Review of the USA National Phenology Network
 

Circular 1411
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
B

A

C

Front cover photographs. 

A, Plants and animals often lead symbiotic lives: plants provide nectar, pollen, habitat, or other 

resources to animals, and animals provide services to plants such as pollination or seed dispersal. 

The USA-NPN focuses on understanding spatial and temporal overlap between interacting species. 

Photograph by Brian F. Powell. 

B, Seed production by plants such as this agave within a matrix of perennial native and invasive 

grasses is a critical life-history stage for reproduction. The USA-NPN enables the tracking of plant 

and animal reproductive—or phenological—events on a national scale. Photograph by Brian F. 

Powell. 

C, Nature’s Notebook, a project of the USA-NPN, is a multitaxa plant and animal observing system 

that enables monitoring and analysis of interacting species, such as this insect visitor to a cholla 

cactus. Photograph by Brian F. Powell. 

Background, Modified image of seed production by plants. Photograph by Brian F. Powell. 
Review of the USA National Phenology Network
 

Edited by Pierre D. Glynn and Timothy W. Owen, with contributions and 

recommendations by the 2014 USA National Phenology Network (USA–NPN) 

Review Panel and appendixes by Geoffrey M. Henebry and Jake F. Weltzin 

2014 USA–NPN Review Panel Members: 

Pierre Glynn (Chair), U.S. Geological Survey 

Bradley Reed (Vice-Chair), U.S. Geological Survey 

Robert Cook, Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

Frank Davis, University of California in Santa Barbara 

David Medvigy, Princeton University 

Russell Monson, University of Arizona 

David Schimel, Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

Mark Shaffer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Timothy Owen (Secretary), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Circular 1411 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
U.S. Department of the Interior 

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2015 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. 

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/. 

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government. 

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 


as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
 

Suggested citation:
 

Glynn, P.D., and Owen, T.W., eds., 2015, Review of the USA National Phenology Network: U.S. Geological Survey 


Circular 1411, 27 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1411.
 

ISSN 2330-5703 (online) 
iii 

Contents 

Executive Summary (by the Review Panel)...............................................................................................1
 

Phenology: Introduction and Importance to Federal Agencies.............................................................1
 

Why is Phenology Important?.............................................................................................................1
 

Why Is Phenology Relevant to the Mission of the U.S. Geological Survey and the 


Department of the Interior? ...................................................................................................2
 

Why Is Phenology Relevant to Other Federal Institutions? ...........................................................3
 

Charter and Process for the Review ..........................................................................................................4
 

USA–NPN Background Information...........................................................................................................5
 

A Short History of the USA–NPN .......................................................................................................5
 

Role of the Advisory Committee .........................................................................................................6
 

Discussion of the USA–NPN (by the Review Panel)................................................................................6
 

Panel’s Perspective on Accomplishments of the USA–NPN from 2007 to 2014.........................6
 

Panel’s Perspective on Risks and Needs of the USA–NPN Going Forward...............................6
 

Review Panel Recommendations ...............................................................................................................7
 

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................................10
 

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................10
 

Appendix 1. Panel Member Biographies..............................................................................................12
 

Appendix 2. Agenda and Attendees of the April 2014 Review Workshop ......................................14
 

Appendix 3. List of Documents Provided to the Review Panel.........................................................18
 

Appendix 4. National Coordinating Office Perspective of USA–NPN Accomplishments 


Since 2007........................................................................................................................................19
 

Status of Key USA–NPN Partnerships (Numbers Updated to May 2015) .................................19
 

Metrics Of USA–NPN Accomplishments and Outcomes ............................................................20
 

Key Accomplishments Since 2007 Include (Numbers Updated to May 2015).................20
 

Key Outcomes Since 2007 Include (Numbers as of May 2015)..........................................20
 

Publications that Rely on Contemporary Data from the National Phenology Database ........20
 

Publications that Rely on Legacy Data from the National Phenology Database.....................21
 

Appendix 5. Advisory Committee Contributions and Perspective of USA–NPN 


Accomplishments Since 2007 ......................................................................................................24
 

RCN Meeting Reports Published in Eos..........................................................................................24
 

Examples of Synthesis Articles that Originated at RCN Meetings.............................................25
 

Examples of Publications from NCEAS Working Group on Forecasting Phenology ...............26
 

Appendix 6. Introduction to Federal Advisory Committees...............................................................27
 

Figures 

4–1.	 Annual accumulation of records submitted via Nature’s Notebook to the 


USA–NPN National Phenology Database from January 2009 through May 2015 ...........22
 

4–2.	 Spatial distribution of records by registered Nature’s Notebook site submitted 

to the USA–NPN National Phenology Database in 2009 and between 2009 and 

May 2015 ......................................................................................................................................23
 

Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Edited by Pierre D. Glynn1 and Timothy W. Owen2 

Executive Summary (by the Review 

Panel)3

In January 2014, leadership from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Ecosystems Mission Area commissioned a 

review of the USA National Phenology Network (USA–NPN) 

Program. The Ecosystems Mission Area has a key stake in 

the USA–NPN, providing both supervision of its Director and 

most of the appropriated funds. The products and objectives 

of the program are relevant to six of the seven USGS Mission 

Areas as well as to at least four Department of the Interior 

(DOI) bureaus. 

A nine-person panel of reviewers, with representatives 

from the USGS, other Federal agencies, and academia, was 

convened to provide advice and recommendations to USGS 

leadership. Specifically, the panel was asked to assess the 

science utility of having a National Phenology Network; to 

consider USGS science mission and DOI management needs 

served by the USA–NPN; and to consider the utility of the 

USA–NPN to other Federal agency science missions or management needs (including the National Science Foundation 

[NSF] and university research funded by the NSF and other 

government agencies). 

This report summarizes the panel’s findings and offers 

five recommendations for USGS leadership: 

1.	 Commit to stable USA–NPN funding and increase 

accountability.
 

2.	 Establish a Federal Steering Committee, led by the 

USGS, and a separate Scientific Phenology User Group. 

3.	 Emphasize continental-scale phenology data and information. 

1

U.S. Geological Survey. 

2

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 

3

Review panel (and its authorship in this document) refers to the 2014 

USA–NPN review panel, which included the following members: Robert 

Cook, Frank Davis, Pierre Glynn (Chair), David Medvigy, Russell Monson, 

Bradley Reed (Vice-Chair), David Schimel, and Mark Shaffer. Timothy 

Owen served as Panel Secretary. Panel member biographies are provided in 

appendix 1. 

4.	 Formalize volunteer engagement in phenology data 

collection.
 

5.	 Integrate phenology information into USGS science. 

The panel generally affirms the value of the USA–NPN 

program and finds that the program is successfully meeting the 

needs of its stakeholders, including the USGS. However, the 

USGS needs to be more engaged in the program, providing 

leadership and setting priorities for the future. The USA–NPN, 

in turn, needs to deliver more clearly defined, DOI-relevant, 

USGS-integrated, data product lines that have the broadest 

possible spatial and temporal scope to meet user needs across 

the United States. 

The panel recommends that the USA–NPN National 

Coordinating Office (NCO) establish an implementation plan 

that addresses all of the panel recommendations, with priorities, timelines, and assumptions to move the program forward 

successfully. 

Phenology: Introduction and 

Importance to Federal Agencies 

Many of the events of the annual cycle recur year 

after year in a regular order. A year-to-year record 

of this order is a record of the rates at which solar 

energy flows to and through living things. They are 

the arteries of the land. By tracing their response to 

the sun, phenology may eventually shed some light 

on that ultimate enigma, the land’s inner workings. 

—Leopold and Jones (1947) 

Why is Phenology Important? 

Phenology is an integrative science. Phenology is the science of the “appearance of changes” in the seasonal cycle and 

(or) in the life cycle of organisms—both plants and animals. 

In addition to changes in the state of specific organisms and 

their appearance, behavior, and (or) migration, phenology also 

includes the timing of reproduction and the timing of interactions between and among species, such as those involving 

predator-prey interactions, pollination, seed dispersal, and 
2 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

the emergence of insect or fungal symbionts and parasites. 

Phenology depends on the interactions resulting from (1) an 

organism’s genetic composition, (2) the translation of that 

composition into behavioral, physiological, or morphological 

phenotypes (or appearances), and (3) the changing environment, which the organism experiences and to which it possibly 

adapts. Thus, phenology reflects the underlying interactions 

and an integration of numerous biotic and abiotic processes 

that connect an organism to its environment. Phenology is a 

useful diagnostic tool for discerning the impact of environmental changes on all organisms; its use is analogous to determining a human pulse, heart rate, or blood pressure to assess 

environmental impacts on human health. 

Phenology has been of interest and use to humans for 

thousands of years: hunting, fishing, animal husbandry, the 

growing of crops, and the avoidance of disease were all helped 

by phenological observations, as was the planning and timing 

of cultural rituals. Written records of phenological observations were made as early as 1736 by people such as Robert 

Marsham in England and Carl Linnaeus (1707–78) in Sweden. René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur studied the relation 

between environmental temperatures and the timing of flowering in 1735. More recently, Aldo Leopold understood phenology to be critical to understanding “the land’s inner workings.” 

He maintained detailed records of the arrival of certain bird 

migrants, the flowering of plants, and the emergence of certain 

animals from hibernation. When these types of “appearance” 

records are compiled with parallel measurements of climate, 

human disturbance, or changes in the behavior of species and 

their interdependencies, scientists can begin to understand how 

our changing world is affecting organisms. This level of analysis goes beyond climate monitoring or analysis of changes 

in the Earth’s atmosphere—it brings organisms and natural 

ecological relations into the discussion. It provides us with a 

sharper sense of the impact of environmental change, rather 

than simply the amount of environmental change. Phenology 

is an integrative science and it is truly an ecological science. 

Phenology, importantly, provides “canary in the coal mine” 

indicators of change. We rely on these phenological indicators to determine the effects of climate change (and to a lesser 

extent land-use change) on the Earth’s natural and agricultural 

biota. 

Why Is Phenology Relevant to the Mission of the 

U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of 

the Interior? 

Because phenology investigates the timing of biological 

events, the data and knowledge produced by the USA–NPN 

are important to the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area and its 

stated objectives of conducting research and monitoring on 

freshwater, terrestrial, and marine ecosystems and the fish 

and wildlife within them. Although the Ecosystems Mission 

Area currently supervises the Director of the USA–NPN and 

provides most of the appropriated funds for the program, the 

products and objectives of the USA–NPN are relevant to six 

of the seven USGS Mission Areas, as well as to at least four 

DOI agencies. 

Within the USGS, the USA–NPN is also highly relevant 

to the Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area. Indeed, 

the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center 

(NCCWSC) has provided significant funding over the last several years to the USA–NPN. Phenology influences the population dynamics of many fish and wildlife species, and changes 

in temperature and precipitation resulting from climate change 

are having demonstrable impacts on plant and animal populations. The NCCWSC recognizes that phenology research can 

inform climate change adaptation planning by the resource 

management community. Specifically, the NCCWSC seeks 

greater understanding of the biological community responses 

of forest, grassland, wetland, riparian, and other environments 

to phenological changes, including 

•		The timing of vegetative green-up and consequent 

impacts on migratory species that depend on certain 

vegetative characteristics for optimal breeding/calving, 

foraging, or critical habitats used during migration; 

•		The impacts of drought on the timing of seasonal 

vegetative changes; and 

•		The evidence of predator-prey mismatch caused by 

different seasonal cues within the relation. 

According to its leadership, the NCCWSC welcomes 

future collaboration with the USA–NPN through sponsored 

research to address NCCWSC program objectives. In addition, 

the NCCWSC seeks USA–NPN technical expertise when conducting reviews of research proposals relating to phenology. 

The Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area also 

has other programs with direct ties to phenology, including the 

Land Change Science program which has sponsored research 

on the causes and consequences of land change across the 

Nation and the impact on phenology. The Land Remote Sensing program produces an operational remote sensing (MODISbased) phenology product and operates the Landsat satellite 

series which have high potential for advancing our knowledge 

of phenology across large areas by producing images at a 

30-meter resolution. 

Other USGS Mission Areas that should also have interest 

in the USA–NPN include (1) the Water Mission Area, (2) the 

Natural Hazards Mission Area, (3) the Environmental Health 

Mission Area, and (4) the Core Science Systems Mission Area. 

Phenology can inform water availability and water-quality 

studies in the Water Mission Area. For example, the leaf-out 

of trees and other plants, or their new growth in springtime, 

directly affects both runoff and water uptake by plants, the primary component of evapotranspiration (ET). The severe biotic 

effects of drought, or of a lack of water availability, are seen 

most importantly in the health of plants, which also affects the 

timing of their growth or senescence. The timing (and seasonal 

extent) of plant growth and senescence affects water quality 

through plant uptake/release of important nutrients, such as 
Phenology: Introduction and Importance to Federal Agencies 3 

nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients, often in excess as 

a result of agricultural practices, are a common cause of environmental degradation. 

