Scope, setting, and purpose of the Colorado Front Range climate change vulnerability assessment for national forests
No abstract available.
Colorado↗
SEARCH · Geology Reports
Results for “Technical Publication”
Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning to advance Chesapeake Bay research and management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities
The Chesapeake Bay and its watershed (hereafter “Chesapeake Bay region”) have been the focus of extensive restoration efforts for several decades. These restoration efforts are guided by the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (Chesapeake Executive Council 2014) which outlines 10 goals and 31 measurable outcomes. The Chesapeake Bay is globally recognized as a model for coastal restoration due to long-term investments in monitoring, modeling, implementation and research by the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) partnership. These monitoring network spans tidal and non-tidal regions and provides data across multiple scales. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine-learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), has emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing large, complex datasets. These techniques have gained widespread adoption across various disciplines, including ecology, hydrology, and environmental science. In the Bay context, AI/ML is increasingly being used to explore drivers of environmental change, analyze system dynamics, and predict conditions in areas with limited monitoring. The CBP partnership, particularly its Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), has increasingly recognized the growing role of AI/ML in watershed and estuarine management. Recent Chesapeake Community Research Symposium sessions and initiatives such as the Chesapeake Global Collaboratory highlight increasing regional momentum to apply big data and AI/ML for environmental solutions. Together, these developments underscore the timely need to explore how AI/ML can help advance Chesapeake Bay restoration and management. This STAC workshop, titled “Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Machine learning to Advance Chesapeake Bay Research and Management: A review of status, challenges, and opportunities,” was held from February 24-25, 2025, in Edgewater, Maryland to bring together over 50 federal, state, and academic scientists and partners to synthesize the current state of AI/ML applications and identify research gaps in Chesapeake Bay research and management. The workshop focused on three main objectives: 1. Summarize recent AI/ML applications and lessons learned in both tidal and nontidal areas of the Chesapeake Bay region. 2. Identify challenges and gaps in applying AI/ML approaches to Chesapeake Bay data. Such challenges and gaps may include data limitations, harmonization issues, ineffective communication of AI/ML insights, and a lack of coordination among research and management institutions. 3. Develop recommendations and identify opportunities for leveraging AI/ML to address issues across the Chesapeake Bay region. Key areas of focus may include generating new information to support watershed management, delivering AI/MLgenerated insights to managers in a clear and actionable way, and fostering greater collaboration among stakeholders within the CBP Partnership. Workshop participants engaged in science presentations and breakout sessions to develop recommendations for advancing the integration of AI/ML techniques into research and management across the Chesapeake Bay region. By synthesizing current applications, identifying challenges, and exploring new opportunities, the workshop has provided valuable insights and recommendations for better leveraging AI/ML approaches to support the success of Bay restoration efforts. Together, these recommendations provide a roadmap for enhancing data-driven, science-based decision making aligned with the goals and outcomes of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement.
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia↗
Council monitoring and assessment program (CMAP): A framework for using the monitoring program inventory to conduct gap assessments for the Gulf of Mexico Region
Executive Summary Under the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council or Council) is required to report on the progress of funded projects and programs. Systematic monitoring of restoration at the project-specific and programmatic-levels (watershed and Gulf of Mexico) enables consistent reporting and gives the public confidence that the restoration investments selected by the RESTORE Council will be evaluated and adaptively managed accordingly. Monitoring information that has been collected at different spatial and temporal scales can be used as the foundation to illustrate progress towards comprehensive ecosystem restoration goals and objectives that promote holistic Gulf of Mexico recovery (see ‘RESTORE Council Background’ at the beginning of this report for additional Council information). Currently, federal, state and local agencies, universities, private industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are conducting monitoring activities at various scales around the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, each RESTORE Council-funded project will, at a minimum, perform project-specific monitoring. This collection of monitoring activities was inventoried and coordinated into a network of existing programs by the Council-funded RESTORE Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP), which will suggest opportunities for efficiencies and collaborative cross-program review of performance with other Gulf ecosystem recovery efforts. CMAP was designed and funded to inventory and integrate existing