SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Comprehensive Conservation Plan”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

USGS2004

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge: A survey of visitor experiences: Report to respondents

In the fall of 2000, researchers from the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Program (PASA) of the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT) in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) met with the staff of the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) to discuss the issues related to social, economic, and human dimensions of natural resource management as it related to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) planning process. As a result of the meeting a research study was designed to better understand how visitors are affected by environmental management decisions and provide information to assist the refuge managers in making decisions regarding public use and recreational management related to the goals of the proposed CCP. More specifically, information was collected to document the type and frequency of visitor use; assess the importance of recreational activities; and to determine visitor attitudes about recreation management decisions within the refuge. To this end, we designed a study to assess the effects of the no-action and alternative management plans for the Refuge visitors’ perceptions and likely visitation patterns. In fall of 2002 a questionnaire was developed in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the CCP planning team and mailed to 1090 people who visited the refuge between June 2001 and June 2002. We used standard research methods in designing and administering the questionnaire. Six hundred and eightyfive (685) completed questionnaires (74%) were considered usable. We developed the questionnaire (OMB Control Number 1040-00) to answer the following questions: What are the important differences in visitors’ attitudes and perception regarding recreation and visitor use at CPNWR? What are the factors that explain the differences in visitor attitudes and perception regarding recreation and visitor use at CPNWR? What are the regional economic impacts of visitor spending? In general the respondents indicated support for current management practices of CPNWR. We found that people came to the Refuge to experience a connection with the resource and the environment. More than half of the respondents said that viewing the desert scenery, seeking wilderness solitude and viewing wildlife were the most important reasons for making the visit to the refuge.

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge↗

USGS2005

Regional economic effects of current and proposed management alternatives for Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge

The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires all units of the National Wildlife Refuge System to be managed under a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). The CCP must describe the desired future conditions of a Refuge and provide long range guidance and management direction to achieve Refuge purposes. Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located 27 miles northeast of Aberdeen, South Dakota, is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the CCP. The CCP for Sand Lake NWR must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed Refuge management strategies. Special interest groups and local residents often criticize a change in Refuge management, especially if there is a perceived negative impact to the local economy. Having objective data on income and employment impacts may show that these economic fears are drastically overstated. Quite often, residents do not realize the extent of economic benefits a Refuge provides to a local community; yet at the same time overestimate the impact of negative changes. Spending associated with Refuge recreational activities such as wildlife viewing and hunting can generate considerable tourism activity for the regional economy. Refuge personnel typically spend considerable amounts of money purchasing supplies in the local lumber and hardware stores, repairing equipment and purchasing fuel at the local service stations, as well as reside and spend their salaries in the community. The purpose of this study was to provide the economic analysis needed for the Sand Lake NWR CCP by evaluating the regional economic impacts associated with the Sand Lake NWR Draft CCP management strategies. For Refuge CCP planning, an economic impact analysis describes how current (No Action Alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) affect the local economy. This type of analysis provides two critical pieces of information: (1) it illustrates a refuge’s contribution to the local community; and (2) it can help in determining whether local economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. Sand Lake NWR is currently managed to improve and maintain habitat for nesting and resting waterfowl and other migratory birds, such as diving and puddle ducks, geese, grebes, herons, egrets, gulls, and terns. There are three alternatives evaluated in the draft CCP. Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would continue Refuge management at current levels and would not involve extensive restoration of cropland, grassland, and wetland habitat or improvements to roads, interpretive, and administrative facilities. No new funding or staff levels would occur and programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as they do at present. Alternative 2 would maximize the biological potential of the refuge for species of grassland-nesting birds. This would be accomplished through intense management of upland habitat for nesting migratory birds, minimal management for resident species, and minimization of public use that may interfere with migratory bird production. The third alternative takes an integrated approach, with management practices that would serve to maximize the biological potential of Sand Lake for migratory birds. This report first provides a description of the local community and economy near the Refuge. An analysis of current and proposed management strategies that could affect the local economy is then presented. The Refuge management activities of economic concern in this analysis are Refuge personnel staffing and Refuge spending within the local community, and spending in the local community by Refuge visitors.

Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge↗

USGS2009

Stakeholder Evaluation for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge: Completion Report

The National Wildlife Refuge System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the largest system of public lands in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. There are over 545 national wildlife refuges nationwide, encompassing 95 million acres. As part of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, each refuge is developing 15-year comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs). Each CCP describes a vision and desired future condition for the refuge and outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for each refuge's habitat and visitor service programs. The CCP process for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Davis, West Virginia was initiated in 2006. This planning process provides a unique opportunity for public input and involvement. Public involvement is an important part of the CCP process. Participation by parties with a stake in the resource (stakeholders) has the potential to increase understanding and support and reduce conflicts. Additionally, meaningful public participation in a decision process may increase trust and provide satisfaction in terms of both process and outcome for management and the public. Public meetings are a common way to obtain input from community members, visitors, and potential visitors. An 'Issues Workbook' is another tool the FWS uses to obtain public input and participation early in the planning process. Sometimes, however, these traditional methods do not capture the full range of perspectives that exist. A stakeholder evaluation is a way to more fully understand community preferences and opinions related to key topics in refuge planning. It can also help refuge staff understand how changes in management affect individuals in terms of their preference for services and experiences. Secondarily, a process such as this can address 'social goals' such as fostering trust in regulating agencies and reducing conflict among stakeholders. As part of the CCP planning effort at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the FWS sponsored a stakeholder evaluation conducted by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center the winter of 2006-2007. The stakeholder evaluation was intended to answer the following questions: 1)Which Refuge management issues are most important, and to whom?, 2)How do opinions about what is most important to stakeholders overlap or conflict?, 3)Why do stakeholders emphasize specific issues, and what values are driving this?, and 4)What potential solutions do stakeholders have for addressing important issues? This information will be used by the Refuge to help guide development of their CCP as they strive to balance stakeholder desires with their charge to manage the unique wetlands and uplands of the Canaan Valley for wildlife conservation.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2009

Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge Workbook Summary

The Moosehorn National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Maine is currently developing a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) that will guide Refuge management over the next 15 years. Workbooks were provided to local residents as part of the scoping process in order to get feedback on current and future management issues from the public. The workbooks asked questions regarding residents' use of the Refuge, conservation problems and issues in the region, the acceptability of Refuge management actions, and the importance of, satisfaction with, and acceptability of various activities allowed on the Refuge. The focus of this report is to present the results of the completed workbooks. Because of the small number of returned workbooks, it is not possible to generalize these findings to the broader public, nor is it possible to determine if respondents represent the average user. However, the results do provide an idea of possible conflicts and important issues that the Refuge may have to address in the future. The permitted uses of the Refuge are one possible conflict area. Many respondents were supportive of consumptive recreation (hunting, fishing, and trapping), but a few were adamantly opposed to these sorts of activities on the Refuge. Another issue that received several comments was motorized recreation. While some people felt strongly that ATVs and snowmobiles should be allowed, others felt just as strongly that motorized recreation of any type should not be allowed in the Refuge. Many in the sample were also very concerned about Refuge development and its effects on the human and natural environments. Issues mentioned include the loss of access to private land for consumptive recreation, concern about fish and wildlife habitat degradation, and water quality.

Open-File Report↗

USGS2011

Vegetation communities at Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Missouri

New and existing data were used to describe and map vegetation communities at Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Existing data had been gathered during the growing seasons of 2002, 2003, and 2004. New data were collected in 2007 to describe previously unsampled communities and communities within which insufficient data had been collected. Plot data and field observations were used to describe 17 natural and semi-natural communities at the Association level of the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS). Four ruderal communities not included in the NVCS are also described. Data were used to inform delineation of communities using aerial photos from 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007. During this process, eleven additional land cover classes including cultural features, managed vegetation communities, and water features were identified. These features were mapped, some were described, but no vegetation data were collected. In 2009, nearly all community polygons were field visited and classified to the Association level. When necessary, polygon boundaries were adjusted based on field observations. The final map includes 482 polygons of 27 land cover classes encompassing 3,174 hectares on 5 units of the refuge. Data and information will inform the development of the refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan.

Missouri↗

USGS2011

Species accounts for the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex

As part of an interagency agreement between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Alamosa/Monte Vista/Baca National Wildlife Refuge Complex requested help with the synthesis of scientific information for 10 focal species and their habitat requirements in response to common Refuge management activities in the San Luis Valley, Colorado. This information will be instrumental in developing the Service's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), which is required by law for each unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. After consultation with Refuge managers and USGS staff, the 10 species chosen for detailed literature reviews and synthesis of information were the following: (1) American Avocet ( Recurvirostra americana ); (2) Wilson's Phalarope ( Phalaropus tricolor Porzana carolina ); (4) White-faced Ibis ( Plegadis chihi ); (5) Black Tern ( Chlidonias niger ); (6) Short-eared Owl ( Asio flammeus ); (7) Brewer's Sparrow ( Spizella breweri ); (8) Savannah Sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis ); (9) Northern Leopard Frog [ Lithobates (=Rana) pipiens ]; and, (10) Tadpole Shrimp ( Triops longicaudatus ).

