Tamara Sue Wilson

The land carbon sink of the conterminous United States was evaluated using a bottom-up modeling framework and 30-meter land change data from 1985 to 2020. This cross-scale, cross-landscape, and cross-system approach tracked fractional land cover changes and applied regional model calibration. Results show average terrestrial and aquatic carbon sinks of +110 ± 37 and +19 ± 0.5 teragrams of carbon per year, respectively. The terrestrial carbon sink, showing no clear trend, peaked in the 1990s, with more years as a carbon source since 2000, contradicting recent national and global studies. Land change had the largest impact (−70 ± 5.5 teragrams of carbon per year), exceeding impacts of climate (−33 ± 48 teragrams of carbon per year), wildfire (−7.7 ± 2.4 teragrams of carbon per year), and erosion transport (−1.9 ± 0.13 teragrams of carbon per year). The positive CO ₂ fertilization effect (+69 ± 12 teragrams of carbon per year) was insufficient to maintain the carbon sink strength. Our framework reveals key paths of carbon loss, with implications for carbon budget and energy policies in the United States and beyond.

Climate is the primary driver of environmental change and is a key consideration in defining science priorities conducted across all mission areas in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Recognizing the importance of climate change to its future research agenda, the USGS’s Climate Science Steering Committee requested the development of a Climate Science Plan to identify future research directions. Subject matter experts from across the Bureau formed the USGS Climate Science Plan Writing Team, which convened in September 2022 to identify and outline the major climate science topics of future concern and develop an integrated approach to conducting climate science in support of the USGS and U.S. Department of the Interior missions.The resulting USGS Climate Science Plan identifies three major priorities under which USGS climate science proceeds: (1) characterize climate change and associated impacts, (2) assess climate change risks and develop approaches to mitigate climate change, and (3) provide climate science tools and support. The Climate Science Plan identifies 12 specific goals to achieve the outcomes of the three priorities.Conduct long-term, broad-scale, and multidisciplinary measurements and monitoring and research activities to define, quantify, and predict the impacts of climate change on natural and human systems;Provide leadership to standardize measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying greenhouse gas emissions, lateral carbon fluxes, and carbon sinks across lands managed by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI);Provide science capacity, training, tools, and infrastructure to Tribal partners; support Tribal-led science initiatives;Conduct climate change research in partnership with the broader climate science community;Develop improved data synthesis methods through collaborative and open science across mission areas and between the USGS and agency partners;Translate climate change impacts into risk assessments in support of risk management strategies;Develop new and improved risk assessments, models, and approaches for mitigating climate change, adapting to its impacts, and reducing uncertainties; design early warning systems for risk mitigation;Investigate climate change mitigation strategies and create decision science support tools to inform climate change mitigation and adaptation;Provide a framework that facilitates knowledge co-production needed to inform policy decisions;Provide access to USGS data and information through novel integration and visualization approaches;Build capacity within USGS and DOI through development of scientific training curricula; andCoordinate science and capacity building efforts broadly across the Federal Government.To achieve these goals, the USGS Climate Science Plan also outlines climate science guidelines—key elements for conducting climate-based research—as well as emerging opportunities to support successful climate science. The USGS Climate Science Plan provided in this circular will guide future research priorities and science-support investments, as well as continued development of the climate workforce for decades to come, ensuring that the USGS continues to serve as one of the Nation’s leading climate science agencies.

Drought and intensive land use can interact as stressors on riparian vegetation, especially along rivers flowing through seasonally dry landscapes. Knowledge of past riparian vegetation response to drought and land use change can provide land managers with a better understanding of changes induced by upstream management actions, climate change, and chronic stressors. To investigate the response of riparian vegetation productivity to drought and land use, we developed a 21‐year time series (2000–2020) of growing season vegetation dynamics using near‐infrared reflectance of vegetation (NIR_V) derived from satellite data across 30 watershed subbasins that drain into the San Francisco Bay Delta in central California, USA. We observed a strong response of riparian vegetation to drought, but rapid recovery and very few long‐term declines in productivity. At a local level, vegetation communities' response to drought and post‐drought productivity dynamics were highly variable across biophysical settings and land use gradients. Most of the riparian areas with long‐term declines in NIR_V were located in the lower elevation Coast Range on the western side of the study area where there is little to no water engineering or agricultural irrigation runoff to subsidize riparian vegetation. Riparian areas with the greatest long‐term increase were along rivers draining the higher elevation Sierra Nevada range to the east. Our results suggest that river systems with a high proportion of water originating as snowmelt may be more buffered against long‐term drought‐driven declines in productivity than those dependent exclusively on winter rainfall. The long‐term increase in NIR_V in the vast majority of riparian areas within our study area may also have been driven in part by increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations, which have been shown to increase plant water use efficiency.