monitoring efforts, improve discovery and accessibility of existing monitoring data, and ensure the collected information supports management decisions. The fundamental approach to building the CMAP Gulf of Mexico water quality monitoring, habitat monitoring, and mapping network was to: 1. Adopt, or construct as needed, a comprehensive inventory of existing habitat and water quality observation, monitoring, and mapping programs in the Gulf of Mexico (hereafter referred to as the “Inventory”; NOAA and USGS, 2019a); 2. Evaluate the suitability/applicability of each program and its existing and prospective data for use in restoration activities; 3. Develop a process to use the Inventory to conduct gap assessments; 4. Develop a catalog of baseline assessments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA and USGS, 2019b); and 5. Develop a searchable monitoring information portal/database to enable access to collected information and products.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,↗
Council monitoring and assessment program (CMAP): Common monitoring program attributes and methodologies for the Gulf of Mexico Region
Executive Summary Under the Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act), the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (RESTORE Council or Council) is required to report on the progress of funded projects and programs. Systematic monitoring of restoration at the project-specific and programmatic-levels (i.e., watershed and Gulf of Mexico) enables consistent reporting and gives the public confidence that the restoration investments selected by the RESTORE Council will be evaluated and adaptively managed accordingly. Monitoring information that has been collected at different spatial and temporal scales can be used as the foundation to illustrate progress towards comprehensive ecosystem restoration goals and objectives that promote holistic Gulf of Mexico recovery (see ‘RESTORE Council Background’ at the beginning of this report for additional Council information). Federal, state and local agencies, universities, private industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have conducted and are conducting extensive monitoring activities around the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, each RESTORE Council-funded project will, at a minimum, perform project-specific monitoring. This collection of monitoring activities was inventoried and compiled into a framework of tools and resources by the Council-funded RESTORE Council Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMAP). CMAP was designed and funded to inventory and integrate existing water quality and habitat monitoring and mapping efforts to support discovery and accessibility of existing monitoring data and ensure the collected information is made available to support management decisions. Results of CMAP Inventory queries can be used to identify opportunities for efficiencies and support crossprogram review of performance across Gulf of Mexico ecosystem recovery efforts. The fundamental approach being used to inform the build out of the CMAP Gulf of Mexico water quality monitoring, habitat monitoring, and mapping framework includes: 1. Adopt, or construct as needed, a comprehensive inventory of existing habitat and water quality observation, monitoring, and mapping programs in the Gulf of Mexico (hereafter referred to as the “Inventory”; NOAA and USGS, 2019a); 2. Evaluate the suitability/applicability of each program and its existing and prospective data for use in restoration activities; 3. Develop a process to use the Inventory to conduct gap assessments; 4. Develop a catalog of baseline assessments conducted in the Gulf of Mexico (NOAA and USGS, 2019b); and 5. Develop a searchable monitoring information portal/database to enable access to collected information and products.
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,↗
An updated conceptual model of Delta Smelt biology: Our evolving understanding of an estuarine fish
The main purpose of this report is to provide an up-to-date assessment and conceptual model of factors affecting Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) throughout its primarily annual life cycle and to demonstrate how this conceptual model can be used for scientific and management purposes. The Delta Smelt is a small estuarine fish that only occurs in the San Francisco Estuary. Once abundant, it is now rare and has been protected under the federal and California Endangered Species Acts since 1993. The Delta Smelt listing was related to a step decline in the early 1980s; however, population abundance decreased even further with the onset of the “pelagic organism decline” (POD) around 2002. A substantial, albeit short-lived, increase in abundance of all life stages in 2011 showed that the Delta Smelt population can still rebound when conditions are favorable for spawning, growth, and survival. In this report, we update previous conceptual models for Delta Smelt to reflect new data and information since the release of the last synthesis report about the POD by the Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary (IEP) in 2010. Specific objectives include: 1. Provide decision makers with a practical tool for evaluating difficult trade-offs associated with management and policy decisions. 2. Provide scientists with a framework from which they can formulate and evaluate hypotheses using qualitative or quantitative models. 