USFWS & USGS Future Science Challenges Literature Review

**June 10, 2004**

Prepared by: Vicki McCoy (FWS R4) and Jewel Bennett (FWS R9)

This literature review summarizes 34 documents for the Future Science
Challenges Initiative of the USFWS and USGS. All documents are recent
publications related to future environmental management challenges,
scientific research needs, and societal and institutional organizational
responses. The summaries are presented in alphabetical order of authors
(with the exception of 2 groups of articles presented together under
special [Science]{.underline} publication series). A citation list of
all documents reviewed is presented at the end of this document.

**Akimoto, H. 2003. Global air quality and pollution. Science
302:1716-1719**. The impact of global air pollution and it's effect on
climate and the environment is a new focus. Global air quality is now
having an effect on climate and worldwide ecosystems. In the 1990s
nitrogen oxide emissions from Asia surpassed those of North Am and
Europe, and will do so for decades. International initiative to mitigate
global air pollution requires participation from both developed and
developing countries.

**Relevance to USGS and FWS mission**: USGS has a role as one of the
chief scientific organizations of the world to be involved in creating
the body of information that documents the phenomena of changing global
air quality, and it's effects on climate and ecosystems. The FWS
monitors air quality at certain refuges, but it's research concerns are
local in nature.

**Bricker, O.P. and M.A. Ruggiero. 1998. Toward a national program for
monitoring environmental resources. Ecological Applications.
8(2):326-329.**

**Synopsis:** Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars on
environmental monitoring and research each year, the United States does
not know the full extent or condition of our natural resources on a
national basis, or how they are changing. A fundamental change in our
approach to environmental monitoring and related research is needed if
we are to meet the challenges facing us in assessing the types and rates
of environmental change, and in assuring continued bio-sustainability
and biodiversity into the future. Current federal programs are largely
piecemeal, intermittent, and short term and don't provide the long-term
information necessary to distinguish natural from human-induced effects.
This paper presents a conceptual framework for integrating the nation's
environmental research and monitoring networks across federal, state,
tribal, and local governments and the private sector to enable
comprehensive and integrated assessments of natural resources at the
regional and national levels. According to the authors, such a framework
can help us avoid both unnecessary regulations and serious environmental
problems.

**Who contributed to this report:** The development of this framework
was recommended by a panel of experts from across the country convened
in 1993 by the National Science and Technology Council and the National
Academy of Sciences to "address the shortcomings of our present
environmental monitoring and research programs." It was created by the
Council's Environmental Monitoring Team, composed of representatives of
12 federal agencies.

**Relevance to FWS/USGS mission**: The FWS/USGS monitoring and research
efforts would be incorporated into this framework, and we would have
access to the monitoring and research of others. Question: Has any
action been taken on this network?

**Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. 1997.
Federal Environmental Research and Development: Status report with
recommendations. Carnegie Commission. 24 pp.**

**Synopsis:** Environmental protection is an issue that cuts across many
governmental agencies, therefore environmental research and development
programs are highly decentralized, thus very challenging for
policymakers. Because environmental decision making will only become
more important, it is critical that these programs in the future be well
organized, and closely linked to policy making.

Report Recommendations:

-   attempt to overcome the inherent fragmentation of the nation's
    environmental R&D system

-   need for effective bridges between scientific information and users
    of the info

-   develop credible environmental indicators such as: measures of
    atmospheric and oceanic conditions like ozone levels, ecological
    trends, public health, land-use patterns, and water quality.

-   develop an integrated National Environmental Database : use GIS
    technology to create a unity of information that informs a wide
    variety of users and policy makers (USGS should do this)

-   create an on-line library of National Library of Natural Resources:
    a national repository of non-partisan, quality controlled
    information, an expansion of the traditional peer reviewed
    literature. Could be managed by NOAA or USGS.

-   create Regional Natural Resource Science Forums: a mechanism for
    regional land use issues to be facilitated, mediated among
    stakeholder groups.

**Who contributed to this report:** in 1996 a group of experts in the
organization of environmental research and development (11 professors,
deans, executive directors of professional societies and institutes, and
high level DOI appointee).

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** USGS was specifically indicated
as appropriate agency to develop and manage a National Environmental
Database, and National on-line Library of Natural Resources. Both
agencies should examine ways improve efficiency (reduce fragmentation)
in federal environmental research and transfer of scientific information
to users. FWS has dual role of science generator and user. Consider the
Regional Natural Resource Science Forums as a vehicle to inject regional
scientific information into local issues. This could be a mechanism to
inform and involve stakeholders at a scale slightly larger than their
individual projects for the purpose of distributing scientific
information, and more at the scale that resource management agencies
want to be heading (ie, end spp mgt occurs at a landscape scale, whereas
a housing project is a portion of a landscape).

Chow, J. R. J. Kopp, P. R. Portney. 2003. Energy resources and global
development. Science 302:1528-1531.

**Synopsis:** The primary energy resources used across the world are
reviewed, and it is indicated that no form of energy use is without
environmental or economic implications. The article predicts that fossil
energy resources will remain prevalent as long as they are cheaper in
the developed nations, but that developing countries they may skip
straight to more modern forms of energy use and distribution, perhaps
largely skipping large centralized electrical systems.

**Relevance to USGS/FWS missions:** Cntinued use of fossils fuels will
extend the duration of conditions leading to global warming, and the
coincident environmental changes. In addition, as world demand
continues, fossil fuel extraction is likely to continue on FWS lands,
and perhaps extend to areas not yet developed for energy production.
Both agencies will continue to be involved in predicting the location of
fossil fuels (USGS), and managing it's extraction from refuges (FWS). A
recent GAO report indicated that FWS does not manage oil and gas
production on refuges as assertively as is required by law, or as other
federal agencies, and encouraged it to re-examine it's policy and
improve employee skills in this area.

**DOI Strategic Plan. FY2003-2008**.

**Synopsis:** Only the section **Stronger Science** was reviewed to
date. It stressed the increasing need for leaders, public, and policy
makers to have accurate and timely science-based information. A goal of
the DOI over the next 5 years is to ..... '*identify and conduct
relevant and current science to help policy officials make conservation
and resource decisions.'*

It describes DOI science program as focused on data collection and
integration, as well as understanding, modeling, and predicting how
multi forces affect natural systems. It indicates that outreach to
customers, cooperators, partners, and stakeholders with an interest in
science-based information need to help define needs and set priorities.
It also indicates a role for traditional or experiential knowledge in
determining ecological and socio-economic trends.

It indicates an ongoing need to use integrative approaches and add
capabilities in new and different disciplines.

The role of USGS as the principle science bureau was highlighted, and
that DOI science priorities will be integrated into the USGS 5-yr
strategic plans and annual operation plans.

Keys to implementation are: 1) realistic concrete program goals; 2)
measuring progress toward them; 3) holding people accountable for
results.

The newly developed Science Code of Conduct will be implemented to
assure the DOI science is developed with impartiality, honesty, and
availability of info to the public.

There will be bureau-specific guidelines for information quality.

Outreach to customers, partners, policymakers, stakeholders will be
stressed to increase effectiveness.

Electronic connections with the public will be built, primarily via
Geospatial One-Stop.

**Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** These are our marching orders and
some new frameworks for doing business, especially the Scientific Code
of Conduct, Scientific Peer Review policy, and requirements related to
Data Quality Control Act. FWS in particular, when decision making under
the ESA "best available science" guidance, will need to balance the
requirements in the Data Quality Control Act, and DOI Peer Review
policy.

**Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecological Science and
Sustainability for a Crowded Planet. 21^st^ Century Vision and Action
Plan for the Ecological Society of America. 55 pp.**

**Synopsis:** This report predicts environmental issues will define the
21^st^ century, as will a world with a large human population and
ecosystems shaped by human intervention. The science of ecology can and
should play an expanded role in managing the planet. To play a bigger
role, ecologists will need to form partnerships at scales and in forms
not traditionally used.

They should implement action in 3 visionary areas:

1.  Informed Decisions: enhance the extent to which decisions are
    ecologically informed

2.  Anticipatory Research: advance innovative ecological research
    directed at the sustainability of an over-populated planet

3.  Cultural Exchange: stimulate cultural change within the science
    itself that build a forward-looking and international ecology

Specific recommendations for progress in each vision area are presented.
Other recommendations are:

1.  standardization of data collection, data documentation and data
    sharing via graduate and professional training of ecologists in a
    common ecoinformatics

2.  a rapid response team of ecological expertise in responding to
    legislative and executive branch proposals to increase opportunities
    for ecological knowledge in issues that affect sustainability.

3.  a meeting of key leaders in research, management, and business
    should convene to dev a reward system for ecological researchers and
    educators.

4.  increase global access to ecological knowledge

5.  strategies to ease exchange of students, managers and practitioners
    among institutions in various countries

    -   By reviewing avail literature they also identified Critical
        Environmental Issues for Prioritizing Ecological Research ( not
        in order of priority)

    -   The science of ecosystem services

    -   Biodiversity, species composition and ecosystem functioning

    -   Ecological aspects of biochemical cycles

    -   Ecological implications of climate change

    -   Ecology and evolution of infectious disease

    -   Invasive species

    -   Land use and habitat alteration

    -   Freshwater resources and coastal environments

**Who contributed to this report:** The Ecological Society of America
developed an action plan to accelerate our progress in addressing the
major environmental challenges of our time and increase the contribution
of ecological science in the coming decades. The report was produced by
a an ESA Ecological Visions Committee comprised of 20 society members
largely representing academia. They solicited input fr0m numerous
groups, governments and NGOs, business, individuals and ESA members.

**Relevancy to USGS/FWS missions:** Visions 1 and 2 have good overlap
with our missions, he desire for scientifically informed decisions, and
mechanisms to better determine research priorities.

**Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson. 1986. Foundations for a National Biological
Survey. Assoc. of Systematic Collections. Museum of Natural History,
Univ. of Kansas. 215 pp**.