The Natural Hazards Mission Area has an interest in the 

USA–NPN because advances or delays in both snowmelt and 

leafout can affect the timing and extent of plant water stress, 

fuel moisture conditions, and potentially the timing, duration, 

and severity of the forest fire season. For example, following 

wet winters, extensive “blooms” of non-native, winter annual 

grasses (e.g., cheatgrass and red brome) and subsequent drying 

can fuel extensive and fast-moving wildfires in the deserts of 

the American West. Phenology at the time of the burn (natural 

and prescribed) also has myriad effects on post-fire recovery 

of vegetation and wildlife across different biomes (e.g., forests, shrublands, and grasslands). From a perspective beyond 

hazards, phenology also should be of great interest to the 

Ecosystems Mission Area. Similarly, phenology is of potential 

interest to the Environmental Health Mission Area because it 

can document and (or) impact environmental health not only 

through its connection to the cycling of nutrients (or other 

biotically mediated contaminants) but also through its connection to the appearance/disappearance or prevalence of pests, 

parasites, microbial infections, and zoonotic diseases. Lastly, 

the USGS Core Science Systems Mission Area has a potential 

interest in the USA–NPN because of its responsibilities in 

managing the data and information archives of the USGS and 

in making them available to external stakeholders, the greater 

scientific community, and the public. 

Phenology is important to USGS Mission Areas, but 

USGS science is also broadly important to phenology. Indeed, 

USGS science provides observations and understanding of the 

hydrological, geological, and biophysical features of landscapes and ecological habitats; and these features can alter the 

phenological responses to climate and land-use change. 

Phenology is important to USGS science because it provides greater understanding of natural resources and environments and their potential disruptions in the face of climate 

change and land-use change. Similar reasons make phenology 

and the USA–NPN important to the land-management and 

resource management agencies of the DOI, including the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

(BOEM), and the National Park Service (NPS). From knowing when to prepare the National Mall for the influx of spring 

visitors to view Washington, D.C.’s famous cherry blossoms, 

to knowing when to open the fall hunting season for migratory 

waterfowl, or the best time to conduct controlled burns, managers and many private entities need good information on the 

timing of important natural events. Such information allows 

agencies, businesses, and individuals to plan their activities 

efficiently and to avoid making commitments that, should 

things not play out as anticipated, could prove to be costly. 

Phenological data and understanding are also potentially 

important for the protection and management of the “trust 

species” of the DOI, such as species on the “threatened and 

endangered” list. This statement comes with the understanding 

that (1) it is difficult to obtain good phenological records for 

rare or disappearing species, and (2) there are many additional 

factors to consider, beyond phenology, in species conservation 

and management. 

Why Is Phenology Relevant to Other Federal 

Institutions? 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) National Weather Service has maintained a volunteer 

weather observation program, called the Cooperative Observer 

Program, for over a century. The network, which includes more 

than 7,000 stations reporting daily measurements of temperature, precipitation, and snow, is a primary source of data for 

meteorological, climatological, and hydrological applications. 

The tightly coupled relation between climate and phenology is 

evidenced in many studies, such as the documented advance 

in spring onset and shifts in plant hardiness zones in recent 

decades. The ability to accurately assess and monitor the ecological impacts of climate variability and change relies partly 

on standardized, sustained, and synoptic phenological observations at scales comparable to those at which we monitor and 

understand weather and climate. The USA–NPN has been 

an important source for phenological information that meets 

this requirement. Continued and strengthened commitment to 

national-scale phenological information is critical to sustained 

national assessments of the impacts of climate change. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) closely 

monitors crop phenology (1) for projections of crop production and (2) to document the progress and potential vulnerabilities of a range of crops to drought, insects, and other disturbances. The USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and 

the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 

are working with the USA–NPN through the ARS Long-Term 

Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) network and the NIFA 

cooperative extensions to further develop and coordinate phenological monitoring. Additionally, within the USDA, the U.S. 

Forest Service’s (USFS) Strategic Framework for Responding to Climate Change (2008) and the subsequent National 

Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change (2011) provide 

a set of principles for meeting the challenges of managing 

the national forest system in an era of climate variation and 

change. To demonstrate that measures are being taken to mitigate and adapt to these changes, individual units in the system 

are required, on an annual basis, to answer the question, “Is 

monitoring being conducted to track changing conditions of 

species and watersheds, forest and grassland health and other 

measures, and the effectiveness of treatment programs?” The 

U.S. Forest Service is partnering with the USA–NPN to help 

units respond to this question and help meet their requirements related to climate change and broad-scale monitoring. 

In addition to fulfilling these annual requirements, phenology 

monitoring can help units understand fundamental questions 

about how organisms are responding to changes in climate and 

can help inform management decisions. 
4 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Phenology also has implications for human health and, 

consequently, for agencies such as the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institute of 

Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and possibly the 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). 

Predicting the timing and production of allergy-causing pollen 

from a number of species could greatly improve preventative 

treatments. In addition, outbreaks of vector-borne diseases 

such as hantavirus (rodents), Lyme disease (ticks), and West 

Nile virus (mosquito) are related to the spatial and temporal 

aspects of the habitat of the vector, including its phenological 

dimensions. Understanding, monitoring, and predicting the 

conditions that can potentially lead to a population increase of 

the disease vector can greatly enhance preparations for treating 

a disease outbreak or even preventing it. 

The Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS 

NET) is an effort begun by the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) in the 1980s. It involves several Federal agencies (USGS, NOAA, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration [NASA], USDA) as well as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Crop phenology 

and other inputs are used by FEWS NET to calculate potential 

evapotranspiration and crop water requirements as well as to 

provide early warning and identification of areas susceptible to 

food insecurity. The network operates in many parts of Africa, 

Central America and the Caribbean, and Central Asia. 

As part of its Earth observing mission, NASA uses spacebased remote sensing capabilities (including USGS-operated 

Landsat satellites) to monitor phenology in coordination 

with ground-based observations such as those provided by 

the USA–NPN. This coordination enables NASA to provide 

information, at regional to global scales, on the phenological 

response of vegetation (and agricultural products) to climate 

and land-use changes from season to season and year to year. 

The capabilities and resources of NASA complement and 

support work conducted by other agencies and by university 

researchers. For example, NASA supports the Vegetation 

Index and Phenology (VIP) laboratory at the University of 

Arizona and provides land phenology monitoring of several 

National Parks through the NPS Inventory and Monitoring 

(I&M) program. 

Phenological monitoring is also of interest to the National 

Science Foundation (NSF) and to many of the scientists, programs, observatories, and networks that receive funding from 

NSF, such as the National Ecological Observatory Network 

(NEON), the Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) network, and biological field stations. Indeed, funding provided 

by NSF was critical in initiating the USA–NPN, as will be 

discussed later in this report. 

Beyond government agencies and academia, phenological observations and understanding are also of interest to a 

number of nongovernmental organizations and community 

efforts, especially those with a biological conservation and 

(or) observation mission (for example, NatureServe, National 

Wildlife Federation, eBird). There are many other potential 

users (and providers) of phenology information including 

(1) regional coordination efforts such as the DOI’s Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCC’s; http://lccnetwork. 

org/) and Climate Science Centers (CSC’s; http://doi.gov/csc/ 

index.cfm), (2) national initiatives and programs such as the 

National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/ 

ncadac), and (3) international efforts such as the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 

(http://www.ipbes.net/). 

Phenological observations and understanding transcend 

the needs and capabilities of any one institution, primarily 

because of the diversity of measurements that are needed and 

because of the need to integrate across spatial and temporal 

scales. Indeed, properly scaling observations from the individual measurements of human observers to those made by 

satellites is critical in assessing phenology conditions across 

large areas of the landscape (such as done by NASA, USGS, 

and FEWS NET). Much of the remote sensing phenology 

work to date has involved the use of frequent (near daily) 

satellite observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging 

Spectroradiometer (MODIS) with spatial scales of 250 meters 

to 1 kilometer. Relating phenology information derived from 

these satellites to on-the-ground observations by humans is 

difficult because the satellite signal integrates the response of 

vegetation across the entire pixel which often consists of plants 

and surface conditions with differing seasonality. Going forward, we expect that research challenges and opportunities in 

integrating phenological information across scales will increasingly involve the use of phenocams4

 as an intermediate level 

of observational detail, as well as the use of higher-resolution 

(but less frequent) satellites, such as Landsat. Ground observations that are collected with an emphasis on spatial and 

temporal scalability and that can, therefore, inform understanding of broad-scale ecological synchronies as a result of climate 

drivers will also be critically needed. In addition, broad-scale 

assessments may be improved through the use of available 

hydrological, geological, and biophysical data that provide a 

foundation for understanding phenological variations driven by 

climate and land-use changes. 

Charter and Process for the Review 

The purpose of the USA National Phenology Network 

(USA–NPN) program review was 

1.	 to assess the science utility of having a National 

Phenology Network;
 

2.	 to consider the USGS science mission and DOI 

management needs served by the USA–NPN; and
 

4

Webcams or digital cameras used to track vegetation phenology (for an 

example and additional information see http://phenocam.sr.unh.edu/webcam/). 
USA–NPN Background Information 5 

3.	 to consider the utility of the USA–NPN to other Federal 

agency science missions or management needs (including the NSF and academia5

). 

USA–NPN science accomplishments to date were considered 

and evaluated, but the review’s primary purpose was to look 

forward at USA–NPN science directions within the context 

of the USGS, DOI, and Federal science needs and to provide 

appropriate recommendations to senior leadership in the 

USGS and in the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. 

The USA–NPN (https://www.usanpn.org/) is a consortium of individuals and organizations that collect, share, and 

use phenology data, models, and related information. With 

operations started in 2007, the network is growing rapidly with 

respect to its contributing community, the users of its data, and 

its range of potential applications. Two critical entities run, 

lead, and advise the USA–NPN (in addition to its stakeholders): (1) the National Coordinating Office (NCO) and (2) the 

USA–NPN Advisory Committee. 

The NCO (https://www.usanpn.org/about/staff) is based 

in Tucson, Arizona. The NCO is expanding its capacity and 

the services that it provides to the network, including national 

plant and wildlife phenology monitoring programs, standardized monitoring methods, an information management system, 

research initiatives, decision support tools, and training, education, and engagement materials. The NCO has developed a set 

of planning documents, including a 5-year strategic plan, 5-year 

and 1-year actions plans, and a risk management plan to guide 

USA–NPN priorities and actions over the next several years. 

The USA–NPN Advisory Committee provides guidance 

to the NCO regarding science directions and needs of the 

USA–NPN and its contributors and users, both present and 

future. The Advisory Committee (AC) provided background 

materials that were based primarily on the USA–NPN workshops that were co-hosted by the AC and also provided useful 

feedback to the review panel on potential science directions 

for the USA–NPN and on the NCO’s contributions to the 

USA–NPN. The AC’s connections with the greater scientific 

community were particularly useful for the panel’s review. 

USA–NPN review panelists were Robert Cook (Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory), Frank Davis (University of 

California in Santa Barbara), Pierre Glynn (U.S. Geological Survey), David Medvigy (Princeton University), Russell 

Monson (University of Arizona), Bradley Reed (U.S. Geological Survey), Mark Shaffer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 

and David Schimel (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Pierre Glynn 

and Bradley Reed served as the Panel Chair and Vice-Chair, 

respectively. Timothy Owen (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) served as Panel Secretary. Short biographies of all the panelists are provided in appendix 1. 

The major fact-finding activity of the USA–NPN review 

was a 2-day workshop held in Tucson, Ariz., on April 1–2, 

2014. The workshop (agenda provided in appendix 2) facilitated 

5

Academia refers to university research funded by the NSF and other 

government agencies. 

communication between the review panel, the NCO, the AC, 

and key stakeholders of the USA–NPN, including academia, 

Federal science and resource management agencies, and funding 

agencies. Several conference calls and followup activities also 

informed the review, including a number of action item requests 

that were made to the NCO during the workshop and which 

resulted in a followup report by the NCO for the review panel. 

In advance of the workshop and for the duration of the review 

process, the panel had access to a “brain box” of strategic plans, 

annual reports, briefs, and other documents that related to the 

USA–NPN and to USGS and DOI priorities. The documents 

made available to the panel are listed in appendix 3. 

USA–NPN Background Information 

This section provides a brief history of the USA–NPN 

and also expands further on the role of the Advisory Committee. Both are an essential preamble to the discussion and 

review recommendations provided by the review panel in the 

following sections. 