Scientists, resource managers, and decision makers increasingly use knowledge coproduction to guide the stewardship of future landscapes under climate change. This process was applied in the California Central Valley (USA) to solve complex conservation problems, where managed wetlands and croplands are flooded between fall and spring to support some of the largest concentrations of shorebirds and waterfowl in the world. We coproduced scenario narratives, spatially explicit flooded waterbird habitat models, data products, and new knowledge about climate adaptation potential. We documented our coproduction process, and using the coproduced models, we determined when and where management actions make a difference and when climate overrides these actions. The outcomes of this process provide lessons learned on how to cocreate usable information and how to increase climate adaptive capacity in a highly managed landscape. Actions to restore wetlands and prioritize their water supply created habitat outcomes resilient to climate change impacts particularly in March, when habitat was most limited; land protection combined with management can increase the ecosystem's resilience to climate change; and uptake and use of this information was influenced by the roles of different stakeholders, rapidly changing water policies, discrepancies in decision‐making time frames, and immediate crises of extreme drought. Although a broad stakeholder group contributed knowledge to scenario narratives and model development, to coproduce usable information, data products were tailored to a small set of decision contexts, leading to fewer stakeholder participants over time. A boundary organization convened stakeholders across a large landscape, and early adopters helped build legitimacy. Yet, broadscale use of climate adaptation knowledge depends on state and local policies, engagement with decision makers that have legislative and budgetary authority, and the capacity to fit data products to specific decision needs.

Changes in land use and land cover, water systems, and climate are inextricably linked, and their combined stresses have had severe impacts in many regions worldwide. Integrated adaptation planning can support adaptive capacity by helping institutions manage land and water resources at regional to local scales. Linkages between these stressors mean that planners are often faced with potential trade-offs, and how to couple social and environmental sustainability remains a key question. We explore these questions in California’s Central Coast, a region that is already experiencing serious water shortages, housing shortages, rapid expansion of perennial agriculture, and severe droughts that are projected to become worse with climate change. Linked models of land use change (the Land Use and Carbon + Water Simulator [LUCAS-W]), water resources (LUCAS-W), and climate (the Basin Characterization Model [BCM]) produced forecasts of exposure to regional changes at 270-m resolution. We worked with regional stakeholders to develop a matrix of nine vulnerability measures that assessed key sensitivities to these changes. Each vulnerability measure combined one of the three exposure projections with spatial datasets representing one of three sensitivity communities (agricultural, domestic, or ecological). We assessed how five scenarios of land-use and water management strategies under consideration by regional planners could provide institutional, top-down adaptive capacity, and whether there were trade-offs in sustainable development goals for these communities. We found that specific land and water management strategies could greatly reduce regional vulnerability, particularly programs to cap water extractions to sustainable levels. The most dramatic trade-off was between the strategy of water demand caps that increased risk of habitat loss and ecosystem preservation that increased water vulnerability. However, trade-offs were usually limited and spatially localized, suggesting local tailoring of the strategies we assessed could reduce them. Trade-offs were more frequent across exposure classes (land use vs. water vs. climate changes) rather than sensitivity classes (agricultural vs. domestic vs. ecological communities), suggesting win-win opportunities for natural resource management. Our vulnerability maps can inform prioritization efforts for local adaptation planning.