**Synopsis**: this report describes the need for a more complete
inventory of the nation's flora and fauna. It indicates that such
information is fundamental to the utilization and management of our
nation's biota. The essence of the biological survey would be jto
develop an essential data base of the systematic knowledge of the flora
and fauna of a region, thus forming the basic information for
understanding ecosystem dynamics and conservation of living diversity.
This group provides a plan for getting this work done with a variety of

**Who contributed to this report**: 26 academics in plant or animal
taxonomy or systematics, and directors of several natural history
museums, including E.O.Wilson.

**Relevance to USGS and FWS mission**: Biological surveys have been
conducted by various federal government agencies over the decades, but
have largely phased out since the 1940s. Is this an area that deserves a
renewed effort if we are going to have a more coordinated approach to
managing biodiversity? The endangered species scientists of each agency
could advise our group on how important this initiative would be.

**National Council for Science and the Environment. 2002.
Recommendations for Achieving Sustainable Communities: Science and
Solutions. National Council for Science and the Environment. 68 pp.**

**Synopsis:** This is the report from the Second National Conference on
Science, Policy and the Environment. During the first conference, the
concept of "sustainability science" was advanced---"a synthetic,
interdisciplinary approach to better understanding the complex
interactions between society and nature so that the alarming trend
towards increasing vulnerability is reversed." This report documents the
recommendations from the second conference on how to apply
"sustainability science" to community sustainability, globally and
locally. It outlines a holistic approach in which progress is redefined
within the context of sustainable development to include five basic
elements: environmental protection and restoration, peace and security,
economic development, human rights, and supportive national governance.
For our purposes, among the most important overarching themes that
emerged from examination of eighteen topical areas, as diverse as "Rural
Communities," "Remote Sensing," "Federal Government Employees," and
"Children's Health," are:

-   Science and technology are important and necessary tools for
    achieving sustainability, but community participation is essential
    for scientific and technical information to be incorporated into the
    policymaking process.

-   Conserving natural resources, preserving biodiversity and
    maintaining a clean environment are essential factors for sustaining
    a healthy human community.

-   Exchange of information on sustainability models, programmatic
    activities and successful projects should be established on an
    international basis.

Among the most important recommendations that emerged, for our purposes,
are:

-   Given the importance of science to sustainability, emphasis should
    be given to developing a science-based understanding of
    sustainability.

-   A crucial aspect of achieving sustainable communities at all levels
    is the involvement of stakeholders from the inception of the
    policymaking process.

-   Incentive-based policies should be established systematically for
    the conservation of natural resources.

-   Research should be undertaken to create mass balance models with an
    economic component for forecasting and planning, and for assessment
    of policy options by manipulating variables to see likely impacts on
    sustainability.

**Who contributed to this report:** 575 participants from academia,
government, environmental organizations, private business, science
organizations, and "others."

**Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** Raises the issue of whether the
FWS/USGS sees itself as contributing to and benefiting from the
national/international effort to define and apply sustainability
science. Suggests the need for the FWS/USGS to define sustainability in
regard to its conservation mission, i.e., who/what is being "sustained"
in our definition of sustainability.

NRC. 2000a. Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academy
Press. 180 pp.

**Synopsis:** This report was generated in response to an EPA request
for NRC to conduct a critical evaluation of indicators to monitor
ecological change from natural or anthropogenic causes. NRC was also
asked to examine what aspects of environmental conditions and trends
should be monitored. The current variety of indicators was reviewed,
including those used by USGS/NAWQA, DOI/BEST and EPA/EMAP, and others.
Ecologic indicators are designed to inform us quickly and easily about
environmental conditions too complex to measure individually. The
recommended national ecological indicators are in 3 categories:

> 1\. as indicators or the extent and status of the nation's ecosystems:
> *land cover* and *land use.*

2.  as indicators of the nation's ecologic capital: *total species
    diversity, native species diversity, nutrient runoff* , and *soil
    organic matter.*

3.  as indicators of ecologic functioning or performance: *carbon
    storage, production capacity, net primary production, lake trophic
    status, stream oxygen,* and for agricultural ecosystems:
    *nutrient-use efficiency, nutrient balance.*

**Who contributed to this report**: A committee of academic ecologists
was established that reviewed relevant literature and received
presentations on current EPA monitoring programs in about 1998-1999.

Relationship to FWS/USGS missions: This report addresses the needs of
agencies involved in adaptative management decisionmaking. It is
critical to know which way trends are going and to monitor the
consequences of environmental decisions. USGS could play a large role in
the development, verification, and implementation of new national
ecological indicators. This type of research may not be considered
publication quality, as it is monitoring, which could be an
institutional barrier to large amounts of indicator status and trends
work being conducted by USGS. The NAWQA and BEST programs currently
attempts to do this type of work, and it's indicators should be compared
to the list above, and the projected future information needs. In a
sense, the nation currently monitors success or failure at species
conservation by the number of spp listed under ESA. But this is not an
accurate reflection of the number of spp at risk to extinction. In
addition, FWS is increasingly conducting programmatic consultations and
HCP's; where types or communities of organisms, rather than individual
spp, are managed, sometimes using a non-T&E indicator spp as a
monitoring tool.

**NRC. 2000b. Grand Challenges in Environmental Science. National
Research Council. National Academy Press. 77pp.**

Synopsis: A report written for NSF to identify the most important
research challenges within environmental sciences for the next 20-30
years, specifically the areas most likely to yield results of major
scientific and practical importance if pursued vigorously now. The time
frame selected focused on challenges that would take about 10 years to
engage successfully, in part to allow for the training of a critical
mass of scientists to undertake the necessary projects. After a wide
consideration of issues, using methods described below, the committee
selected 8 grand challenges. The selection criteria were: probability of
significant scientific and practical payoff, large scope, relevance to
important environmental issues, feasibility, timeliness, and requirement
for multi-disciplinary collaboration. They concluded the needed
environmental knowledge for the next generation will depend upon active
pursuit of all 8 grand challenges. A focused subset of 4 issues was
identified for immediate research investment by NSF and others.

The 8 Grand Challenges (alphabetical order):

1.  [Biogeochemical Cycles]{.underline} -- understand the Earth's major
    biogeochemical cycles, evaluate how they are perturbed by human
    activities; determine how they might be stabilized. Research areas
    are quantifying sources and sinks of nutrient elements; interactions
    of biogeochemical cycles, assess human perturbations on
    biogeochemical cycles and their impact on ecosystem functioning,
    atmospheric chemistry, human activities and a scientific basis for
    societal decisions about managing these cycles; and exploring
    technical and institutional approaches to managing anthropogenic
    perturbations.

2.  [Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Functioning]{.underline}
    --understand factors affecting biological diversity and ecosystem
    structure and functioning, including the role of human activity.
    Research areas are improved tools for rapid assessment of
    biodiversity at all scales; producing quantitative, process-based
    theory of biodiversity at the largest possible variety of spatial
    and temporal scales; elucidating the relationship between diversity
    and ecosystem functioning; developing and testing techniques for
    modifying, creating and managing habitats that can sustain
    biological diversity, as well as human activities.

3.  [Climate Variability]{.underline}- increase ability to predict
    climate variations, from extreme events to decadal time scales; to
    understand how this variability may change the future, and
    realistically assess impacts. Research areas are: improve
    observational capability, extend records of observation back into
    Earth's history, improve diagnostic process studies, develop
    increasingly comprehensive models, conduct integrated impact
    assessments that take human responses and impacts into account.

4.  [Hydrologic Forecasting]{.underline}- improve understanding and
    ability to predict changes in freshwater resources and the
    environment caused by floods, droughts, sedimentation and
    contamination. Research areas are: improve understanding of
    hydrological response to precipitation, surface water generation and
    transport, environmental stresses on aquatic ecosystems,
    relationship between landscape changes and sediment fluxes,
    subsurface transport, and mapping ground water recharge and
    discharge vulnerability.

5.  [Infectious Disease and the Environment]{.underline} - understand
    ecological and evolutionary aspects of infectious diseases;
    understand interactions among pathogens, hosts/receptors and the
    environment, thus making it possible to prevent changes in the
    infectivity and virulence of organisms that threaten plant, animal
    and human health at population levels. Research areas are: effects
    of environmental changes as selection agents on pathogen virulence
    and host resistance; exploring impacts of environmental change on
    disease etiology, vectors, and toxic organisms; develop new
    approaches to surveillance and monitoring; improve theoretical
    models of host-pathogen ecology.

6.  [Institutions and Resource Use]{.underline} - understand how human
    use of natural resources is shaped by institutions such as markets,
    governments, international treaties, and formal and informal sets of
    rules that are established to govern resource extraction, waste
    disposal, and other environmentally important activities. Research
    areas are: documenting the institutions governing critical lands,
    resources and environments; identify the performance attributes of
    the institutions governing resources and environments worldwide;
    conceptualize and assess effects of institutions for managing global
    commons.

7.  [Land-Use Dynamics]{.underline} - develop systemic understanding of
    changes in land uses and land covers critical to ecosystem function
    and services and human welfare. Research areas are: develop long
    term regional databases for land use, land covers and related social
    information; develop spatially explicit land-change theory; link
    land-change theory to space-based imagery; innovate applications of
    dynamic spatial simulation techniques.

8.  [Reinventing the Use of Materials]{.underline} -- need a
    quantitative understanding of global budgets and cycles of materials
    widely used by humanity and how the life cycle of these materials
    (from raw material through recycling or disposal) can be modified.
    Research areas: spatially explicit budgets for key materials;
    methods for more complete cycling of technological materials;
    determine how to best utilize materials with unique industrial
    applications but environmental hazards; understand forces that drive
    patterns of human consumption of resources; predict possible global
    scenerios of future industrial development and associated
    environmental implications.

The 4 Immediate Research Investments (alphabetical order):

1.  Biological Diversity and Ecosystem Function. Recommendation: develop
    comprehensive understanding of relationship between ecosystem
    structure and function and biodiversity by experimentation,
    observation and theory focused on: development of knowledge needed
    to enable the design and management of habitats that can support
    both human uses and native biota; develop detailed understanding of
    effects of habitat alteration and loss of biodiversity, especially
    those species and ecosystems whose disappearance would likely do
    disproportionate harm to the ability of ecosystems to meet human
    needs or set in motion the extinction of other species.

