Geology Reports⌕ Search

SEARCH · Geology Reports

Results for “Planning”

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.

At least 991 records · Page 55Linked to original sources
USGS2006

The need for coherence between waterfowl harvest and habitat management

Two of the most significant management efforts affecting waterfowl populations in North America are the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (the Plan) and Federal harvest management programs. Both the Plan and harvest management are continental in scope, involve an extensive group of stakeholders, and rely on adaptive processes of biological planning, implementation, and evaluation. The development of these programs has occurred independently, however, and there has been little explicit recognition that both harvest and habitat effects should be considered for coherent management planning and evaluation. For example, the harvest strategy can affect whether population objectives of the Plan are met, irrespective of the success of the Plan's habitat conservation efforts. Conversely, habitat conservation activities under the Plan can influence harvest potential and, therefore, the amount of hunting opportunity provided. It seems increasingly clear that the Plan's waterfowl population objectives can only be useful for conservation planning and evaluation if they are accompanied by an explicit specification of the harvest strategy and environmental conditions under which they are to be achieved. This clarification also is necessary to ensure that Plan population objectives are not attained solely through the reduction of hunting opportunity. We believe then that it is imperative that these key waterfowl-management programs work to harmonize their objectives. Harvest management programs and the Plan ought to be working toward the same ends, but that is not possible so long as the mutually reinforcing relationship of these programs is obscured by ambiguities in their management objectives.

Wildlife Society Bulletin↗
USGS2004

Writing refuge management goals and objectives: a handbook

Goals and objectives are the unifying elements of successful refuge management. They identify and focus management priorities, provide a context for resolving issues, guide specific projects, provide rationale for decisions, and offer a defensible link among management actions, refuge purpose(s), Service policy, and the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) mission. Pursuant to Refuge Planning Policy (602 FW 1, 3, 4), this handbook offers guidance on how to write goals and objectives for national wildlife refuges and provides counsel on their development. While the handbook specifically addresses biology and visitor services, you can also utilize this guidance when developing goals and objectives for other refuge programs. Several assumptions are basic to this handbook. The handbook focuses on the mechanics of writing sound goals and objectives. Detailed guidance on what information to consider, collect, interpret, and synthesize into goals and objectives is beyond the scope of this handbook. It views a vision statement as the synthesis of a refuge’s purpose(s), the Refuge System mission and goals, and other biological, legal, and social concerns in which the refuge has a role. It also assumes a familiarity with the hierarchical nature of planning and where, within a planning process, the writing of goals and objectives occurs. This guidance applies to conceptual management plans, comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs), step-down management plans (e.g., habitat management, visitor services, fire management), or any other planning document incorporating goals and objectives, including strategic documents developed under the Government Performance and Results Act. We intend this guidance for use by an internal audience tasked with writing refuge goals and objectives, primarily refuge managers, biologists, visitor services specialists, planners, and other members of refuge planning teams. Still, it recognizes that we should write goals and objectives so that interested members of the public can understand them, to the extent this does not jeopardize the technical accuracy or reduce the inclusion of necessary information. The terminology and definitions used in this handbook are widely accepted in the planning field and are not inconsistent with more recent application in strategic planning. Perhaps most important, the handbook presumes all goals and objectives must further the specific purpose(s) of the refuge and the broader mission of the Refuge System, as well as be consistent with Refuge Planning Policy and any other relevant Service policy and directives.

Report↗
USGS2020

A decision-support tool to prioritize candidate landscapes for lesser prairie-chicken conservation

Context Development of systematic methods for conservation planning has improved effectiveness and efficiency of implementing such plans. The lesser prairie-chicken ( Tympanuchus pallidicinctus ) is a grouse species of conservation concern native to the southwestern Great Plains of the United States. Recent lesser prairie-chicken conservation planning has involved identifying ecologically important areas but has not incorporated economic data into prioritization of areas to target for conservation management. Objectives We used the program Marxan to develop a decision-support tool for managers in Kansas to prioritize tracts for improving lesser prairie-chicken habitat quality and increasing habitat availability. We developed three different conservation scenarios and evaluated the tradeoffs among multiple planning objectives in these scenarios. Methods We incorporated population targets from an existing conservation plan and agricultural economic data to help select land with maximum ecological value and minimum economic productivity to prioritize for lesser prairie-chicken conservation. We compared potential conservation plans and incorporated a post hoc connectivity model to test potential for individuals to travel among habitat patches in these plans during dispersal events. Results We found that different conservation scenarios led to different solutions, though differences varied by ecoregion. Potential solutions for all scenarios contained habitat patches not currently included in existing conservation plans and had high connectivity potential. Conclusions These results provide context for spatial prioritization of lesser prairie-chicken habitat management in Kansas. Application of this approach to species of conservation interest could help managers incorporate socioeconomic factors into planning methods and identify important tracts for conservation currently overlooked by existing planning methods.