3. Provide the general public with a new way of learning about Delta Smelt and their habitat. Our updated conceptual model describes the habitat conditions and ecosystem drivers affecting each Delta Smelt life stage, across seasons and how the seasonal effects contribute to the annual success of the species. The conceptual model consists of two nested and linked levels of increasing specificity. The general life cycle conceptual model for four Delta Smelt life stages (adults, eggs and larvae, juveniles, and subadults) includes stationary ecosystem components and dynamic environmental drivers, habitat attributes, and Delta Smelt responses. The more detailed life stage transition conceptual models for each of the four Delta Smelt life stages describe relationships between environmental drivers, key habitat attributes, and the responses of Delta Smelt to habitat attributes as they transition from one life stage to the next. Our analyses and conceptual model show that good larval recruitment is essential for setting the stage for a strong year class; however, increased growth and survival through subsequent life stages are also needed to achieve and sustain higher population abundance. We used our conceptual model to generate 16 hypotheses about the factors that may have contributed to the 2011 increase in Delta Smelt relative abundance. We then evaluated these hypotheses by comparing habitat conditions and Delta Smelt responses in the wet year 2011 to those in the prior wet year 2006 and in the drier years 2005 and 2010. Larval recruitment was similarly high in both wet years and lower in the drier antecedent years, but juvenile and adult abundance increased only in 2011. In 2005 and 2006, the population was limited by very poor survival from the larval to the juvenile life stage. We found that in 2011, Delta Smelt may have benefitted from a combination of favorable habitat conditions throughout the year, including: 1. Adults and larvae benefitted from prolonged cool spring water temperatures, high 2011 winter and spring outflows which reduced entrainment risk and possibly improved other habitat conditions, and possibly enhanced food availability in late spring. 2. Juveniles benefitted from cool water temperatures in late spring and early summer as well as from improved food availability and low levels of harmful Microcystis. 3. Subadults also benefitted from improved food availability and from favorable habitat conditions in the large, low salinity zone (salinity 1-6) located more toward Suisun Bay,
California↗
2013 Survey of Iowa groundwater and evaluation of public well vulnerability classifications for contaminants of emerging concern
Studies in Iowa have long documented the vulnerability of wells with less than 50 feet (15 meters) of confining materials above the source aquifer to contamination from nitrate and various pesticides. Recent studies in Wisconsin have documented the occurrence of viruses in untreated groundwater, even in wells considered to have little vulnerability to contamination from near-surface activities. In addition, sensitive methods have become available for analyses of pharmaceuticals and pesticides. This study represents the first comprehensive examination of contaminants of emerging concern in Iowa’s groundwater conducted to date, and one of the first conducted in the United States. Raw groundwater samples were collected from 66 public supply wells during the spring of 2013, when the state was recovering from drought conditions. Samples were analyzed for 206 chemical and biological parameters; including 20 general water-quality parameters and major ions, 19 metals, 5 nutrients, 10 virus groups, 3 species of pathogenic bacteria, 5 microbial indicators, 108 pharmaceuticals, 35 pesticides and pesticide degradates, and tritium. The wells chosen for this study represent a diverse range of ages, depths, confining material thicknesses, pumping rates, and land use settings. The most commonly detected contaminant group was pesticide compounds, which were present in 41% of the samples. As many as 6 pesticide compounds were found together in a sample, most of which were chloroacetanilide degradates. While none of the measured concentrations of pesticide compounds exceeded current benchmark levels, several of these compounds are listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Contaminant Candidate List and could be subject to drinking water standards in the future. Despite heavy use in the past decade, glyphosate was not detected, and its metabolite, aminomethylphosphonic acid, was only detected in two of 60 wells tested (3%) at the detection limit of 0.02 μg/L. Pharmaceutical compounds were detected in 35% of 63 samples. Of the 14 pharmaceuticals detected, six had reported concentrations above the method reporting limit, with the maximum reported concentration of 826 ng/L for acetaminophen. Diphenhydramine was the only pharmaceutical to have two detections above the reporting limit, at 24.5 and 145 ng/L. Eight pharmaceuticals had confirmed detections at concentrations below the method reporting limit. Caffeine was the most frequently detected pharmaceutical compound (25%), followed by the caffeine metabolite, 1,7- dimethylxanthine (16%). Microorganisms were detected in 21% of the wells using quantitative polymerase chain reaction methodologies. The most frequently detected microorganism was the pepper mild mottle virus (PMMV), a plant pathogen found in human waste. PMMV was detected in 17% of samples at concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 6.38 gene copies per liter. GII norovirus, human polyomavirus, bovine polyomavirus, and Campylobacter were also detected, while adenovirus, enterovirus, GI norovirus, swine hepatitis E, Salmonella, and enterohemmorhagic E. coli were not detected. No correlations were found between viruses or pathogenic bacteria and microbial indicators. Wells with less than 50 feet (15 meters) of confining material were shown to have greater incidence of surface-related contaminants; however, significant relationships (p<0.05) between confining layer thickness and contaminants were only found for nitrate and herbicides.