A Short History of the USA–NPN 

The USA–NPN has its roots in the lilac phenology 

monitoring network developed for the Western United States 

by Joseph M. Caprio of Montana State University in 1956 

and extended to Eastern States by William L. Colville of the 

University of Nebraska and later by Mark D. Schwartz of the 

University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Spurred by a number of 

researchers, including Daniel Cayan and Michael Dettinger of 

the USGS, Mark Schwartz joined with Julio Betancourt of the 

USGS to propose a national network that would broaden the 

lilac monitoring network and extend phenological observations to a few other native and nonnative species. A key idea 

was that the network could potentially complement weather 

observations provided by the National Weather Service 

Cooperative Observer Program and also work in concert with 

other ecological monitoring networks such as (1) the National 

Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and the Long-Term 

Ecological Research (LTER) network, (2) AmeriFlux sites, 

(3) USDA AgriFlux, Experimental Forest and Experimental 

Watershed sites, and (4) NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) 

sites. 

Funding by the NSF helped convene a series of workshops and research coordination network meetings through 

which an initial implementation plan for the USA–NPN 

was explored in 2005 and implemented in 2006, with further improvements and planning conducted thereafter. The 

USA–NPN National Coordinating Office (NCO) was created 

in 2007 to administer USA–NPN operations and was located 

in Tucson, Ariz., as part of a cooperative agreement between 

the USGS and the University of Arizona (UA). Facilities to 

house the NCO were provided by UA, and UA hired the first 
6 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Assistant Director of the USA–NPN. The USGS was responsible for hiring the Executive Director of the USA–NPN (who 

also leads the NCO) and for providing base funds for NCO 

operations, including contractor salaries. 

Role of the Advisory Committee 

From its conception, the USA–NPN has sought the 

advice and expertise of a broad group of professionals with a 

vested interest in phenological information. Simultaneously 

with the creation of the NCO in 2007, a USA–NPN Board of 

Directors was formed to provide governance and to facilitate 

coordination across the phenology community of practice. 

In 2011, the Board of Directors was reconstituted as the 

Advisory Committee (AC) to better serve the evolving needs 

of the NCO. The 15-member AC currently provides guidance on the direction of the USA–NPN and NCO activities 

and identifies near-term opportunities and vulnerabilities. 

In addition, the AC works to inform the relation between 

USA–NPN and USGS and to help identify funding opportunities for USA–NPN and NCO activities. For example, the AC 

and its key members were able to obtain NSF funds that were 

used to hold five highly influential “Research Coordination 

Network” (RCN) workshops and smaller ancillary meetings 

between 2007 and 2012. These workshops provided national 

perspectives that helped focus USA–NPN needs and science 

directions and helped engage the academic community (and 

government agencies) in the USA–NPN. 

Discussion of the USA–NPN (by the 

Review Panel) 

This section and the following one containing the recommendations of the review panel were not authored by the 

USGS and, consequently, do not fall under the purview of 

USGS Fundamental Science Practices. These two sections 

aim to closely reflect the views expressed by the review panel 

rather than scientific perspectives approved by the USGS. 

Panel’s Perspective on Accomplishments of the 

USA–NPN from 2007 to 2014 

The USA–NPN has done an exemplary job in promoting phenology in the United States (1) by engaging members 

of the public to participate as “citizen scientists” and (2) by 

reaching out to a diversity of governmental and nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s). The National Coordinating 

Office (NCO) has cultivated a body of phenology data and 

supporting educational information and mature protocols 

that are broadly used in earth science research and applications. The protocols, and associated information on their 

use, are highly valuable because they potentially allow new 

participants to add information to USA–NPN databases with 

relatively little additional investment by the NCO. In addition, the intuitive nature of phenology lends itself to increased 

science awareness and literacy by the public. To this end, the 

NCO has developed a wealth of education/outreach materials that are congruent with the public engagement mission of 

USGS, DOI, and other government entities. 

The NCO is also to be commended for developing a wide 

array of often very productive collaborations with other agencies and programs, including Federal partners, academia, and 

NGOs. Of particular note is the relation with NEON, which 

promises to increase both the quantity and quality of phenological data in the near future. The collaboration with NEON 

could also help the cross-scale and cross-technique integration of phenological information, from “manual” observations of individual species and phenophases, to phenocam 

observations, to satellite sensing of spring “green-up” and fall 

“brown-down.” 

In addition to NEON, the USA–NPN has been active 

in developing relations with several other partners. Appendix 4 provides an NCO perspective, through its Executive 

Director, of the status and potential of these partnerships as 

well as some metrics of accomplishments of the USA–NPN 

from 2007 to 2014 (with numbers recently updated to reflect 

May 2015 status). Appendix 5 provides a summary from the 

perspective of the Chair of the AC, for the period 2007 to 

2014, of the accomplishments of the USA–NPN and of the 

contributions of the AC and other community members to the 

USA–NPN. 

Panel’s Perspective on Risks and Needs of the 

USA–NPN Going Forward 

Fundamentally, phenological science and its applications 

are dependent on having accessible and authoritative data for 

useful species and phenophases with sufficient information 

coverage and consistency across different spatio-temporal 

scales. From identifying national-scale changes in seasonality to identifying risks to land management, the USA–NPN 

is uniquely positioned to provide a leading role because of its 

importance to USGS science and also because of its significant 

scientific and resource management relevance to many other 

institutions. Given limited resources, however, the USA–NPN 

and its NCO must focus on providing high-quality data at the 

national scale.6 This focus will require a shift in the balance 

of activities across the NCO. While education and outreach 

are important, so is managing a staffing profile that focuses 

foremost on producing the most useful scientific data and 

information. 

6

Editors’ note: Bruce Jones, a reviewer of this report, comments that a 

national-scale dataset would be fundamentally important to the National 

Climate Assessment and to future North American Regional Assessments 

of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 

mentioned earlier. 
Review Panel Recommendations 7 

The foremost risk to the USA–NPN comes from the 

potential loss of its existing funding, which comes primarily from the USGS, if it cannot deliver the science critically 

needed by the USGS. The science needed from the USA–NPN 

includes the needs of the Ecosystems Mission area, the Climate and Land Use Change Mission Area, and several other 

USGS Mission Areas (Hazards, Water, Environmental Health, 

Core Science Systems), as discussed previously in the section 

on why phenology is important to the USGS and DOI. USGS 

science needs from the USA–NPN should align well with 

those of most other agencies and with the phenology needs 

of the broader scientific community. Going forward, demonstrating the relevance of its science, for example through 

partnerships with other Federal networks, should allow the 

USA–NPN to increase its funding from both outside and 

within the USGS. 

There is significant interest for phenological information 

to help understand the fate of individual species, especially 

threatened and endangered species, in local ecosystems across 

the country. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that phenological 

information on a few limited species and phenophases can, by 

itself, provide all the needed understanding to manage a particular species in any particular locality. And even if phenology 

were the only factor of importance, the NCO does not have 

the resources to address, one by one, a multitude of diverse 

species and local ecosystems across the country. The first 

priority of the NCO, and of the USA–NPN, should be to grow 

and maintain its archive of long-term nationally comparable 

data, information that can then be translated into locally testable predictions of change for many species, and that resource 

management agencies could follow up on to develop further 

understanding on the management of any given species in a 

given locale. Most significantly, a focus on long-term national 

scale information is what will allow the USA–NPN to contribute to science and policy issues at the national and international scales. These issues include carbon cycle studies and 

forecasts, the parameterization of ecosystem models in Global 

Circulation Models, the forecasting of large-scale ecosystem disturbances (such as driven for example by sea-surface 

temperatures), and national climate adaptation policies. The 

review panel shares the view passionately expressed by one of 

the members of the Advisory Committee: 

Local data collection focus only leads to incoherency, irrelevancy, and lack of products—which will 

soon lead to failure. National data collection focus 

provides relevancy and national-scale products— 

truly new scientific accomplishments which will 

lead to breakthroughs in understanding. 

Another major risk to the USA–NPN comes from the 

NCO’s relatively small staff with little to no duplication on 

critical core functions (such as data management). Additionally, the fact that the Executive Director is the only USGS 

employee in the NCO creates a situation in which the primary 

source of funding for the USA–NPN has, or could have, 

potentially little control over its operations. 

In addition to loss of critical staff, other risks to the 

USA–NPN include losses to its collaborative agreements, 

partnerships, facilities, and equipment. The NCO is generally 

well aware of the risks to its operations. It recently completed 

a risk assessment and developed contingency plans for most of 

the identified risks. 

Review Panel Recommendations 

The order of the recommendations presented below 

reflects, primarily, a natural order of discussion rather than a 

priority of implementation. The review panel believes that the 

five major recommendations discussed below are important 

and should all be implemented. 

1. Commit to stable USA–NPN funding and increase 

accountability: 

USGS should commit to stable USA–NPN funding of 

at least $535,000 per year for 5 years and consider a single 

organizational champion (e.g., Ecosystems Mission Area) 

for longer-term sustainment. Other USGS Mission Areas and 

programs that benefit scientifically from the USA–NPN should 

be recruited to provide additional funding. The USA–NPN 

National Coordinating Office (NCO) should be held accountable for demonstrating results from this funding through 

regular program reviews that address schedule, milestones and 

deliverables, and risk management. Program reviews7 should 

include progress toward science directions and milestones identified by a USGS-led Federal Steering Committee (see below). 

2. Establish a Federal Steering Committee led by the 

USGS and a separate Scientific Phenology User 

Group: 

The USA–NPN Advisory Committee needs to be transformed 

into a Federal Steering Committee (FSC) led by the USGS.

8 

We recommend that the Department of the Interior Solicitor’s 

Office be consulted before this change is implemented. The 

new committee would provide USGS with an opportunity to 

take ownership of the USA–NPN and to promote its value 

across USGS Mission Areas and other Federal agencies. The 

Committee would have formal authority to advise and guide 

the NCO and the Executive Director. The current configuration of an external Advisory Committee has lacked the authority to guide the NCO’s implementation of the USA–NPN. 

The new Federal Steering Committee would enable the USGS 

to directly guide future development of the USA–NPN and 

to promote its value across USGS Mission Areas and other 

Federal agencies. 

7

Editors’ note: Program reviews include yearly USA–NPN progress 

reviews. 

8

The possibility of creating a Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) that 

would include non-Federal members was considered but rejected by the 

review panel because of (1) the high creation and compliance costs of a FAC 

relative to the current budget of the USA–NPN, and (2) the current need to 

increase USGS and Federal ownership (and support) of the USA–NPN. A 

brief description of FAC responsibilities and costs is provided in appendix 6. 
8 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

•		Clear roles and responsibilities: The FSC Chair should 

be a USGS manager, and the supervisor (or someone in 

the supervisory chain) to the NCO Executive Director 

should also serve as an ex-officio member on the FSC, 

as USGS resources and priorities allow. The Chair and 

the ex-officio USGS members of the Federal Steering 

Committee should be different individuals from two 

different USGS Mission Areas (e.g., Climate and Land 

Use Change, Water). 

•		 The supervision of the NCO Executive Director, 

although within the USGS management chain, 

should be informed by the advice of FSC members. 

•		Representation from other Federal agencies: The 

science provided by the USA–NPN is important to 

many Federal agencies, as discussed previously. The 

FSC should be created through a Memorandum of 

Understanding that invites Federal agency partners 

to participate. Agencies invited to be represented on 

the FSC should include ARS (USDA), the Office of 

Science (Department of Energy), NASA, the NIAID 

(National Institutes of Health [NIH]), NOAA (Department of Commerce), NPS (DOI), NSF, USFS (USDA), 

and USFWS (DOI). Additionally, the FSC should 

consider extending invitations to the CDC and to NIFA 

(USDA), and also possibly to NIEHS (NIH), BOEM 

(DOI), BLM (DOI), and other agencies if the need 

and mutual interest arise. Each agency represented on 

the FSC should nominate one representative and one 

alternate. 

USGS, through its Federal Steering Committee, should also 

facilitate the development of a Scientific Phenology User 

Group (SPUG) that includes key science and data partners 

for the USA–NPN. The primary role of the SPUG is to share 

information with the greater phenology community (including 

those contributing to the USA–NPN) on phenology science 

and applications. 

•		Formalize groups: The SPUG should be formally 

chartered with established, staggered terms of service 

to ensure rotation and continuity. The charter should 

address interactions with the FSC and the NCO. The 

Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) for Biogeochemical Dynamics, which is funded by NASA and 

located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has a User 

Working Group that might serve as a good model for 

the SPUG (cf. http://daac.ornl.gov/UWG/publicuwg. 

shtml). 

•		Align existing communities of practice: The SPUG 

should provide for the organization of technical user 

groups for a phenology-based “community of practice.” In any interactions with the SPUG, the FSC 

should take care not to undermine the existing strength 

of USA–NPN as a community effort with broad investment across organizations and sectors. 