Kansas↗
USGS2024

Identifying transportation data and system needs for a Federal lands transportation data platform

Executive Summary Modern transportation and land-use planning efforts include information from many sources to address topics such as safety, efficiency, commercial, and social needs. This wide breadth of topics provides opportunities for collaboration and development of common tools for diverse users. In many cases, different information systems provide the spatial data and geographic content necessary for transportation and land-use planners to consider multiple lines of evidence. The Federal Highway Administration Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and Federal Land Management Agency partners use detailed spatial and quantitative data to inform transportation decisions. However, logistic challenges to data sharing exist because data are often managed by separate agencies; data-exchange frameworks and interagency data agreements are insufficient; and consistency from aggregated data requires maintenance, coordination, and supporting infrastructure. The FLH and U.S. Geological Survey collaboratively examined (1) use and availability of spatial data for transportation planning and (2) a possible mechanism to use more shared and consistent data in a common planning environment. The goals of this collaborative effort were to describe data needs from the perspective of planners and to identify opportunities for shared data resources. Results presented here focus on two workshops and a subsequent investigation of data and tools available from partner agencies. The objectives of this report are to (1) describe information used in transportation planning with geographic data; (2) identify spatially explicit data that inform transportation plans and could be shared among all partners; and (3) describe current platforms, planning and administrative opportunities, and potential barriers to developing an integrated planning tool. Key information and data needs were identified in three major classes: system, user, and influential factors. System data are parts of the transportation network and information about the condition of individual segments and the network. User data provide details about the function of the system and insights into potential needs; for example, user trips between source and destinations inform road and network demands that can lead to congestion and safety issues (in the future, user data might also include scenarios and projections based on land-use plans). Influential data represent social and environmental factors that influence transit demands and network conditions. These factors could be popular locations or seasonal events that influence demand and congestion; wildlife habitat or migration intersections that affect safety and management priorities; or geologic features that influence hazards, maintenance, and safety. Responses described here provide specific information for web-tool design and give a framework for interagency communication and cooperation to address specific information needs for integrated planning. Existing web-mapping and web-services, and the data that inform them, are also described. Commonly, these data are created and published by one agency, and the core users are outside of that agency; for example, threatened species distributions are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for consideration by planners in advance of National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) evaluation. This report is provided to inform FLH leaders and Federal Land Management Agency partners by articulating user needs and requirements for integrated planning tool(s). Programmers creating a secure web-based data-sharing platform (with data-viewing, -analysis and -download functions) can use the information presented here to organize data and user interfaces. This integrated perspective can help FLH and Federal Land Management Agency partners develop transportation networks that better serve the needs of people in local communities and across States and the Nation.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2011

Monitoring habitat restoration projects: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program and Coastal Program Protocol

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) Pacific Region (Region 1) includes more than 158 million acres (almost 247,000 square miles) of land base in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Hawai`i, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Republic of Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Region 1 is ecologically diverse with landscapes that range from coral reefs, broadleaf tropical forests, and tropical savannahs in the Pacific Islands, to glacial streams and lakes, lush old-growth rainforests, inland fjords, and coastal shoreline in the Pacific Northwest, to the forested mountains, shrub-steppe desert, and native grasslands in the Inland Northwest. Similarly, the people of the different landscapes perceive, value, and manage their natural resources in ways unique to their respective regions and cultures. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program (Partners Program) and Coastal Program work with a variety of partners in Region 1 including individual landowners, watershed councils, land trusts, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, non-governmental organizations, Tribal governments, Native Hawaiian organizations, and local, State, and Federal agencies. The Partners Program is the FWS's vanguard for working with private landowners to voluntarily restore and conserve fish and wildlife habitat. Using non-regulatory incentives, the Partners Program engages willing partners to conserve and protect valuable fish and wildlife habitat on their property and in their communities. This is accomplished by providing the funding support and technical and planning tools needed to make on-the-ground conservation affordable, feasible, and effective. The primary goals of the Pacific Region Partners Program are to: Promote citizen and community-based stewardship efforts for fish and wildlife conservation Contribute to the recovery of at-risk species, Protect the environmental integrity of the National Wildlife Refuges, Contribute to the implementation of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategies, and Help achieve the objectives of the National Fish Habitat Partnerships and regionally based bird conservation plans (for example, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Pacific Island Shorebird Conservation Plans, Intermountain West Regional Shorebird Plan, etc.). The Partners Program accomplishes these priorities by: Developing and maintaining strong partnerships, and delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration projects designed to reestablish habitat function and restore natural processes; Addressing key habitat limiting factors for declining species; Providing corridors for wildlife and decrease impediments to native fish and wildlife migration; and Enhancing native plant communities by reducing invasive species and improving native species composition. The Coastal Program is a voluntary fish and wildlife conservation program that focuses on watershed-scale, long-term collaborative resource planning and on-the-ground restoration projects in high-priority coastal areas. The Coastal Program conducts planning and restoration work on private, State, and Federal lands, and partnerships with other agencies-Native American Tribes, citizens, and organizations are emphasized. Coastal Program goals include restoring and protecting coastal habitat, providing technical and cost-sharing assistance where appropriate, supporting community-based restoration, collecting and developing information on the status of and threats to fish and wildlife, and using outreach to promote stewardship of coastal resources. The diversity of habitats and partners in Region 1 present many opportunities for conducting restoration projects. Faced with this abundance of opportunity, the Partners Program and Coastal Program must ensure that limited staffing and project dollars are allocated to benefit the highest priority resources and achieve the highest quality results for Federal trust species. In 2007, the Partners Program and Coastal Program developed a Strategic Plan to guide program operations and more efficiently conserve habitat by focusing partnership building and habitat improvement actions within 35 Partners Program Focus Areas and 9 Coastal Program Focus Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010). The Strategic Plan also contains four other goals: broaden and strengthen partnerships; improve information sharing and communications; enhance workforce; and increase accountability to ensure that program resources are used efficiently and effectively. This protocol will help achieve all goals of the Strategic Plan.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS1985