Iowa↗
Pinyon-juniper woodlands
Pinyon-juniper woodlands are one of the largest ecosystems in the Southwest and in the Middle Rio Grande Basin (Fig. 1). The woodlands have been important to the region's inhabitants since prehistoric times for a variety of natural resources and amenities. The ecosystems have not been static; their distributions, stand characteristics, and site conditions have been altered by changes in climatic patterns and human use and, often, abuse. Management of these lands since European settlement has varied from light exploitation and benign neglect, to attempts to remove the trees in favor of forage for livestock, and then to a realization that these lands contain useful resources and should be managed accordingly. Land management agencies are committed to ecosystem management. While there are several definitions of ecosystem management, the goal is to use ecological approaches to create and maintain diverse, productive, and healthy ecosystems (Kaufmann et al. 1994). Ecosystem management recognizes that people are an integral part of the system and that their needs must be considered. Ecological approaches are central to the concept, but our understanding of basic woodland ecology is incomplete, and there are different opinions and interpretations of existing information (Gottfried and Severson 1993). There are many questions concerning proper ecosystem management of the pinyon-juniper woodlands and how managers can achieve these goals (Gottfried and Severson 1993). While the broad concept of ecosystem management generally is accepted, the USDA Forest Service, other public land management agencies, American Indian tribes, and private landowners may have differing definitions of what constitutes desired conditions. Key questions about the pinyon-juniper ecosystems remain unanswered. Some concern the basic dynamics of biological and physical components of the pinyon-juniper ecosystems. Others concern the distribution of woodlands prior to European settlement and changes since the introduction of livestock and fire control. This relates to whether tree densities have been increasing or whether trees are invading grasslands and, to a lesser extent, drier ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. In areas where woodlands were heavily used by American Indians for fuelwood prior to European contact, the advance of pinyon and juniper could represent the slow recovery from intensive use (Samuels and Betancourt 1982). There are numerous questions regarding declines in watershed condition related to changes in pinyon-juniper tree stand densities and to the density and composition of understory vegetation. There are different opinions about proper management of woodland ecosystems. Should these lands be managed for a single resource, such as forage for livestock production, or managed for sustained production of multiple resource products and amenities? Depending on site and stand conditions, the woodlands can produce variable quantities of fuelwood, pinyon nuts, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock, and cover for watershed protection. Management must also consider increasing recreational demands, threatened and endangered species, and protection of archeological sites. Many pinyon-juniper woodland watersheds in New Mexico have unsatisfactory soil and watershed conditions (USDA Forest Service 1993); managers must develop restoration procedures that recognize the value of woodland ecosystems. The concerns, questions, and conflicts surrounding management of pinyon-juniper lands, as well as the ecological foundations of ecosystem management, require that all interested parties reevaluate attitudes toward the woodlands. Ecosystem management goals and concepts recognize diversity. Pinyonjuniper woodlands are diverse, and stand characteristics and site productivities vary. Management objectives and prescriptions must evaluate the potential of each site, and decisions must be based on sound scientific information. This information is often unavailable. Therefore, this paper describes what we do know about the characteristics, distribution, and ecology of pinyon-juniper woodlands, including the effects of natural and human factors, within the southwestern United States and particularly the Middle Rio Grande Basin. It also reviews some past and present management options in this widespread and important vegetation type. The review draws on research and management information from the Rio Grande Basin and from similar areas in the Southwest and adjacent regions. It does not attempt to review all of the relevant literature; additional sources can be found within the articles cited in the References.