•		Regular information sharing: Members of the FSC, the 

SPUG, and key members of the NCO, as well as USGS 

personnel from Mission Areas with interests in the 

USA–NPN, should be encouraged to share information 

frequently and should strive to meet in person at least 

once a year to share information on the latest scientific 

developments in phenology science and accomplishments of the USA–NPN. Such a meeting could be 

organized within the context of a large national or 

international meeting such as the fall meeting of the 

American Geophysical Union. 

3. Emphasize continental-scale phenology data and 

information: 

The USA–NPN NCO needs to shift its focus to the creation of 

high-quality, continental-scale data and information, with 

USGS responsibility for data infrastructure. Although natural 

resource management relies on regional or even local-scale 

information, the ability to scale up phenological information is 

vital to addressing an array of environmental change science 

questions. Continental-scale products can take the form of 

weather-based algorithms for plant and animal developmental stages developed and validated with actual phenological 

observations and can then be mapped and assessed at regional 

to national scales using weather and climate reanalysis data. 

Related scalable products include data-fusion modeling efforts 

that synergistically exploit phenological ground observations 

and remote sensing data. Data fusion is particularly well suited 

for exploiting long-running USGS Landsat and other remote 

sensing of land surface phenology. 

•		Realigned NCO priorities and staffing: USGS should 

reevaluate the NCO staffing profile, their functions, 

and the overall coverage of USA–NPN and NCO 

needs. Recent NCO personnel changes, and the recommendations offered by the current report, make this 

reevaluation particularly appropriate in the near future. 

•		The NCO’s current weighting of priorities (50 percent for Advance Science, 20 percent for Inform 

Decisions, and 30 percent for Communicate and 

Educate) needs to be revised to emphasize a predominant focus on phenological data and information collection, quality assurance, archiving, and 

access. 

•		 Staff investment in data informatics and information technology is critical. 

•		 USGS needs to take ownership of the data infrastructure associated with archive and access. 
Review Panel Recommendations 9 

•		 All nonscience activities should directly relate to 

the USGS’ national-scale resource information 

mission,9

 given the predominant science (versus 

outreach/educational focus) of the USGS. 

•		Best practices for data collection: Emerging datacollection options, including automated approaches, 

should be explored, based upon best practices for data 

management and data product development. These 

practices should reflect up-to-date standards and be 

consistent with international collaborations. 

•		NCO competition: The NCO should be periodically 

reviewed for prospective recompetition, renegotiation, or relocation by the USGS. Such reviews should 

consider possible pros (additional resources, space, and 

staff) and cons (instability of operation) of moving the 

office. 

•		The co-location of the NCO with the University 

of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources and 

the Environment has fostered synergies between 

the two organizations. The research foci of the 

school have been beneficial to the NCO, offering 

opportunities for collaborative research and staff 

augmentation. 

•		USGS supervision of the NCO: The USGS should 

consider the possibility of having both the Executive 

Director and the Assistant Director of the NCO as 

USGS employees. This would enhance USGS supervision of the NCO. 

The NCO should also focus on delivering a limited number 

of specific product lines that leverage its phenology holdings. 

•		Analysis of data coverage and collection needs: The 

NCO and the newly constituted FSC should commit to 

the following: 

•		Complete a comprehensive gap analysis to determine data coverage and collection needs for a 

coherent national-scale phenological database; 

•		 Support a workshop to determine a finite suite of 

product lines that address key constituent needs 

within the USGS, DOI, and other agencies (with 

a particular focus on collaboration with Climate 

Science Centers and elsewhere in the USGS). 

9

Editors’ note: As an agency within DOI, the USGS provides and agglomerates scientific information at the national scale that can then be used to provide 

national perspectives and policies on the management of natural resources, 

especially on Federal Lands. This national perspective can also inform 

resource management decisions and actions at regional and local levels. 

•		 Attribution of protocols and tools to USGS needs 

to be strengthened. 

•		Current and emerging product lines: Key products 

should include both legacy (e.g., lilac clones) and 

emerging (e.g., blended satellite and in situ grids) lines. 

• Densification and extension of lilac/dogwood/ 

etc., clone observation sites should be considered 

to improve significantly validation of the Spring 

Indices and other continental-scale, weather-based 

algorithms for seasonal plant development. 

•		These products should enhance both site-oriented 

and species-oriented databases using standard 

protocols and data capture tools to improve access 

and filtering capabilities. 

•		Extension of accessible historical phenological 

records: The USA–NPN should discover and ingest 

existing legacy data to shore up modern observations 

around legacy sites. Such work would help strengthen 

historical baselines for ongoing and future changes in 

seasonal timing. 

•		Decision tree: The NCO should prepare and follow 

a decision tree that tests its involvement and efforts 

in partnerships and outreach (current and potential) 

against the usefulness of their scientific data and product lines. The primary goal of the USA–NPN should be 

to advance science at national and long-term scales 

in coordination with other DOI bureaus, for example 

by providing and adding to Green Wave and Spring 

Index products and to already extensive legacy datasets 

rather than by focusing on products of only limited, 

local need. 

4. Formalize volunteer engagement in phenology data 

collection: 

The USA–NPN should review and implement a more structured, proactive, and directive process for volunteer 

involvement that contributes to nationally scaled phenology 

data and products. The involvement should draw on participation from other existing environmental networks. 

•		Leverage observer best practices: The process should 

be based on the best practices from other government 

programs (e.g., USGS Breeding Bird Survey, NOAA/ 

NWS/Cooperative Observer Program, Volunteer 

Watershed Monitoring groups) in conjunction with 

Citizen-Science groups and professional observers that 

are already making physical and biological observations as part of a larger network. 
10 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

• For example, greater efficiency in volunteer 

recruitment and especially retention might be 

improved by establishing formal agreements 

and more direct cooperation with other existing 

environmental networks. Volunteer agreements 

should draw on existing networks of professional 

observers (e.g., LTER, NEON). 

•		 Further efforts by the NCO to leverage best practices for Citizen Science should help minimize 

related costs and efforts. 

•		Target existing observer networks for expanded phenological observations: Despite many efforts (discussed 

in appendix 4), the NCO has so far had limited success 

in recruiting existing environmental (biological or 

physical) networks (e.g., NWS Cooperative Observer 

Program, LTER, Organization of Biological Field 

Stations, USDA Agricultural Stations, FLUXNET 

sites) to make additional phenological observations 

that would strengthen the scientific utility and scope 

of the USA–NPN. The NCO (and the USA–NPN) 

has opportunities to build on its recent success engaging NEON and should strive to recruit other scientific 

observation networks. The goal should be to bring in 

data on a select and limited number of species that 

form a national core of observations and serve compelling long-term and continental-scale objectives. 

5. Integrate phenology information into USGS science: 

Phenology is an integrative science that cuts across many 

traditional scientific disciplines and that has relevance to six 

of the seven USGS Mission Areas. One Mission Area in the 

USGS should be identified to be the champion for phenology science and for the USA–NPN. However, active interest, 

financial participation, and leveraging of scientific resources 

should be strongly encouraged from the five other relevant 

Mission Areas (cf. discussion in the “Background” section). 

In addition, the USA–NPN has critical geospatial information 

needs that could best be met by programmatic and infrastructure support from the USGS Core Science Systems 

Mission Area. 

•		Proactive data integration: The USGS should proactively integrate phenology information, including 

applications in ecosystems, climate and land-use 

change, natural hazards (fire and drought), and environmental health. 

•		Infrastructure support: The USGS should offer relevant Information Technology solutions for preservation and accessibility of USA–NPN information. 

•		 For example, work with the USGS Land Remote 

Sensing (LRS) Program fusing Landsat and 

Spring Index work. 

•		 Data should readily be backed up using cloud 

technologies. 

Acknowledgments 

The editors thank Bruce Jones (Desert Research 

Institute), Robert Hirsch (USGS), Geoffrey Henebry (South 

Dakota State University), Jake F. Weltzin (USGS), David 

Inouye (University of Maryland), Wendy Norton (USGS), 

and Shawn Carter (USGS) for their reviews and comments 

on the report. Sections of the report that are identified as 

representing the perspectives or recommendations of the 

review panel were not subject to USGS Fundamental Science 

Practices (and therefore to USGS technical review), because 

those perspectives and recommendations were not authored 

by USGS scientist(s). The editors also thank Kevin Breen for 

his thoughtful consideration and clarification of USGS policy 

in the publication of this report. 

References Cited 

Ault, T.R., Schwartz, M.D., Zurita-Milla, R., Weltzin, J.F., 

and Betancourt, J.L., in press, Trends and natural variability 

of spring onset in the coterminous United States as evaluated by a new gridded dataset of spring indices: Journal of 

Climate [accepted June 25, 2015]. 

Leopold, A., and Jones, S.E., 1947, A phenological record for 

Sauk and Dane Counties, Wisconsin, 1935–1945: Ecological Monographs, v. 17, no. 1, p. 81–122. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2008, Forest Service 

strategic framework for responding to climate change 

(ver. 1.0): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

21 p., accessed April 9, 2015, at http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

climatechange/documents/strategic-framework-climatechange-1-0.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011, National roadmap 

for responding to climate change: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, FS-957b, 32 p., accessed 

April 27, 2015, at http://www.fs.fed.us/climatechange/ 

pdf/roadmap.pdf. 
Appendixes 1–6
 
12 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Appendix 1. Panel Member Biographies
 

Robert Cook (email: cookrb@ornl.gov; profile) is a research 

staff member with the NASA-funded Distributed Active 

Archive Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The center provides data and information relevant to biogeochemical dynamics, ecological data, and environmental processes, 

critical for understanding the dynamics relating to the biological, geological, and chemical components of the Earth’s 

environment. Dr. Cook is also co-principal investigator 

for DataONE (Observation Network for Earth), a National 

Science Foundation-funded cyberinfrastructure that seeks 

to promote science and education through straightforward 

access to Earth observation data spanning broad science 

disciplines. His research interests include biogeochemistry, 

global change, integrated assessments, aqueous geochemistry, transport and fate of contaminants in aquatic ecosystems, and water resources management. 

Frank Davis (email: fwd@bren.ucsb.edu; profile) is Professor of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Planning at 

the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), where 

he also serves as the Director of the National Center for 

Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. He heads the Biogeography Lab at the Bren School of Environmental Science and 

Management at UCSB. His research focuses on the landscape ecology of California plant communities, the design 

of protected-area network, rangeland and farmland conservation, and the biological implications of regional climate 

change. 

Pierre Glynn (email: pglynn@usgs.gov; profile) is Chief of 

the Eastern Branch of the National Research Program at the 

U.S. Geological Survey. He oversees a broad diversity of 

science in areas such as numerical modeling of water flow 

and solute transport, environmental isotope forensics and 

characterization, groundwater dating, water and sediment 

contamination problems, nutrient cycling, ecological habitats, geomorphic processes, and the application of molecular 

and other techniques to the study of microbial processes. 

His current interests include integrated environmental modeling, Citizen Science, watershed research and monitoring 

programs, and the behavioral biogeosciences. 

David Medvigy (email: dmedvigy@princeton.edu; profile) 

is Assistant Professor in the Department of Geosciences at 

Princeton University. His research focuses on understanding local-regional scale variability in climate and terrestrial 

biosphere, with a focus on the processes linking these two 

components of the Earth system. His research includes 

study of the relations between the atmospheric circulation, 

terrestrial ecology, and biogeochemical fluxes, and how 

all of these are responding (and are projected to respond) 

to anthropogenic forcings. His laboratory addresses these 

issues through numerical models, including variableresolution general circulation models, mesoscale meteorological models, and mechanistic models of ecosystem 

composition, structure, and functioning. 

Russ Monson (email: russmonson@email.arizona.edu; 

profile) is Louise Foucar Marshall Professor at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and Professor Emeritus at the 

University of Colorado, Boulder. His research focuses on 

photosynthetic metabolism, the production of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and plant water relations from the 

scale of chloroplasts to the globe. He is particularly interested in how climate change in the Western United States is 

influencing the carbon and water cycles in mountain forests. 

He has received numerous awards, including the Alexander 

von Humboldt Fellowship, the John Simon Guggenheim 

Fellowship, and the Fulbright Senior Fellowship, and was 

also appointed Professor of Distinction in the Department 

of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of 

Colorado. 

Timothy Owen (email: tim.owen@noaa.gov) is Operations 

Officer for the Climate Services Division at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Since starting there as a student 

in 1990, he has worked on a variety of projects, including 

climate data validation, urban heat island research, climate 

normals generation, climate applications using GIS, and the 

start of drought.gov—the Web portal of the National Integrated Drought Information System. His past research has 

included satellite studies of urban regions and environmental 

planning for park viewsheds. In recent years, he has served 

as NCDC’s National Partnership Liaison and Executive 

Officer and has provided input to both the 2007 IPCC and 

2009 Climate Change Impacts reports. Mr. Owen is also an 

adjunct professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences 

at the University of North Carolina at Asheville. He also currently serves the phenology scientific community as NOAA 

representative on the USA–NPN Advisory Committee. 