Hydrologic effects of ground- and surface-water withdrawals in the Milford area, Elkhart and Kosciusko counties, Indiana

Agricultural irrigation in northern Indiana has increased rapidly since 1975 and might double by the year 2000. A 16.5 square-mile area in north-central Indiana was studied to determine possible effects of increased irrigation on local water supply. In 1982, an average of 2 inches of water was used to irrigate 975 acres of sandy soil overlying highly transmissive outwash deposits. Irrigational pumpage was 75 percent of the summer water use but was less than potential irrigational pumpage because (1) only one-third of the suitable land was irrigated, and (2) precipitation was near normal for the year. A three-dimensional digital flow model, calibrated with data collected in 1982, was used to simulate four hypothetical pumping plans representing various irrigational schemes and possible rainfall conditions: (1) 1982 acreage irrigated and 1982 (above normal) precipitation; (2) 1982 acreage irrigated and below-normal precipitation; (3) maximum acreage irrigated and normal precipitation; and (4) maximum acreage irrigated and below-normal precipitation. A fifth pumping plan was used to simulate maximum year-round water use. Plan 5 was not designed to simulate irrigational development but rather a maximum rate of withdrawal sustainable year-round until steady-state is reached. Of the four pumping plans that simulated irrigational pumpage, plan 4 had the greatest effect on ground- and surface-water supply. Compared with 1982 pumpage, this plan represented a thirteenfold increase in the volume of water pumped for irrigation from wells and from Turkey Creek, a stream bordering the area of study. The model predicted a potentiometric decline of as much as 20.7 feet over an 8-acre area of the aquifer. This decline was one-fourth of the available drawdown and would not dewater the source aquifer. Streamflow in Turkey Creek would be reduced 39 percent by simulated ground-water and surface-water pumpage but remaining flow would still be twice the 7-day, 10-year low flow. However, the model predicted that flow in two smaller streams would be reduced to zero. The rate of pumping used in plan 5 was nearly 4 times the pumping rate in 1982. Potentiometric decline for plan 5 was as much as 40 percent of available drawdown, and predicted streamflow reduction would cause flow in Turkey Creek to decrease below the 7-day, 10-year low flow. Results of plans 1, 2, 3, and 4 indicate that the outwash system provides adequate water for current (1982) needs and substantial growth for irrigation. However, maximum irrigational development might cause temporary, local competition for water in several parts of the area. Plan 5 indicates .that water use could increase substantially before effects of pumping would prevail year-round.

Indiana↗
USGS2017

Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation

The practice of conservation occurs within complex socioecological systems fraught with challenges that require transparent, defensible, and often socially engaged project planning and management. Planning and decision support frameworks are designed to help conservation practitioners increase planning rigor, project accountability, stakeholder participation, transparency in decisions, and learning. We describe and contrast five common frameworks within the context of six fundamental questions (why, who, what, where, when, how) at each of three planning stages of adaptive management (project scoping, operational planning, learning). We demonstrate that decision support frameworks provide varied and extensive tools for conservation planning and management. However, using any framework in isolation risks diminishing potential benefits since no one framework covers the full spectrum of potential conservation planning and decision challenges. We describe two case studies that have effectively deployed tools from across conservation frameworks to improve conservation actions and outcomes. Attention to the critical questions for conservation project planning should allow practitioners to operate within any framework and adapt tools to suit their specific management context. We call on conservation researchers and practitioners to regularly use decision support tools as standard practice for framing both practice and research.