2.  Hydrologic Forecasting. Recommendation: establish the capacity for
    detailed, comprehensive hydrologic forecasting, including the
    ecological consequences of changing water regimes, in each of the
    primary US climatological and hydrologic regions. Important specific
    research areas include all those described under Grand Challenge 4.

3.  Infectious Disease and the Environment. Recommendation: Develop
    comprehensive ecological and evolutionary understanding of
    infectious diseases affecting human, plant and animal health.

4.  Land-Use Dynamics. Recommendations: Develop spatially explicit
    understanding of changes in land uses and land covers and their
    consequences.

Implementation Issues. Recommendation: NSF, working with other agencies
where appropriate, should conduct workshops that include research
scientist in academia, the relevant agencies, and private sector, as
well the potential users of the research results, to discuss and plan
research agendas and address implementation issues.

**Who contributed to this report**: A committee with broad disciplinary
backgrounds comprised of 15 academicians, 1 federal researcher and 1
Carnegie Institute representative met 5 times in 1999 to solicit input,
select the most compelling challenges and form its recommendations. They
solicited input from the scientific community in 1999 in the form of a
1-pg narrative describing the challenge and suggested responses. Over
200 challenges were nominated by the scientific community (including
several individuals of FWS and USGS). Most input came from North
America.

Relationship to FWS/USGS missions: This report has high relevancy and
practical applicability to the FWS/USGS Future challenges initiative. It
provides synthesis of the thinking among the scientific community on the
greatest environmental challenges that may have tractable solutions in
the near-term, and provides specific recommendations for agencies to
prepare themselves scientifically for future action and response. FWS
and USGS could choose specific recommendations in this report for
implementation.

**NRC. 2001a. Future roles and opportunities for the US Geological
Survey. National Academy Press. 179 pp.**

**Synopsis**: The recent integration of BRD into the USGS has broadened
the USGS mandate beyond the traditional focus on geology, hydrology and
geography. It's current mission is to supply information that
contributes to the effective mgt of a variety of natural resources. It
describes USGS as a vitally important provider and coordinator of
information related to critical issues in the natural sciences.

An important mission of the USGS is to provide scientific understanding
to support the sound conservation of the nation's biological resources.
The factors with the greatest broad-scale effects on biological
resources:

-   Land use

-   Water use

-   Non-indigenous species

The challenge for the future is sound management of the earth's
ecosystems to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function. Meeting this
objective calls for a greater understanding of how biological systems
work, how to stem the loss of habitats, and how to restore and manage
ecosystems.

Future research opportunities for USGS revolve around 3 themes:

-   Hazards

    -   Effective hazard information for communities in high risk
        environments

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    -   Hydrologic processes and hazards

    -   Wildfires and public policy

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Environment

    -   Global climate change

    -   Climate variability and water resources

    -   Links between geologic processes and human health

    -   State of the nation's ecosystems

    -   Restoration of aquatic ecosystems

    -   Investigations to support wise urban development in the West

-   Natural Resources

    -   Life cycles of ore materials

    -   Geologic frameworks for transition to a methane fuel economy

Specific recommendations:

-   *Hazards* - It was suggested that USGS link its hazard and
    environment research themes. Hazards (fires, floods) are natural
    occurrences that preserve environmental health.

*Global climate change*- USGS should play a prominent role in efforts to
document man-made changes on climate, as it falls within its expertise
and mandate. USGS can contribute to our understanding of global carbon
and element cycles, and may be in a unique position of being able to
construct the carbon budget of the nation under historic and future land
use scenarios. The committee felt that greater USGS participation in
global climate change research would help broaden the definition of the
problem beyond the current focus on temperature change and atmospheric
warming and expand the focus to encompass the range of important issues
such as the influence of land use change on climate, the ecosystem
services affected.

*Climate variability and water resources:* USGS should play a major role
in determining how climate change will affect water resources.

*State of the nation's ecosystems*: Encourage interactions among life
scientists, geologists, geographers, and experts in surface and
groundwater hydrology should address broad questions, such as those
posed in the NRC report "Grand Challenges in Environmental Sciences. The
USGS has the capability to play a strong role as source of information
on ecosystems in the future and:

-   Conservation of biodiversity

-   Potential effects of climate change

-   Invasion and spread of non-native species

-   Sustainability of the biosphere

*Restoration of aquatic ecosystems* -- provide technical information to
guide and assess aquatic restoration activies, such a s the Everglades,
CalFed Bay-Delta, and Chesapeake Bay restoration efforts.

*Investigations to support wise urban development in the West* --
because the population in the arid portions of Western US has increased
faster than the national population growth rate, complex management
problems have arisen. The nation needs an integrated research agenda on
sustainable development of the West. The USGS would be "shrinking from
its responsibility to provide science for a changing world in response
to present and anticipated needs" if it does not embrace this topic.

**Who contributed to this report**: A committee of 16 academics,
corporate and NGO scientists.

**Relevance to the USGS/FWS mission**: Each of the environmental topics
recommended by the NRC for USGS emphasis have direct applications to FWS
information needs. It is interesting that a specific region of the US,
the West, was recommended in particular for sustainability research. It
is also a region of the country that has amongst the most difficult
management issues for FWS.

**NRC. 2001b. Envisioning the agenda for water resources research in the
21^st^ century. National Academy Press. 61 pp.**

**Synopsis:** Water resource research and dev of last century focused on
water quantity, was uncoupled from water quality, and resulted in
short-term programs focused on narrow problems. This report addresses
water needs for next century and recommends coordination of a water
research agenda by creation of a national organization that involves fed
and state gov, and all stakeholders. They list 43 water research issues
under the broad topical areas of:

1.water availability (enhance supply, limit and control pollution,
improve hydrologic measurements, predictions for floods, impact of
global climate change on hydrology;

2\. water use (understand determinants of water use between competing
demands; develop sustainable irrigation strategies; restore aquatic
ecosystems; plan for water use in ecologic contex; watershed management.

3.  water institutions (develop legal regimes for groundwater
    management; understand complex governance of water rights; utilize
    adaptive management; conduct ex post research to evaluate strengths
    and weakness of past water policies and projects)

In particular they recommended that virtually all future research be
conducted with the consideration of water in it's ecological role, and
the watershed context. And on the whole it is recommended that water
research be more organized centrally so that the many institutions
involved so not solely focus on their own operational, short term
information needs.

**Who contributed to this report**: With the goal of outlining a roadmap
to guide policymakers, the NRC Water Science and Technology Board held a
series of meetings in 1998-2000 about the nation's critical water
resources issues and research recommendations for the next 20 years.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** Many of the 43 specific research
recommendations relate directly to the missions of both FWS and USGS,
and could be selected for implementation. Probably of highest critical
need is for research related to ecological impacts of water use
(delivery), and poor water quality on natural resources, and ways to
integrate natural resource needs with human needs.

**NRC. 2001c. Basic Research opportunities in earth science. National
Academy Press. 153 pp**.

**Synopsis**: A series of recommendations for basic research in earth
science. Although most of recommendations revolved around the geological
sciences, it had a series of recommendations in geobiology that were:

-   Prebiotic molecules, origin of life and early evolution

-   Biological and environmental controls on species diversity,
    including ecological and biogeographical selectivity, causes of
    extinction and survival.

-   Response of organisms, communities, and ecosystems to environmental
    perturbations, including the extreme events in reshaping ecosystems
    and climate.

-   Biogeochemical interactions and cycling among organisms, ecosystems,
    and the environment, with applications to monitoring and remediating
    environmental degradation

-   Effects of natural and anthropogenic environmental change on the
    habitability of the earth.

They recommend a major initiative of an Earth Science Natural Laboratory
Program with the objective of supporting long-term research at a number
of promising sites in the US

**Who Contributed to this report**: A committee of 14 academics in earth
science from various US universities.

**Relevance to USGS and FWS missions**: The USGS has a major role in
earth science research, and most of the above recommendations have
applicability to the mission of FWS.

**NRC. 2003. NEON: addressing the Nation's environmental challenges.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.**

**Synopsis:** NEON is a vision for a National Ecological Observatory
Network for performance of comprehensive, regional- and
continental-scale experimental and observational research on the
nation's ecological systems to obtain an in-depth understanding of the
environment. It would be conducted via NSF partnerships with appropriate
federal, state and local agencies and organizations. Six critical
environmental challenges that can only be effectively studied on the
regional, continental, or global scale were identified:

1.  biodiversity, species composition, and ecosystem function

2.  ecological aspects of bio-geochemical cycles

3.  ecological implications of climate change

4.  ecology and evolution of infectious disease

5.  invasive species

6.  land use

A NEON research "observatory site" would be developed at multiple
strategic locations to address each issue at the broad geographic scales
appropriate for that topic. Sufficient funds should be created to assume
adequate nationwide networks of observatories for each issue.

The purpose of the research would be to assess ecosystem response and
formulate effective environmental policy.

NSF would look for suitable research partners on each topic.

**Who Contributed to this Report:** NSF tasked NRC to form an ad hoc
committee to evaluate which major ecological and environmental issues
should be addressed only on a regional or continental scale, and whether
the current concept of NEON was optimal to address them, and what
effects NEON would have on science and society. The committee hosted
aweb forum with the scientific community and reviewed the reports of 6
NSF-sponsored workshops on NEON.

**Relevance to FWS/USGS Missions:** The 6 critical environmental
challenges identified by NEON have high overlap with our agencies'
missions, and the scale of questions being asked are also appropriate to
the scale of our agencies' scientific questions. The proposed research
mechanism provides a vehicle if our agencies would choose to be a
research partner. There seems like tremendous potiential for many our
agencies' issues, land resources, research centers, and scientists to
play major roles in NEON. For example, the BRD Wildlife Health Center
could be a central partner in study of infectious disease, the NAWQ and
BEST programs could be major contributors to bio-geochemical cycling
issues, and the management decision made by FWS (such as HCPs,
large-scale consultation decisions, listing decisions) could be
monitored as ecological experiments for studies of land use.