Bradley Reed (email: reed@usgs.gov) has been the Associate Program Coordinator for the Land Change Science 

Program at USGS headquarters in Reston, Virginia, since 

2008. He works on the national assessment of biological carbon sequestration and the use of this information 

for decision makers. He began his career as an Assistant 

Professor at New Mexico State University’s Department 

of Earth Sciences and then took a research position at the 

U.S. Geological Survey’s Earth Resources Observation and 

Science (EROS) Center. He was a member of the team that 

completed the first conterminous U.S. land cover dataset 

using satellite remote sensing and then led the team that 
Appendix 1. Panel Member Biographies 13 

completed the first global land cover dataset from remote 

sensing data (IGBP DISCover). Dr. Reed received his Ph.D. 

in Geography with an emphasis in remote sensing and a 

minor in Physiological Plant Ecology. He has worked on 

satellite remote sensing of phenology since the early 1990s. 

David Schimel (email: David.Schimel@jpl.nasa.org; profile) 

is a Senior Scientist with the NASA-funded Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory (JPL) at the California Institute of Technology 

in Pasadena, California. He serves as Lead Scientist for 

the Carbon and Ecosystems program at JPL. His research 

interests include global biogeochemical cycles, traces 

gases, and climate modeling. He was a Convening Lead 

Author of the 2007 report by the IPCC that won a Nobel 

Peace Prize. Prior to coming to JPL, Dr. Schimel served 

as Principal Investigator, Chief Science Officer, and Chief 

Executive Officer for the NSF-funded National Ecological 

Observatory Network (NEON). He also held distinguished 

positions at the National Center for Atmospheric Research 

in Boulder, Colorado, and at the Max-Planck Institute for 

Biogeochemistry (Germany), where he served as Founding 

Director. Dr. Schimel is a Fellow of the Ecological Society 

of America and of the American Geophysical Union. 

Mark Shaffer (email: mark_shaffer@fws.gov) is National 

Climate Change Policy Advisor, Office of the Science Advisor, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Arlington, 

Virginia. He is a biodiversity conservationist with extensive 

experience in population viability analysis, conservation 

biology, resource economics, and environmental philanthropy. As Program Director for the Environment at the 

Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, he provided strategic 

direction for the investment of nearly $100 million in land 

conservation projects and promoted the implementation of 

state wildlife action plans. The Foundation’s investments 

have assisted in the conservation of nearly 2 million acres of 

high priority habitat nationwide. As Senior Vice President 

of Programs for Defenders of Wildlife, Dr. Shaffer provided 

direction, oversight, and administration of the organization’s species, habitat, and legal work, while managing a 

regional staff in eight states. Prior to his work with Defenders of Wildlife, Dr. Shaffer worked with three other major 

conservation organizations: The Nature Conservancy, The 

Wilderness Society, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Dr. Shaffer’s doctoral research on grizzly bears helped 

to pioneer population viability analysis in conservation 

biology. 
14 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Appendix 2. Agenda and Attendees of the April 2014 Review Workshop 

Date: April 1–2, 2014 

Location: University of Arizona Student Union and Tucson Marriott University Park, Tucson, Arizona 

Note: Participants and speakers who were invited but unable to attend are listed in brackets and (or) marked absent. All 

times listed are for the Arizona Time Zone unless otherwise identified. 

Day 1 (Tuesday, April 1) 

Review of Existing Structure and Plans—Open to all participants
 

8:00–9:45 (Santa Cruz Room, University of Arizona Student Union, 3rd floor)
 

Introductions (30 minutes)
 

•		Welcome—Stuart Marsh, Director, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of Arizona 

(10 minutes) 

•		Introduction—Pierre Glynn, Chief, National Research Program/Eastern Branch, USGS (5 minutes) 

• Logistics—Jake Weltzin, Executive Director, USA–NPN, USGS, and workshop host (5 minutes) 

•		Round-robin introductions for all workshop participants (10 minutes) 

Framing the workshop: Purpose in the context of the Program Review (15 minutes) 

• 8:30 (11:30 EDT) William Lellis, Deputy Associate Director, Ecosystems Mission Area, USGS (10 minutes, remote) 

• 8:40 Pierre Glynn, USGS (5 minutes) 

The Potential of Phenology as an Integrative Environmental Science (60 minutes) 

• 8:45 Geoffrey Henebry, Professor of Natural Resource Management, South Dakota State University and Chair, 

USA–NPN Advisory Committee (20 minutes including Q&A, in person) 

• 9:05 (12:05 EDT) Andrew Richardson, Associate Professor of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard 

(20 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

• 9:25 (12:25 EDT) Toby Ault, Assistant Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell (20 minutes including 

Q&A, remote) 

9:45–10:00 Break (15 minutes)
 

10:00–11:50 Science, Applications and Operations of USA–NPN (110 minutes)
 

• Introduction to the USA–NPN: Current status and future directions—Jake Weltzin (40 minutes including 10 minutes 

clarification questions) 

•		Providing support for research and engagement at the National Park Service—Katharine Gerst, Assistant Research 

Scientist, USA–NPN NCO (15 minutes including 3 minutes clarification questions) 

•		Providing capacity to USFWS: Valle de Oro case study—Erin Posthumus, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Liaison 

and Outreach Associate, USA–NPN NCO (15 minutes including 3 minutes clarification questions) 

• Plenary Q&A and discussion— Facilitated by Pierre Glynn, USGS (40 minutes) 
Appendix 2. Agenda and Attendees of the April 2014 Review Workshop 15 

11:50–12:50 Lunch at restaurants in Student Union (60 minutes) 

12:50–3:00 USA–NPN—Stakeholders Speak (130 minutes) 

• 12:50 (3:50 EDT) Jana Newman, National Inventory and Monitoring Manager, National Wildlife Refuge System 

Inventory and Monitoring Program, USFWS (20 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

• 1:10 (4:10 EDT) Steve McNulty, Director, USDA SE Climate Hub, USFS (20 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

• 1:30 (2:30 MDT) Brian Wee, Chief of External Affairs, National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) [and 

Liz Blood, Program Officer, National Ecological Observatory Network, National Science Foundation] [ABSENT] 

(total of 30 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

• 2:00 (3:00 MDT) John Gross, Ecologist, NPS and USA–NPN Advisory Committee Member (20 minutes including 

Q&A, remote) 

• 2:20 Jeff Morisette, Director North Central Climate Science Center, USGS (20 minutes including Q&A, in person) 

• 2:40 (2:40 PDT) Susan Mazer, Professor of Ecology & Evolution, U California Santa Barbara and USA–NPN 

Advisory Committee Member (20 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

3:00–3:20 Break (20 minutes) 

3:20–4:30 Open Discussion on status and directions of USA–NPN (70 minutes) 

(Facilitated by Pierre Glynn, USGS) 

4:30 Adjourn 

Day 2 (Wednesday, April 2) 

Panel Investigations—Panel, NCO, and select invitees only 

Morning Location: Santa Cruz Room, University of Arizona Student Union (3rd floor) 

8:00–8:30	 Questions and answers by Panel to NCO or select invitees (30 minutes) 

(Facilitated by Pierre Glynn, USGS) 

• Panel queries for clarification of prior presentations, or to obtain additional information about USA–NPN 

• Discussion/clarification of seminal documents provided for the review 

• Discussion of USA–NPN within the context of the USGS Mission (and above) 

• Process, information, and input needs for going forward to Phase 3 of the review process 

8:30–9:00 

• 8:30 (11:30 EDT) Healy Hamilton, Chief Scientist and Vice President for Conservation Science, NatureServe 

(30 minutes including Q&A, remote) 

9:00–9:30 

• [Katharine Jacobs, Professor, Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona and 

Assistant Director, Climate Adaptation & Assessment, White House Office of Science & Technology Policy 

(30 minutes including Q&A, in person)] [ABSENT]. Time slot devoted to an extension of the earlier Q&A with the 

NCO and other invitees (Facilitated by Pierre Glynn, USGS) 
16 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

9:30–9:35 Break (5 minutes)
 

9:35–10:10 Panel/AC Discussion—Only for panel members and Geoff Henebry (35 minutes)
 

•		AC perspective on the USA–NPN 

• Process, information, and input needs for going forward to Phase 3 of the review process 

10:10–10:20 Break (10 minutes)
 

10:20–11:30 Field trip to participate in phenology monitoring (70 minutes)
 

• University of Arizona Krutch Garden (3 minute walk from Student Union) 

11:30–12:30 Lunch (60 minutes) 

Afternoon Location: Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, 4th floor Conference Room 

12:30–2:30 Panel Discussion—Panel Only 

•		Led by Pierre Glynn, USGS 

•		Revisit purpose and charge to Panel 

• Define structure of report 

•		Identify additional information needs 

•		Written documentation, figures, tables, etc. 

•		 Personal communication, such as followup phone calls 

•		Identify individual tasks 

•		Identify timeline 

2:30–3:30 Presentation of initial Panel recommendations to Jake Weltzin and Alyssa Rosemartin 

Workshop information and logistics 

•		Workshop information (agenda, reading materials, presentations) posted at a password-protected Web page: 

https://www.usanpn.org/2014-review (facilitated by Sara Schaffer, NCO) 

•		Attendees were asked to become familiar with the USA–NPN Web page (http://www.usanpn.org) and Nature’s 

Notebook (http://www.usanpn.org/natures_notebook) 
Appendix 2. Agenda and Attendees of the April 2014 Review Workshop 17 

Workshop Organization Committee 

Pierre Glynn, USGS, Review Panel Chair 

Bradley Reed, USGS, Review Panel Vice-Chair 

Jake Weltzin, USGS, NCO Executive Director 

Alyssa Rosemartin, University of Arizona (UA), 

NCO Assistant Director, Workshop Host 

Sharon Oliver, NCO, Logistics Coordinator 

Timothy Owen (NOAA; Review Panel Secretary) 

Workshop Attendee List Review Panel 

Pierre Glynn, USGS, Chair 

Bradley Reed, USGS, Vice-Chair 

Bob Cook, ORNL 

Frank Davis, NCEAS 

David Medvigy, Princeton 

Russ Monson, UA 

David Schimel, JPL 

Mark Shaffer, USFWS 

USA–NPN NCO 

Jake Weltzin, USA–NPN, USGS 

Alyssa Rosemartin, USA–NPN, UA 

Carolyn Enquist, USA–NPN, UA 

Theresa Crimmins, USA–NPN, UA 

LoriAnne Barnett, USA–NPN, UA 

Ellen Denny, USA–NPN, UA 

Katharine Gerst, USA–NPN, UA 

Patricia Guertin, , USA–NPN, UA 

Lee Marsh, USA–NPN, UA 

Sharon Oliver, USA–NPN, UA 

Erin Posthumus, USA–NPN, UA 

Sara Schaffer, USA–NPN, UA 

Review Panel Secretary/Rapporteur 

Tim Owen, NOAA-NCDC (with Sharon Oliver as backup) 

Speakers (all remote unless otherwise indicated) 

Toby Ault, Cornell 

Liz Blood, NSF (absent; represented by Brian Wee) 

John Gross, NPS 

Healy Hamilton, NatureServe 

Geoff Henebry, SDSU (in person) 

Katharine Jacobs, UA (absent) 

William Lellis, USGS 

Stuart Marsh, UA (in person) 

Jeff Morisette, USGS (in person) 

Susan Mazer, UC Santa Barbara 

Steve McNulty, USDA-USFS 

Jana Newman, USFWS 

Andrew Richardson, Harvard 

Brian Wee, NEON (in person) 

Other Invited Attendees From UA And USGS Community 

Matthew Andersen, USGS (absent)
 

Douglas Beard, USGS NCCWSC (absent)
 

Shawn Carter, USGS NCCWSC (in person)
 

Steve Jackson, USGS, NCCWSC SWCSC (in person)
 

Anne Kinsinger, USGS (absent)
 

Matthew Larsen, USGS (absent)
 

David Lytle, USGS SBSC (absent)
 

David Moore, UA SNRE (in person)
 

Sarah Ryker, USGS (absent)
 

Charles van Riper, USGS SBSC SDRS (in person)
 
18 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Appendix 3. List of Documents Provided to the Review Panel
 

The following list provides hyperlinked access to 

USA–NPN documents and informational Web sites provided 

to the panel: 

•		Review Process and Charge—distributed by Pierre 

Glynn on 1/17/14 

•		Program Review Teleconference One Notes (1/17/14) 

•		Program Review Teleconference Two Notes (2/13/14) 