Conservation Letters↗
USGS2018

Greater sage-grouse science (2015–17)—Synthesis and potential management implications

Executive Summary The greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ; hereafter called “sage-grouse”), a species that requires sagebrush (Artemisia spp.), has experienced range-wide declines in its distribution and abundance. These declines have prompted substantial research and management investments to improve the understanding of sage-grouse and its habitats and reverse declines in distribution and population numbers. Over the past two decades, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has responded to eight petitions to list the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, with the completion of the most recent listing determination in September 2015. At that time, the USFWS determined that the sage-grouse did not warrant a listing, primarily because of the large scale science-based conservation and planning efforts completed or started by Federal, State, local agencies, private landowners, and other entities across the range. The planning efforts culminated in the development of the 2015 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service Land Use Plan Amendments, which provided regulatory certainty and commitment from Federal land-management agencies to limit, mitigate, and track anthropogenic disturbance and implement other sage-grouse conservation measures. After these policy decisions, the scientific community has continued to refine and expand the knowledge available to inform implementation of management actions, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of those actions, and continue developing an overall understanding of sage-grouse populations, habitat requirements, and their response to human activity and other habitat changes. The development of science has been driven by multiple prioritization documents including the “Greater Sage-Grouse National Research Strategy” (Hanser and Manier, 2013) and, most recently, the “Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan” (Integrated Rangeland Fire Management Strategy Actionable Science Plan Team, 2016). In October 2017, after a review of the 2015 Federal plans relative to State sage-grouse plans, in accordance with Secretarial Order 3353, the BLM issued a notice of intent to consider whether to amend some, all, or none of the 2015 land use plans. At that time, the BLM requested the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to inform this effort through the development of an annotated bibliography of sage-grouse science published since January 2015 and a report that synthesized and outlined the potential management implications of this new science. Development of the annotated bibliography resulted in the identification and summarization of 169 peer-reviewed scientific publications and reports. The USGS then convened an interagency team (hereafter referred to as the “team”) to develop this report that focuses on the primary topics of importance to the ongoing management of sage-grouse and their habitats. The team developed this report in a three-step process. First, the team identified six primary topic areas for discussion based on the members’ collective knowledge regarding sage-grouse, their habitats, and threats to either or both. Second, the team reviewed all the material in the “Annotated Bibliography of Scientific Research on Greater Sage-Grouse Published since January 2015” to identify the science that addressed the topics. Third, team members discussed the science related to each topic, evaluated the consistency of the science with existing knowledge before 2015, and summarized the potential management implications of this science. The six primary topics identified by the team were: Multiscale habitat suitability and mapping tools Discrete anthropogenic activities Diffuse activities Fire and invasive species Restoration effectiveness Population estimation and genetics

Open-File Report↗
USGS2019

Multi-resource analysis: A proof of concept study of natural resource tradeoffs in the Piceance Basin, Colorado, using the net resources assessment (NetRA) decision support tool

Executive Summary The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is developing a multi-resource analysis (MRA) line of products to inform land-use decision makers. Specifically, MRA products will integrate scientific information, include considerations for natural resource interrelations, and quantify the effects of resource management decisions in biophysical, economic, and societal terms. As part of the establishment of the MRA, the USGS, in collaboration with the University of New Mexico, has developed the Net Resources Assessment (NetRA) decision support tool. As a proof of concept analysis, the NetRA was applied to the Piceance basin in Colorado in a hypothetical example to illustrate how resource managers could use the NetRA to consider tradeoffs of natural resources among alternative development plans and land cover patterns within a geographic region. The NetRA is a policy-relevant approach to assess the availability of multiple natural resources. It is an analytical toolset that may be used to examine the spatiotemporal relations between development of energy and mineral resources and delivery of biological natural resources. The NetRA operates at multiple map scales and contains a set of integrated, compatible submodels with specific data requirements for natural resource stocks, engineering economics, biophysical, and ecological data for ecosystem services stocks, market prices, regulations, and nonmarket values. The NetRA includes an explicit process to consider the interdependence between development and conservation, which is a crucial consideration in land-management and land-use decisions. The NetRA is used to estimate an expected net resource value (NRV). The NRV is the expected, present value, economic benefit from the extraction of a resource (for example, natural gas) minus the total cost of production, which is the aggregation of the development, production, and social costs. Social costs include private costs plus any external costs. There can be external social benefits associated with natural gas production, such as increased demand for locally produced goods and increased employment in the local area through backward and forward linkages of natural gas production. The NRV is used to compare development outcomes (scenarios) from a range of exploration and development plans for cumulative energy production. The Piceance basin application of the NetRA uses the NRV to assess the tradeoff between continuous natural gas extraction and the effects to the local populations of Odocoileus hemionus (mule deer) and aquatic species and to consumptive water uses for an area the size and resolution of a USGS energy resource assessment unit. In the proof of concept simulation, the 2.9-square-mile-area of USGS oil and gas assessment unit 50200263 (Piceance basin continuous gas unit of the Mesaverde Total Petroleum System) was gridded into 588 cells. From this area, seven clusters with potential for development and three that cannot be developed were identified; the three clusters that cannot be developed were identified as wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern, and national forests. On the basis of these criteria, there are 118 cells unsuitable for development in the oil and gas assessment unit: 84 are in national forests, 23 are areas of critical environmental concern, and 11 are wilderness study areas. The remaining cells in the oil and gas assessment unit can be developed on both private and public lands. Two scenarios were considered that are distinguished as plan 1 and plan 2. Plan 1 keeps the amount of land disturbance unchanged and limits the number of development locations to 140 grid cells for the production period, which constrains the amount of the energy resources available for development; the plan requires the usage of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) unsuitability criteria. Plan 2 also limits the number of development locations to 140 grid cells for the production period but provides a constant volume of energy production by increasing the density of well pads within the cells. The effects of plan 2 to the NRV when there are five wells per pad and five pads per square mile happen mostly in the first 5 years of development, even though the effects on the population of mule deer continue in later years. This outcome is the result of the upfront development and investment costs and the initial effect to the ecosystem services.