General Technical Report↗
Pilot framework for fish habitat assessments across tidal and non tidal waters in the Patuxent River Basin
As part of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, all Bay States and the District of Columbia have committed to improving the condition of the Bay, which includes a goal to achieve sustainable fisheries. One outcome under that broad goal is improved effectiveness of fish habitat conservation and preservation efforts. In support of that outcome, the U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center (USGS-EESC) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NOAA-NCCOS) are actively developing datasets, methods, and analyses to conduct fish habitat assessments in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, guided by recommendations from a regional stakeholder workshop held by the Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Fish Habitat Action Team (FHAT) in 2018. The joint USGS and NOAA team has been collaborating on methods for conducting inland and estuarine assessments and exploring whether a seamless headwater to estuary assessment could be developed. The goals of this assessment are to benefit both State and Federal fisheries managers, help advance fisheries science, and provide beneficial information for the public. While past national and regional assessments (e.g. the National Fish Habitat Partnership National Assessment) treated inland and estuarine fish habitat conditions separately due to differences in environments, GIS data representation, and data availability, a seamless habitat assessment could be of value for a broad range of stakeholders as many fish species, several of which are invasive or under federal jurisdiction, use habitats across both inland and estuarine waters. This project developed a pilot framework, explored and tested methods necessary for a finer scale, seamless assessment across both inland and estuarine waters, and demonstrated its use. Although there was interest by the CBP FHAT for the generation of a Baywide fish habitat assessment that spanned tidal salt, tidal fresh, warm non-tidal and cold non-tidal waters, there are a myriad of implementation details and considerations around conducting a Baywide assessment across all four of these general habitat areas. Therefore, the practical need to conduct a tributary-specific pilot assessment arose. At the beginning of this pilot process, members of the FHAT were presented with a decision matrix to choose a study basin using factors such as data availability and tributary size. FHAT members chose the Patuxent River basin, which has been relatively well sampled and studied. Several spatial frameworks were considered before selection of an inclusive gridded framework for summary and analysis that represented inland drainage networks and landscape influences as well as estuarine bathymetry. A suite of landscape and in-water stressor variables were summarized into the framework and were largely generalized over time. In order to assess the viability of the framework, we chose to use species distribution modeling for each of the species to test the framework’s ability to predict habitat use of non-tidal resident, estuarine resident, and migratory species. Tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), and white perch (Morone americana) were chosen as illustrative fish species based on data availability, and differences in life history and habitat use. A nested modeling approach, which involved successive model runs at multiple scales (1000m, 100m, and 10m raster grids) was developed to examine differences in variable importance at different spatial scales and to enhance modeling efficiency. For white perch, a complementary modeling analysis was performed for variables available only in estuarine waters. For all testing, an ensemble modeling approach was conducted, using a suite of potential statistical techniques driven by model strength and variable predictive power. The statistical testing that we conducted was intended only to test the framework and modeling approach, and not to definitively predict all habitats where specific fish species might be present. The modeling we conducted to test the framework did have some limitations. For example, the spatial distribution of favorable habitat areas for white perch was likely influenced by the predominance of fish survey locations near the center channel of the river and the use of generalized in-water conditions. For all species, the use of juvenile and adult fish survey data limits the estimation of habitat use to those life stages. Despite such limitations of the data inputs and modeling approach, we found the framework could seamlessly predict fish habitat distribution across freshwater and tidal environments and integrate the influence of landscape stressors with local in-water factors. The developed framework presented to the Sustainable Fisheries Goal Implementation Team (GIT) and FHAT is informative and could potentially be used for other modeling applications in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and elsewhere. In particular the framework and modeling approach lend themselves to evaluating living resource distributions and underlying habitat conditions in shallow tidal waters and beyond, as recommended by the recent Comprehensive Evaluation of System Response (CESR) report from the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Maryland↗
Recommendations for a barrier island breach management plan for Fire Island National Seashore, including the Otis Pike High Dune Wilderness Area, Long Island, New York