**NRC. 1993. A Biological Survey for the Nation. National Academy Press.
205 pp.**

**Synopsis:** The National Research Council is the principal operating
agency for the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering. The two academies are established by Congress to advise the
Federal Government on scientific and technical matters and to further
science and technology and their use for the general welfare in the
United States. The NRC is administered by both academies and by the
Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine.

In 1993, the NRC was asked by Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt to
advise DOI on the formation of a National Biological Survey. NRC
assembled a Committee on the Formation of the National Biological Survey
that included scientists, people with experience in government and
industry, and representatives of public-interest organizations. The
Committee's charge was to address in a very short timeframe
(March-September 1993) the scientific, functional, information and
coordination issues related to the scope and direction of the NBS in the
context of the larger national picture---*not* to address whether the
NBC should be established or to evaluate DOI's specific proposal for
NBS.

The Committee's conclusions and recommendations, as described in this
report, were:

-   The NBS is a critical step toward assembling a comprehensive
    assessment of the nation's biological resources, but it cannot by
    itself meet the full range of needs and objects in scientific
    research, inventory, and information management that a biological
    survey for the nation must fulfill.

-   The United States, under DOI, should establish a National
    Partnership for Biological Survey (NPBS) composed of representatives
    of federal, state and local agencies; museums, academic institutions
    and private organizations. Its purpose would be to collect, house,
    assess, and provide access to the scientific information needed to
    understand the current state of the nation's biological resources
    (status); how that status is changing (trends); and the causes of
    the changes.

-   The NBS should perform research needed for the management of lands
    within the jurisdiction of DOI and species for which it has
    responsibility. It should also ensure, through its own research
    activities and its leadership role in NPBS, that needed research is
    performed to fulfill the central purpose envisioned for the
    NPBS---status, trends, and causes of changes of the nation's
    biological resources.

-   Many of the elements of a NPBS are already in existence in various
    federal agencies, in all 50 states, in organizations such as The
    Nature Conservancy and the Smithsonian Institution, in museums, in
    university, in cooperative programs, among private landholders,
    Native American groups, the United States' territories and
    possessions, among individual scientists, in foreign biological
    sources. What is mission are the mechanisms for horizontal and
    vertical integration and coordination of the ongoing independent
    efforts. This would be the work of the NPBS.

-   A National Biotic Resource Information System should be developed to
    make existing information more accessible and to establish
    mechanisms for efficient, coordinated collection and dissemination
    of new information. For example, NPBS should promote the development
    of standard sets of spatial data in such areas as actual vegetation
    of the United States; should participate in the National Spatial
    Data Infrastructure; and should promote greater awareness and use of
    spatial data and technologies, including at the field level.

-   Most importantly, the Secretary should establish an NBS office in
    each state to facilitate joint NBS activities and to provide a
    communication channel among state agencies, private and individual
    participants, and federal agencies.

**Others who contributed to this report:** The Committee worked under
the oversight of an ad hoc body, the Commission on the Formation of the
National Biological Survey, drawn from the membership of the Commission
on Life Sciences and the Commission on Geosciences, Environment and
Resources.

**Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** As early as 1993, the NRC identified
the need to integrate information distribution systems and to prioritize
and coordinate biological research activities at multiple levels, across
sectors, and across nations; and picked DOI for the job. If the
scientific literature we have reviewed to date is representative of the
scientific community's current position in regard to environmental
science, the call for integrated, coordinated information systems and
research has reached a crescendo. Our task is to figure out how we will
respond.

**NSF. 2003. Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life,
and Society in the 21^st^ Century. A 10-year outlook for the National
Science Foundation. NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research
and Education. 68 pp.**

**Synopsis:** In this document, the Advisory Committee to the National
Science Foundation provides strategic guidance to NSF concerning
expansion of its environmental research and education activities, as
recommended in reports from the National Science Board (2002) and the
National Research Council (2001). NSF's mission is to support basic
scientific research, to support research fundamental to engineering
processes, and to strengthen science and engineering education at all
levels. Its outcomes are to be knowledge, methods, and new technologies
that help to solve critical environmental problems. This report assumes
a 10-year horizon and focuses on environmental activities that cross
NSF's organizational boundaries or that are fundamental to NSF's
mission.

The emphasis of this report is that scientists, engineers, technicians,
resource managers, and educators must work across disciplines, integrate
the information they are gathering, and collaborate to solve
environmental problems. These relationships must be long-term, dynamic,
and cross regional, national, and international boundaries to address
problems at various scales. The authors call this process "environmental
synthesis."

The good news is that advances in research instrumentation,
data-handling, and methodological capabilities have expanded the
horizons of what we can study and understand about the environment. Now
the need is to frame interdisciplinary research questions and to merge
data, approaches and ideas, across spatial and temporal and across
society. The authors argue that what will be required is an ability to
think outside the box, to draw upon a diversity of knowledge and skills,
and to adapt quickly.

Communication of the scientific information, models and conclusions,
between and among researchers, students, educators, resource managers,
industrial managers, policy makers and the public, is key to success to
meeting complex environmental challenges we face, as well as urgent
human needs.

The report divides the environmental research frontiers for NSF for the
years 2003-2012 into three, interrelated areas:

> 1\) **Coupled human and natural systems:** land resources and the
> built-upon environment; human health and the environment; freshwater
> resources, estuaries and coastal environments; and environmental
> services and valuation
>
> 2\) **Coupled biological and physical systems:** understanding the
> systems, processes and dynamics that shape the physical, chemical, and
> biological environment from the molecular to the planetary scale,
> including a) biogeochemical cycles; b) climate variability and change;
> and c) biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics.
>
> 3\) **People and technology:** seeking to discover new technologies
> that protect and improve the environment and also to understand how
> individuals and institutions interact with the environment and how
> they use resources and respond to change. Areas include: a) materials
> and process development; b) decision making and uncertainty; and c)
> institutions and environmental systems.

The report recommends expansion and improvements in two key areas of NSF
to achieve its research and research application goals and to raise up a
new generation of professionals to carry forward its work:

1)  **Environmental education:** formal, at all levels, from pre-school
    to secondary, with more incentives in colleges and community
    colleges to facilitate environmental research; and informal, through
    parks, museums, zoos, media to increase public understanding of
    complex environmental information and decisions.

2)  **Infrastructure and technical capacity:** as the quantity and
    quality of environmental data grows, NSF needs to quickly establish
    a "cyberinfrastructure" in which to archive, integrate, interpret,
    and communicate this information. Interdisciplinary research will
    rely on experiments and models to understand environmental problems
    at multiple scales and to develop scenarios and projects for use in
    policy making and in practice.

**Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** This report echoes what appears in
other pieces of scientific literature reviewed for this project in that
it calls for a holistic approach to environmental research that
addresses problems at multiple scales and relies on an interdisciplinary
approach. It is one of the few to bring up environmental education as a
key strategy in addressing professional recruitment, as well as public
enlightenment. USGS in particular would probably benefit from
determining what has been accomplished by NSF in implementing the
recommendations from their Advisory Committee for Environmental Research
and Education. Opportunities to link into their "cyberinfrastructure"
may prove useful, and both FWS and USGS might participate in the framing
of NSF's research questions if we are not already doing so. Their
journey of implementing these recommendations in total may be
instructive to us as we pursue "Future Challenges." Obviously, we are
already headed in the direction of more extensive information-sharing,
as evidenced by the recent e-mail from USGS on the availability online
of the Nationwide Invertebrate Community Database.

**Pew Ocean Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course
for Sea Change. A Report to a Nation: Recommendation for a New Ocean
Policy**.

**Synopsis:** This report recommends a fundamental change in how this
nation manages its oceans (and fisheries). It perceives the oceans are
at a crisis point caused by a failure in perspective and governance. We
have failed to conceive of the oceans as our largest public domain, not
recognized how vital they are to the nation's economy, nor the influence
of land activities on the ocean. The foundation of current ocean policy
is largely derived from coastal zone laws developed in response to local
crisis and the nation's first review of ocean policy in the Stratton
Commission in 1969. That policy focused on oceans as a frontier with
vast resources and most policies were aimed at coordinating development
of ocean resources. Calling US ocean governance "in disarray," the hodge
podge of ocean laws and programs, and fragmented institutional
involvement has not lead to unified, clearly stated goals and measurable
objectives in ocean resource management.

Fundamental conclusions are: the status quo is unacceptable; long term
economic stability of oceans depends upon ecological stability; A
changed perspective is required that oceans need to be treated as a
public trust; and governments should exercise its authority with a broad
sense of responsibility to all citizens and their long-term interests.

Overall recommendation: A Reformed US Ocean Policy

To achieve that goal there are 5 priority objectives:

1.  a principled, unified ocean policy based on protecting ecosystem
    health and sustainable use.

2.  comprehensive, coordinated governance of resources at a scale
    appropriate to the problem

    1.  regional scale for fisheries mgt

    2.  watershed level for coastal dev and pollution

> control

3.  restructure fisheries management institutions and reorient fisheries
    policy to protect and sustain ecosystems

4.  protect important habitats and manage coastal development to
    minimize habitat damage and water quality impairment.

5.  control sources of pollution, particularly nutrients

Actions to achieve the above objectives:

Governance for Sustainable Seas

1.  enact a National Ocean Policy Act to protect ocean health, integrity
    and productivity.