Colorado↗
USGS2018

Ecological drought: Accounting for the non-human impacts of water shortage in the Upper Missouri Headwaters Basin, Montana, USA

Water laws and drought plans are used to prioritize and allocate scarce water resources. Both have historically been human-centric, failing to account for non-human water needs. In this paper, we examine the development of instream flow legislation and the evolution of drought planning to highlight the growing concern for the non-human impacts of water scarcity. Utilizing a new framework for ecological drought, we analyzed five watershed-scale drought plans in southwestern Montana, USA to understand if, and how, the ecological impacts of drought are currently being assessed. We found that while these plans do account for some ecological impacts, it is primarily through the narrow lens of impacts to fish as measured by water temperature and streamflow. The latter is typically based on the same ecological principles used to determine instream flow requirements. We also found that other resource plans in the same watersheds (e.g., Watershed Restoration Plans, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Watershed Assessments or United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Plans) identify a broader range of ecological drought risks. Given limited resources and the potential for mutual benefits and synergies, we suggest greater integration between various planning processes could result in a more holistic consideration of water needs and uses across the landscape.

Montana↗
USGS2015

Testing assumptions for conservation of migratory shorebirds and coastal managed wetlands

Managed wetlands provide critical foraging and roosting habitats for shorebirds during migration; therefore, ensuring their availability is a priority action in shorebird conservation plans. Contemporary shorebird conservation plans rely on a number of assumptions about shorebird prey resources and migratory behavior to determine stopover habitat requirements. For example, the US Shorebird Conservation Plan for the Southeast-Caribbean region assumes that average benthic invertebrate biomass in foraging habitats is 2.4 g dry mass m −2 and that the dominant prey item of shorebirds in the region is Chironomid larvae. For effective conservation and management, it is important to test working assumptions and update predictive models that are used to estimate habitat requirements. We surveyed migratory shorebirds and sampled the benthic invertebrate community in coastal managed wetlands of South Carolina. We sampled invertebrates at three points in time representing early, middle, and late stages of spring migration, and concurrently surveyed shorebird stopover populations at approximately 7-day intervals throughout migration. We used analysis of variance by ranks to test for temporal variation in invertebrate biomass and density, and we used a model based approach (linear mixed model and Monte Carlo simulation) to estimate mean biomass and density. There was little evidence of a temporal variation in biomass or density during the course of spring shorebird migration, suggesting that shorebirds did not deplete invertebrate prey resources at our site. Estimated biomass was 1.47 g dry mass m −2 (95 % credible interval 0.13–3.55), approximately 39 % lower than values used in the regional shorebird conservation plan. An additional 4728 ha (a 63 % increase) would be required if habitat objectives were derived from biomass levels observed in our study. Polychaetes, especially Laeonereis culveri (2569 individuals m −2 ), were the most abundant prey in foraging habitats at our site. Polychaetes have lower caloric content than levels assumed in the regional plan; when lower caloric content and lower biomass levels are used to determine habitat objectives, an additional 6395 ha would be required (86 % increase). Shorebird conservation and management plans would benefit from considering the uncertainty in parameters used to derive habitat objectives, especially biomass and caloric content of prey resources. Iterative testing of models that are specific to the planning region will provide rapid advances for management and conservation of migratory shorebirds and coastal managed wetlands.