The U.S Army Corps of Engineers, New York District is developing engineering plans, including economic costs and benefits, for storm damage reduction along an 83 mile stretch of the coastal barrier islands and beaches on the south shore of Long Island, NY from Fire Island Inlet east to the Montauk Point headland. The plan, expected to include various alternatives for storm protection and erosion mitigation, is referred to as the Fire Island to Montauk Point Reformulation Plan (FIMP). These plans are expected to follow the Corps of Engineers’ Environmental Operating Principles striving for long term environmental sustainability and balance between environmental protection and protection of human health and property. Fire Island National Seashore (FIIS), a 19,579 acre unit of the National Park System includes a 32 mile long coastal barrier island located within the FIMP project area. A seven-mile section of the park, Otis Pike Fire Island High Dune Wilderness Area, is also a designated Federal Wilderness Area. The FIIS includes not only the barrier island and sand dunes, but also several islands, sand flats and wetlands landward of the barrier, submerged parts of Great South Bay shoreface, extending approximately 4,000 feet into the bay with the inner shelf region extending approximately 1,000 feet seaward of the Fire Island shoreline. The Fire Island barrier islands, a sand-starved system dominated by highly dynamic processes, are struggling to maintain their integrity in the face of sea-level rise and storms. Adding to the dilemma is that development on the barriers and the mainland has increased greatly during the past 50 years. As such, managers and decision makers in federal agencies, state agencies and local governments are challenged to balance tradeoffs between protection of lives and property, public access and long term conservation of natural habitats and processes and the plants and animals that depend on these habitats. National Park Service (NPS) policy stipulates that natural coastal processes be maintained to the greatest extent possible and not be impeded so as to conserve landforms, habitats and natural ecosystem resources that reply on the landforms and processes for long-term sustainability of the national park. Storms and associated processes such as waves, tides, currents and relative sea-level change are critical elements for the formation and evolution of these barrier islands, sand dunes, back-barrier sand flats and lagoons and vegetated wetlands. Processes such as wave run-up, overwash and barrier beaching, which occur during elevated storm surge are all necessary processes in enabling the efficient transfer of sediments, nutrients and marine water from the Atlantic Ocean across barriers and into Great South Bay. A large body of scientific data and information published over the past 50 years shows that such transfers of sediment and water from the ocean to the bays are essential for the long-term maintenance of the barrier island and back-bay systems and their biologically diverse habitats an d ecosystems. Current relative sea-level rise (~12 in/century) is chronic and pervasive in driving Long Island coastal change and with the likelihood of accelerating sea level rise in the near future, coastal hazards such as erosion, inundation, and storm surge flooding will increase, with corresponding increased risk to life and property on both Fire Island and on the mainland. In addition, the cumulative effects over the past century and more, both direct and indirect, of human impacts on the Long Island coast have altered the barrier beach and dunes and sediment transport processes. These impacts have likely increased the potential for breaching and increased risk to life and property on the coast and the mainland. Examples of direct impacts are: the stone jetties at Moriches, Shinnecock, and Fire Island tidal inlets and groin field structures at Westhampton that alter littoral processes, armoring and erosion-control stabilization of the headlandds such as the Montauk Point headlands, and deepening of navigation channels by dredging through the tidal inlets and in the bays. Indirect impacts that have a bearing on decisions to deal with breaching are: high-risk development of the barrier islands and low-lying areas of the mainland vulnerable to flooding, and the dredging of nearshore sand shoals for beach nourishment. The NPS strives to employ a coastal management framework for decision making that is based on assessment of the physical and ecological properties of the shoreline as well as human welfare and property. In order to protect developed areas of Fire Island and the mainland from loss of life, flooding, and other economic and physical damage, the NPS will likely need to consider allowing artificial closure of some breaches within the FIIS under certain circumstances. The decision by the NPS to allow breaches to evolve naturally and possibly close or to allow artificially closing breaches is based on four criteria: 1. Volumes of sediment transported landward and exchange of water and nutrients; 2. Elevated water levels and flooding risk to mainland life and property; 3. Engineering processes of artificial closure; and 4. Economic costs and benefits of artificial closure. This report for breach management presents protocols which specify when breach closures within the FIIS might be desirable and necessary, as well as provides recommendations for structural breach closure engineering operations which are indented to minimize negative impacts to the natural wilderness values and cultural resources within the FIIS, particularly the Otis Pike Wilderness Area. The goal of the plan is to strike a balance between protecting natural resources and allowing natural processes to operate and avoiding loss of life and excessive property damage.
New York↗