USA NPN Panel Review  Teleconference #1  January 17, 2014
USA National Phenology Network (USA NPN) Program Review
Kick-Off Teleconference (Meeting #1)
Friday, January 17, 2014
2:00 pm to 3:00 pm EDT
Attendees: Pierre Glynn, Brad Reed, Tim Owen, Bob Cook, David Medvigy, Mark Shaffer, Matt
Andersen, Julio Betancourt (for Geoff Henebry), Bill Lellis, Sharon Oliver, Alyssa Rosemartin, Mark
Schwartz, Jake Weltzin
Panelists:
Name
Glynn, Pierre (Chair)
Organization
USGS
Unit
Title
National Research
Branch Chief
Program/Eastern Branch
Expertise/Interest
Geochemical & hydrological
modeling; small watershed research
& monitoring; Citizen Science
Reed, Brad (Vice-Chair) USGS
Climate Change and
Associate Program Remote sensing; phenology metrics
Land Use Mission Area Coordinator
from satellite records
Owen, Tim (Rapporteur) NOAA
National Climatic Data
Executive Officer Meteorology and urban planning;
Center
USA NPN Advisory Committee
Monson, Russell*
Univ. of Arizona
School of Natural
Louise Foucar
Climate change, biogeochemical
Resources and the
Marshall Professor cycling, western US, atmospheric
Environment; Laboratory
chemistry
for Tree Ring Research
Cook, Bob
Oak Ridge National Environmental Services
NASA DAAC (Terrestrial); carbon
Laboratory
Division
cycle and terrestrial models
Davis, Frank*
Univ. of California – Landscape Ecology and Professor,
Conservation planning and policy;
Santa Barbara
Conservation Planning; Director of NCEAS landscape ecology; ecology and
National Center for
management of California chaparral
Ecological Assessment &
and oak woodlands
Synthesis
Medvigy, David
Princeton Univ.
Geosciences Dept.
Assistant Professor Terrestrial ecosystems and
phenological response to climate
change
Schimel, Dave*
NASA
JPL Science Division
Research Scientist Climate change; ecology and
(formerly Chief
biogeochemistry
Science Officer for
NEON)
Shaffer, Mark
US FWS
Office of Science Advisor National Climate
National Adaptation Strategy
Change Policy
documenting climate change signals
Advisor
in biota
*Not on teleconference (will be introduced during February teleconference)
Name
Anderson, Matt
Organization
USGS
Betancourt, Julio^
USGS
Unit
Title
Ecosystems Mission Area Senior Science
Advisor
National Research
Senior Scientist
Program/Eastern Region
Expertise/Interest
USA NPN is one project
administered within his program
Phenology - climatology associated
with seasonal transitions; founder of
USA NPN with Schwartz and others
Lellis, Bill
USGS
Ecosystems Mission Area Deputy Associate
Director
Oliver, Sharon
Univ. of Arizona
Rosemartin, Alyssa
Univ. of Arizona
USA NPN National
Coordinating Office
USA NPN National
Coordinating Office
Budget formation/execution for
ecosystems, including wildlife,
fisheries, invasive species, etc.
Available to provide logistical
support for panel members
Lead on cooperative agreement
(Univ. of Arizona with Stuart Marsh);
Deputy to Weltzin; available to
answer questions during review
Schwartz, Mark
Univ. of Wisconsin –
Milwaukee
Department of Geography Distinguished
Professor
Weltzin, Jake
USGS
USA NPN National
Coordinating Office
Others:
Administrative
Assistant
Assistant Director
Phenology research with interest at
continental scale; Vice Chair of USA
NPN Advisory Committee
Executive Director Left academia to join this new and
and Ecologist
exciting project; not a program
review panel member but will
provide info to facilitate review
^Sitting in for Geoff Henebry (USA NPN Advisory Committee Chair)]
Welcome (Pierre Glynn – Panel Chair)

1
USA NPN Panel Review  Teleconference #1  January 17, 2014
Pierre Glynn opened the meeting, thanking panel members for their participation in the review effort
and for joining the call and noting that each member was carefully picked for their experience,
knowledge, and skills. Bill Lellis also expressed his thanks to participants for being on the panel.
Introduction (Bill Lellis)
USGS is a research branch of the Department of the Interior (DOI). DOI has management
responsibility of species (e.g., imperiled, migratory, interjurisdictional) over land holdings covering
approximately 20% of U.S. (mainly in the West).
Until recently, programs across USGS have been independently managed, with each program having a
five-year plan. As USGS looks ahead to the next five years, it is faced with the need to prioritize its
investments in a holistic manner.
In the Ecosystems Mission Area, a high-level strategic planning process has been recently completed.
Pursuant to this process, an implementation plan is currently under development. This plan will allow
the agency and mission area to consider the ‘nuts and bolts’ of what can be most efficiently
accomplished within anticipated budgets.
USA NPN is one component of the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area. Over the past six years, USA
NPN underwent a growth phase, with cultivation of partnerships, recruitment of citizen science
volunteers, and emphasis on maturing U.S. phenological data collection and processing.
The annual USA-NPN budget has stabilized in recent years to around $1 Million, derived mainly from
the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area ($650,000) and USGS Climate and other sources ($250,000).
Charge to Panel (Bill Lellis)
The USA NPN review panel has been formed to review the USA NPN program. USGS is asking the
panel provide advice and recommendations around the following questions:
 Where is USA NPN programmatically today and how did it get here?
 What is working and not working with USA NPN?
 In what areas (existing or emerging) should the USGS invest its resources over the next five
years to best advance the science of phenology?
 What is USA NPN’s role in USGS, and how does this align with Department of the Interior
(DOI) cross-bureau resource management needs?
 How can the DOI management agencies leverage phenology information in long-term
planning for species/holdings?
The panel is asked to develop a short report outlining the panel’s collective thoughts on where the
program should go from here with anticipated budget. Because of resource constraints at USGS,
identified opportunities for growth will be most useful if accompanied by suggestions for implementation
resources from other organizations.