Wetlands Ecology and Management↗
USGS2010

Strategic Science for Coral Ecosystems 2007-2011

Shallow and deep coral ecosystems are being imperiled by a combination of stressors. Climate change, unsustainable fishing practices, and disease are transforming coral communities at regional to global scales. At local levels, excessive amounts of sediments, nutrients, and contaminants are also impacting the many benefits that healthy coral ecosystems provide. This Plan, Strategic Science for Coral Ecosystems, describes the information needs of resource managers and summarizes current research being conducted by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) scientists and partners. It outlines important research actions that need to be undertaken over the next five years to achieve more accurate forecasting of future conditions and develop more effective decision-support tools to adaptively manage coral ecosystems. The overarching outcome of this Plan, if fully implemented, would be in transferring relevant knowledge to decision-makers, enabling them to better protect and sustain coral ecosystem services. These services include sources of food, essential habitat for fisheries and protected species, protection of coastlines from wave damage and erosion, recreation, and cultural values for indigenous communities. The USGS has a long history of research and monitoring experience in studying ancient and living coral communities and serving many stakeholders. The research actions in this Plan build on the USGS legacy of conducting integrated multidisciplinary science to address complex environmental issues. This Plan is responsive to Federal legislation and authorities and a variety of external and internal drivers that include the President's Ocean Action Plan, the recommendations of the Coral Reef Task Force, the information needs of Bureaus in the Department of Interior, the USGS Bureau Science Strategy (USGS 2007) and the formal plans of several USGS Programs. To achieve this Plan's desired outcomes will require increased funding and more effective coordination and collaboration among USGS managers and scientists within a national and international framework of partnerships in coral ecosystem science.

Circular↗
USGS2008

Technical Analysis of In-Valley Drainage Management Strategies for the Western San Joaquin Valley, California

The western San Joaquin Valley is one of the most productive farming areas in the United States, but salt-buildup in soils and shallow groundwater aquifers threatens this area?s productivity. Elevated selenium concentrations in soils and groundwater complicate drainage management and salt disposal. In this document, we evaluate constraints on drainage management and implications of various approaches to management considered in: *the San Luis Drainage Feature Re-Evaluation (SLDFRE) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (about 5,000 pages of documentation, including supporting technical reports and appendices); *recent conceptual plans put forward by the San Luis Unit (SLU) contractors (i.e., the SLU Plans) (about 6 pages of documentation); *approaches recommended by the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (SJVDP) (1990a); and *other U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) models and analysis relevant to the western San Joaquin Valley. The alternatives developed in the SLDFRE EIS and other recently proposed drainage plans (refer to appendix A for details) differ from the strategies proposed by the San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program (1990a). The Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) in March 2007 signed a record of decision for an in-valley disposal option that would retire 194,000 acres of land, build 1,900 acres of evaporation ponds, and develop a treatment system to remove salt and selenium from drainwater. The recently proposed SLU Plans emphasize pumping drainage to the surface, storing approximately 33% in agricultural water re-use areas, treating selenium through biotechnology, enhancing the evaporation of water to concentrate salt, and identifying ultimate storage facilities for the remaining approximately 67% of waste selenium and salt. The treatment sequence of reuse, reverse osmosis, selenium bio-treatment, and enhanced solar evaporation is unprecedented and untested at the scale needed to meet plan requirements. All drainage management strategies that have been proposed seek to reduce the amount of drainage water produced. One approach is to reduce the amount of drainage per irrigated acre. From modeling simulations performed for the SLDFRE EIS of the Westlands Area of the SLU, theoretical minimums that can be achieved range from approximately 0.16 to 0.25 acre-feet per acre per year (AF/acre/year). Minimum production rates from the Northerly Area of the SLU are theorized as being much higher, approximately 0. 42 to 0.28 AF/acre/year. Rates shown in the SLU Plans for drained acres from the two areas combined are 0.5 AF/acre/year at the subsurface drain stage and 0.37 AF/acre/year after a series of on-farm and regional measures are instituted. Land retirement is a key strategy to reduce drainage because it can effectively reduce drainage to zero if all drainage-impaired lands are retired. Land retirement alternatives considered in the SLDFRE EIS differ for the two areas analyzed in the SLU. The Northerly Area is to retire a nominal 10,000 acres and Westlands is to retire up to 300,000 acres. The initial land retirement option recently put forth in the SLU Plans predicted drainage volume reductions that are consistent with 200,000 acres of land retirement, but only 100,000 acres of land retirement was proposed. Within the proposed area of drainage there are, for all practical purposes, unlimited reservoirs of selenium and salt stored within the aquifers and soils of the valley and upslope in the Coast Ranges. Salt imported in irrigation water is estimated to be at least 1.5 million tons per year for the Westlands and Northerly Areas (SJVDIP, 1998). Analysis of the land retirement alternatives presented in the SLDFRE EIS indicates that land retirement of a minimum of only 100,000 acres results in the annual pumping to the surface of 20,142 pounds of selenium or about a million pounds of selenium over a 50 year period. Retiring 200,000 acres results in an annual pumping of 14,750 pounds of selenium; and reti

