FUTURE CHALLENGES:

Defining the Trajectory Toward Tomorrow’s Best Available Science

From Roosevelt, to rocket science, to recombinant DNA, the challenges facing conservation professionals and the tools available to them have changed remarkably in the past century. That rate of change is accelerating at greater and greater rates. At the USGS-FWS combined leadership meeting (October 30-31, 2003) one of the most significant outcomes was the decision to initiate a joint effort to identify future conservation and management challenges and the scientific capabilities, information and analysis needed to address them effectively. The goal of this effort is to identify long-term directions for both agencies to improve the relevancy of science in addressing emerging conservation and management challenges and to be increasingly viewed as scientifically capable and credible by the American public. A team consisting of Dan Ashe, Nancy Kaufman and Mamie Parker from the USFWS, and Sue Haseltine from the USGS has assembled to organize and manage this effort. They will be supported in this effort by two USFWS employees, Jewell Bennett and Vicki McCoy. As directed in the action items from the combined leadership meeting, the team held its initial meeting, via conference call, during December, 2003. This document outlines a process to complete the task and publish a report by December, 2004.

This is a formidable task, but one that will help the agencies define the future priorities in science that will effectively support emerging challenges in fish and wildlife conservation. It will allow the two agencies to cooperatively establish the trajectory for their work in building a foundation of scientific support. The team recommends an approach that will –

1. Define the universe of environmental and conservation challenges;

a. Increased sophistication of our constituencies and audiences;

b. Increased use of real time communications (scientific and social);

c. Need for strengthened scientific credibility;

2. Put those challenges into the context of the USFWS mission and USGS science capabilities;

3. Identify the specific scientific knowledge and technical competencies needed to address those challenges effectively;

4. Put those scientific challenges into the context of emerging and evolving scientific approaches (e.g., conservation biology, landscape ecology, genetics, systems modeling, ecological set point theory, etc.) and technologies (e.g., biotechnology, genome science, remote sensing, nanotechnology, etc);

5. Incorporate sociological, behavioral and communications knowledge and expertise to improve the quality of scientific reporting and strengthen the quality and credibility of science-based management among the public; and

6. Clearly define a trajectory toward the scientific capabilities necessary to meet the future challenges facing fisheries and wildlife conservation.

The process envisioned will involve several steps that will unfold over 15 months, ending with publication of a joint report by the two bureaus --

1. February/May, 2004: Literature search, mini-symposium and synthesis to define the universe of conservation challenges. Product will be a white paper;

2. June/August, 2004: Internal USFWS/USGS survey and focus groups to gauge agency views on challenges and put challenges into context of USFWS mission and current and emerging scientific capabilities. Product will be expanded white paper;

3. September/October, 2004: Public and constituent input. Expanded white paper will be made available for web-based comment. Product will be a final draft report;

4. November2004/January, 2005: External peer review of Final Draft Report;

5. February/March, 2005: Final internal review and bureau concurrence; and

6. April, 2005: Publication and distribution.

This Future Challenges project will require support for meeting, travel, and contractor support. The estimate for these costs is outlined below:

1. Literature Search and Mini-Symposium …………………….$20,000

2. Travel for Staff Support ……………………………………..$10,000

3. Travel for External Participants ……………………………..$10,000

4. Contractor Support for Bureau Survey/Focus Groups ………$50,000

5. Contractor Support for External Comments ………………....$25,000

6. Peer Review Travel/Support …………………………………$20,000

7. Publication and Distribution …………………………………$10,000

8. Total ………………………………………………………….$145,000

It is recommended that the bureaus share these costs equally (i.e., $72,500 each). Your concurrence below indicates agreement with the goals, process, and budget for this project.

Concur:

Steve Williams: _____________________________

Chip Groat: _____________________________

Do Not Concur:

Steve Williams: _____________________________

Chip Groat: _____________________________