•		Final Workshop Agenda 

• USA–NPN Fiscal Year 07-14 Budget: pdf file and 

Excel file 

•		USA–NPN Attributed Publications and USA–NPN 

publications link (https://www.usanpn.org/pubs/results)

•		History of USA–NPN 

•		USA–NPN 2012 Research Coordination Network 

Workshop Report 

•		USA–NPN 2012 Annual Report 

•		USA–NPN 2013 Annual Report 

•		USA–NPN FY2014 Action Plan 

USA–NPN Planning and Implementation Documents: 

•		Towards a USA National Phenology Network 

•		Funded NSF Research Coordination Network Proposal 

•		USA–NPN 5-year Strategic Plan (January 2014 draft) 

Other General Documents: 

•		DOI, USGS, and Ecosystems Priorities 

•		Ecosystems Mission Area Strategic Science Plan and 

Executive Summary 

•		DOI Secretarial Priorities (Sally Jewell, October 2013) 

• Web link: Search all USA–NPN Partner Organizations 

Additional information provided for the USA–NPN 

review included workshop presentations, a confidential 2013 

USA–NPN risk management report, confidential opinions 

from the AC (Chair and members) and the NCO (Executive Director and staff), and various USA–NPN statistics 

and information provided by the USA–NPN in response to 

requests. Additionally, USGS Mission Area strategic plans 

were mentioned through their Web link (http://www.usgs.gov/ 

start_with_science/). 
Appendix 4. National Coordinating Office Perspective of USA–NPN Accomplishments Since 2007 19 

Appendix 4. National Coordinating Office Perspective of USA–NPN
 

Accomplishments Since 2007
 

By Jake F. Weltzin, USA–NPN National Coordinating Office 

(NCO) Executive Director 

Status of Key USA–NPN Partnerships (Numbers 

Updated to May 2015) 

The National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), 

when fully implemented by 2017, will have 60 permanent 

sites for multiplatform monitoring of plant phenology using 

USA–NPN published protocols, and will contribute approximately 750,000 records to USA–NPN each year through 

Application Program Interfaces (API). As of 2014, 13 sites 

were monitoring phenology. NEON in situ observations of 

plant phenology can be linked to cameras and remote sensing, carbon flux, and climatology. The USA–NPN NCO 

and NEON have a standing Data Product Working Group to 

discuss development and delivery of data products and QA/ 

QC methodologies. 

The National Park Service (NPS), a DOI Bureau, uses 

the USA–NPN protocols and Information Management 

System at 24 park units (including parks, Research Learning Centers, and Inventory and Monitoring Program regions) 

across the Nation to meet goals related to resource management and engagement. Since 2009, collaborations between 

the USA–NPN and NPS Inventory and Monitoring have 

been guided by a written conceptual framework (http://www. 

usanpn.org/nps). On the basis of this framework, NPS and 

NCO have created multiple cooperative agreements totaling 

$180,000 to date, and the NCO has contributed to the development of two formal published NPS Monitoring Protocols. 

The NCO has also collaborated with two regional NPS pilots, 

the California Phenology Project (https://www.usanpn.org/ 

cpp/) and the Appalachian Trail Seasons project (https://www. 

usanpn.org/appalachian/). 

The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (a DOI Bureau) uses 

USA–NPN protocols and the Information Management System at 14 units across the Nation to meet a variety of goals 

related to resource management and engagement (https://www. 

usanpn.org/fws/). A conceptual framework for collaboration 

between the NCO and the NWRS Inventory and Monitoring 

Program has been in place since 2012. Multiple intra-agency 

agreements total $500,000 to date. 

The Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) Network is a 

distributed national network of 26 quasi-independent research 

sites that are funded by the National Science Foundation and 

that have dedicated land and infrastructure for visiting scientists and students. A Memorandum of Understanding between 

the NCO and the LTER Network Office was established in 

2008 (https://www.usanpn.org/lter). A preliminary summary 

analysis of all LTER phenology datasets has been completed, 

and data for several sites are being contributed, including 

H.J. Andrews, Cedar Creek Natural History Area, Jornada 

Experimental Range, Baltimore Ecosystems Study, and the 

Phoenix Urban Site. Some of these sites are being used to 

develop tools to cross-walk historical phenology data to the 

contemporary (USA–NPN) protocols. NCO staff have given 

presentations at two triennial All-Scientist Meetings since 

2007, and we continue to explore opportunities for cross-site 

synthesis of phenology datasets. 

The Long-term Agroecosystem Network (LTAR) is being 

established by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). 

LTAR is a nascent, national applied observing network with 

at least 18 fully instrumented sites across a variety of agroecosytems, including experimental watersheds, forests and 

rangelands, and row-crop agroecosytems, several of which 

are co-located with NEON and LTER sites. LTAR developers are interested in incorporating phenology monitoring into 

their experimental design. Data are already being collected at 

several LTAR sites, including the Jornada Experimental Range 

(JER), the Santa Rita Experimental Range, and the Central 

Plains Experimental Range. JER already has 4 years of pilot 

data that were collected using USA–NPN protocols. The NCO 

is collaborating with the LTAR Science Advisory Committee 

to develop a MOU and a scope of work for an agreement to 

transfer resources from the USDA to the University of Arizona 

to support the collaboration, including the development of new 

standardized phenology monitoring protocols for agricultural 

species. 

The National Weather Service Cooperative Observer Program (in the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center 

[NCDC]) is a national network of volunteer weather observers who are familiar with monitoring. The NCO has pursued 

a collaboration with the Cooperative Observer Program since 

2007, because of the potential to link in situ phenology data 

to meteorological conditions and, over time, climate. NCDC 

recently placed a link to USA–NPN on their WXCoder page 

(where co-op observers submit their data), which to date 

has resulted in hundreds of registrants to Nature’s Notebook 

that self-identify as members of the Cooperative Observer 

Program. 

The Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) is 

a distributed international network of about 500 independent 

field stations with dedicated land and infrastructure for scientists, educators, and students. The Network includes important 

subnetworks such as the University of California Natural 
20 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Reserve System (UC-NRS). The NCO already interacts with 

many members of OBFS, including the Great Basin Bird 

Observatory, the Palomarin Field Station, the Merriam-Powell 

Field Station, the MacLeish Field Station, Pepperwood Preserve, Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Cedar Creek 

Natural History Area, and at least seven UC-NRS sites. NCO 

staff have given or contributed to at least five presentations at 

OBFS annual meetings since 2007. 

USDA Cooperative Extension, situated at Land-Grant 

Universities across the Nation, is the institutional home for 

quasi-independent chapters of Master Naturalists and Master Gardeners. The NCO has created active collaborations 

with Cooperative Extensions in Arizona, Florida, Ohio, New 

Mexico. Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, Virginia, and Washington and is working with several sites, such as the Ohio State 

University network of 48 monitoring sites, to standardize data 

collection and to integrate local data into the National Phenology Database. The USA–NPN is featured on the national Web 

page of Master Naturalists, and NCO staff have contributed to 

a number of Cooperative Extension publications about phenology and phenology monitoring. 

Signs of the Seasons – A New England Phenology Project 

is a multiyear project initiated, developed, and maintained by 

the University of Maine Cooperative Extension and NOAA 

Sea Grant. This project, which leverages on the capacity provided by the USA–NPN, was originally a state-level project 

that is in the process of expanding to the New England region. 

There are about 200 Signs of the Seasons observers registered 

as participants with Nature’s Notebook. 

At least 17 botanical gardens and arboreta across the 

Nation are tracking phenology using Nature’s Notebook. To 

coordinate with these organizations, NCO staff have given 

presentations at three recent American Public Gardens Association meetings. 

Metrics Of USA–NPN Accomplishments and 

Outcomes 

Key Accomplishments Since 2007 Include 

(Numbers Updated to May 2015) 

• Standardized Protocols—at least 70 suites of relevant, 

easy-to-observe phenophases developed, defined, published, and applied to 1,016 species. 

•		Information Management System—database; tools for 

data input, output, and visualization including custom 

Web application and mobile applications; metadata; 

machine-readable data-sharing; legacy data integration 

and delivery; information-rich Web site and documentation; terms of use; Federal compliance. 

•		Observer Base—over 5,000 active observers recruited 

and retained, and 206 groups participating in data 

collection; communication and education framework 

developed to garner long-term, high-quality data. 

•		Data Products—raw data dynamically delivered online; 

six annual multitaxa datasets with metadata and DOIs 

available via DataONE; upgraded pheno-climate 

model (SI-x); other products in pipeline. 

Key Outcomes Since 2007 Include (Numbers as 

of May 2015) 

• Adoption and field-testing of protocols across a 

diversity of partners, disciplines, and ecoregions 

(e.g., NEON, NPS, USFWS). 

•		A contemporary dataset (www.usanpn.org/data/dashboard) 

with more than 5.2 million records (fig. 4–1) and more 

than 7,200 active observation locations across the Nation 

(fig. 4–2). 

• An average of 850 unique queries per month of the 

data download tool. 

• Since 2007, thirteen peer-reviewed publications that 

rely on contemporary data and 12 peer-reviewed publications that rely on legacy lilac data (see lists below 

collected through the Nature’s Notebook observing system); a total of 131 publications (https://www.usanpn. 

org/pubs/results)are attributed to the activities of the 

USA–NPN since 2007. 

Publications that Rely on Contemporary Data 

from the National Phenology Database 

Chapman, D.S., Haynes, T., Beal, S., Essl, F., and Bullock, 

M., 2014, Phenology predicts the native and invasive range 

limits of common ragweed: Global Change Biology, v. 20, 

no. 1, p. 192–202. 

Crimmins, T.M., Weltzin, J.F., Rosemartin, A., Surina, E.M., 

Marsh, L.R., and Denny, E.G., 2014, Focused campaign 

increases activity among participants in Nature’s Notebook, 

a citizen science project: Natural Sciences Education, v. 43, 

no. 1, p. 64–72. 

Euskirchen, E.S., Carman, T.B., and McGuire, A.D., 2013, 

Changes in the structure and function of northern Alaskan 

ecosystems when considering variable leaf-out times across 

groupings of species in a dynamic vegetation model: Global 

Change Biology, v. 20, no. 3, p. 963–978. 

Fu, Y.H., Piao, S., Vitasse, Y., Zhao, H., DeBoeck, H.J., Liu, 

Q., Yang, H., Weber, U., Hänninen, H., and Janssens, 

I.A., 2015, Increased heat requirement for leaf flushing 

in temperate woody species over 1980–2012—Effects of 

chilling, precipitation and insolation: Global Change Biology, accessed May 1, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ 

gcb.12863. 

Fuccillo, K.K., Crimmins, T.M., deRivera, C.E., and Elder, 

T.S., 2014, Assessing accuracy in volunteer-based plant 

phenology monitoring: International Journal of Biometeorology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0892-7. 
Appendix 4. National Coordinating Office Perspective of USA–NPN Accomplishments Since 2007 21 

Jeong, S.J., and Medvigy, D., 2014, Macroscale prediction of 

autumn leaf coloration throughout the continental United 

States: Global Ecology and Biogeography, v. 23, no. 11, 

p. 1245–1254. 

Jeong, S.J., Medvigy, D., Shevliakova, E., and Malyshev, S., 

2013, Predicting changes in temperate forest budburst using 

continental-scale observations and models: Geophysical 

Research Letters, v. 40, no. 2, p. 359–364. 

Kellermann, J.L., Enquist, C.A.F., Humple, D.L., Seavy, N.E., 

Rosemartin, A., Cormier, R.L., and Barnett, L.A., 2015, A 

bird’s-eye of the USA National Phenology Network—An 

off-the-shelf monitoring network, in Wood, E.M., and 

Kellermann, J.L., eds., Phenological synchrony and bird 

migration—Changing climate and seasonal resources in 

North America (Studies in avian biology series, no. 47): 

Boca Raton, Fla., CRC Press, p. 47–60. 

Liang L., and Schwartz, M.D., 2014, Testing a growth efficiency hypothesis with continental-scale phenological variations of common and cloned plants: International Journal of 

Biometeorology, v. 58, p. 1789–1797. 

McCormack, M.L, Gaines, K.P., Pastore, M., and Eissenstat, 

D.M., 2015, Early season root production in relation to 

leaf production among six diverse temperate tree species: 

Plant and Soil, v. 389, no. 1-2, p. 121–129, http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1007/s11104-014-2347-7. 

Medvigy, D., Jeong, S.J., Clark, K.L., Skowronski, N.S., and 

Schäfer, K.V.R., Effects of seasonal variation of photosynthetic capacity on the carbon fluxes of a temperate deciduous forest: Journal of Geophysical Research—Biogeosciences, v. 118, no. 4, p. 1703–1714. 

Rosemartin, A.H., Crimmins, T.M., Enquist, C., Gerst, K.L., 

Kellerman, J.L., Posthumus, E.E., Weltzin, J.F., Denny, 

E.G., Guertin, P., and Marsh, L.R., 2014, Organizing phenological data resources to inform natural resource conservation: Biological Conservation, v. 173, p. 90–97, http:// 

dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.003. 