Open-File Report↗
USGS2009

Regional economic analysis of current and proposed management alternatives for Rappahannock River Valley 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. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must describe the desired future conditions of a refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the refuge must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed refuge management strategies. The purpose of this study was to assess the regional economic implications associated with draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 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 economic impacts may show that these fears are overstated. Quite often, the extent of economic benefits a refuge provides to a local community is not fully recognized, yet at the same time the effects of negative changes is overstated. Spending associated with refuge recreational activities, such as wildlife viewing and hunting, can generate considerable tourist activity for surrounding communities. Additionally, refuge personnel typically spend considerable amounts of money purchasing supplies in local stores, repairing equipment and purchasing fuel at the local service stations, and reside and spend their salaries in the local community. For refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning, a regional economic assessment provides a means of estimating how current management (no action alternative) and proposed management activities (alternatives) could 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. It is important to note that the economic value of a refuge encompasses more than just the impacts of the regional economy. Refuges also provide substantial nonmarket values (values for items not exchanged in established markets), such as maintaining endangered species, preserving wetlands, educating future generations, and adding stability to the ecosystem. However, quantifying these types of nonmarket values was beyond the scope of this study because of time and budget constraints.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2010

Analysis of California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) use of six management units using location data from global positioning system transmitters, southern California, 2004-09-Initial report

This report provides an analysis of California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) space use of six management units in southern California (Hopper Mountain and Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuges, Wildlands Conservancy-Wind Wolves Preserve, Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and the Tejon Ranch excluding Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan and California Condor Study Area). Space use was analyzed to address urgent management needs using location data from Global Positioning System transmitters. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided the U.S. Geological Survey with location data (2004-09) for California Condors from Global Positioning System transmitters and Geographic Information System data for the six management units in southern California. We calculated relative concentration of use estimates for each management unit for each California Condor (n = 21) on an annual basis (n = 39 annual home ranges) and evaluated resource selection for the population each year using the individual as our sampling unit. The most striking result from our analysis was the recolonization of the Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and Tejon Ranch management units during 2008. During 2004-07, the home range estimate for two (25 percent) California Condors overlapped the Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and Tejon Ranch management units (n = 8), and use within the annual home range generally was bimodal and was concentrated on the Bitter Creek and Hopper Mountain National Wildlife Refuges. However, 10 (77 percent) California Condor home ranges overlapped the Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and Tejon Ranch management units during 2008 (n = 13), and by 2009, the home range of every condor carrying a Global Positioning System transmitter (n = 14) overlapped these management units. Space use was multimodal within the home range during 2008-09 and was concentrated on Hopper Mountain Refuge in the south, Bittercreek Refuge and the Wind Wolves Preserve in the northwest, and the Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and Tejon Ranch management units in the northeast. Recolonization of the Tejon Mountain Village Specific Plan, California Condor Study Area, and Tejon Ranch management units reestablished traditional condor movement and foraging patterns in southern California and provides the travel corridor (approximately 20 kilometers wide) for recolonization of the northeastern part of the species historical range.

Open-File Report↗
USGS2012

Regional economic impacts of current and proposed management alternatives for Don Edwards 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. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must describe the desired future conditions of a Refuge and provide long-range guidance and management direction to achieve refuge purposes. The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located at the south end of California's San Francisco Bay and one of seven refuges in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex, is in the process of developing a range of management goals, objectives, and strategies for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The Comprehensive Conservation Plan must contain an analysis of expected effects associated with current and proposed Refuge management strategies. For Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan planning, a regional economic analysis provides a means of estimating how current management (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 the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge's contribution to the local community, and (2) it can help in determining whether economic effects are or are not a real concern in choosing among management alternatives. This report first presents a description of the local community and economy near the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Next, the methods used to conduct a regional economic impact analysis are described. An analysis of the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan management strategies that could affect stakeholders, residents, and the local economy is then presented. The management activities of economic concern in this analysis are: * Spending in the local community by Refuge visitors; * Refuge personnel salary spending; and * Refuge purchases of goods and services within the local community.