2.  establish regional ocean ecosystem councils to dev enforcable
    regional ocean governance plans

3.  establish national system of fully protected reserves

4.  establish an independent national oceans agency

5.  establish a permanent federal interagency oceans council

Restoring America's Fisheries

1.  redefine the objective of the American fishery policy to protect
    marine ecosystems

2.  separate conservation and allocation decisions

3.  implement ecosystem based planning and marine zoning

4.  regulate destructive fishing gear

5.  monitor bycatch and management plans as a condition of fishing

6.  access and allocation planning as a condition of fishing

Preserving Our Coasts

1.  develop a plan to address nonpoint source pollution and protect
    water quality on a watershed basis

2.  identify and protect habitat critical for the functioning of coastal
    ecosystems

3.  at all levels of government, manage development and minimize it's
    impact to coastal ecosystems.

4.  redirect government support of harmful coastal development toward
    beneficial activities, including restoration

Cleaning Coastal Waters

1.  revise, strengthen pollution laws to focus on nonpoint sources

2.  address unabated sources of pollution, such as concentrated animal
    feedlots and cruise ships.

3.  address emerging and nontraditional sources of pollution, such as
    invasives and noise.

4.  strengthen control over toxic pollution

Guiding Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

1.  implement new national marine aquaculture policy based on sound
    conservation principles and standards.

2.  set a standard, and provide international leasdership, for
    ecologically sound marine aquaculture.

Science, Education and Funding

1.  dev a comprehensive national ocean research and monitoring strategy

2.  double funding for basic ocean science and research

3.  improve use of existing information by creation of a mechanism or
    institution of independent oversight of ocean and coastal mgt.

4.  broaden ocean education to all levels of society

**Who contributed to this report:** The Pew Ocean Commission is a
bipartisan, independent group of American leaders created to chart this
new course for the nation's ocean policy. It organized leaders from the
world of science, fishing, conservatrion, government, education,
business, and philanthropy. Scientist summarized the best scientific
information, and organized subcommittees that reviewed the *core issues
of* *governance, fishing, pollution, and coastal development, and
subtopics of marine aquaculture, invasive species, ocean zoning, climate
change, education, and science.* For 2 years the Commission conducted
regional meetings, hearings and workshops around the country soliciting
input.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** The recommendations in this
report are largely aimed at reorganizing or creating a new federal
agency to undertake ocean management in a centralized manner. The
implication could be that DOC and DOI ocean functions could be
eliminated, thus significantly changing many of our program areas.
However, under the current situation, there are many recommendations for
consideration to improve the ecological sustainability of the oceans.
Our agencies can contribute to the development of measurable objectives
and examine how our jurisdictional interests are contributing to the
fragmented management of ocean resources. Our agencies are also involved
in many of the fisheries programs and aquaculture technologies that have
oceanic implications, and we manage a small number of marine mammals and
T&E marine species, and have a large number of coastal and oceanic
refuges, many with critical migratory bird and seabird breeding
habitats. FWS and NOAA Fisheries currently have many joint management
responsibilities under ESA and MMPA.

**Stocking, M. A., 2003. Tropical soils and food security: the next 50
years. Science 302: 1356-1359.**

**Synopsis:** This article predicts the ability of tropical soils to
contribute to global food security over the next 50 years. It somewhat
challenges the assumption that declining soil quality will lead to
declines in food production, claiming that local solutions by the local
farmer will extend the usefulness of the soils. This article did not
have high relevance to our project.

**Science. 2003. State of the Planet. A special series, Vol. 302, 14
Nov. 2003-5 Dec, 2003.** A four-week series including eight viewpoint
articles on topics ranging from population to energy to fisheries to
global change. See the complete citation for each article under the
individual authors: Cohen, 2003; Jenkins, 2003; Akimoto, 2003; Karl and
Trenberth, 2003; Stocking, 2003; Pauly et al; Chow et al; Gleick, 2003.

**Cohen, J. E. 2003. Human population: the next half century. Science
302:1172-1175**.

**Synopsis:** Broadstroke predictions of human demographics. By 2050 the
human population will have increased by 2-4 billion to 8.9 billion. It
will occur largely in less developed regions. It will largely occur in
urban areas, and the population will be older. The human species lacks
any experience with such rapid growth and large numbers of its own
species. The most important demographic event occurred around 1965-70
when the global population growth rate peaked at 2.1%, then gradually
fell to 1.2% by 2002. Global fertility of women fell from 5 children per
woman in 1955 to 2.7 currently. By 2000, 64 countries (with 44% of the
people) had birth rates below the replacement rate. In 2000, 19 cities
had 10 million people or more, and only 4 are in developed countries
(Tokoyo, Osaka, LA, NY). The increase of 77 million people per year will
primarily occur in 6 countries: India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Nigeria, US (4% in US). Rich regions have annual growth rate of 0.25%,
compared to global rate of 1.22%. In rich countries, population density
is 23 people/sq km, half the global average. Life expectancy worldwide
is expected to rise from 65 (now) to 74 by 2050. For the first time in
human history, more than half of all humans will life in a city in the
next decade, whereas the rural population will remain flat. The US is
expected to receive the most immigrants in the world. Family structure
is changing, with the trend of marriage weakening as number of children
decreases and prevelance of divorce increases. In 1994 40% of US
children did not live with their biological father, and in 1999 33% of
births were non-marital.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** human populations will continue
to displace wild habitats, in US increasing urban growth, non-rural
traditions will increase. Traditions of hunting and fishing less likely
to be passsed to new generations. Nonconsumptive or urbanized resource
use likely to increase.

**Gleick, P.H. 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions
for the 21^st^ century. Science 302:1524-1528.**

**Synopsis:** The 20^th^ century water polices that relied on the
constuction of massive infrastructure in the forms of dams, aqueducts,
pipelines, and centralized water treatment plants is described as a
"hard-path" approach to solving water problems. The benefits were
tremendous, but their were unanticipated environmental consequences and
outcome now incompatible with some of this century's natural resource
management goals. New challenges are complicating the current approach
to solving water problems including: regional and international water
conflicts; dependence of many regions on unsustainable groundwater use,
climate change; inability to monitor global water balance. The historic
response to water needs has been to build infrastructure to store, move
or treat water, and underlying assumptions have been that the demand for
water will grow. However, during the 1970s and 1980's the fuller
economic costs of hard path solutions to water needs were realized (via
fuller consideration of environmental and social costs of dams) and
construction projects have slowed dramatically. This article proposes a
future "soft-path" approach to water policies that encourage small scale
decentralized facilities and improved productivity of water rather than
increased supplies. Various examples are described in which alternatives
to heavy water consumption are being developed for home, industry and
agricultural use. Ecological water needs should be quantified and
guaranteed by local and national laws. Efforts should be made to quickly
transition to comprehensive soft-path water policies.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** Natural resource needs have
become increasingly considered in water project planning as various
environmental laws (NEPA, ESA) have forced consideration of project
impacts, and have played a role in the trend away from hard path water
policies toward soft path policies. As long as these laws are in place
this trend is likely to continue. To solidify this situation,
information could be gathered to more fully quantify ecological water
needs (i.e, aquatic resource flow needs, water quality requirements,
etc., for various flora and fauna) in order to seek their "guarantee" in
local and national laws as suggested by the author.

Jenkins, M. 2003. Prospects for Biodiversity. Science 302:1175-1177.

**Synopsis:** assuming no radical transformation of human behavior, we
can expect important changes in biodiversity (lower) and ecosystem
services by 2050. Global surface temp will be 1-2 degree C higher, and
atmospheric CO~2~ will be 100-200 ppm higher. The effects will occur via
habitat conversion, exploitation of wild resources, and impacts of
introduced species. Extinction rates will increase, for example,
BirdLife International predicts 350 spp of birds might become extinct by
2050, or 3.5% of world avifauna. Mammals and freshwater fishes may have
higher extinction rates, but data for them is less complete. The land:
because the harvest of marine resources is now at or past peak,
terrestrial ecosystems will bear burden of production for humans,
primarily in the tropics. Forest cover may stabilize or expand, as
urbanization removes marginally productive land out of agriculture. Wild
lands will be impoverished, and populations of many species will survive
only with intervention or in heavily managed areas. Aquatic ecosystems:
marine ecosystems will have lost many top predators, and coastal systems
will be extremely challenged by development, anoxia, siltation,
eutrophication, and aquaculture. Loss of freshwater biodiversity may
continue to occur even faster than terrestrial or marine, as has been
the trend for the past 30 years. Conservationists have struggled to
demonstrate any increased material benefits to humans of intact or wild
systems over largely anthropogenic ones. Even in regard to indirect
ecological services, such as carbon sequesteration, regulation of water
flow, and soil retention, it seems there are few cases in which these
cannot be provided by managed, generally low diversity systems.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** Species listings are going to
increase and successful conservation of T&E spp will require more land
acquisition and direct intervention management. Ecosystem conversion
will heavily favor invasive or generalist spp. The need for scientific
knowledge and skill in small population conservation, conservation
genetics, invasive species management will increase dramatically. The
ESA is likely to be challenged and/or reformed as societal choices
become increasingly difficult to conserve T&E spp. Scientific
information may not support arguments to maintain natural systems to
preserve ecosystem functions. Human perception of what is "natural
biodiversity" will continue to change as local and global extinctions
continue.

**Karl, T. and K. Trenberth. 2003. Modern global climate change. Science
302:1719-1723**.

**Synopsis:** Modern climate change is dominated by human influences,
which are now large enough to exceed the bounds of natural variability.
The main way humans alter global climate is by interference with natural
flows of energy through changes in atmospheric composition, not by the
actual generation of heat in energy use. On a global scale, a 1% change
in energy flows, which is the order of the estimated change to date,
dominates all other direct influences humans have on climate. Global
changes in atmospheric composition occur from anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide that result from burning of
fossil fuels, trapping outgoing radiation in the earth's atmosphere from
going on out to space, thus warming the planet. Rates of climate change
remain uncertain, although they are likely to be manifest in important
and tangible ways like: changes in extreme temperature and
precipitation, decreases in season and perennial snow and ice extent,
and sea level rise. Manmade climate change is now likely to continue for
many centuries.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** Global warming can be expected to
produce uncertainty in the persistence of habitats, changes in the
timing of natural phenomena (blooms, precip, etc,) and distribution and
abundances of flora and fauna. The number of potential influences in
profound. A single example is that delivery of water via the California
water project may be severely impacted if precipitation in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains shifts to an increased amount of rain instead of snow,
because the water storage and delivery system was primarily designed to
capture and deliver spring snowmelt rather than winter rains. Species
and habitat conservation planning will slowly be turned on its ear, and
there will be tremendous need for adaptive management skills.

