State, Federal, and Tribal Government representatives. The center hosts Tribal Climate Resilience Liaisons, which are funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Branch of Tribal Climate Resilience and aligned with a Tribal Engagement Strategy. Positioned at the meeting point of scientists and managers and guided by core values, the NC CASC studies diverse ecosystems affected by climate change and empowers resource managers with actionable data and innovative science. This report outlines the 5-year Science Plan (hereafter “the Plan”) for the NC CASC. The center uses stakeholder engagement and coproduction of knowledge for effective collaboration, including engagement of Advisory Committee members and other management partners in the development of the Plan. The Plan provides a high-level overview of the NC CASC, covering the center’s geographical scope, key collaborators, stakeholders, and the strategic framework guiding the application of climate science to make informed management decisions. The Plan also summarizes management challenges and scientific objectives related to the impact of climate change on habitat, ecological drought, wildlife disease, invasives and encroachment, fire, and phenology.

Colorado, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska,↗
USGS2019

The contribution of road-based citizen science to the conservation of pond-breeding amphibians

Roadside amphibian citizen science (CS) programmes bring together volunteers focused on collecting scientific data while working to mitigate population declines by reducing road mortality of pond‐breeding amphibians. Despite the international popularity of these movement‐based, roadside conservation efforts (i.e. “big nights,” “bucket brigades” and “toad patrols”), direct benefits to conservation have rarely been quantified or evaluated. As a case study, we used a population simulation approach to evaluate how volunteer intensity, frequency and distribution influence three conservation outcomes (minimum population size, population growth rate and years to extinction) of the spotted salamander ( Ambystoma maculatum ), often a focal pond‐breeding amphibian of CS and conservation programmes in the United States. Sensitivity analysis supported the expectation that spotted salamander populations were primarily recruitment‐driven. Thus, conservation outcomes were highest when volunteers focused on metamorph outmigration as opposed to adult in‐migration—contrary to the typical timing of such volunteer events. Almost every volunteer strategy resulted in increased conservation outcomes compared to a no‐volunteer strategy. Specifically, volunteer frequency during metamorph migration increased outcomes more than the same increases in volunteer effort during adult migration. Small population sizes resulted in a negligible effect of volunteer intensity. Volunteers during the first adult in‐migration had a relatively small effect compared to most other strategies. Synthesis and applications . Although citizen science (CS)‐focused conservation actions could directly benefit declining populations, additional conservation measures are needed to halt or reverse local amphibian declines. This study demonstrates a need to evaluate the effectiveness of focusing CS mitigation efforts on the metamorph stage, as opposed to the adult stage. This may be challenging, compared to other management actions such as road‐crossing infrastructure. Current amphibian CS programmes will be challenged to balance implementing evidence‐based conservation measures on the most limiting life stage, while retaining social and community benefits for volunteers.

Journal of Applied Ecology↗