2
USA NPN Panel Review  Teleconference #1  January 17, 2014
Perspectives from Other Interior Bureaus:
Bill Lellis noted the role that USGS plays in providing actionable research results to other DOI bureaus.
To this end, what phenological information is needed by these bureaus to help them with long-term
management plans? What role can USGS and USA NPN play in providing that information?
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (US FWS) (Mark Shafer)
The US FWS is responsible for managing thousands of trust fish and wildlife species on approximately
100 million acres in the National Wildlife Refuge system. In considering adaptation approaches,
phenology is foundational for sensing environmental change, and there is gratitude from the community
for the work of the USA-NPN. The organization does heroic forensic research, and would have to be
invented if it wasn’t there already.
The work of academic researchers like Camille Parmesan has been important, but there is a need to
be able to rely on a broad community of phenology researchers to inform adaptation decisions. In
short, the work of the USA-NPN is very basic and critical.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service (NPS) (Matt Anderson)
The assets of BLM and NPS, like US FWS, are geographically fixed and vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change, especially the movement of species habitat. There is uncertainty in the adaptation
response to these impacts, and continued quality phenology information will be important to reducing
that uncertainty.
Next Steps (Pierre Glynn)
The panel will conduct its work in four phases:
1. Preliminary teleconferences
o January 17 - Kickoff
o February 13 - Overview of USA-NPN background materials (provided with draft workshop
agenda)
2. Panel workshop (early April)
o Two-day face-to-face meeting in Tucson, Arizona
o Visit the USA NPN National Coordination Office
o Presentations from staff, stakeholders, and advisory committee representative (Geoff
Henebry, Mark Schwartz, or Julio Betancourt)
3. Follow-up interviews between panel members and subject matter experts
4. Consensus on recommendations and drafting of report
Workshop agenda (sent out today) includes:
 Plans for presentations by USA-NPN staff; stakeholder representatives (NOAA, NPS), and USANPN Advisory Committee representatives
 USA-NPN background materials
o Annual report from 2012 (2013 will be provided before workshop)
o Summary of historical USA NPN documents and prioritized tools (NSF-funded work),
including EOS meeting summary
o Action plans related to science and communications
Closing
Alyssa Rosemartin noted that the discussion, the panelists, and the tone of the meeting encouraged
her. The USA NPN National Coordination Office will benefit from the review and be in a stronger
position to meet the needs of both the USGS and broader community. The office looks forward to

3
USA NPN Panel Review  Teleconference #1  January 17, 2014
continued collaboration and both in-kind and monetary support, and is looking forward to assisting the
panel with its questions.
Pierre Glynn closed by expressing his excitement to have the broad expertise of the panel members
and the prospect of reviewing the USA NPN program.
Next Meeting:
The next teleconference will take place on February 13. Sharon Oliver will provide the call-in details to
the panelists.
Actions:
USA NPN National Coordinating Office:

Provide summary of historical funding profile, including USGS base and additional resources
(requested by Pierre Glynn, okay with Matt Anderson to provide)
o Bill Lellis reiterated that funding has stabilized around $1 Million per year in base
appropriations. USGS is likely looking at $5 Million in the next 5 years
o Jake Weltzin agreed and clarified that the idea was to start small and to find additional
resources from base of $1 Million per year
o Mark Schwartz noted that a now-expired NSF Research Coodination Network grant of
$500,000 provided funds for annual workshops from 2007-2013
o Julio Betancourt noted that most support comes from USGS, but in-kind resources rival
the USGS contribution;
 Most on the Advisory Committee think of NPN as broader than USGS and DOI
 Bob Cook noted that other groups have contributed significantly to the USA
NPN (e.g., working with Jake Weltzin and Alyssa Rosemartin on bird
migration patterns in DataONE, NASA remote sensing productions)
 Mark Shaffer noted that US FWS has been a direct contributor (i.e., Dan
Ashe gave $100,000 to build the wildlife component to NPN in 2007,
doubling the breadth of the network; $104,000 from interim monitoring
program); other funding in discussion (e.g., $4M in USGS budget for FWS
opportunities - SSP program, run by RFP by US FWS but unknown if any
money was for NPN);
 Jake Weltzin noted that USA NPN applied for LCC grants about 2 years
ago but was not successful
o Pierre Glynn also hopes that the review will encourage other agencies to contribute
financially to USA NPN and the greater effort, in addition to in-kind contributions and
papers written with NPN data
 Everyone who participates on panel will help foster its future

Provide supporting documentation on the specific needs and mission of Ecosystems area
(requested by Brad Reed)
o This documentation will help the panel see if USA NPN is meeting that mission

For the workshop, Tim Owen suggested working with Jake to develop a “brain book” of USA
NPN background information
o There is a wealth of material available, and a road map would be helpful

4