A second lesson illuminated by the issue of global warming is the role
of scientific information in the decision-making process. The scientific
data regarding global warming is remarkably simple, clear, and
unambiguous. By looking at a single graph, the average person can see
the relationship that exists between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
annual mean global temperature, and the information is compelling. The
data even describes a measurement familiar to everyone -- temperature.
However, despite the fact this phenomenon was detected almost
immediately, and in a short period of time was described with general
agreement among the scientific community, decision-making and political
processes in place to respond to this scientific information are not yet
responding with science-based decisions. This illustrates the limits to
the usefulness of scientific information for decision makers.

Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Vennerr, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, R. Watson.
2003. The future of fisheries. Science 302:1359-1361.

Synopsis: Analysis of global fisheries is limited as most research
focuses on local, species- specific fisheries, which limits development
of long-term scenarios. Extrapolating current trends implies expansion
of bottom fisheries into deeper waters, impacts to biodiversity,
declining global catches. Various management scenarios were examined.

**Relationship to FWS/USGS missions:** this article had few specifics of
use for our purposes beyond the prediction that current trends in heavy
sea harvesting will contribute to lowered marine biodiversity.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Science. 2003. 302:1861; 1906-1929. Tragedy of the commons? A special
issue**. Nine review and viewpoint articles that commemorate Hardin's
essay, "The Tradegy of the Commons", and look at trends in the
management of common resources in the 35 years since the essays
publication. See the complete citations for each article under the
individual authors: Kennedy, 2003; Sugden et al, 2003; Rosegrant and
Cline, 2003; Mascie-Taylor and Karim, 2003; Dietz, et. al, 2003; Pretty
2003, Adams et al; 2003; Hasselmann et al, 2003; Watson, 2003; Houck,
2003.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Synopsis:** All articles in this issue reference the essay "Tragedy of
the Commons" by Garret Hardin that appeared in [Science]{.underline} in
1968. Hardin drew attention to two human factors driving environmental
change: 1) increasing demand for natural resources and environmental
services, driven by human population growth and per capita resource
consumption; and 2) the ways humans organize themselves to extract
environmental resources (i.e., institutional arrangements) and to eject
effluents into the environment. He argued that humankind was doomed to
overexploit commonly held resources unless the growth of world
populations was controlled and these resources were under either private
or government control.

Synopsis of each article in this special issue of [Science]{.underline}
appears below. The article by Dietz, Ostrom and Stern provides a
review/overview of the problem of governing the commons; the other
articles offer viewpoints on various aspects of the issue.

Sugden, A., C. Ash, B. Hanson, and J. Smith. Introduction: Where do we
go from here? Science. 2003. 302: 1906.

Science has a central and urgent part to play in addressing the
depletion and damage to critical resources we all share. Options other
than forced population control are available.

**Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. The struggle to govern the
commons. Science. 2003. 302:1907-1912.**

**Synopsis: C**iting the decline in ocean fisheries as an example, the
authors contend that advanced technologies for resource use have
exacerbated the problems Hardin identified to an unparalleled degree
globally; but they disagree that his alternatives for addressing these
problems are our only options. They argue that sustaining the earth's
ability to support diverse life, including quality of life for humans,
will always be a struggle because it involves making tough decisions
under uncertainty, complexity, and significant biophysical constraints,
as well as conflicting human values and interests. With these challenges
to successful governing of the commons in mind, they examine artifacts
of an "emerging science of human-environment interactions, sometimes
called human ecology or the 'second science'" to clarify the
characteristics of institutional arrangements that facilitate or
undermine sustainable use of environmental resources.

Highlights of their findings on the requirements for governing the
commons:

1.  One size does not fit all. Successful commons governance requires
    that rules evolve.

2.  Environmental governance is research-dependent, relying upon
    trustworthy information about the stocks, flows and processes within
    the resource systems being governed and about the human activities
    affecting those systems.

3.  Research must be comprehensive and holistic, looking at the resource
    issue at all levels, including the local level, to ensure that
    international or national decisions and policies don't overlook
    important information known regionally or locally.

4.  Research information must be of the highest quality scientifically,
    but also must be translated into a user-friendly language and format
    for decision-makers, making use of meaningful summary indicators to
    characterize environmental conditions or human activities

5.  Research information must address the issue of uncertainty that is
    the result of the unpredictability of human-biophysical systems and
    the fact that science is never complete. Decision-makers need
    information that characterizes the types and magnitudes of
    uncertainty and the nature and extent of scientific disagreement.

6.  Research information must address individual and social values and
    the effects of decisions on various valued outcomes. Some values,
    such as biodiversity, are particularly difficult to monitor and
    measure, but we must look for ways to do so

7.  Recognize that conflict is inherent in environmental choices, and
    provide for conflict resolution in the very design of resource
    institutions

8.  Induce rule compliance at all levels of society using informal to
    formal mechanisms and applying modest sanctions on first offenders,
    gradually increasing severity of sanctions.

9.  Whether formal or informal, those who enforce rules must be seen as
    effective and legitimate by resource users or resistance and evasion
    will overwhelm enforcement. Command and control is not effective if
    government lacks the will or the resources to protect "protected"
    areas. Command and control is more effective at preventing
    prohibited behaviors than it is at innovating new behaviors or
    technologies to protect a resource.

10. Tradable environmental allowances (TEAs) are not a cure-all, but
    they have proven to be an important tool in gaining compliance.

11. Physical and technological infrastructure is essential to setting
    resource use limits, reducing waste, and to determining the degree
    to which resource conditions and human behavior can be monitored.

12. To be successful, institutions that govern the commons must be ready
    to adapt and change, a lesson of adaptive management research.

13. Analytic deliberation that involves scientists, resource users, and
    interested publics, and involves analysis of research information
    gathered about resource systems and human-resource system
    interactions is critical to governing the commons.

14. Institutional arrangements that are redundant and nested in many
    layers of government are preferable to centralized government
    control in protecting natural resources.

15. A multiplicity of rules generated by a mixture of institutional
    types, from hierarchies to markets, will help with information
    dissemination, development of incentives, monitoring of resource
    use, and inducing compliance.

16. Sound science is necessary for commons governance, but not
    sufficient in and of itself.

> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** Both agencies are involved in
> governing the commons, so the findings 1-16 all have relevance. The
> findings on how we should gather, use and disseminate research
> findings are important for USGS. FWS might consider how to
> institutionalize conflict resolution organizationally, perhaps relying
> more on mediated outcomes. FWS is cited as an example of successful
> conflict resolution through a participatory process with the Corps of
> Engineers, local landowners, environmental groups and academics from
> several disciplines in resulting the Mississippi River and its
> tributaries. Both agencies are challenged to address scientific
> uncertainties and to add research on societal values into day-to-day
> operations, while recognizing that the latter invites internal
> criticism that they are departing from "pure" science in so doing.
>
> **Kennedy, D. Sustainability and the commons. Science. 2003. 302:
> 1861**.
>
> **Synopsis:** Defines the global commons as those critical resources
> we all must share: climate, soil, air, water, energy resources, food,
> fisheries, and biodiversity. Decades of depletion of these resources
> have led to the terms "sustainability" and "sustainability science."
> The author argues that modern definition of sustainability---that with
> respect to the total of values taken from the environment, the average
> welfare of the successor generation will be as high or higher than
> that of the current generation---doesn't take into account issues such
> as equity or expectations based on historical rates of improvement. We
> must define sustainability to know exactly how science can contribute.
> We are having some successes on resource problems at small scales, but
> less at large scales. The author poses the question: "Can scientific
> evidence successfully overcome social, economic, and political
> resistance?"
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** As conservation organizations, we
> may define values of nature differently than others, i.e.,
> timber-harvesting is as much a value taken from nature as is
> birdwatching. A key to overcoming social, economic and political
> resistance mentioned by Kennedy is to recognize our biases, our
> paradigm of nature, and to respect other paradigms.

Pretty, J. Social capital and the collective management of resources.
Science. 2003. 302: 1912-1914.