Yue, X., Unger, N., Keenan, T.F., Zhang, X., and Vogel, 

C.S., 2015, Probing the past 30 year phenology trend of 

US deciduous forests: Biogeosciences Discussions, v. 12, 

p. 6037–6080, paper accessed April 30, 2015, under Open 

Access Review at http://www.biogeosciences-discuss. 

net/12/6037/2015/. 

Publications that Rely on Legacy Data from the 

National Phenology Database 

Ault, T.R., Henebry, G.M., de Beurs, K.M., Schwartz, M.D., 

Betancourt, J.L., and Moore, D., 2013, The false spring of 

2012, Earliest in North American record: Eos Transactions 

American Geophysical Union, v. 94, no. 20, p. 181–182. 

McCabe, G.J., Ault, T.R., Cook, B.I., Betancourt, J.L., and 

Schwartz, M.D., 2012, Influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the 

timing of North American spring: International Journal of 

Climatology, v. 32, no. 15, p. 2301–2310, http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1002/joc.3400. 

McCabe, G.J., Betancourt, J.L., Pederson, G.T., and Schwartz, 

M.D., 2013, Variability common to first leaf dates and 

snowpack in the western conterminous United States: Earth 

Interactions, v. 17, p. 1–18. 

Peterson, A.G., and Abatzoglou, J.T., 2014, Observed changes 

in false springs over the contiguous United States: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 41, no. 6, p. 2156–2162. 

Piao, S., Tan, J., Chen, A., Fu, Y.H., Ciais, P., Liu, Q., Janssens, I.A., Vicca, S., Zeng, Z., Jeong, S.-J., Li, Y., Myneni, 

R.B., Peng, S., Shen, M., and Penuelas, J., 2015, Leaf onset 

in the northern hemisphere triggered by daytime temperature: Nature Communications, v. 6, article 6911, accessed 

May 1, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7911. 

Schwartz, M.D., Betancourt, J.L., and Weltzin, J.F., 2012, 

From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA National Phenology 

Network: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 10, 

no. 6, p. 324–327. 

Schwartz, M.D., and Hanes, J.M., 2010, Continental-scale 

phenology—Warming and chilling: International Journal of 

Climatology, v. 30, no. 11, p. 1595–1598. 

Schwartz, M.D., and Hanes, J.M., 2010, Intercomparing 

multiple measures of the onset of spring in eastern North 

America: International Journal of Climatology, v. 30, no. 11, 

p. 1614–1626. 

Schwartz, M.D., Hayhoe, K., Wake, C., Huntington, T.G., 

Luo, L., Sheffield, J., Wood, E., Anderson, B., Bradbury, 

J., DeGaetano, A., Troy, T.J., and Wolfe, D., 2007, Past and 

future changes in climate and hydrological indicators in the 

U.S. Northeast: Climate Dynamics, v. 28, no. 4, p. 381–407. 

Schwartz, M.D., Kathuroju, N., White, M.A., Symanzik, J., 

Powell, J.A., and Nemani, R.R., 2007, On the use of the 

advanced very high resolution radiometer for development 

of prognostic land surface phenology models: Ecological 

Modelling, v. 201, no. 2, p. 144–156. 

White, M.A., de Beurs, K.M., Didan, K., Inouye, D.W., 

Richardson, A.D., Jensen, O.P., O’Keefe, J., Zhang, G., 

Nemani, R.R., van Leeuwen, W.J.D., Brown, J.F., de Wit, 

A., Schaepman, M., Lin, X., Dettinger, M., Bailey, A., 

Kimball, J., Schwartz, M.D., Baldocchi, D.D., Lee, J.T., and 

Lauenroth, W.K., 2009, Intercomparison, interpretation, and 

assessment of spring phenology in North America estimated 

from remote sensing for 1982 to 2006: Global Change Biology, v. 15, no. 10, p. 2335–2359. 

Zhang, X., Tarpley, D., and Sullivan, J.T., 2007, Diverse 

responses of vegetation phenology to a warming climate: 

Geophysical Research Letters, v. 34, no. 19, http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1029/2007GL031447. 
 

 

1,800,000 

1,600,000 

1,400,000 

1,200,000 

1,000,000 

800,000 

600,000 

400,000 

200,000 

0 

Records submitted to Nature’s Notebook 

2009 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

EXPLANATION

Jan. 1 Feb. 1 Mar. 1 Apr. 1 May 1 June 1 July 1 Aug. 1 Sept. 1 Oct. 1 Nov. 1 Dec. 1 

22 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Month 

Figure 4–1. Annual accumulation of records submitted via Nature’s Notebook to the USA–NPN 

National Phenology Database from January 2009 through May 2015. Total annual records can be 

determined from the end of each line on the right side of the panel. Each year, the total number 

of records, and the rate of the contribution of records, has increased. Records accumulated at a 

rate of 19,912 ± 13,290 (records/month ± 1 standard deviation) during 2009–2011; 86,940 ± 33,077 in 

2012–2013; and 129,420 ± 48,866 in 2014–2015. Intra-annual variations reflect relatively low activity 

during the winter months (when slopes are relatively low) and an increase in activity each spring, 

with a relatively constant contribution of records through the growing season. The increase in 

number of records in May 2010 reflects the inclusion of records from the historical national lilac and 

honeysuckle monitoring program. The large jump in rates and number of records in 2012 relative to 

prior years reflects an increased effort in marketing the program to potential partners by the NCO and 

includes data contributed by the National Park Service and the California Phenology Project. 

Figure 4–2 (facing page). Spatial distribution of records by 

registered Nature’s Notebook site submitted to the USA–NPN 

National Phenology Database in A, 2009 and B, between 2009 and 

May 2015. Registered sites that have not contributed data are 

excluded. 
A. 2009 

EXPLANATION 

Total records submitted 

within time period 

1 to 2,500 

2,501 to 10,000 

10,001 to 50,000 

50,001 to 100,000 

100,001 to 300,000 

B. 2009 to May 2015 

Appendix 4. National Coordinating Office Perspective of USA–NPN Accomplishments Since 2007 23 
24 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Appendix 5. Advisory Committee Contributions and Perspective of USA–NPN 

Accomplishments Since 2007 

November 2014 report written by Geoffrey M. Henebry (South 

Dakota State University), Chair of the USA–NPN Advisory 

Committee 

Although the NCO of the USA–NPN is largely supported 

by the USGS, it is important to recognize that the USA–NPN 

is an effort much broader than the NCO and that, to date, the 

planning effort alone has engaged several hundred people. The 

end result of all of these collaborations both in and out of the 

USGS-funded NCO has been rapid growth of a large “community of practice” for phenology. 

The founding stages of the USA–NPN were accomplished at three planning workshops in August 2005, March 

2006, and October 2006, funded by two small NSF grants 

to Mark Schwartz and Julio Betancourt with matching funds 

from seven Federal agencies (USGS, NPS, FWS, NASA, 

NOAA, EPA, and USDA-Forest Service). 

The in-kind contributions of the members of what was 

initially the Implementation Team, then the Board of Directors (BOD), and is now the Advisory Committee (AC) have 

been considerable, including thousands of hours of time and 

expertise donated in support of the establishment, implementation, growth, and development of the NCO and the broader 

network. The contributions of the BOD/AC members have 

ranged far and wide, including providing extensive technical 

guidance on cyberinfrastructure, integrating an existing lilac 

monitoring effort into the USA–NPN, and co-leading a new 

regional phenology network with the National Park Service. 

A vital component of the USA–NPN build-out has been 

the NSF Research Coordination Network (RCN) grant of 

$500,000, for which Professor Mark Schwartz served as the 

principal investigator (PI) from 2007 to 2014, with co-PI’s 

Dr. Susan Mazer (a member of the AC) and Dr. Jake Weltzin, 

NCO Executive Director. The RCN sponsored several critical 

meetings for the USA–NPN during 2007 to 2013. Examples of 

scholarly and community building activities arising from these 

RCN meetings include 

1.	 The RCN subsidized travel to the annual meeting for the 

Board of Directors (and later the Advisory Committee) 

and has subsidized a few small working group meetings 

(e.g., Species and Protocols, October 2008 in Tucson; 

Cyberinfrastructure, September 2010 in Milwaukee) 

and even an Agency Information and Listening Session 

attended by more than 40 administrators from 10 Federal 

agencies held in May 2011 at the National Geographic 

Society Headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

2.		 Development of related regional and national monitoring 

efforts (e.g., Project Budburst and the California Phenology Project both grew out of annual RCN workshops). 

3.		 Regular RCN meeting reports co-authored by BOD or 

AC and (or) NCO members in EOS (e.g., Betancourt 

and others, 2005; Betancourt and others, 2007; Henebry 

and Betancourt, 2010; Schwartz and others, 2013) and 

synthesis papers conceived and planned during the RCN 

meeting (see list below). 

4.		 A successful National Center for Ecological Analysis and 

Synthesis (NCEAS) grant and working group entitled, 

“Forecasting phenology: Integrating ecology climatology, 

and phylogeny to understand plant responses to climate 

change,” which held three workshops and generated a 

dozen high profile publications [listed at http://www. 

nceas.ucsb.edu/projects/12574; see reference list below] 

and two Northern Hemisphere databases on historical 

phenological observations for multiple species and sites: 

(1) phenological responses to warming experiments 

(Synthesis of Timings Observed in iNcrease Experiments [STONE]; https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#view/ 

doi:10.5063/F10V89RP); and (2) Network of Ecological 

and Climatological Timings Across Regions (NECTAR; 

https://knb.ecoinformatics.org/#view/nceas.988.17). 

5.	 Phenology special sessions at major scientific conferences, that is, AGU Fall Meeting (2007–14), European 

Geosciences Union (2012–14), US-IALE (2007–14), 

and ESA (2010, 2011, 2013), and tutorial workshops at 

US-IALE in 2008, 2010, 2012 on “Introduction to Land 

Surface Phenology.” 

6.		 The Phenology 2012 international meeting (http://www4. 

uwm.edu/letsci/conferences/phenology2012/). 

7.		 Completion of second edition of “Phenology: An Integrative Environmental Science” published by Springer in 

2013 (Schwartz, 2013). 

8.		 Multiple grant proposals submitted to NASA, NSF, and 

USGS, of which several were supported. 

RCN Meeting Reports Published in Eos 

Betancourt, J.L., Schwartz, M.D., Breshears, D.D., Brewer, 

C.A., Frazer, G., Gross, J.E., Mazer, S.J., Reed, B.C., and 

Wilson, B.E., 2007, Evolving plans for a USA National 

Phenology Network: Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 88, p. 211. 

Betancourt, J.L., Schwartz, M.D., Breshears, D.D., Cayan, 

D.R., Dettinger, M.D., Inouye, D.W., Post, E., and Reed, 

B.C., 2005, Implementing a U.S. national phenology network: Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 86, 

p. 539, 542. 
Appendix 5. Advisory Committee Contributions and Perspective of USA–NPN Accomplishments since 2007 25 

Henebry, G.M., and Betancourt, J.L., 2010, Toward a U.S. 

national phenological assessment: Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 91, no. 1, p. 3. 

Schwartz, M.D., Enquist, C.A.F., and Denny, E.G., 2013, 

Phenological implications of warming temperatures and 

extreme climatic events: Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union, v. 94, no. 10, p. 99. 

Examples of Synthesis Articles that Originated 

at RCN Meetings 

Alemu, W.G., and Henebry, G.M., 2013, Land surface phenologies and seasonalities using cool earthlight in mid-latitude 

croplands: Environmental Research Letters, v. 8, no. 4, 

accessed April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-

9326/8/4/045002. 

Ault, T.R., Henebry, G.M., de Beurs, K.M., Schwartz, M.D., 

Betancourt, J.L., and Moore, D., 2013, The false spring of 

2012, Earliest in North American record: Eos Transactions 

American Geophysical Union, v. 94, no. 20, p. 181–182. 

Ault, T.R., Schwartz, M.D., Zurita-Milla, R., Weltzin, J.F., 

and Betancourt, J.L., in press, Trends and natural variability 

of spring onset in the coterminous United States as evaluated by a new gridded dataset of spring indices: Journal of 

Climate [accepted June 25, 2015]. 

Cleland, E.E., Chuine, I., Menzel, A., Mooney, H.A., and 

Schwartz, M.D., 2007, Shifting plant phenology in response 

to global change: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 22, 

p. 357–365. 