California↗
USGS2014

Urban ecosystem services and decision making for a green Philadelphia

Traditional approaches to urban development often do not account for, or recognize, the role of ecosystem services and the benefits these services provide to the health and well-being of city residents. Without such accounting, urban ecosystem services are likely to be degraded over time, with negative consequences for the sustainability of cities and the well-being of their residents (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Hirsch, 2008). On May 23, 2013, the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems (SILUS), a collaboration between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center and the Wharton GIS Lab, convened a one-day symposium—Urban Ecosystem Services and Decision Making: A Green Philadelphia—at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to examine the role of green infrastructure in the environmental, economic, and social well-being of cities. Cosponsored by the USGS and the Penn Institute for Urban Research (Penn IUR), the symposium brought together policymakers, practitioners, and researchers from a range of disciplines to advance a research agenda on the use of science in public decision making to inform investment in green infrastructure and ecosystem services in urban areas. The city of Philadelphia has recently implemented a program designed to sustain urban ecosystem services and advance the use of green infrastructure. In 2009, the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Sustainability launched its Greenworks plan, establishing a citywide sustainability strategy. Major contributions towards its goals are being implemented in coordination with the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD). The Green City, Clean Waters initiative, the city’s nationally recognized stormwater management plan, was signed into action with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in April 2012. The plan outlines a 25-year strategy to use green infrastructure to protect and improve the city’s watershed. Widespread support for the plan marks a citywide effort to factor environmental quality concerns into the city’s strategic planning, choosing to replace expensive and aging grey infrastructure, with innovative and resilient green infrastructure. The symposium focused on these city of Philadelphia initiatives and also on two new Federal- local partnership programs: America’s Great Outdoors, initiated to promote conservation and recreation, and the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a multiagency effort to reconnect urban communities to their waterways. A second goal of the symposium was to advance a research agenda on urban ecosystem services. While there has been considerable work on ecosystem services, the discussion of the benefits provided by urban ecosystems is not as developed. Benefits range from improved water and air quality to quality of life gains, including aesthetic and recreational considerations. There is also need for additional focused research toward furthering the understanding of the multiple indirect benefits provided by urban ecosystem services (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999). Moreover, there is a need for a greater understanding of how best to inform local decision making in this area, as local decision makers in cities across the country are increasingly recognizing the importance of developing sustainability measures for their immediate and long-term planning (United States Conference of Mayors, 2005). Approaching these local and regional plans from a holistic perspective has become a guiding principle of sustainability and resiliency. Therefore, there is a need to better understand the gains that have been achieved and to advance a research agenda on ecosystem services going forward. The day’s program included presentations on greening initiatives from the Philadelphia’s Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, as well as discussion about using an urban ecosystem services framework to evaluate these initiatives. Panel sessions included discussion of the Green City, Clean Waters initiative; a dialogue about the management of urban trees and green space; and a conversation addressing the needs for future research.

Pennsylvania↗
USGS1981

Gulf of Mexico summary report 2, August 1981: A revision of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico and their onshore impacts: A summary report, September 1980

The Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) continues to be the most intensively developed offshore oil- and gas-producing region in the world. With the development of technology, exploration, development, and production are being extended to include areas off the coast of southwest Florida and deep-water areas near the Mississippi River Delta. Development in both areas requires careful analyses of local considerations. The hydrocarbon potential of the region, while not well established in the frontier portions, generally remains favorable. A total of 482 fields have been discovered to date in the federally regulated part of the Gulf of Mexico. Reserve estimates have been made for the 435 producing fields in the region. Through December 31, 1980, those fields have produced 5.0 billion barrels of oil and condensate, and 48.7 trillion cubic feet of gas. Remaining recoverable reserves are 3.1 billion barrels of oil and 40.2 trillion cubic feet of gas. Estimates of undiscovered recoverable resources for the Gulf of Mexico are 6.6 billion barrels of oil and 71.9 trillion cubic feet of gas. Since enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act in 1953, there have been 42 oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico. An average of three lease sales per year are scheduled through 1986. Since 1953, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has leased 3,119 tracts in the Gulf of Mexico; 1,825 leases are currently active. The distribution of leased tracts exhibits a regionwide pattern as shown by Lease Sales A62, 62, A66, and 66. Proposed Lease Sales 67, 69, 72, and 74 will probably continue that pattern. Tracts off the coast of southwest Florida in the Charlotte Harbor, Howell Hook, and Pulley Ridge Areas will be offered in upcoming sales. Operations on tracts in deepwater areas slated for future sales may require additional technology. Exploration, development, and production in the Gulf of Mexico Region are continuing at a rapid pace throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Between January 1, 1980, and April 15, 1981, 197 initial plans of exploration and 165 supplemental plans of exploration were submitted to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). During the same period, 107 initial and 131 supplemental plans of development/production were submitted to the USGS. As of May 1981, there were 121 offshore mobile drilling units operating in the Gulf of Mexico. Pipelines continue to be the preferred mode of transport for Gulf of Mexico OCS oil and gas production. Pipeline additions to the existing network average 69 miles (111 km) per month. At any given time, numerous pipeline projects are under way in the Gulf of Mexico. To supplement OCS oil and gas production several deepwater port projects, designed to handle imported crude oil, are being planned or constructed in the region. The process of transportation planning in the Gulf of Mexico is done by industry and government through BLM's Intergovernmental Planning Program and its Regional Technical Working Group (RTWG). The RTWG has completed the First Edition Gulf of Mexico Regional Transportation Management Plan. The nearshore and onshore facilities in the Gulf of Mexico service both the domestic onshore and offshore oil and gas industry as well as the global market. Most of the major centers along the Gulf Coast, including Houston, Corpus Christi, Galveston, Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Freeport, Texas; New Orleans, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Baton Rouge, Morgan City, and Houma, Louisiana; Pascagoula, Mississippi; Mobile, Alabama; and Port Manatee, Florida, have ties to the offshore industry. A wide array of services and support industries, ranging from small independent vendors to major international manufacturing contractors, can be found within the region. Profiles of selected centers reveal typical industries and patterns of activity that are characteristic throughout the Gulf Coast region.

Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas↗