Colorado↗

USGS2013

Regional economic impacts of current and proposed management alternatives for Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge

Montana↗

USGS1994

Development of a digital land cover data base for the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge

Digital land cover and terrain data of the Selawik National Wildlife Refuge were produced by the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Earth Resources Observation Systems Alaska Field Office for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These and other environmental data were incorporated into a Fish and Wildlife Service geographic information system to prepare a comprehensive conservation plan and an environmental impact statement for the refuge and to assist in research and management of the refuge. The digital data base, stored on tapes, includes land cover classifications from Landsat multispectral scanner data, elevation, slope, and aspect data for the area covered by the USGS Selawik and Shungnak l:250,000-scale topographic maps. The maps incorporate more than 90 percent of the refuge. Additional digital data in the data base include (a) land cover of the entire refuge at 50-, 200-, and 400-m pixel sizes derived from Landsat multispectral scanner data; (b) Landsat multispectral scanner data registered to a 50-m Universal Transverse Mercator grid; (c) elevation, slope, aspect, and solar illumination data registered to each Landsat scene; (d) stream hydrography and surficial geology digitized from USGS l:250,000-scale quadrangle maps; and (e) Refuge and wilderness boundaries. In addition to the digital products, color hard copy maps were produced from the l:250,000-scale quadrangle base land cover, elevation, slope, and aspect digital data.

Alaska↗

USGS2013

Assessment of water-quality data from Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota--2008 through 2012

ong Lake National Wildlife Refuge, located in south-central North Dakota, is an important habitat for numerous migratory birds and waterfowl, including several threatened or endangered species. The refuge is distinguished by Long Lake, which is approximately 65 square kilometers and consists of four primary water management units. Water levels in the Long Lake units are maintained by low-level dikes and water-control structures, which after construction during the 1930s increased the water-storage capacity of Long Lake and reduced the frequency and volume of flushing flows downstream. The altered water regime, along with the negative precipitation:evaporation ratio of the region, may be contributing to the accumulation of water-borne chemical constituents such as salts, trace metals, and other constituents, which at certain threshold concentrations may impair aquatic plant, invertebrate, and bird communities of the refuge. The refuge’s comprehensive conservation planning process identified the need for water-quality monitoring to assess current (2013) conditions, establish comparative baselines, evaluate changes over time (trends), and support adaptive management of the wetland units. In 2008, the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and North Dakota Department of Health began a water-quality monitoring program at Long Lake National Wildlife Refuge to address these needs. Biweekly water-quality samples were collected for ions, trace metals, and nutrients; and in situ sensors and data loggers were installed for the continuous measurement of specific conductance and water depth. Long Lake was characterized primarily by sodium, bicarbonate, and sulfate ions. Overall results for total alkalinity and hardness were 580 and 329 milligrams per liter, respectively; thus, Long Lake is considered alkaline and classified as very hard. The mean pH and sodium adsorption ratio for Long Lake were 8.8 and 10, respectively. Total dissolved solids concentrations averaged approximately 1,750 milligrams per liter, and ranged from 117 to 39,700 milligrams per liter. Twelve of the 14 trace metals detected in the water samples had established North Dakota water-quality standards for aquatic life, and only aluminum and copper consistently exceeded these criteria. Aluminum is considered harmful to aquatic biota in acidic (pH less than 5.5) systems and most of the copper standard exceedances were collected from highly concentrated waters because of evaporation and seasonally low water levels. Concentrations for various forms of nitrogen and phosphorus generally were similar to reported regional values. Specific conductance of Long Lake varied seasonally and annually both within and among management units, with values ranging from less than 500 to nearly 40,000 microsiemens per centimeter at 25 degrees Celsius. Long Lake was characterized by consistent seasonal patterns of increasing specific conductance from spring (March and April) to fall (September and October), with levels stabilizing through the end of the sampling season (November). These seasonal patterns in specific conductance were associated with decreasing water levels throughout the summer due primarily to evaporation and continuous water releases through the Unit 1 outlet structure, which resulted in the concentration of salts. Specific conductance of each unit, along with water levels, also varied among years. Overall, specific conductance levels were greatest during the drier year of 2008 when water levels were low. Specific conductance levels were lowest during the spring of 2009 following above-average volumes of fresh water from snowmelt runoff. Comparisons of specific conductance among sample sites that were spatially distributed within each management unit suggested that spatial variability within units was low except for areas associated with local inflows. Data collected during this study revealed consistent seasonal patterns and low within-unit spatial variability of specific conductance. Based on these data results, future sample collection efforts may be reduced, as well as the number of sample locations, to limit sampling costs. Water-quality samples collected monthly or seasonally during the growing season (spring, summer, and fall) from a single representative location within each water-management unit should provide sufficient data to assess seasonal changes in water-quality over time and provide information for Long Lake management decisions.