> **Synopsis:** While acknowledging the incontrovertible evidence of
> harm being done to water, land and atmospheric resources by humans,
> the author rejects the paradigm that has influenced many policy makers
> and environmentalists, i.e., that to prevent further harm we must
> manage collective resources by "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon"
> (Hardin, 1968). Pretty proposes a third way to achieve sustainability,
> the use of "social capital" (social bonds and norms in communities),
> which he argues has shown itself to be a successful approach to
> long-term resource management at local levels and is more humane in
> accommodating the needs of the poor. His thesis is that "given good
> knowledge about local resources, appropriate institutional, social and
> economic conditions; and processes that encourage careful
> deliberation, communities can work together collectively to use
> natural resources sustainably over the long term." Social capital
> manifests itself in four features:
>
> 1\) relations of trust (lubricate cooperation, reduce the cost of
> monitoring behavior; take time to build)
>
> 2\) reciprocity and exchanges (increases trust, refers to exchanges of
> goods or knowledge or continuing relations over time)
>
> 3\) common rules, norms and sanctions (the rules of the game, which
> give individuals confidence to invest in the collective good and
> knowledge that those who break the rules will be punished)
>
> 4\) connectedness in networks and groups (bonding among people with
> mutual objectives, bridging between those groups and other groups with
> different views, linking of groups to government and other agencies to
> gain access to their resources or to influence their policies).
>
> Some 400,000 to 500,000 such groups have emerged at the local levels
> since the early 1990s, benefiting the collective resources issues they
> are formed to address, while simultaneously improving economic and
> social wellbeing in the community. Evidence suggests that social
> capital could be a prerequisite for long-term improvement in natural
> resources. Regulations and economic incentives are important, but
> without changes in social norms, people revert to old ways when
> incentives or regulations are not there. Social capital must be
> included as a strategy with other strategies that make up for its
> shortcomings, such as lack of access to the latest science that might
> contradict locally held beliefs on resource status; or needs of local
> groups for support from higher level authorities in the form of
> regulations or laws. Social capital's successes have been at the local
> to regional level. The challenge is to apply its principles to
> national and global issues.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS mission:** The ecosystem approach and its
> spin-off projects are examples of leveraging social capital to achieve
> conservation success. Consideration might be given to how apply the
> concept across organizational programs within our agencies, across
> agencies, across disciplines, across countries.
>
> **Adams, W.M., D. Brockington, J. Dyson, and S. Vira. Managing
> tragedies. Understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science.
> 2003. 302: 1915-1915-1919.**
>
> **Synopsis:** Conflicts over the management of commonly held resources
> are not simply about material interests between stakeholders.
> According to the authors, history shows that the origins of conflict
> lie in the perceptions of the stakeholders, in the way they define or
> frame the problem cognitively. The knowledge that stakeholders,
> including scientists and policy makers, use to define a natural
> resource problem fall into three categories: 1) knowledge of the
> empirical context, i.e., personal experience, inference from similar
> events elsewhere, empirical or theoretical formal research; 2)
> beliefs, myths and ideas, i.e., religious beliefs or moral
> convictions, received wisdom about theory; and 3) knowledge of laws
> and institutions, the presence or absence of which shapes the
> stakeholders' views on what options are available to respond to
> problems.
>
> Policy conflict arises because differences in knowledge and
> understanding between stakeholders frame their perceptions of resource
> use problems as well as possible solutions to these problems. Thus,
> policy dialogue needs to be structured so that differences in
> knowledge, understanding, ideas, and beliefs in the public arena are
> recognized. Doing so is likely to improve the effectiveness of
> negotiations and the trust level between stakeholders by enabling them
> to understand the plurality of views that exist in the context of
> resource use and management.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS mission:** Numerous examples of conflict over
> resource management in play at this moment in time could be traced
> back to the different cognitive perceptions of FWS/USGS and other
> stakeholders, including conflicts with environmental groups. This
> article opens up the possibility that creating an institutionalized
> program of conflict resolution that gets at these differences could be
> of value for us and other resource management agencies.
>
> **McMichael, A.J., C.D. Butler, and C. Folke. New visions for
> addressing sustainability. Science. 2033. 302:1919-1920.**
>
> **Synopsis:** Sustainability is defined as transforming our ways of
> living to maximize the chances that environmental and social
> conditions will indefinitely support human security, well-being, and
> health. Study of the subject is motivated by the steadily accruing
> evidence that humankind is jeopardizing its own existence by living
> beyond Earth's means, thereby changing atmospheric composition and
> depleting biodiversity, soil fertility, ocean fisheries and supplies
> of fresh water.
>
> Among the reasons that we have failed to achieve a collective vision
> about how to address achieve sustainability is the failure of four key
> scientific disciplines to engage interactively on the subject:
> demography, economics, ecology and epidemiology. The authors argue
> that all four disciplines are central to the subject of
> sustainability, but share a limited ability to appreciate that the
> fate of human populations depends on the biosphere's capacity to
> provide a continued flow of goods and services. This limitation is a
> by-product of long-standing Western scientific thought that humankind
> is separate from the natural world and is its master.
>
> The authors argue that sustainability should be at the top of our
> research agendas. They recommend that we pursue "sustainability
> science" and the "science of human-environment interactions" in an
> inter-disciplinary fashion, working with existing interdisciplinary
> societies and research networks and creating interdisciplinary centers
> for such studies that will allow scientists to think and work outside
> of disciplinary constraints.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS mission:** This is another call for a holistic
> approach to science that moves beyond disciplinary constraints to look
> at the biggest picture of the earth. Within our agencies, there are
> scientists who are actively engaged in carrying out their missions
> within the context of the bigger picture. The FWS Asheville, NC Field
> Office is a key player in the Man in the Biosphere initiative, for
> example. Consideration might be given to how to institutionalize this
> larger world view across the FWS and USGS so that we can be both
> contributors to and beneficiaries of the emerging sustainability
> science.
>
> **Mascie-Taylor, C.G. and E. Karim. The burden of chronic disease.
> Science. 2003. 302:1921-1922**.
>
> **Synopsis:** International health initiatives are targeted at
> conditions that cause high mortality (AIDS, tuberculosis,
> vaccine-preventable diseases), but disease and injury attributable to
> undernutrition, poor water supply, poor sanitation, and inadequate
> hygiene are having a huge impact in shortening lives in both rich and
> poor nations. Soil-transmitted diseases need more attention. In
> developing nations, an accessible and good quality healthcare system
> is the pressing need, while in industrial nations, public health
> education and promoting healthy lifestyles is needed.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS mission:** Relevant in that it suggests a
> holistic approach to all that we do, including actively promoting
> healthy lifestyles among our own employees through policies and
> programs. Also relevant in that disease is related to poverty, poverty
> is related to war, war is related to FWS/USGS budget cuts. The world
> is one big ecosystem.
>
> **Hasselmann, K. M. Latif, G. Hooss, C. Azar, O. Edenhoger, C.C.
> Jaeger, O.M. Johannessen, C. Kemfert, M. Welp, and A. Wokaun. The
> challenge of long-term climate change. Science. 2003. 302:1923-1925.**
>
> **Synopsis:** To avoid major long-term climate change, average per
> capita greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries must be
> reduced to a small fraction of the present levels within one or two
> centuries. The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, while a historic first step toward
> reversing the trend of continually increasing emissions, will have a
> negligible impact on future global warming. Binding commitments to
> meet short-term emission-reduction targets must go hand-in-hand with
> clearly defined strategies to achieve substantially more stringent
> reductions in the longer term.
>
> To avoid predicted temperature increases of 4-9 degrees centigrade and
> a sea level rise of 3 to 8 meters in the second half of this
> millennium that will be driven by expanding populations of the
> developing world, we need to find affordable new technologies.
> Promising leads are solar, thermal, or photovoltaic energy in
> combination with hydrogen technology; carbon sequestration in
> geological formations or the ocean; advanced nuclear fission; and
> nuclear fusion. The goal of long-term climate policy must be to
> influence business investments, research, education and public
> perceptions such that stringent emission-reduction targets, although
> not attainable today, become acceptable at a later time.
>
> Science can assist the development of long-term climate policies by
> providing detailed analyses of the technological options and their
> implications for national economies and global development. The
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has played a pivotal role in
> the climate debate by presenting authoritative reviews of the state of
> science and on climate change impact, mitigation, and policy. Climate
> negotiators need scientific analyses of the implications of
> alternative climate policy regimes for individual signatories to the
> United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** Impacts at the level of wildlife
> conservation are not addressed in this piece, although they are in a
> general way in the article by Watson (2003) that follows. This article
> addresses a longer timeframe than our committee is presently
> addressing. Nevertheless, the question arises, whether either FWS or
> USGS are involved even tangentially in discussions on implications of
> climate change for our missions.
>
> **Watson, R.T. Climate change: the political situation. Science. 2003.
> 302:1925-1926.**
>
> **Synopsis:** Human-induced climate change is one of the most
> important environmental issues facing society worldwide. Changes in
> the earth's climate are projected to adversely affect socioeconomic
> systems (water, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries), terrestrial and
> aquatic ecological systems, and human health. Although the near-term
> challenge for most industrialized countries is to achieve their
> targets under the Kyoto Protocol (5 to 10 percent reductions relative
> to the levels emitted in 1990), the long-term challenge is to meet the
> objectives of Article 2 of the United Nationals Framework Convention
> on Climate Change, which calls for reductions to 5 to 10 percent of
> current emissions.
>
> Although the United States currently emits \~25 percent of global
> emissions of greenhouse gases, the United States has publicly stated
> that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because:

1)  there are scientific uncertainties about projected human-induced
    changes to climate from greenhouse gas emissions;

2)  high compliance costs would hurt the U.S. economy;

3)  it is unfair because India and China are not obligated to reduced
    their emissions;

4)  it will not be effective because developing countries are not
    obligated to reduce their emissions and that is where most of the
    projected growth in greenhouse gas emissions over the next 100 years
    will come from.