First posted January 14, 2022 Director, U.S. Geological Survey 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20192 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 21st-century science strategy 2020–30 promotes a bureau-wide strategy to develop and deliver an integrated, predictive science capability that works at the scales and timelines needed to inform societally relevant resource management and protection and public safety and environmental health decisions (U.S. Geological Survey, 2021). This is the overarching goal of the USGS Earth Monitoring, Analysis, and Prediction (EarthMAP) vision, which consists of three components: (1) integrated data and information, (2) integrated predictive science, and (3) actionable information—all designed and delivered to respond to user needs. To launch this vision and help shape the design and implementation of integrated predictive science, the USGS Regional Offices each developed a set of use cases (hereafter Use Cases)—short descriptions of potential science applications that could clearly address high priority decision-making needs of our stakeholders and that align with an integrated science focus. Use Cases are not actionable science planning documents, nor stand-alone scholarly works, but should be considered as innovative, next-generation science ideas that can be considered as potential components of science plans still under development. The goal of Use Case development was to (1) identify and characterize existing USGS scientific capacities and expertise that can support science goals and products, (2) identify opportunities to leverage current capacities for next-generation science, and (3) foster engagement across the entire Bureau to further refine the USGS strategy for EarthMAP and integrated predictive science. The Use Case development effort documented in this report was coordinated by the Use Case Development Team (UCDT), consisting of representatives from each region. The UCDT undertook five tasks: (1) develop a unified approach to engage bureau scientists consistently across all regions in aspirational thinking about what can be accomplished; (2) work with the regions and their Science Centers to generate an initial set of Use Cases, authored directly by scientists; (3) characterize, summarize, and document the initial set of Use Case submissions from authors to illuminate bureau-level demand for integrated science; (4) compare existing and needed capacities from the Use Case descriptions with preliminary results of the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021); and (5) describe lessons learned from the Use Case development process and provide recommendations to inform future efforts to generate integrated science activities. This report outlines the approach the UCDT developed to solicit Use Cases from the regions and summarizes the high-level qualitative findings from this first-round effort. The UCDT received 36 Use Cases from the regions and identified potential points of convergence and commonalities considered useful in making connections among the participating scientists. The Southwest (SW) Region and the Rocky Mountain (RM) Region asked scientists to give special consideration to Use Cases with applicability to the Colorado River Basin, and seven of the Use Cases specifically named that geographic area as a focus. Coastal hazards and coastal resilience were identified in Use Cases from the Alaska (AK), Northeast (NE), and Southeast (SE) Regions. Aspects of wildfire and post-wildfire response were part of Uses Cases from AK, RM, and SW Regions. The greatest convergence of Use Case themes was related to conservation of public lands and waters, which is a powerful linkage lending strength to future collaborative efforts. The most common type of stakeholder decisions that would be informed by the Use Case science applications were related to adaptation, mitigation, and response (for example, how to increase the resilience of coastal communities to climate-related stressors and how to prevent or respond to harmful algal blooms). Other common types of decisions included water and land management decisions (including operational water management decisions such as reservoir operations and land use planning in the sagebrush biome), decisions about how to manage and conserve habitats and species, and risk management decisions (such as managing the post-wildfire flood risks). These decision types are not exclusive because many Use Cases cross categories. Use Case authors identified existing and needed science and technology capabilities required for Use Case implementation, which were then aligned to capabilities assessed in the EarthMAP Capacity Assessment (Keisman and others, 2021). Strong alignment was found for data and information integration approaches, modeling and prediction approaches, and capabilities related to delivery of actionable information. A majority of Use Cases indicated insufficient current capacity for needed data collection methods, data integration, and modeling and prediction approaches, whereas only 25 percent indicated insufficient capacity for actionable information delivery. Overall, many Use Case capacity demand gaps could potentially be met by existing bureau-wide capacity. In addition, nearly half of the Use Cases could potentially be implemented within 3 years if funding, capabilities, and personnel impediments were removed and science priorities were realigned. Several challenges emerged during the Use Case development process. The first challenge was developing an approach that was flexible enough to accommodate regional differences in planning and implementation, while also ensuring enough guidance to promote meaningful summary analyses. The UCDT encountered a strong demand for continuous communication and education to improve overall understanding of the integrated predictive science strategy. Another challenge was managing expectations about EarthMAP activities as a design effort...

Understanding future land-use related water demand is important for planners and resource managers in identifying potential shortages and crafting mitigation strategies. This is especially the case for regions dependent on limited local groundwater supplies. For the groundwater dependent Central Coast of California, we developed two scenarios of future land use and water demand based on sampling from a historical land change record: a business-as-usual scenario (BAU; 1992–2016) and a recent-modern scenario (RM; 2002–2016). We modeled the scenarios in the stochastic, empirically based, spatially explicit LUCAS state-and-transition simulation model at a high resolution (270-m) for the years 2001–2100 across 10 Monte Carlo simulations, applying current land zoning restrictions. Under the BAU scenario, regional water demand increased by an estimated ~222.7 Mm³ by 2100, driven by the continuation of perennial cropland expansion as well as higher than modern urbanization rates. Since 2000, mandates have been in place restricting new development unless adequate water resources could be identified. Despite these restrictions, water demand dramatically increased in the RM scenario by 310.6 Mm³ by century’s end, driven by the projected continuation of dramatic orchard and vineyard expansion trends. Overall, increased perennial cropland leads to a near doubling to tripling perennial water demand by 2100. Our scenario projections can provide water managers and policy makers with information on diverging land use and water use futures based on observed land change and water use trends, helping to better inform land and resource management decisions.