North Dakota↗

USGS2004

Managing National Wildlife Refuges for historic or non-historic conditions: Determining the role of the refuge in the ecosystem

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act mandates that National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) develop Comprehensive Conservation Plans and that the Refuge System be administered in a manner that ensures the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are maintained. Refuges must determine their role in the landscape and decide if refuge lands will be managed for historic or non-historic conditions. This decision should be based on an understanding of the Refuge Purpose and supported by available science. Case studies for Sherburne NWR and Bosque del Apache NWR illustrate two possible approaches to determining future management.

Natural Resources Journal↗

USGS1985

Landsat-faciliated vegetation classification of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent areas, Alaska

A Landsat-based vegetation map was prepared for Kenai National Wildlife Refuge and adjacent lands, 2 million and 2.5 million acres respectively. The refuge lies within the middle boreal sub zone of south central Alaska. Seven major classes and sixteen subclasses were recognized: forest (closed needleleaf, needleleaf woodland, mixed); deciduous scrub (lowland and montane, subalpine); dwarf scrub (dwarf shrub tundra, lichen tundra, dwarf shrub and lichen tundra, dwarf shrub peatland, string bog/wetlands); herbaceous (graminoid meadows and marshes); scarcely vegetated areas ; water (clear, moderately turbid, highly turbid); and glaciers. The methodology employed a cluster-block technique. Sample areas were described based on a combination of helicopter-ground survey, aerial photo interpretation, and digital Landsat data. Major steps in the Landsat analysis involved: preprocessing (geometric connection), spectral class labeling of sample areas, derivation of statistical parameters for spectral classes, preliminary classification of the entree study area using a maximum-likelihood algorithm, and final classification through ancillary information such as digital elevation data. The vegetation map (scale 1:250,000) was a pioneering effort since there were no intermediate-sclae maps of the area. Representative of distinctive regional patterns, the map was suitable for use in comprehensive conservation planning and wildlife management.

Alaska↗

USGS1986

Vegetation mapping of Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska using Landsat MSS digital data

A Landsat-derived vegetation map was prepared for Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge lies within the middle boreal subzone of north central Alaska. Seven major vegetation classes and sixteen subclasses were recognized: forest (closed needleleaf, open needleleaf, needleleaf woodland, mixed, and broadleaf); broadleaf scrub (lowland, alluvial, subalpine); dwarf scrub (prostrate dwarf shrub tundra, dwarf shrub-graminoid tussock peatland); herbaceous (graminoid bog, marsh and meadow); scarcely vegetated areas (scarcely vegetated scree and floodplain); water (clear, turbid); and other areas (mountain shadow). The methodology employed a cluster-block technique. Sample areas were described based on a combination of helicopter-ground survey, aerial photointerpretation, and digital Landsat data. Major steps in the Landsat analysis involved preprocessing (geometric correction), derivation of statistical parameters for spectral classes, spectral class labeling of sample areas, preliminary classification of the entire study area using a maximum-likelihood algorithm, and final classification utilizing ancillary information such as digital elevation data. The final product is a 1:250,000-scale vegetation map representative of distinctive regional patterns and suitable for use in comprehensive conservation planning.