Cook, B.I., Terando, A., and Steiner, A., 2010, Ecological 

forecasting under climatic data uncertainties—A case study 

in phenological modeling: Environmental Research Letters, 

v. 5, no. 4, 7 p., accessed April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi. 

org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/4/044014. 

de Beurs, K.M., Cook, R., Mazer, S.J., Haggerty, B., Hove, 

A., Henebry, G.M., Beaubien, E., Barnett, L., Thomas, C.L., 

and Pohlad, B.R., 2013, Phenology in higher education— 

Ground-based and spatial analysis tools, in Schwartz, M.D., 

ed., Phenology—An integrative environmental science (2d 

ed.): Springer, chap. 31, p. 585–602, accessed April 17, 

2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6925-0_31. 

de Beurs, K.M., and Henebry, G.M., 2013, Vegetation phenology in global change, in Schwartz, M.D., ed., Phenology—An integrative environmental science (2d ed.): 

Springer, chap. 26, p. 483–502, accessed April 17, 2015, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6925-0_26. 

Diez, J.M., Miller-Rushing, A.J., Mazer, S.J., Crimmins, T.M., 

Crimmins, M.A., Bertelsen, C.D., and Inouye, D.W., 2012, 

Forecasting phenology—From species variability to community forecasts: Ecology Letters, v. 15, p. 545–553. 

Henebry, G.M., 2013, Phenologies of North American grasslands and grasses, in Schwartz, M.D., ed., Phenology— 

An integrative environmental science (2d ed.): Springer, 

chap. 11, p. 197–210, accessed April 17, 2015, at http:// 

dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6925-0_11. 

Henebry, G.M., and de Beurs, K.M., 2013, Remote sensing of 

land surface phenology—A prospectus, in Schwartz, M.D., 

ed., Phenology—An integrative environmental science 

(2d ed.): Springer, chap. 21, p. 385–411, accessed April 17, 

2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6925-0_21. 

Kim, Y., Kimball, J.S., Didan, K., and Henebry, G.M., 2014, 

Response of vegetation growth and productivity to spring 

climate indicators in the conterminous United States derived 

from satellite remote sensing data fusion: Agricultural and 

Forest Meteorology, v. 194, p. 132–143, accessed April 17, 

2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.04.001. 

McCabe, G.J., Ault, T.R., Cook, B.I., Betancourt, J.L., and 

Schwartz, M.D., 2012, Influences of the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the 

timing of North American spring: International Journal of 

Climatology, v. 32, no. 15, p. 2301–2310, accessed April 17, 

2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.3400. 

McCabe, G.J., Betancourt, J.L., and Feng, S., 2015, Variability 

in the start, end, and length of frost-free periods across the 

conterminous United States during the past century: International Journal of Climatology, accessed April 27, 2015, at 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.4315. 

McCabe, G.J., Betancourt, J.L., Pederson, G.T., and Schwartz, 

M.D., 2013, Variability common to first leaf dates and 

snowpack in the western conterminous United States: Earth 

Interactions, v. 17, p. 1–18. 

Morisette, J.T., Richardson, A.D., Knapp, A.K., Fisher, J.I., 

Graham, E.A., Abatzoglou, J., Wilson, B.E., Breshears, 

D.D., Henebry, G.M., Hanes, J.M., and Liang, L., 2009, 

Tracking the rhythm of the seasons in the face of global 

change—Phenological research in the 21st century: 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 7, no. 5, 

p. 253–260, accessed April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.
	

org/10.1890/070217.
 

Post, E., and Inouye, D.W., 2008, Phenology—Response, 

driver, and integrator (Introduction to Special Feature): 

Ecology, v. 89, no. 2, p. 319–320. 

Schwartz, M.D., ed., 2013, Phenology—An integrative environmental science (2d ed.): Netherlands, Springer, 610 p. 

Schwartz, M.D., Ault, T.R., and Betancourt, J.L., 2013, Spring 

onset variations and trends in the continental U.S.A.—Past 

and regional assessment using temperature-based indices: International Journal of Climatology, v. 33, no. 11, 

p. 2917–2922. 
26 Review of the USA National Phenology Network 

Schwartz, M.D., Betancourt, J.L., and Weltzin, J.F., 2012, 

From Caprio’s lilacs to the USA National Phenology 

Network: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, v. 10, 

no. 6, p. 324–327. 

Strong, C., Zuckerberg, B., Betancourt, J.L., and Koenig, W., 

2015, Climatic dipoles drive two principal modes of North 

American boreal bird irruption: Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, accessed May 15, 2015, at http:// 

www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1418414112. 

Examples of Publications from NCEAS Working 

Group on Forecasting Phenology 

Ault, T.R., Macalady, A.K., Pederson, G.T., Betancourt, J.L., 

and Schwartz, M.D., 2011, Northern Hemisphere modes 

of variability and the timing of spring in western North 

America: Journal of Climate, v. 24, p. 4003–4014. 

Cleland, E.E., Allen, J.M., Crimmins, T.M., Dunne, J.A., Pau, 

S., Travers, S.E., Zavaleta, E., and Wolkovich, E.M, 2012, 

Phenological tracking enables positive species responses to 

climate change: Ecology, v. 93, p. 1765–1771. 

Cook, B.I., Wolkovich, E.M., Davies, T.J., Ault, T.R., Betancourt, J.L., Allen, J.M., Bolmgren, K., Cleland, E.E., 

Crimmins, T.M., Kraft, N.J.B., Lancaster, L.T., Mazer, S.J., 

McCabe, G.J., McGill, B.J., Parmesan, C., Pau, S., Regetz, 

J., Salamin, N., Schwartz, M.D., and Travers, S.E., 2012, 

Sensitivity of spring phenology to warming across temporal 

and spatial climate gradients in two independent databases: 

Ecosystems, v. 15, p. 1283–1294, accessed April 17, 2015, 

at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10021-012-9584-5. 

Cook, B.I., Wolkovich, E.M., and Parmesan, C., 2012, 

Divergent responses to spring and winter warming drive 

community level flowering trends: Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences, v. 109, p. 9000–9005, 

accessed April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1073/ 

pnas.1118364109. 

Davies, T.J., Kraft, N.J.B., Salamin, N., and Wolkovich, E.M., 

2012, Incompletely resolved phylogenetic trees inflate 

estimates of phylogenetic conservatism: Ecology, v. 93, 

p. 242–247. 

Davies, T.J., Wolkovich, E.M., Kraft, N.J.B., Salamin, N., 

Allen, J.M., Ault, T.R., Betancourt, J.L., Bolmgren, K., 

Cleland, E.E., Cook, B.I., Crimmins, T.M., Mazer, S.J., 

McCabe, G.R., Pau, S., Regetz, J., Schwartz, M.D., and 

Travers, S.E., 2013, Phylogenetic conservatism in plant 

phenology: Journal of Ecology, v. 101, no. 6, p. 1520–1530, 

accessed April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/1365-

2745.12154. 

Mazer, S.J., Travers, S.E., Cook, B.I., Davies, T.J., Bolmgren, 

K., Kraft, N.J.B., Salamin, N., and Inouye, D.W., 2013, 

Flowering date of taxonomic families predicts phenological sensitivity to temperature—Implications for forecasting 

the effects of climate change on unstudied taxa: American 

Journal of Botany, v. 100, no. 7, p. 1381–1397, accessed 

April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1200455. 

McCabe, G.J., Ault, T.R., Cook, B.I., Betancourt, J.L., and 

Schwartz, M.D., 2012, Influences of the El Niño Southern 

Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation on the timing of the North American spring: International Journal of 

Climatology, v. 32, no. 15, p. 2301–2310. 

Pau, S., Wolkovich, E.M., Cook, B.I., Davies, T.J., Kraft, 

N.J.B., Bolmgren, K., Betancourt, J.L., and Cleland, E.E., 

2011, Predicting phenology by integrating ecology, evolution and climate science: Global Change Biology, v. 17, 

p. 3633–3643. 

Pau, S., Wolkovich, E.M., Cook, B.I., Nytch, C.J., Regetz, 

J., Zimmerman, J.K., and Wright, S.J., 2013, Clouds and 

temperature drive dynamic changes in tropical flower production: Nature Climate Change, v. 3, p. 838–842, accessed 

April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/nclimate1934. 

Wolkovich, E.M., Cook, B.I., Allen, J.M., Crimmins, T.M., 

Betancourt, J.L., Travers, S.E., Pau, S., Regetz, J., Davies, 

T.J., Kraft, N.J.B., Ault, T.R., Bolmgren, K., Mazer, S.J., 

McCabe, G.J., McGill, B.J., Parmesan, C., Salamin, N., 

Schwartz, M.D., and Cleland, E.E., 2012, Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate 

change: Nature, v. 485, p. 494–497, accessed April 17, 

2015, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11014. 

Wolkovich, E.M., Davies, T.J., Schaefer, H., Cleland, E.E., 

Cook, B.I., Travers, S.E., Willis, C.G., and Davis, C.C., 

2012, Temperature-dependent shifts in phenology contribute 

to the success of exotic species with climate change: American Journal of Botany, v. 100, p. 1407–1421, accessed 

April 17, 2015, at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3732/ajb.1200478. 
Appendix 6. Introduction to Federal Advisory Committees 27 

Appendix 6. Introduction to Federal Advisory Committees
 

Written by Pierre D. Glynn with help from Wendy E. Norton 

(USGS), Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee on Water 

Information (ACWI) 

As mentioned in the main text of this report, the possibility of creating a formal Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) 

that would include non-Federal members (and follow rules 

established by the Federal Advisory Committee Act) was 

considered but rejected by the review panel because of (1) the 

high creation and compliance costs of a FAC relative to the 

current budget of the USA–NPN and (2) the current need to 

increase USGS and Federal ownership (and support) of the 

USA–NPN. 

The USGS has several FACs currently in operation as 

of October 2014, including (1) the Advisory Committee on 

Climate Change and Natural Resource Science (ACCCNRS; 

https://nccwsc.usgs.gov/acccnrs) and (2) the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI; http://acwi.gov/). 

ACCCNRS is a 25-member committee that advises the USGS 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and 

includes representatives from Federal agencies; Tribal, State, 

and local governments; nongovernment organizations; academic institutions; and the private sector. ACWI advises the 

Department of the Interior (DOI) and has representatives from 

up to 35 different public and private entities, including professional associations and academia. 

The cost of establishing and running a FAC depends on 

the size, processes, and goals of the FAC. For example, the 

USGS office running the ACWI FAC has an annual budget of 

about $750,000, with the majority of that amount ($500,000– 

$600,000) being staff salaries (although some of the staff also 

have other duties that are unrelated to ACWI). ACWI is a large 

FAC that has nine active subcommittees, each with three or 

more workgroups. Most of the remaining funds, beyond salary, 

pay for invitational travel to ensure that ACWI’s non-Federal 

members can attend meetings. Depending on travel restrictions, timing of major conferences, and other factors, invitational travel costs for the ACWI FAC are between $60,000 and 

$150,000+ each year. ACWI and its subcommittees collectively 

have more than 100 members and hold dozens of meetings and 

teleconferences every year. Another cost is the small fee (about 

$300) for posting notices in the Federal Register: the notices are 

required every time there is a meeting of the full FAC,*

 every 

time there is a membership vacancy, and every time the FAC 

charter is renewed. Other tasks involved in FAC operations 

include (1) maintaining the FAC Web site(s); (2) maintaining 

membership lists for the FAC and its groups and subgoups; 

(3) logistics work for conference calls, meetings, and travel; 

(4) recording of call and meeting minutes; (5) annual FAC data 

entry into the FAC database of the General Services Administration (http://facadatabase.gov); (6) maintenance of all FAC 

official files, materials, and records;** and (7) preparation, tracking, and responses for the DOI conference approval process 

(currently required for face-to-face meetings involving 30 or 

more people, with 15 or more people in travel status). 

*

Notices are not required for meetings of subcommittees and workgroups. 

**Record requirements for FACs differ from other Federal record requirements in that FAC files must be maintained onsite for the full lifetime of 

the FAC. 

Back cover photographs. 

Left, A rancher in central Texas examines a juniper to understand patterns of pollen production for 

human health applications. Photograph by Mechelle Meixner. 

Right, Students learn to observe plant and animal phenology at Jean Lafitte National Historical Park 

and Preserve, Louisiana. Photograph by Carolyn A.F. Enquist, U.S. Geological Survey. 

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Jake F. Weltzin, Executive Director 

USA National Phenology Network 

National Coordinating Office 

1955 E. Sixth Street 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

jweltzin@usgs.gov
 

http://www.usanpn.org
 

Publishing support provided by the USGS Science Publishing Network 

Publishing Service Centers (PSC) 

Editing by Kay Naugle, Raleigh PSC 

Illustrations and layout by Jeannette M. Foltz, Reston PSC 

Web support by Angela E. Hall, Reston PSC 
Glynn and Owen, eds.—Review of the USA National Phenology Network—Circular 1411 

ISSN 2330-5703 (online) 

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1411