> Watson counters each of these arguments and points out that the United
> States' unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Protocol will discourage other
> major developing countries from limiting their emissions and
> industrialized nations from agreeing to further reductions beyond the
> Kyoto accord. One encouraging sign is that about half of the U.S.
> states have enacted climate protection measures of their own and the
> U.S. Congress is considering initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions. In addition, some companies are voluntarily undertaking
> actions to reduce emissions and improve the energy efficiency of their
> products. Watson calls for the United States to sign the Kyoto
> Protocol and to set longer-term emission-reduction targets as well. He
> calls it an opportunity to modernize energy systems and to enhance
> competitiveness in a globalized world.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** We have already shown that we can
> be players in this arena through carbon sequestration on national
> wildlife refuges. The question arises as to how far and wide we have
> extended this initiative and what we project as benefits that will
> accrue in the short and long terms.
>
> **Rosegrant, M. W. and S.A. Cline. Global food security: challenges
> and policies. Science. 2003. 302:1917-1918.**
>
> **Synopsis:** The term "food security" refers to the concern that
> there will be global food shortages due to an inability of
> agricultural production to keep up with population demands. Issues
> affecting food security include HIV/AIDS, which takes food producers
> out of the economy in countries such as Africa; and climate change,
> which could result in adverse rainfall conditions for crop production.
> The authors claim that among the policy and investment reforms needed
> to ensure global food security is natural resources management. They
> write, "Agroecological approaches that seek to manage landscapes for
> both agricultural production and ecosystem services are another way of
> improving agricultural productivity." Citing the successes of the
> agroecological approach, they call for pilot programs to work out how
> to mobilize private investment in such things as biodiversity reserves
> and habitat improvements and to develop systems of payment for
> ecosystem services.
>
> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** At first glance, this subject
> seems far removed from either agency's mission. Yet some of the
> infrastructure that the authors recommend be built to ensure food
> security may already be in place at the local level in the Private
> Lands programs and other landowner-incentive efforts.
>
> Houck, O. Tales from a troubled marriage: science and law in
> environmental policy. [Science.]{.underline} 2003. 302:1926-1929.
>
> **Synopsis:** This essay explores the history of the uneasy, 30+year
> relationship between science and law in environmental policy. It
> considers the debate over which of the two environmental policy should
> be based on and how it should be implemented. It concludes that
> environmental policy based on standards set by scientists has not
> proven successful, and that scientists have other, more important
> roles to play.
>
> According to author, prior to the advent of environmental statutes in
> the 1960s, civil law provided the avenue for redress for environmental
> harm, but it proved inadequate to the challenge. Civil law failed
> because science could not make the required proof of harm with the
> specificity that the law requires.
>
> In the 1960s, public environmental statutes addressed the problem by
> setting standards of performance that bypassed the rigors of causation
> and proof. Scientists were relied upon to set the standards. The Water
> Quality Act, NEPA, the Clearn Water Act, RCRA, CERCLA, TOSCA, FIFRA
> and the Safe Drinking Water Act are all examples of first-wave
> environmental law where scientists set the standards. All these laws
> have failed in large measure to achieve their intent (he claims that a
> good rule of thumb is that no environmental law achieves more than 50
> percent of what it set out to do) because: 1) science isn't
> dispositive, i.e., doesn't settle things once and for all, by its very
> nature can be challenged; 2) environmental policy faces public
> resistance unparalleled in public law because of costs involved, its
> intrusive nature in people's lives, and the embarrassment involved in
> public exposure of environmental wrongdoing. When challenged, science
> failed to provide the proofs in public law, as it had in civil law.
>
> Congress addressed this problem in public law by adopting the standard
> of "Best Available Technology" or BAT, for environmental discharges.
> BAT has been amazingly successful as a "just do it" policy that
> doesn't rely on scientists to set the standards. Its weakness is in
> how the scope of a proposal is defined, which can lead to a lack of an
> alternative technology and a failure of BAT to protect the
> environment.
>
> The result has been that today, all approaches to environmental policy
> are needed to protect the environment -- engineering, science, tort
> actions, public law, and economic and market incentives. Science still
> plays a lead role, which is to:

1)  sound the alarm on environmental dangers;

2)  provide a rationale for the requirement of BAT;

3)  provide a safety net by identifying substances so noxious that they
    need to be completely phased out; and identifying levels still
    dangerous to humans even after BAT is applied;

4)  set absolute standards under the ESA above which no further impacts
    will be allowed;

5)  oversee restoration after damage has been done.

> With so much power and so much riding on the opinion of scientists,
> four cautions are given to scientists:

1)  Beware of the lure to return to standards set by science, which will
    always be subject to challenge as arbitrary and capricious, face
    crippling political pressure, and produce little abatement.

2)  Be wary of the call for "good science," which can be a way for
    opponents to manipulate scientific findings they don't like by
    insisting on peer review.

3)  Be aware that, even with scientists, money talks; and with
    scientists, following the money is harder to do, thus the public
    will probably never find out that the science was bought and paid
    for;

4)  Beware the lure of the safe, apolitical life. Given the importance
    of environmental problems today, we cannot afford for scientists to
    sit it out.

> **Relevance to FWS/USGS missions:** This article in its entirety
> deserves careful consideration. It looks at the big picture of where
> we have been and where we ought not to go again in setting
> environmental policy. DOI and FWS are used as examples several times
> in this article. FWS is commended for the "no jeopardy" standard of
> the ESA, which is seen as a "just do it" policy. DOI is criticized for
> considering peer review of all science-based agency decisions in the
> name of "good science." Finally, the success of Zoo Atlanta director
> (and FWS partner) Terry Maple and other scientists in preventing the
> repeal or amendment of several environmental laws in the 1990s under
> the Contract with America is a powerful statement of why scientists
> must not "sit it out" where environmental policy is concerned.

# Future Challenges Literature Review

**Literature cited:**

Adams, W.M., D. Brockington, J. Dyson, and B. Vira. 2003. Managing
tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science
302:1915-1917.

Akimoto, H. 2003. Global air quality and pollution. Science
302:1716-1719

Becker, C. D., E. Ostrom. 1995. Human ecology and resource
sustainability: the importance of institutional diversity. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 26:113-133.

Bennett, E. M., S.R. Carpenter, G.D. Peterson, G.S. Cumming, M. Zurek,
and P. Pingali. 2003. Why global scenarios need ecology. Front. Ecol.
Environ 1:322-329.

Bricker, O.P. and M.A. Ruggiero. 1998. Toward a national program for
monitoring environmental resources. Ecological Applications. 8(2):
326-329.

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. 1997. Federal
Environmental Research and Development: Status report with
recommendations. Carneigie Commission. 24 pp.

Chow, J. R. J. Kopp, P. R. Portney. 2003. Energy resources and global
development. Science 302:1528-1531.

Cohen, J. E. 2003. Human population: the next half century. Science
302:1172-1175.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P.C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the
commons. Science 302:1907-1912.

DOI Strategic Plan. FY2003-2008.

Ecological Society of America. 2004. Ecological Science and
Sustainability for a Crowded Planet. 21^st^ Century Vision and Action
Plan for the Ecological Society of America. 55 pp.

Gardner, G. and P. Sampat. 1998. Mind over Matter: Recasting the Role of
Materials in our Lives. Worldwatch Paper 144. Worldwatch Institute. 60
pp.

Gleick, P.H. 2003. Global freshwater resources: soft-path solutions for
the 21^st^ century. Science 302:1524-1528.

Hasselmann, K. M. Latif, A. Azar, E. Edenhofer, C.C. Jaeger, O.M.
Johannessen, C. Kemfort, M. Welp, and A. Wokaun. 2003. The challenge of
long-term climate change. Science 302:1923-1925.

Houck, O. 2003. Tales from a troubled marriage: Science and law in
environmental policy. Science 302:1926-1929.

Jenkins, M. 2003. Prospects for Biodiversity. Science 302:1175-1177.

Karl, T. and K. Trenberth. 2003. Modern global climate change. Science
302:1719-1723.

Kennedy, D. 2003. Editorial: Sustainability and the commons. Science
302:1861.

Kim, K. C. and L. Knutson. 1986. Foundations for a National Biological
Survey. Assoc of Systematic Collections. 215 pp.

National Council for Science and the Environment. 2002. Recommendations
for Achieving Sustainable Communities: Science and Solutions. National
Council for Science and the Environment. 68 pp.

NRC. 1993. A Biological Survey for the Nation. National Academy Press.
205 pp.

NRC. 2000a. Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academy
Press. 180 pp.

NRC. 2000b. Grand Challenges in Environmental Science. National Research
Council. National Academy Press. 77pp.

NRC. 2001a. Future roles and opportunities for the US Geological survey.
National Academy Press. 179 pp.

NRC. 2001b. Envisioning the agenda for water resources research in the
21^st^ century. National Academy Press. 61 pp.

NRC. 2001c. Basic Research opportunities in earth science. National
Academy Press. 153 pp.

NRC. 2003. NEON: addressing the Nation's environmental challenges.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NSF. 2003. Complex Environmental Systems: Synthesis for Earth, Life, and
Society in the 21^st^ Century. A 10-year outlook for the National
Science Foundation. NSF Advisory Committee for Environmental Research
and Education. 68 pp.

Machlis, G.E. et al. 2000. A look ahead: Key Social and Environmental
Forecasts relevant to the National Park Service. NPS. 52 pp.

Mascie-Taylor, C.G., and E. Karim. 2003. The burden of chronic disease.
Science 302:1921-1922.

McMichael, A.J., C.D. Butler, C. Folke. 2003. New visions for addressing
sustainability. Science 302:1919-1920.

Pauly, D., J. Alder, E. Vennerr, V. Christensen, P. Tyedmers, R. Watson.
2003. The future of fisheries. Science 302:1359-1361.

Pew Ocean Commission. 2003. America's Living Oceans: Charting a Course
for Sea Change. A Report to a Nation. Recommendation for a New Ocean
Policy.

Pretty, J. 2003. Social capital and the collective management of
resources. Science 302:1912-1915.

Rosegrant, M.W. and S. A. Cline. 2003. Global food security: Challenges
and policies. Science 302:1917-1919.

Science. 2003a. State of the Planet. A special series, Vol. 302, 14 Nov.
2003-5 Dec, 2003. A four-week series including eight viewpoint articles
on topics ranging from population to energy to fisheries to global
change. See the complete citation for each article under the individual
authors: Cohen, 2003; Jenkins, 2003; Akimoto, 2003; Karl and Trenberth,
2003; Stocking, 2003; Pauly et al; Chow et al; Gleick, 2003.

Science. 2003b. Tragedy of the commons? A special issue. Vol. 304. 12
Dec 2003. Nine review and viewpoint articles that commemerate Hardin's
essay, "The Tradegy of the Commons", and look at trends in the
management of common resources in the 35 years since the essays
publication. See the complete citations for each article under the
individual authors: Kennedy, 2003; Sugden et al, 2003; Rosegrant and
Cline, 2003; Mascie-Taylor and Karim, 2003; Dietz, et. al, 2003; Pretty
2003, Adams et al; 2003; Hasselmann et al, 2003; Watson, 2003; Houck,
2003.

Stocking, M. A., 2003. Tropical soils and food security: the next 50
years. Science 302: 1356-1359.

Stern, P. C. 1993. A second environmental science: human-environmental
interactions. Science 260:1897-1899.

Sugden, A, C. Ash, B. Hanson, and J. Smith. 2003. Where do we go from
here? Science 302:1906.

Watson, R.T. 2003. Climate change: the political situation. Science
302:1925-1926.