Alaska↗

USGS1988

Intermediate-scale vegetation mapping of Innoko National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska using Landsat MSS digital data

A Landsat-derived vegetation map was prepared for lnnoko National Wildlife Refuge. The refuge lies within the northern boreal subzone of northwestern central Alaska. Six major vegetation classes and 21 subclasses were recognized: forest (closed needleleaf, open needleleaf, needleleaf woodland, mixed, and broadleaf); broadleaf scrub (lowland, upland burn regeneration, subalpine); dwarf scrub (prostrate dwarf shrub tundra, erect dwarf shrub heath, dwarf shrub-graminoid peatland, dwarf shrub-graminoid tussock peatland, dwarf shrub raised bog with scattered trees, dwarf shrub-graminoid marsh); herbaceous (graminoid bog, graminoid marsh, graminoid tussock-dwarf shrub peatland); scarcely vegetated areas (scarcely vegetated scree and floodplain); and water (clear, sedimented). The methodology employed a cluster-block technique. Sample areas were described based on a combination of helicopter-ground survey, aerial photo-interpretation, and digital Landsat data. Major steps in the Landsat analysis involved preprocessing (geometric correction), derivation of statistical parameters for spectral classes, spectral class labeling of sample areas, preliminary classification of the entire study area using a maximum-likelihood algorithm, and final classification utilizing ancillary information such as digital elevation data. The final product is 1:250,000-scale vegetation map representative of distinctive regional patterns and suitable for use in comprehensive conservation planning.

Alaska↗

USGS1987

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge land cover mapping project user's guide

Title III of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, 1980) established the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge (YFNWR). Section 304 of the Act requires the Secretary of Interior to "prepare, and from time to time revise, a comprehensive conservation plan" for the refuge. Before developing a plan for the refuge, the Secretary shall "identify and describe--a) the populations and habitats of the fish and wildlife resources of the refuge; b) the special values of the refuge as well as any other archeological, cultural, ecological, geological , historical, palentological, scenic, or wilderness value of the refuge; c) areas within the refuge that are suitable for use as administrative sites or visitor facilities...; d) present the potential requirements for access with respect to the refuge...; and e) significant problems which may adversely affect the populations and habitats of fish and wildlife identified and described..." (ANILCA, 1980). Vegetation, water, and terrain (elevation, slope, and aspect) are the components of habitat and can be used in the determination of the above requirements. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has the responsibility for collecting the resource information to address the research, management, development and planning requirements identified in Section 304. Because of the brief period provided by the Act for data collection, habitat mapping, and habitat assessment, the USFWS in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey's EROS Field Office, used digital Landsat multispectral scanner (MSS) data and digital terrain data to produce land cover and terrain maps. A computer assisted digital analysis of Landsat MSS data was used because coverage by aerial photographs was incomplete for much of the refuge and because the level of detail obtained from Landsat data was adequate to meet most USFWS research, management and planning needs. Relative cost and time requirements were also factors in the decision to use the digital analysis approach.

Alaska↗

USGS1966

Ground-water resources of the Dayton area, Ohio

The principal aquifers of the Dayton area are sand and gravel layers in the 150- to 250-foot thick glacial deposits filling the river valleys (Miami River and its tributaries), which were originally cut in bedrock by preglacial streams. The upper and lower aquifers are separated by a poorly permeable till-rich zone, which confines the water in the lower aquifer; recharge to the lower aquifer is by vertical leakage through the till zone. The upper aquifer is pumped extensively only at Rohrers Island well field of Dayton, where water levels are kept high by artificial recharge. Although few cities in Ohio are as abundantly endowed with ground-water resources as Dayton, the demand is estimated to rise to quantities that cannot be supplied by the year 2000. A comprehensive plan for conservation is needed to meet future growth.

Ohio↗

USGS2013

Mobile Bay

Mobile Bay is the largest bay found in Alabama’s coastal area (Handley et al., 2007). It was named an Estuary of National Significance in 1995 under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Estuary Program (NEP), and its Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan was completed in 2002. Mobile Bay is 1,070 km 2 (413 miles 2 ) in area and 51 km (32 miles) long, making it the sixth largest estuary in the continental United States (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Its ecosystem provides habitat for more than 300 species of birds, 310 species of fish, 68 species of reptiles, 57 species of mammals, 40 species of amphibians, and 15 species of shrimp (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). Mobile Bay lies between the Mississippi and Atlantic Flyways (Mobile Bay NEP, 2003). Commercial and residential development and industrial use is heavy in the Mobile Bay area. Although local growth and industrial markets support the Mobile Bay area economy, the resulting environmental damage to the very ecosystem upon which they depend remains a threat to the environment, economy, and population. The Mobile Bay ecosystem boasts high biological diversity and productivity and supports many freshwater and saltwater species of recreational and commercial importance. The great diversity of Mobile Bay reflects the diversity of Alabama, which is home to the largest number of different plant and animal species of all states east of the Mississippi River (Stein, 2002), and is bolstered by the unique climate and geographic conditions surrounding the bay. Freshwater inflow from the Mobile-Tensaw River Delta, ranging from 60,000 to 3,700,000 gallons per second (Wallace, 1996), mixes with saltwater from the Gulf of Mexico, which enters Mobile Bay via wind and tides (Burgan and Engle, 2006). Because of the unique conditions surrounding Mobile Bay, including shallow waters, a dynamic climate, and artificial hydrologic modifications—such as the construction of the Mobile Bay Causeway in the 1920s, which serves as an unintentional barrier between Delta waters north of the Causeway and saline waters south of the Causeway, the salinity of Mobile Bay is highly variable. Mobile Bay receives an average of 165 cm (65 inches) of rain per year from tropical storms, summer thunderstorms, and winter cold fronts (Stout et al., 1998). The climate and geography that have made Mobile Bay so rich in resources have also contributed to the threats surrounding its ecosystem. The extensive amount of rain in Mobile Bay creates large amounts of runoff, polluting the waters with fertilizers, chemicals, sediment, oil, trash, and sewage (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). Tourism, ecotourism, recreational and commercial fishing, recreational boating, shipping, and chemical, pulp, and paper production are significant industries in Mobile Bay and the surrounding areas. Despite the approximate \$3 billion and 55,000 jobs these industries bring into the community (Alabama Tourism Department, 2010), the growth, development, and environmental stress they create are major threats to the Mobile Bay ecosystem. Among the nation’s states, Alabama ranks fifth in number of different species (144 endemic species), second in number of extinctions that have already occurred (90 extinct species) and fourth in number of species at risk for extinction (14.8% at risk out of 4,533 total species; Stein, 2002). Twenty-one of these threatened and endangered species are found in Mobile Bay, whose brackish waters provide a nursery area for many species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Some of these species include the Alabama sturgeon, Gulf sturgeon, heavy pigtoe mussel, inflated heel-splitter mussel, West Indian manatee, Alabama beach mouse, Perdido beach mouse, Alabama red-bellied turtle, gopher tortoise, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, eastern indigo snake, flatwoods salamander, piping plover, red-cockaded woodpecker, and wood stork. Habitat loss underlies the decline of some bird species in Mobile Bay, and large mammals such as the red wolf, Florida panther, and Florida black bear are no longer found in the area. However, some rare species, such as the swallow-tailed kite, sandhill crane, and gopher tortoise can still be found (Duke and Kruczynski, 1992). The value of wetlands in Mobile Bay and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico is still being investigated. Although various monetary valuations of wetlands exist, critics remark that undervaluation of wetlands is inevitable (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008) and that estimates often do not place appropriate value on ecological services (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000). Additionally, many estimates account only for anthropogenic values. One estimate concludes that one acre of wetlands performs \$3,000 worth of water purification each year (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). With more than 76,890 hectares (190,000 acres) of wetlands in the Mobile Bay area, that equates to a value exceeding one-half billion dollars every year. Tourism, fishing, boating, production, and shipping are significant industries in the Mobile Bay area. More than 90% of fish landed in recreational and commercial fishing in the bay depend on bay habitat, including wetlands, for life requirements (Mobile Bay NEP, 1997). The Port of Mobile is Alabama’s only ocean-ship port (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Baldwin County, on the eastern side of the bay, experienced a population increase of 75% from 1990 to 2007, with an 89% increase in housing units (Mobile Bay NEP, 2008). Development and industry support the Mobile Bay economy, but they depend on the continued health, sustainability, and production of the water and living resources of the Mobile Bay ecosystem. Wetland loss, along with other forms of environmental degradation, remains a threat to the Mobile Bay ecosystem and Mobile Bay’s socioeconomic foundation.

Alabama↗

USGS2014

Strategic conservation planning for the Eastern North Carolina/Southeastern Virginia Strategic Habitat Conservation Team

The Eastern North Carolina/Southeastern Virginia Strategic Habitat Conservation Team (ENCSEVA) is a partnership among local federal agencies and programs with a mission to apply Strategic Habitat Conservation to accomplish priority landscape-level conservation within its geographic region. ENCSEVA seeks to further landscape-scale conservation through collaboration with local partners. To accomplish this mission, ENCSEVA is developing a comprehensive Strategic Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) to provide guidance for its members, partners, and collaborators by establishing mutual conservation goals, objectives, strategies, and metrics to gauge the success of conservation efforts. Identifying common goals allows the ENCSEVA team to develop strategies that leverage joint resources and are more likely to achieve desired impacts across the landscape. The Plan will also provide an approach for ENCSEVA to meet applied research needs (identify knowledge gaps), foster adaptive management principles, identify conservation priorities, prioritize threats (including potential impacts of climate change), and identify the required capacity to implement strategies to create more resilient landscapes. ENCSEVA seeks to support the overarching goals of the South Atlantic Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SALCC) and to provide scientific and technical support for conservation at landscape scales as well as inform the management of natural resources in response to shifts in climate, habitat fragmentation and loss, and other landscape-level challenges (South Atlantic LCC 2012). The ENCSEVA ecoregion encompasses the northern third of the SALCC geography and offers a unique opportunity to apply landscape conservation at multiple scales through the guidance of local conservation and natural resource management efforts and by reporting metrics that reflect the effectiveness of those efforts (Figure 1). The Environmental Decision Analysis Team, housed within the North Carolina Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at North Carolina State University, is assisting the ENCSEVA team in developing a scientifically sound basis for the Plan though the elicitation of expert knowledge and the organization of that knowledge using the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. The Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation is a framework that is well suited to incorporating decision-making tools such as Structured Decision Making and provides a multi-step process to conceptually organize conservation projects in a manner that enhances the rigor and transparency of expert and knowledge-based plans. It helps define explicit pathways from 2 planned conservation activities and ultimate impact, as well as indicators to measure success (Stem et al. 2005). Specifically, the framework identifies conservation targets, key ecological attributes, threats, and associated indicators to monitor responses given the implementation of a conservation action (Conservation Measures Partnership 2007). This report serves to provide a scientific foundation for the Plan by summarizing the expert opinion of wildlife biologists, ecologists, hydrologists, researchers, natural resource managers, and conservation practitioners regarding five environments (wetlands, riverine systems, estuaries, uplands, and barrier islands) within the ENCSEVA geography. Specifically, this report describes (1) the approach to elicit expert knowledge meant to support the strategic plan, (2) how this knowledge can inform collaborative conservation planning, and (3) a summary of opportunities available for the ENCSEVA team to address threats and impacts associated with climate change within the ecoregion.

Technical Bulletin↗

USGS2011

Integrating science and resource management in Tampa Bay, Florida

Tampa Bay is recognized internationally for its remarkable progress towards recovery since it was pronounced "dead" in the late 1970s. Due to significant efforts by local governments, industries and private citizens throughout the watershed, water clarity in Tampa Bay is now equal to what it was in 1950, when population in the watershed was less than one-quarter of what it is today. Seagrass extent has increased by more than 8,000 acres since the mid-1980s, and fish and wildlife populations are increasing. Central to this successful turn-around has been the Tampa Bay resource management community's long-term commitment to development and implementation of strong science-based management strategies. Research institutions and agencies, including Eckerd College, the Florida Wildlife Commission Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, Mote Marine Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Southwest Florida Water Management District, University of South Florida, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, local and State governments, and private companies contribute significantly to the scientific basis of our understanding of Tampa Bay's structure and ecological function. Resource management agencies, including the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council's Agency on Bay Management, the Southwest Florida Water Management District's Surface Water Improvement and Management Program, and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program, depend upon this scientific basis to develop and implement regional adaptive management programs. The importance of integrating science with management has become fully recognized by scientists and managers throughout the region, State and Nation. Scientific studies conducted in Tampa Bay over the past 10–15 years are increasingly diverse and complex, and resource management programs reflect our increased knowledge of geology, hydrology and hydrodynamics, ecology and restoration techniques. However, a synthesis of this research and its integration into resource management has not been prepared for Tampa Bay since the mid-1980s. The need for an up-to-date synthesis of Tampa Bay science and management has resulted in the production of this document. The U.S. Geological Survey recently completed a 5-year Tampa Bay Integrated Science Study, and the Tampa Bay Estuary Program updated the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Tampa Bay in 2006. These efforts build upon results of the many research and management studies and programs summarized here.

Florida↗